On Wed, 2019-07-24 at 22:37 +0200, Robert Varga wrote: > On 24/07/2019 20:32, Andy Bierman wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 10:28 AM Kent Watsen <k...@watsen.net > > <mailto:k...@watsen.net>> 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. > > Sorry, I am not watching very closely so I have not noticed. > > I regard the NETCONF coupling in RFC6020/RFC7950 as technical debt, > which when addressed will allow us to have better discussions about > modeling intent vs. XML representation.
Absolutely. Also note that in RFC 7950 we even don't have a sound definition of an instance data tree. > > > Moving lots of text will create bugs and strong coupling, and only help > > the standards purists. > > Not necessarily. I agree with limiting the amount (and type) of text > being moved and modifications done in between. > > > 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. > > No improvement in to YANG in terms of number of features, yes. > > Even if it ends up being more documents, if they are smaller and more > logically structured, they are more approachable. Right. The base YANG spec should only define the language and rules for validating instance data. > > Reading RFC7950 (216 pages) is far from sufficient for understanding > YANG, as you also need to understand NETCONF, which leads you down the > RFC6241 rabbit hole. > > If we can get a more approachable first document, lowering the entry > barrier will be beneficial to people outside the WG(s). I again fully agree. The entry barrier is unnecessarily high, which may not be apparent to vintage members of the NETCONF/NETMOD gang. Lada > > Regards, > Robert > -- Ladislav Lhotka Head, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
