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

[Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]>]

+ Med and Mahesh

Hi Jeff,

You have brought up some very good points and I am adding Med and Mahesh
for their guidance.

Please check inline below.


On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 1:29 AM Jeffrey Haas <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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.
>

KT> Thanks. Just to be clear the WG needs to be polled for their desire to
proceed in this manner - i.e., this is just my suggestion.


>
> 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.


KT> Yes, this would be a biggie but not a blocker if it were a one-time
"large commit". See further for my real concern.


> 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.
>

KT> This is a real concern and a blocking one from my perspective. I've
seen this happen recently in other WGs and it is a problem that needs an
urgent solution - ideally as part of VELOCE but if not at least a more
immediate solution to enable patching of YANG models. We cannot be doing
200+ pages of bis. I am prepared to HOLD this work until that problem is
solved if the IDR chairs and WG agree.


>
> 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.
>

KT> +1 - I am with you and we seek help from Med & Mahesh.

Thanks,
Ketan


>
> -- Jeff
>
>