Re: [OPS-AREA] Q: Why no open yang-discuss@ietf.org mailing list ?

Hi,

On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 11:06 AM Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:

> I was just wondering about subject matter, triggered by an issue with Yang
> we have
> in an ANIMA draft.
>
> I understand the process of asking for yang doctor review, and thats fine
> and dandy for
> official resolution, but it does not seem to particularily seem to help
> proliferate
> knowledge about yang in the community given how yang-doctors is a closed
> mailing list.
> Which means that
>
> a) It is more difficult to read/observe the list unless you like the
> archive
>    web interface and/or have an email system where you can subscribe to
> the archive via imap.
>
> b) It is not mean for casual discussions about yang given how (AFAIK) its
> specifically
>    created to only reuqest help from yang doctors. This of course also
> includes
>    beginners questions, where you do know the question is so silly that it
> would
>    likely be a waste of precious yang-doctor cycles.
>
> Aka: not criticising yang-doctors setup, i think for what its intended its
> sete up
> correctly, i am just wondering if it would not be helpful
> to amend it with an open yang discussion list for the overall IETF
> community.
>
> Some more specialized yang non-WG mailing lists exist, but afaik
> especially not in
> OPS, where IMHO arguably the largest demand for yang models should exist.
>
>
IMO email is not the greatest way to help people figure out YANG.
I remember discussing the idea with the ADs in the past about moving
RFC 8407 online,
and updating it often as needed. (As opposed to recording another yang-next
issue
and forgetting about it).  Maybe an online IETF YANG FAQ would help.

FYI...
I posted this email to yang-doctors on May 5 and got no response...

 Hi,

I know Benoit tried very hard to make the IETF proactive and
engage the user and tools community.  He actually used to do
the stuff below in f2f meetings on Sunday sessions at the IETF

I notice that the YANG doctor review process is very heavyweight,
scarce resources, and very official.

What if we proactively headed off bad YANG usage before it got to the YD
review?

What if we had a FAQ on good YANG usage, and a WEB site so people
could submit questions to the YANG doctors about their modules.
Each question becomes another entry in the FAQ.

It should be open to any YANG developer, even vendors, not just all SDOs.
Sponsors should get a small logo on the Sponsors tab.
If it cannot be hosted by the IETF than maybe a new WEB site can be created
for it.

Is there any interest in such a project?

I have found that if you steer people into good design and
don't make them start over then they will just do it.
Now if we could only get people to design the data model before they start
writing it....

Cheers
>     Toerless
>

Andy

>
> _______________________________________________
> OPS-AREA mailing list
> OPS-AREA@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area
>