Subject: RE: YANG [Was: Proposal for a charter for BESS]

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 10:02:29 +0100

Hi,

Jumping back down the thread a little.

No plan to revisit the implementation requirements issues. This remains, as it
has for quite a number of years, a decision that is left to individual working
groups. Currently:
- only IDR that I am aware of has any tendency toward a rule
- at least one of your ADs believes that implementation is a good way
  of determining the maturity of a specification
- at least one of your ADs has a habit of asking document shepherds to
  find out implementation status and plans when receiving a publication
  request for a Standards Track RFC
- at least one of your ADs wonders what the point of publication is if
   there is no implementation and no plan to implement

But *all* of that is an aside to the point in question. We can debate it if you
like, but I don't think it is relevant to the BESS discussion.

You say:
> Right now, other WGs can develop
> extensions to BGP, and can get them published without satisfying all IDR
> publication requirements. 

I assume you mean L2VPN and L3VPN. Are there others we should be thinking about?
Since BESS is taking over all of the BGP work from L2VPN and L3VPN, it is
certainly appropriate for this issue to be on the table. Let's try to separate
some issues by asking a series of questions:

- Is it reasonable to say that IDR should review updates to BGP from 
   wherever they come?
- Why does IDR consider implementation and interoperability to be valuable
   in the case of BGP?
- Does the IDR working group have a "publication requirement" that is 
   fixed and requires two independent and interoperable implementations
   in every case?
- It there a difference between "BGP for VPNs" and "BGP for the Internet"?
- Is IDR capable of deciding which cases can safely progress to RFC without
   interoperable implementation?
- What harm may be caused by having IDR review BGP extensions?
- What harm may be caused by allowing IDR to gate some publications
   pending implementation?
...and a final question...
- Should YANG models for BGP (not for VPN services) be reviewed by IDR?

Personally, I put a much lower bar on YANG models. I think they should be
thoroughly reviewed, but I don't see implementation as a substantial gate, and I
wonder what interoperability would mean.

I have updated the paragraph to read:
 The BESS working group may develop extensions to BGP and extensions to
 YANG models for BGP, but all such work must be reviewed by the IDR
 working group and any such modifications to BGP must satisfy the IDR 
 working group as being ready for publication before being forwarded to
 the IESG.

This is still open for discussion, but let's not try to get too many of us
dancing on this particular pin-head. Suggestions for change to text are welcome.

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Rosen [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 26 September 2014 23:51
> To: Susan Hares
> Cc: [email-masked]; 'Giles Heron'; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: YANG [Was: Proposal for a charter for BESS]
> 
> > those modifications to BGP (protocol and yang) must satisfy all IDR
> > publication requirements before being forwarded to the IESG.
> 
> I would strongly disagree with this.  Right now, other WGs can develop
> extensions to BGP, and can get them published without satisfying all IDR
> publication requirements.  There was a rather lengthy discussion some years
> ago about whether all the Routing WGs needed to have the same publication
> requirements as IDR, and it was decided that they do not.  If we want to
> revisit that issue again (and I don't know why we would), let's not hide it
> behind the guise of "reorganizing the area".

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 10:51:46 +0100

Adrian

If we are talking about a WG making a change to the BGP protocol itself, 
then I would ask why that work is not happening in IDR and I would agree 
that IDR publication rules apply.

On the other hand if we are considering whether to allow Wordsworth in 
addition to Shakespeare over BGP, and how to do literary criticism on 
the new text,  that is a matter for the WG specifying the packaging of 
the additional data.

How about

  The BESS working group may, develop new data sets to be carried over
  BGP in support of its protocols, and it may develop the necessary YANG
  models associated with these data sets.

  Work on the BGP protocol itself is outside the scope of the BESS WG.

Which I think is essentially status quo.

- Stewart

On 28/09/2014 10:02, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> routing-discussion mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion
> .
>

-- 
For corporate legal information go to:

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html