Hi Stephen, thanks for your comments, please see my responses inline.
Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> writes: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > - I would have thought that it'd be useful to point out any > issues with round-tripping, e.g. going from XML to JSON and > back to XML or vice-versa. But I didn't see any mention of > that. How come? I believe fifth paragraph in sec. 3 is what you are asking for: With the exception of anyxml and schema-less anydata nodes, it is possible to map a JSON-encoded data tree to XML encoding as defined in [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis], and vice versa. However, such conversions require the YANG data model to be available. > > - I'm not sure if anyone has considered XMLDSIG or use of JOSE > with YANG. If one did, then this kind of mapping would not > allow one to preserve digital signatures without a lot of > work. I assume that that's considered ok. (Which it can be, > depending on how one does object level security, if one does > object level security.) I am not an expert on digital signatures and their representations, but I'd say they could be modelled as YANG's "binary" type (and transferred base64-encoded). This should work equally well in XML and JSON, including round trips. > > - It's not clear to me if the discussion of the secdir review > [1] concluded. It seemed to just stall. Is there more to be > said? (If so, be great if the shepherd would kick that > discussion.) I don't have much more to say without seeing alternative proposals. Lada > > [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06408.html > > -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
