On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 06:45:55PM +0100, Giles Heron wrote: > On 1 Sep 2015, at 18:30, Juergen Schoenwaelder > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 05:58:59PM +0100, Giles Heron wrote: > >> On 1 Sep 2015, at 17:47, Juergen Schoenwaelder > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> I suggest people write I-Ds if they have any far reaching ideas. > >> > >> I think GitHub would be better. The overhead is much lower than writing a > >> draft. > >> > > > > IETF processes usually starts with ideas presented in I-Ds. I do not > > care much which tools people use to produce I-Ds. > > sure, that is the process in general. But I’m unconvinced that it’s the > right way to proceed with YANG. E.g. we used a numbered of issues for YANG > 1.1. So why not a numbered list of suggestions for YANG 2.0? >
The formal answer is that the WG is charted to do YANG 1.1 and not 2.0. The other answer is that (a) collecting issues is easy, (b) finding agreement on issues is difficult, (c) getting the final text written and _all the details that pop up worked out_ is very hard work. Unfortunately, you see many people working on (a), less people on (b) and finally very few doing (c). /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
