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

"Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com> Tue, 09 July 2013 16:54 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana@cisco.com>
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 71D3321F9E1E for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 09:54:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 eoo69rlHm6OY for <ospf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 09:53:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D824721F8EB2 for <ospf@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 09:53:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=839; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1373388837; x=1374598437; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=KC6eTjgi/0Mldo1tTu6+K6tHLRlyUlPmtlkc/1OtYCQ=; b=WbfP08d9uXTu2w3XD6WN80f62F1c9m/saSBn2CMbT+oz0KgZbt6SPMlx G+xRxa4m+ixIvng1JySWJXdFcLEGsGVKq+JgoHoKX5fGCufX+G+BTKkRT HKP1mclyS3lZ0sT3z4gJ/Iu+B0I2b2S51dc1ib1E1Ztfcn14Wi2nyHlwx 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AtQFANA/3FGtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABagwl/gkG+UYEZFnSCJQEEOj8SAQgiFDERJQIEAQ0FCBOHYgMPsW4NiFGNAII6MQeDCWkDlWyOCoUlgxGCKA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,1029,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="229677037"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Jul 2013 16:53:57 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com [173.37.183.87]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r69Gru4k007377 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 9 Jul 2013 16:53:56 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x15.cisco.com ([169.254.9.152]) by xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com ([173.37.183.87]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:53:56 -0500
From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <aretana@cisco.com>
To: William McCall <william.mccall@gmail.com>, Russ White <russw@riw.us>
Thread-Topic: [OSPF] OSPF Topology Transparent Zone (TTZ) Next Steps
Thread-Index: AQHOenxIhIVtYWrsm0OIrIePYTiJJplYbaMAgAAXDQCABCDlAA==
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 16:53:55 +0000
Message-ID: <BBD66FD99311804F80324E8139B3C94E27C2B01F@xmb-aln-x15.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <51D8914C.3030200@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.117.15.7]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <F34F317F196A6F4988F10A1E87C1D714@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: 'OSPF List' <ospf@ietf.org>
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 16:54:03 -0000

On 7/6/13 5:51 PM, "William McCall" <william.mccall@gmail.com> wrote:

>...but with a bit of
>scrutiny as to the use cases. Russ got it right when he said there are
>"specific situations", but I guess the question would be around whether
>the situations are prolific enough to warrant work on this.

[Disclaimer: I'm one of the co-authors on the TTZ draft, so I obviously
think the technology is useful.]

IMHO, having an ID that talks about those use cases would be an important
step forward.  

Right now the applicability draft talks about some (I'm sure there are
more) of the cases where the TTZ can be used..but I'm suggesting something
the other way around: a set of use cases that need to be solved.  Then we
can measure TTZ (or other solutions) against that set of requirements/use
cases.

My 1c.

Alvaro.