Hi Reshad, Yes, a virtual interim might be an expedient way to get folks to read the discuss the issues.
In addition, or perhaps as an alternatively, the chairs could request extra WG time at IETF 126 and perhaps we dedicate an hour or two to going over these issues. I don't think we need or should delay the adoption poll for draft-yn-netmod-yang2-02 (the subject of this thread), but instead this could probably happen in parallel. Kind regards, Rob From: Reshad Rahman <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, 5 May 2026 at 22:57 To: Lou Berger <[email protected]>; NetMod WG <[email protected]>; Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]>; Kent Watsen <[email protected]> Cc: NetMod WG Chairs <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [netmod] Re: WG adoption call: draft-yn-netmod-yang2-02 Hi Rob, Kent, > 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? Ack. Do we need an interim for this or can this be done via PR or some other means? Regards, Reshad. On Tuesday, May 5, 2026 at 10:50:30 AM EDT, 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]
