Dear Acee, On Fri, Mar 27, 2026 at 07:08:34PM -0400, Acee Lindem wrote: > > The document shepherd write-up is deficient. In answer to question 4 (For > > protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of > > the > > document? ) it says "N/A". But this is a Standards Track protocol document. > > YANG models are implementable and it would give significant credence to the > > completeness of this specification if this question had been answered with > > implementation details. (Of course, it would have been even better to see an > > Implementation Status section in the document.) > > > > It remains up to the WG and AD whether to pursue publication of an > > unimplemented YANG model. > > I'm not sure where you've been over the last ten years, but the IETF > YANG models have not been widely implemented. In LSR, we have chosen to > publish them without requiring implementation.
It is concerning to read this practise has been going on for many years already, however it being a tradition does not equate it being a good practise. How does the WG know that the models are implementable, or even operationally relevant? The problem I see is that the LSR WG might take up review/editorial/IESG resources with their requests for RFC publication for documents that later on are discovered to be unimplementable works of fiction. What exactly is the purpose of rough consensus without running code? If the goal is to positively inspire vendors to copy parts of these unimplemented models, wouldn't "Experimental" fullfill the same purpose just as well? Why is Standards track considered appropriate for such documents? Kind regards, Job _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
