Hi Lada, I still think that it makes sense to do YANG Next, on the assumption that it will take a couple of years to work out, maybe longer if the work doesn't properly get started until the YANG versioning work has progressed further.
When I look at the YANG Next issue list, I think that there are quite a lot of things on that list (some of which are quite small) that would be good to do, and will help modelling efforts. Thanks, Rob -----Original Message----- From: netmod <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Ladislav Lhotka Sent: 23 July 2019 12:03 To: NETMOD WG <[email protected]> Subject: [netmod] YANG next Hi, this morning I attended the side meeting "Next Step of IETF YANG". I was somewhat misled into thinking that it would be about future evolution of YANG the language, which was not the case at all. However, my personal conclusion from the meeting is that it would be a total disaster to throw in a new version of YANG within the next few years or so. The operators and equipment vendors are busy putting together YANG modules and tools, filling the gaps, coping with NMDA, schema mount, IETF versus OpenConfig etc. A new YANG version (and modules written in it) would IMO be extremely counter-productive at this rather turbulent stage. So, if we want to continue the yang-next discussion, I think we first have to figure out how to evolve YANG without making waves in the current YANG pond and let the operators and vendors do their work, without which YANG can never succeed. Lada -- Ladislav Lhotka Head, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
