Re: [core] YANG to CBOR mapping

[Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]>]

> On 19 Nov 2015, at 16:27, Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 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.

I agree, it isn't probably necessary to couple the CBOR mapping with JSON as defined in the yang-json draft. Some of the I-JSON restrictions are an ugly compromise, really, and you'd better avoid them. I believe a mapping between CBOR, JSON and XML encodings will be possible anyway.

Lada

> 
> 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/>

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