> On 18 Nov 2015, at 09:36, Juergen Schoenwaelder > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 08:03:02AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> >> >> And yes, I think we are wasting time. Seeking interoperability where there >> is none is useless. I propose this change to sec. 5.6 of the yang-json >> document: >> >> OLD >> An anyxml instance is encoded as a JSON name/value pair which MUST >> satisfy I-JSON constraints. Otherwise it is unrestricted, i.e., the >> value can be an object, array, number, string or one of the literals >> "true", "false" and "null". >> >> NEW >> An anyxml instance is encoded as a JSON name/value pair which MUST >> satisfy I-JSON constraints. The value can be an object, array, number, >> string or one of the literals "true", "false" and "null". >> >> This BTW also allows for strings containing XML. > > Lada, > > what is the purpose of the second sentence? I checked RFC 7159 and it > seems the proposed second sentence simply repeats the set of possible > JSON values listed in section 3 of RFC 7159. So why is this sentence > technically needed?
It's there to emphasize it can be any JSON value, because in one of the previous versions it was limited to an object. Maybe it's really not needed. Lada > > /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/> -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
