Re: [netmod] YANG next

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Was this a big topic at the side meeting?
The issues blocking NMDA, schema-mount, and other deployment problems
are related to YANG document organization?  I doubt it.

So how would this work?
There will be 2 versions of YANG 1.1?
If old YANG 1.1 is equivalent to new YANG 1.1, can a developer safely
ignore the new RFCs?
If not, then something changed that was not supposed to change.

The old YANG 1.1 RFC will be obsolete and the 2 (or more) new YANG 1.1 RFCs
will replace it?
Then of course all the RFCs that reference RFC 7950 might have to be
updated so the subject matter
is cited from the correct new YANG 1.1 RFC.

IMO this will only serve to confuse the end-users and offer them no real
benefit at all.
As for finishing quickly because the NETMOD WG is so fast and has nothing
better to work on anyway...  sure.


Andy



On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 5:56 AM Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> I also think that there is significant value to splitting the NETCONF and
> XML specification out of RFC 7950 (but keeping XML examples).  I think that
> this may be beneficial to YANG’s longevity, and I’m sure that it would make
> it easier to maintain and extend the NETCONF/RESTCONF/YANG document set in
> future.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rob
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* netmod <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Andy Bierman
> *Sent:* 24 July 2019 14:32
> *To:* Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [netmod] YANG next
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 10:28 AM Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>
> So you want to work on YANG 1.2, but just the parts you want to change? ;-)
>
> I am actually fine with not doing any changes to YANG 1.1 at all, except
> perhaps
> bug fixes. This doesn't necessarily mean closing the NETMOD WG, it would
> IMO be
> immensely useful to rewrite the language specification and remove NETCONF-
> and
> XML-specific part.
>
>
> +1. There are plenty of ambiguities and NETCONF/XML pollution in the
> spec. Having the specifications in a DAG would be immensely useful :)
>
>
>
> Agreed and I should've mentioned before that Martin said in Prague that
> he'd already started this effort, seeing it as a necessary pre-step before
> making other changes.  I'm unsure if the intention is to release this by
> itself as an RFC 7950 bis but, if looking for a minimal change, that might
> be it.  The next rung up would be to just add clarifications.  The next
> rung up from there would be to add only backwards-compatible changes
> (currently targeted by [1]).  The last rung being to also target NBC
> changes (there's no consensus to do this).
>
>
>
>
>
> This WG sure likes to spend time refactoring documents.
>
> Moving lots of text will create bugs and strong coupling, and only help
> the standards purists.
>
> It will be a lot of work for the WG and IESG to review such a massive
> document split,
>
> and in the end we have no improvement in YANG, just more RFCs to read.
>
>
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> [1] https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-next/projects/2
> <https://github..com/netmod-wg/yang-next/projects/2>
>
>
>
> Kent
>
>
>
>
>
>