Re: [OSPF] OSPF Topology Transparent Zone (TTZ) Next Steps

"Russ White" <russw@riw.us> Tue, 09 July 2013 16:50 UTC

Return-Path: <russw@riw.us>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24B3B21F9AAB for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 09:50:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.334
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.334 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.265, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A9Gx2Q9g+ZCR for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 09:50:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from da31.namelessnet.net (da31.namelessnet.net [74.124.205.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D57921F8EB2 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 09:50:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cpe-174-106-045-093.ec.res.rr.com ([174.106.45.93] helo=USCSWHITER10L1C) by da31.namelessnet.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <russw@riw.us>) id 1Uwb7N-000683-KI; Tue, 09 Jul 2013 09:50:21 -0700
From: "Russ White" <russw@riw.us>
To: "'Acee Lindem'" <acee.lindem@ericsson.com>, "'OSPF List'" <ospf@ietf.org>
References: <94A203EA12AECE4BA92D42DBFFE0AE471993A4@eusaamb101.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To:
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 12:50:34 -0400
Message-ID: <03d201ce7cc4$6e853160$4b8f9420$@riw.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AQJASbXjpHZnDaWjys0nPldLDGuuhZh0eshwgAR5oGA=
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus-Scanner: Seems clean. You should still use an Antivirus Scanner
Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF Topology Transparent Zone (TTZ) Next Steps
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ospf>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 16:50:31 -0000

I want to clarify something on this thread...

> In general, I think this is useful. I can think of specific situations
where it
> would be nice/would have been nice to have. In fact, a few of us went some
> ways towards designing just such a system (using different mechanisms)
> when we were deep into the MANET/OSPF space, but never released,
> implemented, etc., the idea.

This part I think is true --I think we need to think about use cases in this
space, and figure out if there are interesting things to do in the OSPF
space to handle those use cases.

> I would put my vote into making this a WG doc and moving it forward.

OTOH, I've looked through these drafts again, and talked to a couple of
other folks about them, and it seems, to me, that we're starting from the
wrong end of the stick. What we seem to have, right now, is a set of
solution drafts, and everyone is thinking of a different set of problems
when they read those solutions (including me --I read this draft and think,
"this would be useful to solve that problem, if only we could make the
overall modifications simpler, and change this over here, and..."). 

What might be useful would be to step back from the solutions draft for a
moment and build a use cases/requirements draft to start from, rather than
working from these solutions drafts specifically.

HTH

Russ