[Idr] Re: New Liaison Statement, "oLS to IETF on BGP data model"

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

> On Dec 3, 2025, at 11:21 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> [mj] I am opposed to further split of the document at this stage. It will only further delay the publication of the module. There are common types/groupings that can be referenced/used by other modules in and outside of IETF by including the right set of modules.
> [Med] I’m not sure there is extra delay that will be induced, but I think that this approach is worth to be considered by the WG to ease maintenance, usability, etc. I’m not expressing a preference, though.

An underlying headache is that if the publication of dependent modules is done separately from the primary document that last call comments in one may cause failures in the other.  Minimally, regardless of packaging, the bundle must proceed atomically to publication.

A change in the packaging does address the module maintenance portion of this discussion.  However, it does raise documentation consistency issues that having all artifacts in the same document acts as a forcing function at the editor level.

In fairness to IDR, I'd suggest this portion of the conversation move elsewhere if it's to progress.  These are very much the controversial discussion points covered by VELOCE. :-)

-- Jeff