Given where we are, I also agree that A is the better choice.
I would also like to have a context-independent encoding of all YANG
types in the future.
Thanks,
Rob
On 18/10/2018 11:30, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Hi,
Going back to the most urgent issue, what is this WG's recommendation
for the subscribed-notifications draft in NETCONF wrt/ their usage of
yang:xpath1.0 in filters?
To summarize:
We already have
o instance-identifier in XML uses prefixes from the XML document
o instance-identifier in JSON uses module names as prefixes
o XPath in NETCONF filter uses prefixes from the XML document
o XPath in JSON query filter uses module names as prefixes
Alternative A:
--------------
Use different encodings for "stream-xpath-filter" as well, depending
on if it is XML or JSON.
We would do in SN:
o If the node is encoded in XML, the set of namespace
declarations are those in scope on the
'stream-xpath-filter' leaf element.
o If the node is encoded in JSON, the set of namespace
declarations is the set of prefix and namespace pairs
for all supported YANG modules, where the prefix is
the YANG module name and the namespace is as defined
by the "namespace" statement in the YANG module.
Pro: the format is consistent within each encoding.
Con: unclear how to handle other encodings.
Con: we keep using context-depending encodings.
We could probably add that CBOR uses the same representation as JSON.
Example in XML:
<stream-xpath-filter
xmlns:if="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-interfaces"
xmlns:ip="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ip">
/if:interfaces/if:interface/ip:ipv4
</stream-xpath-filter>
Example in JSON:
"stream-xpath-filter":
"/ietf-interfaces:interfaces/ietf-interfaces:interface/ietf-ip:ipv4"
Alternative B:
--------------
Use a non-context depending encoding, with the module name as prefix.
We would do in SN:
o The set of namespace
declarations is the set of prefix and namespace pairs
for all supported YANG modules, where the prefix is
the YANG module name and the namespace is as defined
by the "namespace" statement in the YANG module.
Pro: the format is independent from the protocol encoding
Con: in XML, this leaf is treated differently from other XPath
expressions, such as get-config filter and nacm rules.
Example in XML:
<stream-xpath-filter>
/ietf-interfaces:interfaces/ietf-interfaces:interface/ietf-ip:ipv4
</stream-xpath-filter>
Example in JSON:
"stream-xpath-filter":
"/ietf-interfaces:interfaces/ietf-interfaces:interface/ietf-ip:ipv4"
My proposal is A. I think it is more important with consistency
within each encoding than across encodings.
(This said, I would like to have a context-independent encoding of all
YANG types in the future. But not now.)
/martin
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
.
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
