On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 07:34:23AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Andy Bierman <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 6:16 AM, Robert Varga <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > I am not favor of it, either, but RFC6020 is here and is being widely > > > deployed. So is RESTCONF+JSON, which is favored by application developers > > > in the field today, as is NETCONF devices producing anyxml. We do need a > > > reasonable way of bridging the two -- no matter whether it is > > > configuration > > > or operational data. > > > > > > > > > > I do not agree that the use of anyxml as arbitrary XML is deployed at all. > > I do not agree that all the "extra XML bits" that are causing so much > > concern > > are ever saved in a datastore. Martin says we need anyxml for RPC input > > and output. Maybe. This seems proprietary, since no NETCONF/RESTCONF > > operation depends on anything except elements and attributes. > > Specifically, we need anyxml for ietf-netconf, since NETCONF is > supposedly data modeling language agnostic. > > One option could be to deprecte anyxml (or remove it) in YANG 1.1, and > if we ever do a new version of NETCONF, we use anydata instead. >
We are effectively deprecating anyxml in YANG 1.1. We have reached agreement on Y34-05 and I do not see any new arguments popping up. The JSON encoding document has to specify the encoding of an effectively deprecated construct that was designed to encode any XML. /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
