[Lsr] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding-algorithm-04: (with COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Roman Danyliw 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you to Joel Halpern for the GENART review.

** Abstract.
  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.

-- Who is the “we” in this text?  It reads like it would be the authors, but
this is an adopted WG document?

-- What does it mean for a WG to have “no objections” to itself choosing to
work further on this topic?

** Section 1.1.2.  I applaud the inclusion of success criteria.  Who is this
section for?  A future WG can ignore all of this guidance and attempt to
standardize the materials.  Success criteria for an experiment is different
than the criteria to publish work as a PS.