On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 10:19:06AM +0800, Christopher Morrow wrote: > On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 9:55 AM Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 09:38:03AM +0800, Christopher Morrow wrote: > > > I'd say: "Sure, make a protobuf definition, provide a common toolset > > > to parse to/from this, evangelize that to the networks you care to > > > interconnect with" > > > seems great to me. > > > > Protobufs is a weak schema language. Stick to yang. > > > > Protobufs is a fine transport for yang. :-) > > ha! ok, so my format selection is influenced by my job's choice for > format selection. > Point really being: 'pick some common format, document and tool around > it, then evangelize" > (I think we agree on this general re-wording / goal)
Excellent. And although it is indeed a gentle pick at your employer's format, yang has some nice properties here that protobufs doesn't quite have. In particular, it's possible to express restrictions on content for validation purposes that help with code. E.g. a string representation of a RFC 1997 community can be restricted by regex to be correct for encoding on the wire and validated at the far end. Raw protobufs the best you get is something in the description. In fairness to the protobufs standards, I don't follow the and perhaps they've evolved to capture this case. -- Jeff _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
