Hi Rob et. al. I like your proposal, it seems practical. There are a couple of inconsistencies, and I disagree with a couple items, but it captures my thoughts by and large, and I'm happy to use it to help focus effort. Once we merge the `make-baseline <https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang2/pull/4>` PR, which removes all the XML/NETCONF-specific bits from RFC 7950, then folks should submit PRs for issues highlighted in your document.
Also, as you well know, because you are a member, there is a team (10 of us in total) that volunteered to be PR-reviewers for the YANG2 effort, ultimately holding the final word for what is accepted, prior to the PR being confirmed on the list. I believe that this team will ensure YANG2 doesn't go off the rails ;) Cheers, Kent > On May 5, 2026, at 10:50 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Reshad, > > For me, the classification of important/complexity/backward-compatibility is > interesting, but perhaps not as directly useful as the classification that I > used, which is "should we do this, and if so when?" > > I think that I also looked at some of the earlier issues because they were > closed because the original classification ruled out any NBC changes, but > those arguably should be considered again. > > Even understanding whether this will be a small or larger change to the YANG > language is important to understand, and if different people have different > views without a shared common understanding or agreement of where we are > heading then I suspect we may end up in a painful mess. > > E.g., it would be good to understand whether those working on YANG Next agree > with what I have proposed in that document as a starting point. E.g., is > there rough agreement with what I have proposed in section 2? > > I.e., I'm thinking of this as a relatively small update to the language, but > it is still incorporating approximately a third of the 150 open issues! > > Kind regards, > Rob > > > From: Reshad Rahman <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, 5 May 2026 at 15:22 > To: Lou Berger <[email protected]>; NetMod WG <[email protected]>; Rob Wilton > (rwilton) <[email protected]> > Cc: NetMod WG Chairs <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [netmod] Re: WG adoption call: draft-yn-netmod-yang2-02 > > Hi Rob, > > > 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 agree. The issues have been tagged along multiple axes: importance, > complexity, backwards-compatibility. So is it just a question of agreeing > what the minimum bar is? Yes I should take a look at your doc again :-) > > Regards, > Reshad. > > > On Tuesday, May 5, 2026 at 07:28:09 AM EDT, Rob Wilton (rwilton) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > 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. > > 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), > with a goal of trying to further the discussion about both what specific > issues tracked on the github issue tracker could/should go into the next > version of YANG and also which changes should not end up in the next revision > of YANG, and which changes we probably don't want in any version of YANG > currently being considered. > > 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. > > Kind regards, > Rob > > > From: Lou Berger <[email protected]> > Date: Monday, 27 April 2026 at 22:43 > To: NetMod WG <[email protected]> > Cc: NetMod WG Chairs <[email protected]> > Subject: [netmod] WG adoption call: draft-yn-netmod-yang2-02 > > 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. Thank you, Lou (as Co-chair) > > > > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list -- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > _______________________________________________ > 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]
