I want to add several considerations. First, there is the Numata Center BDK English Tripitika translation project the purpose of which is to tranlsate the entire Chinese Canon into English. This has been in progress for a few decades, I think. There is a lot of excellent Mahayana material in this project.
Second, the fact that the Tibetans are not hooking up with BDK indicates that they want to present a strictly Tibetan version of the Dharma. They act as if the BDK group doesn't even exist, and from their point of view it's not a "full canon" because it doesn't contain some Tantras which are central to their tradition. Fair enough, but that's how I read this project; which makes sense given the supersessionist nature of Vajrayana.
Third, I'm no expert in Sanskrit, my studies have been on my own. Having said this I am very suspicious of how Tibetan Buddhism has translated key Sanskrit terms. The more Sanskrit I learn the more suspicious I become. A good example is the word "pratimoksha" (Pali: Patimokkha), which they translate as "Individual Liberation". No other tradition glosses the word that way; e.g. in Chinese Buddhism it is simply understood as monastic liberative discipline, nothing about "individual" is embedded in the term. (As an aside, even Saicho, who was so critical of monasticism, did not gloss the term this way.) There are other examples of how Tibetan Buddhism skews central terms to buttress their particular point of view and I think there should be more awareness of just how systematic and pervasive this is in Tibetan texts. The problem is that these ways of interpreting Sanskrit terms will be presented as definitive, the actual meaning, of these Sanskrit terms when there is no support for such an interpretation in Indian Mahayana Buddhism, nor in other non-Vajrayana Mahayana traditions.