Hi, Jack Rickard <jack.rickard=40microsoft....@dmarc.ietf.org> writes:
> Hi, > > I think I've found an ambiguity in RFC 7951, and I'd like your input on what > was intended and what the best behaviour to exhibit is. > > Section 5.3 and 5.4 of RFC 7951 - JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG > (ietf.org)<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7951#section-5.3> > describe the encoding of leaf-lists and lists, however it's unclear how an > empty list should be encoded. Should it be encoded as: > > 1. An empty array: {"list": []} > 2. A missing field: {} Both variants are equivalent and should be supported by tools and libraries. I can understand though that tools supporting both XML and JSON representations tend to prefer #2 because #1 doesn't exist in XML. Also note that #1 isn't really of much use, as entire list and leaf-list instances aren't even resources/endpoints in RESTCONF API - e.g. it's not possible to GET the entire list. Lada > > I've seen libraries go either way, libyang only accepts 2 but the python > yangson library accepts both (I'm not sure which is the default). > > Thanks, > Jack Rickard > he/him > Software Engineer > jack.rick...@microsoft.com<mailto:jack.rick...@microsoft.com> > > [Microsoft Logo] > > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > netmod@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod -- Ladislav Lhotka Head, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
