On 10/11/18 11:43 AM, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
+1. This is one of the two necessary changes to make the
instance-identifier type canonical. Proposed changes RFC 7950:
OLD:
9.13.2. Lexical Representation
An instance-identifier value is lexically represented as a string.
All node names in an instance-identifier value MUST be qualified with
explicit namespace prefixes, and these prefixes MUST be declared in
the XML namespace scope in the instance-identifier's XML element.
Any prefixes used in the encoding are local to each instance
encoding. This means that the same instance-identifier may be
encoded differently by different implementations.
9.13.3. Canonical Form
Since the lexical form depends on the XML context in which the value
occurs, this type does not have a canonical form.
NEW:
9.13.2. Lexical Representation
An instance-identifier value is lexically represented as a string.
All node names in an instance-identifier value MUST be qualified with
explicit namespace prefixes where the module name is used as prefix.
All predicates must appear in alphabetical order.
9.13.3. Canonical Form
Since the lexical form is encoding independent and tere is prescribed
alphabetical order of the predicates the type has a canonical form.
The order of the keys does not need to be alphabetical. It can be the
order of the keys specified in the YANG module but currently there is no
requirement for order at all.
Vladimir
Vladimir
/martin
Hmm, so you mean change the leaf "stream-xpath-filter" to say:
o The set of namespace declarations has one member
for each
YANG module supported by the server. This member
maps
from the YANG module name to the YANG module
namespace.
This means that in the XPath expression, the
module name
serves as the prefix.
.... and then also give an example of this.
This is probably what we need to do in all places where
yang:xpath1.0
is used, going forward. Maybe even define a new type
yang:xpath1.0-2 (name?) with the set of namespace declarations
built-in.
We should avoid making off-the-shelf implementations of standards like
XPath unusable.
At the very least this should be only available if the server
supports it
(with a capability URI)
<RR> So we need an update to RFC7951?
Regards,
Reshad.
Andy
/martin
>
> Lada
>
> >
> > How is this supposed to work with JSON?
> >
> >
> > /martin
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > netmod mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>
> --
> Ladislav Lhotka
> Head, CZ.NIC Labs
> PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
