> Andy Bierman <[email protected]> wrote: >> I am not in favor of the YANG-CBOR draft defining special encodings for >> 1 derived type (like date-and-time). Implementations may not store the >> named YANG typedefs defined in various YANG modules. >> The current draft (properly) addresses only the base types, not derived >> types. > > So, do you think that auxiliary drafts could/should be written to deal with > special > encoding of derived times?
Well, first of all we need an architecture that explains how to do this. (Who needs to know what to make this happen.) Then we need a set of YANG-defined data types (which may or may not be congruent with a chosen set of CBOR tags such as 0, 1, 52, 54, etc.) that map to CBOR. The architecture will need to define whether the mapping can be schema-free or needs to be schema-informed (let me guess we’ll come up with the latter), which can be decided separately for the encoder/packer and the decoder/unpacker (which may be unpacking only at the architecture, but not at the implementation level). Whether this set is easily extensible, or only via a massive version up-ratchet, the architecture will need to define. Grüße, Carsten _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
