Hi Henk, "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."
Your conclusion here seems very subjective. What's the criterion the evaluate the benefit? What I see the TTZ does have benefit. I am also wandering how it hurts the protocol in the long run? .... Tianran -----Original Message----- From: Lsr [mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henk Smit Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 8:22 PM To: Huaimo Chen <huaimo.c...@futurewei.com> Cc: lsr@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Lsr] Request WG adoption of TTZ 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://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
