Re: [Lsr] Request WG adoption of TTZ

I agree w/ Henk.  The TTZ seems to be a gratuitous addition.

Yours Irrespectively,

John

Juniper Business Use Only

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lsr <lsr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Henk Smit
> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 8:22 AM
> To: Huaimo Chen <huaimo.chen@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
> $