On the one hand: it's very good news that Michael Woodford has endorsed NGDP level path targeting (pdf). (For non-economists, Michael Woodford is the most influential living academic monetary economist; he's the one who wrote the book that defines how graduate students think about monetary policy.)
On the other hand: I'm going to rain on our victory parade. Nothing important has changed.
The fundamental problem is the strategy space. We think of monetary policy as a conditional path for a nominal interest rate. "Setting an interest rate is what central banks really really do". That way of thinking about monetary policy is what creates the problem. That strategy space fails when the nominal interest rate hits the Zero Lower Bound. Michael Woodford's text reinforced that way of thinking about monetary policy. It helped to define that failed strategy space. His Jackson Hole paper re-endorses that failed strategy space.
Imagine an alternate monetary history where central banks had maintained direct convertibility of their monetary liabilities into gold. But not at a fixed price of gold, like under the old Gold Standard. Instead, they adjusted the price of gold at their discretion. Perhaps on a daily basis. In the alternate 1960's and 1970's there was a problem of steadily rising inflation as central banks kept increasing the price of gold in order to try to target full employment. Then an alternate Milton Friedman argued that the long run Phillips Curve was close to vertical, so central banks should not be increasing the price of gold so quickly. Eventually, in the alternate 1990's, central banks adjusted the price of gold to keep inflation on target. (Like Irving Fisher's Compensated Dollar, except with an inflation target rather than a price level target).
We could imagine an alternate Michael Woodford writing a text with the title "Gold and other prices", arguing we did not need to talk about the quantity of money, because what central banks really really did was adjust the price of gold, not the quantity of money.
We could imagine some economists in that alternate monetary history saying it would be better to adjust the price of gold to target the NGDP level path, rather than to target inflation.
But we could not imagine an alternate Michael Woodford advocating an NGDP level path target in order to escape the Zero Lower Bound on nominal interest rates.
If in that alternate history we had thought nominal interest rates were too near zero, and we wanted to loosen monetary policy, and we wanted to cause nominal interest rates to increase above zero, the central bank would just start raising the price of gold. It would be obvious to everyone. Raising the price of gold is how central banks loosen monetary policy
There's nothing special about the price of gold, of course. Except history. But the price of gold does have the right units, because it's got $ in the units. There's no $ sign in the units for an interest rate. And what central banks really really ultimately do is determine the value of that $ unit.
Update: OK, I expect you might say that Michael Woodford is trying to get himself out of the strategy space hole he dug for himself. He recognises that communications policy is important. But he doesn't seem to realise that talking about monetary policy as interest rates is just another communications strategy. It's not what central banks really really do.