[art] Re: Alternative representation of URIs in YANG

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

The other Martin here...

On Wed, Dec 3, 2025, at 06:29, Kent Watsen wrote:
> The document previously used the "ietf-inet:uri" typedef from RFC 6991 
> (previously RFC 6021).  The WG complained that the unstructured format 
> did not good exhibit YANG-fu (best practice), making it hard to 
> apply/validate defaults and constraints on individual fields.  From a 
> YANG-outlook perspective, the "ietf-inet:uri" typedef is likely to be 
> rarely used.

URIs are more complicated than your decomposed structure allows for.  That's the problem.  If you are going to represent a URI, it really has to be a string.

If the goal is to only represent an HTTP URI (or an HTTPS URI, ideally), then you can use the structure you describe, but you would name it accordingly.  You might also find that you don't need fragment in this context, because HTTP doesn't carry fragments.