Hi William, I'm not sure that there is any fixed date or deadline, but earlier feedback is always welcome and helpful. ;-)
I think that I saw that the chairs that there may be an adoption poll for draft-wilton-netmod-yang-next-agreement-00, which I suspect is going to be more about whether having a draft to set the scope of the next version of YANG is helpful and whether this draft represents a good starting point for such a document and discussions. In terms of the actual contents and what issues end up where then I expect that there will be quite a lot of further discussion, perhaps meetings, etc to agree and to help get and gauge consensus. Nor do you need to give your feedback in a single review. I.e., it would be perfectly fine to say only review the issues in 2.1 and 2.2 and defer the rest to later. When evaluating these issues, and trying to gauge consensus, I would think that it would be helpful to be thinking along the lines of: 1. This issue should definitely go into the next version of YANG. 2. No strong feelings, but happy for this to go in. 3. No strong feelings, but I would prefer this to be left out. 4. This issue definitely shouldn't go in the next version of YANG. 5. I don't think that we should ever include this in YANG. 6. I don't think that this issue description is clear enough for me to properly evaluate. In all cases, I think that these issues are really a starting point. It may well be that we decide that something should go in, but once we have figured out what the changes/impact would be that it introduces too much complexity and the consensus changes so that we shouldn't include it. But I want to avoid someone spending lots of time trying to define something if we already know that it is very unlikely that it would be acceptable. Kind regards, Rob From: Ivory, William <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, 28 May 2026 at 09:36 To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]>; NetMod WG <[email protected]> Subject: RE: YANG 2.0 contents Hi Rob, We can certainly look through the draft and get back to you. While I believe this work is not scheduled, when would you like a reply by to keep the project moving? Has any date been set for a discussion on the next step(s)? Regards, William -- William Ivory (he/him) Routing / IP Software Engineer 4 | Ciena Edinburgh, Scotland [cid:[email protected]] From: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]> Sent: 26 May 2026 13:03 To: Ivory, William <[email protected]>; NetMod WG <[email protected]> Subject: [**EXTERNAL**] Re: YANG 2.0 contents Hi William, Perhaps have a read of https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-wilton-netmod-yang-next-agreement-00.html [ietf.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-wilton-netmod-yang-next-agreement-00.html__;!!OSsGDw!MOxKZWy07mMRo2RgzzUi7uzAKdQe3856I_jPhQfVPrHCtioPojROnOV_S-TXvhCJGbuY2YLpAyNSBOYK5UA4hciFhqF-$>, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wilton-netmod-yang-next-agreement/ [datatracker.ietf.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wilton-netmod-yang-next-agreement/__;!!OSsGDw!MOxKZWy07mMRo2RgzzUi7uzAKdQe3856I_jPhQfVPrHCtioPojROnOV_S-TXvhCJGbuY2YLpAyNSBOYK5UA4hdoXgkZR$> Once you have read the intro and background, perhaps you can indicate whether you agree will all the issues listed in section 2 should be included (or at least investigated) for YANG 2.0, or do you think some things should move out? Are there issues in section 3, 4, or 5 that you believe should be in different sections, and in particular, absolutely must be YANG 2.0? If we can have some discussions and reach consensus on which issues should end up where then I think that will help ensure that everyone is on the same page as to what a YANG 2.0 should look like, or at least, that is the aim/goal of my document. Kind regards, Rob From: Ivory, William <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, 20 May 2026 at 17:23 To: Andy Bierman <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; NetMod WG <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [netmod] YANG 2.0 contents 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]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: 09 May 2026 19:28 To: NetMod WG <[email protected]<mailto:[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]
