Subject: YANG Just crashed and burned AFAIC

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 16:57:11 -0500

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Benoit Claise <[email-masked]> wrote:

>  Hi Tom,
>
> In light of the numerous YANG models these days, there is the YANG doctors
> scaling issue. You're right, even if the number of YANG doctors recently
> increased, we need other venues to provide advice to YANG model designers.
> This should solve the issue of designing properly the YANG models.
> On the other hand, there is a bigger issue, IMO: the proper coordination
> of those YANG models. This is not the YANG doctors responsibility. This
> can't be: see the YANG doctors scalability issue.  So who's responsibility
> is this? Simply asserting "it's the community responsibility" is the easy
> answer, but I'm afraid it will not work.
>

Well that has lost me completely.

If you need a schema doctor then we are not talking about a data model that
should be allowed for any use other than describing past work with greater
formality.

The only thing I like in ASN.1 is that it did at least attempt to provide a
single encoding that would support the whole stack. What makes ASN.1 unfit
for purpose is the nonsense distinctions that are introduced with implicit,
explicit, tagging definite length encoding, SETs vs SEQUENCEs and all the
rest of the idiot distinctions that do nothing but create the need for a
consultant to use the thing.

We should have one data model with a text encoding and an option for
binary. JSON currently seems to be winning the encoding battle for text so
if we add a binary encoding that has identical semantics to the text
encoding (i.e. can round trip losslessly wrt the data model) we are done.

If we want to make things needlessly complex then lets make them Turing
complete.