Subject: [Idr] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-25: (with COMMENT)

From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 12:51:36 -0700

Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection-25: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-optimal-route-reflection/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for this document - sounds useful!  And thanks to Dan for the Ops-dir review.

May I please check, is there a YANG data model that covers this functionality?

Regards,
Rob

---

From: Robert Raszuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 00:36:32 +0200

Hi Robert,

> May I please check, is there a YANG data model that covers this
functionality?

The original plan was to add this to the main BGP YANG specification -
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-10
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-10> to keep
this part of the main BGP YANG model document.

But it seems that this document moved on and now is in IETF LC.

We are discussing with co-authors and contributors how to address this at
the current point.

I am not sure what is IDR WG process in respect to YANG model definition as
most if not all documents passing WG LC and becoming RFCs do not contain
the YANG section (recent example rfc9012, rfc9003, rfc8956 etc ...).

I checked with a few shipping implementations and it seems that vendors
have already extended their YANG models with BGP-ORR feature. So it
seems that what is defined at this point may cause backwards compatibility
issues too.

Many thx,
Robert

---

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 03:58:25 -0700

On June 16, 2021 at 6:36:43 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:

Just a quick correction: the BGP Model is still in the WG.  At this
point, and because it has taken so long, the focus should be on moving
the model on -- other features can be added, as needed, through
augmentation.

Alvaro.

> The original plan was to add this to the main BGP YANG specification
> -draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-10 to keep this part of the main BGP YANG model
> document.
>