I agree w/ Henk. The TTZ seems to be a gratuitous addition. Yours Irrespectively,
John Juniper Business Use Only > -----Original Message----- > From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Henk Smit > Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 8:22 AM > To: Huaimo Chen <huaimo.c...@futurewei.com> > Cc: lsr@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Request WG adoption of TTZ > > [External Email. Be cautious of content] > > > Huaimo Chen wrote on 2020-07-14 06:09: > > > 2). IS-IS TTZ abstracts a zone to a single node. A zone is any target > > block or piece of an IS-IS area, which is to be abstracted. This seems > > more flexible and convenient to users. > > I don't agree that this convenience is really beneficial. > I actually think this convenience is a downside. > > > Link-state protocols are not easy to understand. And we already have the > misfortune that IS-IS and OSPF use different names for things. > Adding the new concept of a "zone", while we already have the concept of an > area makes things only more complex. > > How often will this new flexibility be used in the real world ? > I still haven't seen an answer to Christian Hopp's simple question: > "Has RFC8099 been deployed by anyone ?" > Anyone who has an answer ? > > My favorite rule of RFC1925 is rule 12: > In protocol design, perfection has been reached not when there is > nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. > > Adding a new concept, with very little benefit, hurts the protocol in the > long run. > The ability to abstract an area, and not also a zone, is strong enough to be > worthwhile, imho. > > henk. > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list > Lsr@ietf.org > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr__;!!NEt > 6yMaO- > gk!Qd22Qan7jubM_Vup5P5G6gsGg_horPl4PSDx8qS_v03ZIb8sNalgwEsGJ7Q61cc > $ _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
