Re: [Cbor] CBOR-YANG representation of common types

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Maria Matejka <maria.matejka=[e-mail]> wrote:
    > we're currently trying to embrace the CBOR described by YANG in BIRD
    > interface and we're struggling with the representation of certain types like
    > date, time, IP address or prefix. We would assume that if there is RFC 9164
    > or RFC 8943, we shall then encode dates or IP addresses in these defined
    > formats in CBOR and they shall get converted between CBOR and JSON/XML
    > appropriately. But I can't find any RFC on this, nor any implementation of
    > CBOR-JSON convertor.

Hi.

My understanding is that we one way is that we need to do a new YANG type in
order to adopt RFC9164 (IP addresses), or using CBOR Time tags (vs string
containing RFC3339).  This is entirely doable, but does result in some kind
of incompatibility at the YANG level.

The other way is that we have to immediately do an Update to RFC9254.

    > Thus, these questions arise:

    > * Is there any discussion on this topic, regarding interoperability
    > between CBOR and JSON/XML?

The ANIMA draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher / draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis
work was actually surprised as some of us assumed that the YANG date/time
would naturally be CBOR Tag 1... but that was actually wrong and
non-interoperable.  But it would be better.

    > * Is there any RFC on draft on this? If not, we're probably gonna
    > create one. We need it
    > * Is there any implementation of YANG-ed converter between CBOR and
    > JSON? If not, we're probably gonna create one. We need it.

not that I know.
Happy to work with you to make this happen, though.


--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-                      *I*LIKE*TRAINS*