Rob Wilton \(rwilton\) <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, I support working on YANG v2, and this document and the underlying > github repository to back it are a good approach.
:-)
> I do have concerns that the scope and goal of YANG v2 is not well
> defined - I think that we, as a community, need to understand and agree
> what the goal is of the next version of YANG and which of the 150+
> proposed enhancements tracked by github we plan to fix and included in
> YANG v2. I don't think that an approach that just relies on individual
> contributors working on the issues they have most interest in is the
> best or right approach.
Wow. 156 Issues. Wow.
> To that end, I published a doc during the last IETF meeting
>
(https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-wilton-netmod-yang-next-agreement-00.html),
I would be happy to participate in a series of virtual interims to walk
through the list. I like your four sets: Yes/Maybe/Difficult/No ...
I suggest that before such a determination that individuals would need to
sort into "I understand", "I understand, but don't know why", "I am confused"
For 156 that's a lot of work.
> A comparison could be drawn to XPath. XPath v1, whilst it has some
> flaws, is still a small language. The subsequent versions of XPath are
> all significantly larger languages, with presumably a much greater
> implementation cost. Care is required, I think, that YANG v2 doesn't
> immediately follow this same path.
:-)
I agree. Second system effect is real, but so is failing due to incrementalism.
> 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.
I haven't read it much yet, but -02's abstract says 1.1 allover :-)
I'm sure that can be fixed... Is the point that it's the 1.1 text without
changes?
220 pages, and I think that I need to understand Rob's list before I can
think about this *process*: I do not object to adoption, because I think
documents should be adopted early.
For me, by adopting, the WG would be saying:
1. we want to do Yang v2 in some form.
2. we think that Kent will be a good editor
Checking:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/diff?doc_1=draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-14&doc_2=draft-yn-netmod-yang2-02&iddiff=1
which does not include AUTH48 changes to RFC7950, so it looks like it intends
to be exactly 1.1 as a starting point. I endorse adopting a -00 which is a
no-change, but I worry it might restrict our thinking.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [
] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
] My working hours and your working hours may be different. [
] Please do not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours [
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
** My working hours and your working hours may be different. **
** Please do not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours **
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
