Re: [Idr] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-25: (with COMMENT)

Robert Raszuk <> Wed, 16 June 2021 22:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 598D13A0852 for <>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 15:36:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X--cOR0MnxaI for <>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 15:36:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78CB83A084E for <>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 15:36:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id i13so6881197lfc.7 for <>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 15:36:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=kBBztxCvZdh2hoFRQN+05dpMrl6GMCZn4ROY3GlpFxE=; b=FnDUYa2RHAzR9gBv09or/Q7HI+49z/JVu2WNvSktjw3ptx3w+V9IQDSoMqw7kKw9Dq 41LDLFuupOqWNh891hI/p2yuCZL7ENYNoQu7pd8q1qzI7XasWODtFQ4WLDXpFsxEl7DO HXd5JlsMz7wNd3S/IeNT2aMykB21w+OqHFPe9N44N0h4WjDRY+GErKdBf0z7adQxAuWf HFkmI69pitUyJqrON+DuRhewNKb2Aa3f6UPBZmNqa5GDJCWLOukX9j5thUBvdHeCnGbf UYQ5TudrjfQGGsl1qefPOPHb+afcSE2WH5rkWXDDb/EeXsekDVTtRRmuCA6p6SHJQHrG 7AeA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=kBBztxCvZdh2hoFRQN+05dpMrl6GMCZn4ROY3GlpFxE=; b=G7WwrlMPhHdev5UJkiCIORa31dab4wRc8oltvbP9zYOzpMry9iE1UAvBnHhqJ75Soq m+sl3xV1km0qTj64O/bIq6WCSUqZGZNq5SHdP0KoEt1kPQRJ1JeRNQknK4aMdfOxC4UK COANfBhqH1Gw3ZyWqv48UJd4gsVF6fp8N4twb3kd+RkrWhypxjTX/XEhg/LD+NGacmr+ Entd54jq2h4NeBJHUvY2lQUj9moJ3X/fmdmT4qTN1g4WRuO19iR5DX5qsYdyiECbF+Nd 68tWvPJaKEHo+QLcAyfxnRhpW4R91xjo7GT13SkAT5AdpQFsBVm53oWlTz6gpDg6Z7ws ObUQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531Co8dimqG6a59WMm4RTxlCQU6LlgAb/0W7f4OIuTi77mhMfHCr fsFyoM6uw2c/ylMqRg4oolwfZ5ebRZgN/Q9WFF+TOw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx7BNLqcikrFS3XrJX9sK/Lb0zbPv5EIENI7IhPw8PYMWs13TcjVw3pvXyVRPzPjIhucyODygXgkBuIZM7t6FA=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:484d:: with SMTP id v74mr1541019lfa.396.1623883002945; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 15:36:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Robert Raszuk <>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 00:36:32 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: Robert Wilton <>
Cc: The IESG <>,, idr-chairs <>, "idr@ietf. org" <>, John Scudder <>, Susan Hares <>, Alvaro Retana <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008c329705c4e9b9b6"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-25: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 22:36:49 -0000

Hi Robert,

> May I please check, is there a YANG data model that covers this

The original plan was to add this to the main BGP YANG specification -
<> to keep
this part of the main BGP YANG model document.

But it seems that this document moved on and now is in IETF LC.

We are discussing with co-authors and contributors how to address this at
the current point.

I am not sure what is IDR WG process in respect to YANG model definition as
most if not all documents passing WG LC and becoming RFCs do not contain
the YANG section (recent example rfc9012, rfc9003, rfc8956 etc ...).

I checked with a few shipping implementations and it seems that vendors
have already extended their YANG models with BGP-ORR feature. So it
seems that what is defined at this point may cause backwards compatibility
issues too.

Many thx,

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 9:51 PM Robert Wilton via Datatracker <> wrote:

> Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-25: 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
> for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for this document - sounds useful!  And thanks to Dan for the
> Ops-dir review.
> May I please check, is there a YANG data model that covers this
> functionality?
> Regards,
> Rob