Dear all,
Thank you for spotting this issue and discussing a possible solution. I
finally managed to dedicate enough time to try to properly understand it.
If my understanding is correct, the problem we are discussing is that in
some rare cases the proposed encoding of 'bits' might be really
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 10:48:06AM -0700, Jim Schaad wrote:
> Does yang consider that there is a difference between a bit being
> present and zero and a bit being absent?
In YANG every bit in the bit set is either 0 or 1. The xml / json
encodings send the position of the 1 bits (actually the
ue 1 in
the corresponding position and octet.
Andy
*From:* core *On Behalf Of *Andy Bierman
> *Sent:* Friday, May 8, 2020 8:58 AM
> *To:* Carsten Bormann
> *Cc:* c...@ietf.org; netmod@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [core] [netmod] CBOR YANG encoding of union & bits
> [draft-ietf-core
& bits
[draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor-12]
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 8:51 AM Andy Bierman mailto:a...@yumaworks.com> > wrote:
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 11:22 PM Carsten Bormann mailto:c...@tzi.org> > wrote:
On 2020-05-08, at 05:27, Andy Bierman mailto:a...@yumaworks.com>
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 8:51 AM Andy Bierman wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 11:22 PM Carsten Bormann wrote:
>
>> On 2020-05-08, at 05:27, Andy Bierman wrote:
>> >
>> > Why is the bit position allowed to be a uint32 in YANG? Who knows, but
>> it has to be supported.
>>
>> If we think that
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 11:22 PM Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On 2020-05-08, at 05:27, Andy Bierman wrote:
> >
> > Why is the bit position allowed to be a uint32 in YANG? Who knows, but
> it has to be supported.
>
> If we think that is the way to go, I like Kio’s proposal over in the CBOR
> list:
>
On 2020-05-08, at 05:27, Andy Bierman wrote:
>
> Why is the bit position allowed to be a uint32 in YANG? Who knows, but it has
> to be supported.
If we think that is the way to go, I like Kio’s proposal over in the CBOR list:
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 10:22 AM Michael Richardson
wrote:
>
> Carsten Bormann wrote:
> >> Or, if it is supported by the language then is it reasonable that
> >> implementation SHOULD support it? In which case I think that we
> might
> >> need a second encoding of bits that supports
Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> Or, if it is supported by the language then is it reasonable that
>> implementation SHOULD support it? In which case I think that we might
>> need a second encoding of bits that supports this pathological case.
>> Perhaps an array of 'set' bit
