> On Apr 1, 2026, at 7:48 AM, Job Snijders <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
We do have implementations of the base IGP models but these came AFTER publication of RFC 9129 and RFC 9130 (see holo links that you snipped out). https://github.com/holo-routing/holo/tree/master/holo-ospf/src/northbound https://github.com/holo-routing/holo/tree/master/holo-isis/src/northbound This is in contrast to the IDR WG where they still don't have the base model standardized and have a significant protocol feature/YANG gap. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model/ We will continue to move forward and IDR is considering doing the same. Perhaps you can direct your energy as that is where you have been active in the past. Acee > > Kind regards, > > Job _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
