Hi, General consensus at Ciena is also that this work needs to be focused on a few key principles rather than just an effort to implement all the items on the issue list. For example:
* What do operators really need that’s not in YANG 1.1? * What is proving impractical for vendors to implement reliably / consistently / efficiently that could be sensibly redesigned? Regards, William -- William Ivory (he/him) Routing / IP Software Engineer | Ciena Edinburgh, Scotland [cid:[email protected]] From: Andy Bierman <[email protected]> Sent: 09 May 2026 19:28 To: NetMod WG <[email protected]> Subject: [**EXTERNAL**] [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 [github.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/netmod-wg/yang-next/issues__;!!OSsGDw!Kr88KsficTnDqivvxfvqow0MKyGTXeasfYNN0yIDyqQk8IYSyzpdPyfh1qOc5PgOJpmXEIEl5BPc$> I wrote a summary as an issue in Nov 2024: https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-next/issues/152 [github.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/netmod-wg/yang-next/issues/152__;!!OSsGDw!Kr88KsficTnDqivvxfvqow0MKyGTXeasfYNN0yIDyqQk8IYSyzpdPyfh1qOc5PgOJpmXEGLd2fL9$> 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]
