On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 11:47:37PM +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote: > On 2020-04-07, at 15:35, Ivaylo Petrov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > - If this work gets approved, will other specifications like > > draft-ietf-netmod-yang-data-ext-05.txt be expected to cover CBOR > > encoding in addition to XML and JSON? This is more a procedural > > question. > > > > [IP]: From our discussions, I could say that that is desirable, but not > > something these drafts can enforce. (Also, for drafts that already are > > well-advanced, one would expect a companion draft on a later timeline > > instead of the original text-based (JSON/XML) draft.) > > Right. Are we creating any special hardship for > draft-ietf-netmod-yang-data-ext? >
This is a procedural question (i.e., nothing the ID will regulate) and ideally the WGs involved come to some common understanding how we handle things in the future. One option is that NETMOD agrees to take care of CBOR as a third encoding in the future like it does take care of XML and JSON today. What I like to avoid is that YANG evolves and the various encodings start to work with different subsets of YANG. /js -- 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] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
