On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 09:31:58AM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> writes: > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:46:10AM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> this revision introduces no changes to the encoding rules. The text was > >> modified, and hopefully improved, in quite a few places, mainly due to > >> Juergen’s review of -04, thanks Juergen. > >> > > > > Lada, a suggestion and a question concerning anydata. The text > > currently says: > > > > Anydata data node is a new feature in YANG 1.1. It serves as a > > container for an unknown set of nodes that however appear as normal > > YANG-modeled data. A data model for anydata content may or may not > > exist at run time. In the latter case, no universal mapping between > > JSON- and XML-encoded instances is available. > > > > The suggestion is to rewrite the text to be more inline with the YANG > > 1.1 definition of anydata (and I do not think it matters to highlight > > that anydata is a YANG 1.1 thing, the document also mentions actions > > without saying this is a YANG 1.1 feature). > > > > An anydata data node can contain an unknown set of nodes that > > can be modelled by YANG. A data model for anydata content may or may not > > exist at run time. In the latter case, no universal mapping between > > JSON- and XML-encoded instances is available. > > > > My question is why the text is silent about the case where the data > > model is present. Should it not say that if the data model is present, > > the data encoded inside the anydata node must follow the rules of this > > document? Perhaps this is the implicit assumption but I think it will > > be useful to say this explicitly (if we agree on this). > > If we do agree on this, then IMO 6020bis is the right place to state it > because this rule should hold for any encoding.
Perhaps 6020bis should state this but for the sake of completeness I think it is desirable that encoding specifications are clear about this as well. > > If the data model is not present, then I think an implementation is > > still expected to produce an encoding that follows the rules of this > > document as much as possible except that things that requires data > > I tried to specify these rules in the four bullets in sec. 5.5. Do you > think something else is needed? I think the text in 5.5 allows more than the rest of the YANG encoding in JSON specification. I think content should carry modules names etc. and not just be I-JSON with some additional rules. For example, the bullets do not require me to encode module names. I think this is not good. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
