[OPSAWG]Summary of VELOCE meeting on 2026-08-25

[Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]>]

Key Outcomes
The meeting focused on three main areas: completing the working group draft migration, establishing a contribution workflow, and clarifying how the IANA registry would function under the Veloce process. The repo migration to the OpsAir Working Group GitHub is complete. Agreement was reached on publishing the working group 00 draft immediately and converting the document from XML to Markdown. The IANA registry approach and change taxonomy require further example-driven clarification before next meeting.

Decisions Made
Repo migration to the OpsAir Working Group GitHub is complete; related issue closed. 1
GitHub confirmed as the repository for the Veloce experiment, despite known reliability concerns; IETF GitLab and other alternatives not pursued at this stage. 2
Contribution workflow: Contributors may open either an issue or a PR — neither is discouraged; PRs preferred for text review due to GitHub's line-by-line review tools. 3
Consensus process: Authors discuss and form opinions in bi-weekly meetings, then summarize to the mailing list; objections trigger further discussion before merging. 4
IANA indirection model confirmed: IANA registry will link to the GitHub repository rather than embedding the module directly in the RFC. 5
Change taxonomy (Italo's proposal) accepted as framework for classifying which updates require full RFC -bis, errata only, or the Veloce lightweight process. 6
Progress & Status
Working group 00 draft not yet posted — Mahesh confirmed it was still filed as an individual draft and committed to posting it immediately after the meeting. 7
3 new PRs ready for review: (1) conformance test and implementation version target text (closes issue #3); (2) draft rename to working group version; (3) workflow proposal for issue #51. 8
Admin access granted to Qin and Michael on the working group GitHub repo. 7
5 previously initiated PRs have been merged. 9
Change Taxonomy (Veloce Applicability)
Italo's proposed classification of YANG module changes and Veloce applicability: 6
Narrative text only (bug fix): Errata process; Veloce not needed
YANG module only (bug fix): Veloce process applies — core use case 10
Both narrative + module (bug fix): Errata for text + Veloce for module
New feature requiring normative text update: Full RFC BIS process
New feature via augmentation: Potentially a new RFC augmenting the base; Veloce may still apply to module development 11
Entirely new module: Full RFC process, but authors may optionally use Veloce for module development on GitHub 12
Open question: whether adding new nodes (which changes the tree diagram in the RFC) always mandates narrative text update 13
IANA Registry Open Questions
Current YANG parameters table uses RFC-required registration procedure — updating it for Veloce needs explicit process definition. 14
Debate on whether to modify the existing IANA table (add a repository column) or create a new registry (Michael's preference). 15
Trigger mechanism for IANA to fetch a new module version (e.g., date change) is unresolved — not currently automated. 16
Risk flagged: if GitHub disappears, IANA holding a copy of the module reduces but does not eliminate risk. 17
Risks & Blockers
GitHub reliability: GitHub is down once or twice a week(?); long-term, the IETF LLC or tools team may need to stand up an owned repository. 18
GitHub backups: Robert Sparks confirmed GitHub repositories are not currently backed up by the IETF tools team. 2
Document divergence risk: Delay in posting the working group 00 draft risks text deviating from what was adopted. 19
Generic vs. specific language: RFC text should use the term "repository" generically rather than "GitHub" to avoid future obsolescence. 20
Action Items
Mahesh: Post working group 00 draft to DataTracker immediately after the meeting. Done. 7
Qin: Convert draft from XML to Markdown and publish Markdown version to repo. 8
Mahesh: Update workflow README to explicitly allow PRs without a prior issue, and to state any author can pick up and propose text for open issues. 21
Mahesh & Dhruv: Collaborate on a PR with a concrete example of what the IANA registry table would look like under the Veloce process. 22
Joe: Find a concrete example of a YANG module change that is substantial but plausibly a Veloce candidate (not requiring new normative prose) — share before next meeting. 13
Mahesh: Clarify to Michael (via email) that the IANA link points to the GitHub repo, not that the RFC itself points to the repo. 5
If I missed anything, please add.

Thanks

Mahesh Jethanandani
[e-mail]