IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [core] [Cbor] map (5), ordering vs YANG SID in ietf-core-yang-cbor

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 17 August 2017 14:02 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12A8A126BFD; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 07:02:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eBp0Y0F-250I; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 07:02:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A585213242C; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 07:02:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A22452009E; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 10:05:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82C0F806D2; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 10:02:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
cc: core WG <core@ietf.org>, cbor@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <7689DC42-6C05-462F-8466-C067B34232A9@tzi.org>
References: <13753.1502939016@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <7689DC42-6C05-462F-8466-C067B34232A9@tzi.org>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 10:02:51 -0400
Message-ID: <29994.1502978571@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/JkGHDMRQyo5kFl-1F68VQq2gCMY>
Subject: Re: [core] [Cbor] map (5), ordering vs YANG SID in ietf-core-yang-cbor
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 14:02:59 -0000

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
    cb> SID deltas in maps are parent-referenced (and not sibling-referenced)
    cb> for this reason.

Okay.  I don't think I understand the resulting structure then.

    cb> Do you see anything that makes you think they are sibling-referenced?

draft>    When no parent exists in
draft>    the context of use of this container, the delta is set to the SID
draft>    of the current schema node (i.e., a parent with SID equal to zero
draft>    is assumed).

This was the text that made me think the the "parent" was the previous entry
in the dictionary.  If we want to encode:

      20: fruit
      24: bats
      28: snow

that we would do this with:
      20: fruit
      +4: bats
      +4: snow

I re-read the example and it's clearer now, but I was reading the rules.

My appologies for the confusion.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email