Subject: [netmod] yang-json document

From: Ladislav Lhotka <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 17:09:11 +0100

Hi,

$SUBJ is already several months late, so I think we should proceed
towards delivering it. I checked my mail archive since the -02 revision,
and it seems two issues need to be resolved:

1. Andy objected to making redundant namespace prefixes illegal. I
   propose the following change to 4th paragraph in sec. 4 (SHOULD NOT
   instead of MUST NOT):

   OLD

   Names with namespace identifiers in the form shown in Figure 1 MUST
   be used for all top-level YANG data nodes, and also for all nodes
   whose parent node belongs to a different namespace.  Otherwise, names
   with namespace identifiers MUST NOT be used.

   NEW

   Names with namespace identifiers in the form shown in Figure 1 MUST
   be used for all top-level YANG data nodes, and also for all nodes
   whose parent node belongs to a different namespace.  Otherwise, names
   with namespace identifiers SHOULD NOT be used.

2. anyxml encoding: although it is a misnomer, I propose to keep the
   current definition (sec. 5.5), i.e. allow any valid JSON value in
   JSON-encoded anyxml instances. I also think the text makes it
   sufficiently clear that no standard mapping between XML- and
   JSON-encoded instances is defined.

Objections, comments, other issues?

Thanks, Lada

-- 
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 10:46:44 -0800

>    with namespace identifiers SHOULD NOT be used.

This is  more appropriate usage of RFC 2119 terms.

> Objections, comments, other issues?

This is fine.  I do not think this draft should be coupled to YANG 1.1 anydata.
The YANG 1.0 anyxml definition cannot really be constrained.

> Thanks, Lada

Andy

> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

---

From: Ladislav Lhotka <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 11:14:10 +0100

> On 29 Jan 2015, at 19:46, Andy Bierman <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Agreed. Lada