On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 4:09 PM Kent Watsen <kent+i...@watsen.net> wrote:
> [All, don’t forget to vote, discussion here doesn’t count! > https://notes.ietf.org/netmod-2023-sept-poll] > > > On Sep 12, 2023, at 12:06 PM, Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > So there is choice between: > > (A) YANG 1.1 and SHOULD NOT > (B) YANG 1.2 and SHOULD NOT > > > Thanks Andy, this is a succinct way to frame it. > > > > (A) is acceptable. > YANG 1.2 would create a false expectation in the user community that the > IETF > had improved the YANG language somehow. > > > Agreed. > > It would be a very disruptive and visible change to just 'bump the version'. Someday, the WG should work on the yang-next list and produce a real YANG 1.2. > Kent > Andy
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
