On Mon, Apr 27, 2026 at 2:43 PM Lou Berger <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello, > > This email begins a 2-week adoption poll for: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yn-netmod-yang2/ > > Please voice your support or technical objections to adoption on the > list by the end of the day (any time zone) May 11. > > The world (and WG) has been using a Continuous Integration approach with YANG for 16+ years. Lots of standard and proprietary YANG extensions have been added. All the tools get along, but all extensions are purely optional to implement. A new language version is 100% mandatory to implement, but existing tools will reject the module. Harder for vendors but arguably better for end users. It is more precise than extensions, so implementation consistency might be much better. A new language version would require upgrading most tools, not just pyang. Client and server tools are far more complex and take longer to update. That is why a YANG 1.1 back-translation might be needed (i.e., convert new stmts to extensions). Vendors need to be able to upgrade selectively and keep all existing modules and code working. I don't know if a new YANG language version is needed or not. The WG should consider vendor deployment issues, not just WG process issues. Thank you, > Lou (as Co-chair) > > > > Andy > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
