On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 11:48:10AM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> I am certainly concerned. The current definition of "anydata" ("an
> unknown set of nodes that can be modelled with YANG") is IMO
> insufficient because, for one, it doesn't even eliminate mixed content
> in XML, which can be modelled with YANG's "anyxml" statement.
Good point. I think we should clarify that anyxml is excluded.
> In my view, the idea behind "anydata" was that it would be possible to
> build a regular data (sub)tree from schema-less data. However, this
> seems to be difficult, at least on a server supporting both XML and
> JSON, and so benefits of "anydata" over "anyxml" are really
> questionable.
I do not think anydata was driven by the idea to build a regular data
(sub)tree from schema-less data.
I think anydata works fine with both JSON and XML as long as the
encoder has the data model, which seems to be a reasonable assumption
for servers and perhaps also for data-model driven clients. The
problem are any generic components in between clients and servers but
that can also be seen as a problem of the encodings and not of
anydata itself.
/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
