I also agree that we should reopen this issue to further discuss any language implications, and add it to the “Further Discuss” bucket.
I suggest that we just do this, unless someone objects. Thanks, Rob From: netmod <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Mahesh Jethanandani Sent: 29 March 2019 21:38 To: Andy Bierman <[email protected]> Cc: NetMod WG <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [netmod] yang next issue #46 binary encoding support Based on this discussion, I think we should reopen and change the title of this issue as “binary encoding in YANG support”, while I open a new issue in netconf-next for “support for binary encoding in NETCONF”. On Mar 29, 2019, at 11:57 AM, Andy Bierman <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 11:46 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 09:30:19AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 9:17 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder < > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 09:07:18AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 4:19 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder < > > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > this is issue is closed but I wonder whether this is correct. I have > > > > several questions looking at the issue on github: > > > > > > > > - Why is this not a YANG issue? > > > > - Which workaround is better? > > > > - Why is this tagged as a NETCONF issue? > > > > > > > > > > > Did you mean this should be NETCONF issue? > > > It is more of a protocol problem then a modeling problem. > > > The goal is to use the model unaltered. > > > > I think it would be valuable if say the definition of ipv4-address > > could state that a canonical binary representation is of type binary { > > length 4; }. Doing this is only meaningful for some types but it would > > allow to add more binary representations over time. > > > > > > If we want to support binary encodings, we need to allow modelers to > > > > define which types map to a canonical binary representation in > > > > addition to the canonical string representation. As stated in the > > > > issue description, hard-wiring some types in the encoding > > > > specifications is very limited. > > > > > > > > In terms of backwards compatibility, this issue should IMHO be tagged > > > > high (adding binary encoding for some types does not cause any > > > > backwards compatibility problem since so far we have only strings). > > > > > > > > > > > Not so sure. > > > The base64 encoding could look like a valid string. > > > The receiver must know a binary type is being sent (XML and JSON both > > fail > > > here, but not CBOR). > > > > I am talking about CBOR, not about XML or JSON. I want to provide > > hints to CBOR (or similar binary encodings) that values can be > > represented in a different format. I do not expect these hints to be > > used by XML or JSON. If you need binary encoding efficiency, use CBOR > > instead of JSON. > > > > > > While I do not have a solution proposal, I think this issue is worth > > > > to look at and we should not close it right now. > > > > > > > > > > > I have a solution proposal, but I have not implemented it yet, so it it > > not > > > detailed... > > > > > > Both sender and receiver need to agree on the binary encoding and how the > > > data is tagged as binary. > > > > > > This expired draft should address that problem: > > > https://tools.ietf..org/html/draft-mahesh-netconf-binary-encoding-01<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mahesh-netconf-binary-encoding-01> > > > > > > For every type T that they agree on, there are standard T.b2y() and > > T.y2b() > > > conversion functions. > > > There are also some extensions to define conversion templates so vendors > > > can add their own types. > > > > > > The YANG modules do not need to actually be altered. The peers will > > > negotiate the > > > set of types that will be sent as binary when the session starts. > > > The receiver knows T and the SID for each object, and will accept either > > > the YANG or binary encoding. > > > > Sounds complex for me to negotiate this. I rather say once that a > > binary encoding can ship an IPv6 address as type binary { length 16; } > > and then CBOR will simply do the right thing. > > > > > OK, but this would require new type names. > You cannot simply change some standard type to be a union with a binary > type. > > This forces all implementations of that type to support the binary variant. > That breaks old clients that worked with the version before the binary > variant. > > The ripple effect on the models changing types would be non-trivial. > Using this union-type approach forces every protocol to support the binary > encoding, > yet base64 in a union with strings is very error-prone. > I am not proposing do change the type definitions we have. My idea was to have an optional additional definition for binary encodings. Here is an ad-hoc example (I do not like the details of the syntax, but perhaps this helps to understand the idea): typedef ipv4-address { type string { pattern '(([0-9]|[1-9][0-9]|1[0-9][0-9]|2[0-4][0-9]|25[0-5])\.){3}' + '([0-9]|[1-9][0-9]|1[0-9][0-9]|2[0-4][0-9]|25[0-5])'; } description "The ipv4-address type represents an IPv4 address in dotted-quad notation."; binary-representation { type binary { length 4; } description "The binary representation uses as 4-byte binary string in network byte ordering."; } } The CBOR encoder (or other binary encoders) would then encode the value as a 4 byte binary value, the XML and JSON encoder would use the canonical string representation. If the binary-representation is not specified, then the generic CBOR encoding rules apply. I assume that additional binary representation definitions will only be needed for a couple of types (and I might even be fine to restrict that to typedefs). Anyway, details need work, but if we want to support more efficient binary encodings, then I think we should keep the issue #46 open. OK -- this is what I had in mind but off to the side, like a deviations module. If the client and server agree on the module containing the standard extension usages it will not be that complex in the protocol. ex:binary-representation ietf-inet-types:ipv4-address { ex:binary-length 4; ex:binary-pattern "b0.b1.b2.b3"; } I agree YANG 1.2 should have real statements instead of extensions. /js Andy -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
