MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Mike Bishop via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: 
 <178707195936.528021.149356733729697683@dt-datatracker-7c6ddbc678-lb5nk>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2026 09:52:39 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: ITPPS3BOEOTESS4MPQCEXEP4HRMZSF6Y
CC: acee.ietf@gmail.com, draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding-algorithm@ietf.org,
 lsr-chairs@ietf.org, lsr@ietf.org
Reply-To: Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>
Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BLsr=5D_Mike_Bishop=27s_No_Objection_on_draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-f?=
	=?utf-8?q?looding-algorithm-04=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
Archived-At: 
 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/D_fR5tq-PfDO32RCm6sKe2Yyth0>

Mike Bishop has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding-algorithm-04: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding-algorithm/


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

# IESG review of draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding-algorithm-04

CC @MikeBishop

## Comments

### "Abstract", paragraph 4
```
     This document discloses the algorithm that we have developed in order
     to make it easier for other developers to implement similar
     algorithms.  We do not claim that our algorithm is optimal, rather it
     is a pragmatic effort and we expect that further research and
     refinement can improve the results.

     We are not currently proposing that this algorithm be standardized,
     nor that the working group use this as a basis for further
     standardization work, however we have no objections if the working
     group chooses to do so.  This document is published as an
```
This seems unnecessary in a document ready to be published. I echo Roman's
questions.

### Section 6, paragraph 2

This document does add server-side logic, and the SecDir review noted
this as a potential DoS threat. If that's out-of-scope, fine, but probably worth
a sentence in the Security Considerations explaining why.

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Grammar/style

#### Section 1.1.2, paragraph 2
```
y Considerations identified in Section Section 6 have been validated or updat
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Possible typo: you repeated a word.