On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 8:29 AM Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Andy, > > I assume that you saw the other adoption thread that I responded to and > pointed out > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wilton-netmod-yang-next-agreement/, > but that was the goal of this document - i.e., to try and reach an > agreement on what YANG 2.0 should look like. > > IMO it would be easier to track on github than an I-D, but that is a 2nd order problem. I think the yang-next review team did a lot of work reaching consensus on the classification of 150 issues. E.g., the team agreed that anything with importance=low would be dropped. The goal should be to address as many high and medium yang-next issues as possible. We need to do the work on the details during the YANG2 work, not before it. Kind regards, > Rob > > Andy > > *From: *Andy Bierman <[email protected]> > *Date: *Saturday, 9 May 2026 at 19:28 > *To: *NetMod WG <[email protected]> > *Subject: *[netmod] YANG 2.0 contents > > Hi, > > I am concerned that this work item is essentially a blank check called > YANG 2.0. > > There is an issue list of course: > https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-next/issues > > I wrote a summary as an issue in Nov 2024: > https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-next/issues/152 > > It would be better to have some WG consensus on the contents of YANG 2.0 > than to just adopt starting point drafts with no idea what the finished > drafts look like. > I am not in favor of asking the world to learn a new version of YANG after > 12 or 15 years > unless it is a big improvement over 1.1. > > > Andy > > >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
