Let $A$ and $B$ abelian groups. A extension of $A$ by $B$ is a short short exact sequence $0\longrightarrow A\longrightarrow G \longrightarrow B \longrightarrow 0 $.
Two extensions of $A$ by $B$ are said equivalent if exist $\varphi$ making the diagram commute:
$0\longrightarrow A\longrightarrow G \longrightarrow B \longrightarrow 0 $
$\,\ \,\ \,\ \,\ \,\ \,\ \downarrow \,\ \,\ \,\ \,\ \, \downarrow \varphi \,\ \,\ \,\ \,\ \downarrow$
$0\longrightarrow A\longrightarrow G' \longrightarrow B \longrightarrow 0 $
I denote [G] the equivalence class of extension $0\longrightarrow A\longrightarrow G \longrightarrow B \longrightarrow 0 $.
I know that ${\rm Ext}(B,A):=\{[G]:0\longrightarrow A\longrightarrow G \longrightarrow B \longrightarrow 0 $ is a extension of $A$-by-$B \}$ can be structured as abelian group but i ask why ${\rm Ext}(B,A)$ is a set and no a proper class?
Let $s: B\to G$ be a (set-theoretic) section of $p: G\to B$, i.e. a function whose composite with $G\to B$ is the identity of $B$.
Because $G\to B$ is surjective, you can find such an $s$ - it will, in general, not be a group morphism, just a set function.
Then the following (set-theoretic) function is a bijection $ G\to A\times B, g\mapsto (a, p(g))$ where $a $ is the only antecedent in $A$ of $g-sp(g)$. This is an easy exercise.
Now, up to isomorphism, there is only a set of groups with a bounded cardinality (here $A\times B$), and for each of them, only a set of pairs of morphisms $A\to G, G\to B$, so that overall, up to isomorphism, there is only a set of extensions.
More precisely, you could take "group structures on the underlying set of $A\times B$" and that would be enough.