Hi Spencer,
Thanks for your quick response.
Best Regards,
Huaimo
-----Original Message-----
From: Spencer [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2017 4:22 AM
To: Huaimo Chen; The IESG
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: Re: Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-ttz-05: (with
COMMENT)
Hi, Huaimo,
On 1/4/2017 10:00 PM, Huaimo Chen wrote:
> Hi Spencer,
>
> Thank you very much for your time and valuable comments.
> Your comments are addressed inline below with prefix [HC].
>
> Best Regards,
> Huaimo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2017 5:27 PM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-ttz-05: (with
> COMMENT)
>
> Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ospf-ttz-05: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-ttz/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I had some high-level context that took a while to build, but after I got
> through the following comments, I found the document clear to read for a
> non-OSPF guy. Thank you for that.
>
> The Introduction gives a fairly clear idea of what a TTZ is useful for,
> but the Abstract doesn't say anything about that. If we still think that
> people read Abstracts separately from RFCs, it would be useful to add a
> one-sentence summary naming the use cases that you've already identified
> for the Introduction.
> [HC]: We will put it into the Abstract as you suggested.
>
> Perhaps something like "Topology Transparent Zones" allow network
> operators to restructure the areas in their network, and provide services
> while the reorganization is taking place, with fewer disruptions." But
> you folks would know best.
>
> I'm curious why
>
> A TTZ ID is a 32-bit number that is unique for identifying a TTZ.
> The TTZ ID SHOULD NOT be 0.
>
> is not a MUST. Could you give an example of why that would be a good
> idea?
> [HC]: A different number is used to identify a different TTZ. In general,
> this number is not zero. For example, we use number 100 for a TTZ, and number
> 200 for another TTZ. Number 0 is special. A TTZ (Topology Transparent Zone)
> can be considered as an improved Area in OSPF. A different number is used to
> identify a different Area. Number 0 is used to identify a backbone Area. From
> this, MUST is not used.
So, would it be correct to say
A TTZ ID is a 32-bit number that is unique for identifying a TTZ.
The TTZ ID SHOULD NOT be 0, to avoid confusion with Area 0, used to
identify a backbone Area.
?
[HC]: OK
What I was asking about, was why someone would need to use 0 as a TTZ
ID. From your explanation, I'm understanding that this isn't a MUST NOT
because TTZ ID 0 would work just fine in OSPF, but would be more likely
to cause confusion. Is that true?
[HC]: Yes.
If so, I'd be happier with SHOULD NOT, if the document hinted at the
reason for this.
Thanks for the quick response!
Spencer
> I found
>
> A TTZ hides the internal topology of the TTZ from the outside. It
> does not directly advertise any internal information about the TTZ
> to
> a router outside of the TTZ.
>
> very helpful, but it doesn't appear until the top of page 7. Perhaps it
> would be useful to put this into the Introduction (and, maybe even the
> Abstract). I had been wondering whether that was true from the beginning
> of the document, so it seems useful to say so much earlier.
> [HC]: We will put this into the Introduction and Abstract as you suggested.
>
>
_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
