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

[Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]>]

Ketan,


> On Nov 22, 2025, at 2:25 AM, Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> The BGP-4 YANG model document has gone through WGLC and has been waiting for implementations for more than 2 years now. I am not sure of its current status - I do see warnings and errors being reported on the YANG.

This isn't hugely surprising.  The underlying landscape of YANG is a nest of dependencies.  A refresh and cleanup is needed.

> 
> All 3 IDR chairs are authors on it and the IDR Secretary is the document shepherd. I recognize this odd situation.

Indeed.  After my experience with the BGP MIB v2 effort, I tried to avoid entanglement.  I failed. 

> However, a decision on the future of this document is now overdue. This Liaison is a good trigger for the WG to make a decision (and within a timeframe so the Liaison can be responded to).
> 
> As AD, I've already expressed my view that an exception to the 2 implementation rule be sought from the WG for this document so it can be published as an RFC. I believe it was in Madrid where I had expressed that view, but perhaps even before that. If there is consensus to proceed with that exception, this can be progressed - else it just stays waiting for implementation and the WG will need to give a suitable response to BBF.
> 
> Sue, Jeff, Keyur, and Jie, could you please take this topic up as a priority request from me for discussion at your next meeting? Please let the WG know your thoughts and if there is anything that you would like me to do, please let me know.

Our next meeting should be this Friday 5 Dec.  We did not meet the prior week due to the US Thanksgiving holiday.  We can certainly discuss the path to publication without implementation if that's what's desired.

Even without the sanity check of implementation, I do urge you in your AD role to consider the burden for review for the document in its current form.  As you've seen from other work from Mahesh (author, and AD), there's been a lot of discussion about how do we move things forward faster.  This has been done under the OPSAWG VELOCE discussions.  

Since it almost entirely certain that publication without implementation will require updates at a later time, it'd be useful to know what the strategy is for updates to the contents of the draft.  In its current form, each -bis would be 225+ pages of refresh.

While the BGP YANG document will almost certainly benefit and serve as good use case for "do YANG faster in IETF", the authors aren't currently signed up to define and drive such methodology. :-)  It might be appropriate to set the BGP YANG publication timeline according to resolution of what such practices might be.

-- Jeff