Re: [core] YANG to CBOR mapping

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 03:54:57PM +0100, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> 
> So I think that Peter's reminder to stay close to
> draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json -- unless we do need to deviate -- is quite
> germane.
>

I do not understand what "stay close to draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json"
means. I think this requires an explanation.

To give you an example: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json is following
I-JSON rules and one of them says that I-JSON numbers are limited in
precision. As a consequence, 64-bit numbers are I-JSON encoded as
strings for I-JSON compliance. I think CBOR does not require this
since it does not have this particular restriction. So do we now
continue to do this even though CBOR does not suffer from I-JSON
limitations?

I think my preference would be a clean mapping YANG to CBOR and not a
mapping YANG to I-JSON to CBOR that carries I-JSON restrictions over
to CBOR. The simple reason is that the longer the transformation
chain, the more arcane rules you accumulate.

But then the CBOR spec has already JSON to CBOR translation rules so
YANG to I-JSON to CBOR is already defined somehow. Someone needs to
compile a list of cases where YANG to CBOR would be different from
YANG to JSON to CBOR before we can take an informed decision.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>