Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks Martin,
>
> so you are saying that
>
> int8 { range "1..10"; }
>
> is indeed different from
>
> uint8 { range "1..10"; }
>
> and
>
> int32 { range "1..10"; }
Yes.
> The use of the word "syntax" in the text you quote may be a left-over
> from SMIv2 times
[That's what I thought as well, but I couldn't find it in the SMIv2
RFCs. Perhaps it was from some sming text?]
> , it does not really seem to be aligned with how the
> term 'syntax' is used elsewhere in RFC 7950. Anyway, if the agreement
> back then was that you can't change base types (regardless of type
> restrictions), it would have been nice if the text would say this more
> clearly.
Agreed.
/martin
>
> /js
>
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 10:49:38AM +0100, Martin Björklund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Section 11 of RFC 7950 says:
> >
> > o A "type" statement may be replaced with another "type" statement
> > that does not change the syntax or semantics of the type. For
> > example, an inline type definition may be replaced with a typedef,
> > but an int8 type cannot be replaced by an int16, since the syntax
> > would change.
> >
> > If we're just considering XML, then the syntax or encoding wouldn't
> > change if we went from
> >
> > type int64 { range "2..4"; }
> >
> > to
> >
> > type string { pattern "2|3|4"; }
> >
> > or
> >
> > type enumeration {
> > enum 2;
> > enum 3;
> > enum 4;
> > }
> >
> > or
> >
> > type union {
> > type uint8 { range "2"; }
> > type string { pattern "3"; }
> > type enumeration { enum 4; }
> > }
> >
> >
> > But I don't think this is reasonable, and not the intention. I think
> > that changing the base built-in type always should be considered
> > non-backwards compatible (which the quoted text above seems to imply).
> >
> >
> > /martin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 10:32:34PM +0100, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On 2021-02-19, at 19:18, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I think the CBOR encoding picks different tags depending on the
> > > > > signedness of the base type and this is why things are not that simple
> > > > > anymore.
> > > >
> > > > (This is not the CBOR encoding, but the COMI encoding of keys in URIs.)
> > >
> > > OK. The CBOR document indeed says:
> > >
> > > 6.1. The unsigned integer Types
> > >
> > > Leafs of type uint8, uint16, uint32 and uint64 MUST be encoded using
> > > a CBOR unsigned integer data item (major type 0).
> > >
> > > 6.2. The integer Types
> > >
> > > Leafs of type int8, int16, int32 and int64 MUST be encoded using
> > > either CBOR unsigned integer (major type 0) or CBOR negative integer
> > > (major type 1), depending on the actual value.
> > >
> > > This means the type 'int8 { range 0..10; }' leads to the same
> > > encodings as the type 'uint8 { range 0..10; }'.
> > >
> > > > > For the XML and JSON encodings, all definitions lead to the
> > > > > same on-the-wire representation, hence the difference is more an
> > > > > implementation detail. I have no clue what the gnmi people do. The
> > > > > more diverse encodings we add, the more complex things get.
> > > >
> > > > Well, if the equivalence expectation that I was trying to describe
> > > > actually is ingrained, then whoever designs an encoding (COMI for its
> > > > URI encoding included) needs to respect it. That would be important to
> > > > know.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Exactly. I think we never defined this. And of course, this can get
> > > even more fun if you consider string based encodings. The type
> > >
> > > type string { pattern "1|2|3|4"; }
> > >
> > > yields the same _XML encoded_ value space as
> > >
> > > type int32 { range "1..4"; }
> > >
> > > but as far as I recall the JSON/CBOR encodings will treat these two
> > > differently. So yes, ideally the YANG language would have clear rules
> > > what YANG's type equivalences are.
> > >
> > > /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
>
> --
> 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
