On Wed, Apr 01, 2026 at 07:03:46AM -0400, Acee Lindem wrote: > > 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? > > Independent of whether the IGP YANG models are implemented, they > provide a very useful reference for routing protocols.
How so? If the models never have been implemented, then what exactly are they a reference to? It sounds like a document with status "WG adopted internet-draft" would serve the same purpose just as fine without burdening wider IETF community with reviewing premature standards. The datatracker has a useful 'waiting for implementation' state to tag such documents. The added benefit of waiting for implementations is that, if in the course of actual implementation work, any deficiencies are discovered in the model, the internet-draft can cheaply be updated! (compared to producing a -bis RFC document) > Standardization of the configuration and operational state is > essential to advance the IGPs and serves as a reference model for > protocol implementation. I agree that having implementions as reference is very useful, but that's not what seems to be happening here: based on the information provided in this mail thread, an unimplemented spec was put forward. > I've got much more important things to worry about than this. Oh, ok, I'm so sorry, you have more important things to do? :-) Looking at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=%22draft-ietf-lsr-ospf-flex-algo-yang%22 (time period October 2025) it seems that only two people supported publication of this document, and those two people happen to be the document authors themselves. This is not at all a strong concurrence? Given that: - no implementation reports have been put forward; - there was no support for publication other than from the authors themselves; - the WG Chair noting a "lack of excitement for YANG module development"; - one of the authors having "more important things to worry about", perhaps this document doesn't really need to be published as RFC at this point in time? IESG - please consider this an objection to this document moving forward for RFC standards track publication at this point in time. The objection mainly being: there are no known implementations and the LSR working group consensus on whether to publish this document appears weak. In light of this, the request for RFC publication appears premature. Kind regards, Job _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
