Subject: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-05 (until 2015-10-05)

From: Kent Watsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 20:17:02 +0000

This is a notice to start a NETMOD WG last call for the document "JSON
Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG":

	https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-05

Please indicate your support by Monday October 5, 2015 at 9PM EDT.
We are not only interested in receiving defect reports, we are equally
interested in statements of the form:

  "I have reviewed I-D XYZ and I found no issues"
  "I have implemented the data model in I-D XYZ"
  "I am implementing the data model in I-D XYZ"
  "I am considering to implement the data model in I-D XYZ"

This is the second Last Call for this document.

Thanks,
Kent

---

From: Ladislav Lhotka <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 09:24:34 +0200

Hi,

> On 21 Sep 2015, at 22:17, Kent Watsen <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
>  "I am considering to implement the data model in I-D XYZ”

I believe the last three item should be about implementing the encoding rather than “the data model”.

FWIW, in pyang I implemented schema-driven 1-1 conversions between XML and JSON encodings, and vice versa.

Thanks, Lada

> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C

---

From: Kent Watsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 15:03:36 +0000

On 9/23/15, 3:24 AM, "Ladislav Lhotka" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>  "I am considering to implement the data model in I-D XYZ²
>
>I believe the last three item should be about implementing the encoding
>rather than ³the data model².

True, this text was just copied/pasted from the previos LC on this draft,
which then was copied/pasted from another LC.  Making these options
specific to this draft:

  "I have reviewed draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-05 and I found no issues"
  "I have implemented the encoding defined in
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-05"
  "I am implementing the encoding defined draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-05"
  "I am considering to implement the encoding defined in
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-05²

Of course, these are merely suggestions, folks can provide comments in any
form that suits them.

Thanks,
Kent

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 13:52:21 +0200 (CEST)

Hi,

> 	https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-05

I have reviewed this document, and I only have some minor comments.
Once this document is published, we will update our existing JSON
implementation to match this document (it *almost* matches it
today...)

o  Section 1

   The text mentions the JSON media type "application/yang.data+json".

   Where is this media type defined?  I think it should be defined in
   this document (add an IANA Considerations section).

   (Also the string "application/yang+json is missing the ending ")

o  Section 5.5

   Remove the sentence "Anydata data node is a new feature in YANG
   1.1.".

o  Section 5.5

   OLD: "event-class: "fault",
   NEW: "event-class": "fault",

o  Section 6.2

   OLD:    A "string" value represented 
   NEW:    A "string" value is represented 

o  Section 6.10

  With the union defined here, is this legal:

     "bar": "1"

  If it is not legal, it should be noted.

  If it is legal, it should be noted that this is more expressive than
  the XML encoding.

/martin

---

From: Ladislav Lhotka <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 14:45:13 +0200

Hi Martin,

thanks for the review.

>    this document (add an IANA Considerations section).

application/yang.data is defined in draft-ietf-netconf-restconf, and
"+json" is the structured syntax suffix as defined in RFC 6839. Any
problem with it?

>    (Also the string "application/yang+json is missing the ending ")

Fixed.

>    Remove the sentence "Anydata data node is a new feature in YANG

OK.

>    NEW: "event-class": "fault",

Fixed.

>    NEW:    A "string" value is represented 

Fixed.

>   With the union defined here, is this legal:

Yes, it is legal, and it means it will be interpreted as string.

>   If it is legal, it should be noted that this is more expressive than

OK.

Lada

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 14:50:10 +0200 (CEST)

> "+json" is the structured syntax suffix as defined in RFC 6839. Any

Ah, ok, sorry I was confused.  This is fine!

/martin