Joel,
> On Nov 12, 2025, at 2:46 PM, Joel Halpern <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think this misses the important point. Yes, working out a YANG RFC takes > time. Doing it as an I-D does introduce some obstacles. But... > > We need to actually get community engagement and agreement. Otherwise, they > are just individual YANG modules, not standards. Getting community engagement > and agreement takes time and effort. If you don't want to do that, then post > your individual YANG module wherever you want, with whatever non-IETF process > you want. My concern is more a matter of the fit for purpose of a given tool. Our common goal is engagement and review that we need for consensus. Developing or reviewing YANG in an I-D is very clumsy. I see this discussion as how we try to improve that. Capturing the contents of the modules in I-D as a snapshot may indeed be our intended mechanism for moving the process train forward. However, if that happens to be backed by tooling that provides the raw modules and a "development" environment is likely a large win. The massive bit of work Mahesh roped me into for BGP YANG was a nice demonstration on how better tooling significantly eased workflow for the authors. Here, I see the conversation to be the similar discussion about how we ease this for reviewers and users. -- Jeff _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
