On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 03:04:31PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > >>> Andy, please note that this is a discussion primarily around the JSON > >>> document and not around the YANG 1.1 document. > >> > >> Except that it might be useful to clarify in 6020bis whether "anyxml" > >> really means > >> > >> 1. specifically "any XML", or > >> > >> 2. schema-less data in any supported encoding. > >> > >> If it is #1, then arguably c/e are not acceptable options for the JSON > >> encoding. I prefer #2. > >> > > > > I believe the outcome of the discussion is that anyxml means any XML. > > I don't think there has been any clear consensus so far, I understand you and > Martin support b) while Andy and I voted for c/e). > > > There also was clear agreement to not change the definition of anyxml. > > OK, using the same logic, sections that talk about NETCONF and edit-config > (such as 7.9.6) don't apply to other protocols and their operations. If we > can agree on this as a general principle, i.e. not to do any extrapolations > of the 6020bis text, I am prepared to accept alternative b) for JSON ancoding > of anyxml, but I'd like to ask those who support it to propose a concrete > wording. >
To be clear: I made a statement about anyxml. Any generalization you are trying to derive from my statement is not covered by my statement. /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 netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
