Re: [core] YANG to CBOR mapping

[Michel Veillette <[e-mail]>]

Hi Peter

=== About the octet string

I agree that the use of byte string for the hash is slightly disturbing since all the previous works have been done with integers.
The rational is to use a different CBOR type for the three type of naming (string, octet string, integer).
A collateral advantage of using the octet string is that you can now uses the diagnostic notation with hexadecimal digits (e.g h'334c67d9') which is supported by [RFC7049] and tools like http://cbor.me/ .

=== About list instance

On the identification side of list instance, I thinks this is fully documented in section (https://core-wg.github.io/yang-cbor/draft-veillette-core-yang-cbor-mapping-latest.html#rfc.section.5.13) and the third example in this section address specifically this topic.

On the encoding side, we mention list instances in section (https://core-wg.github.io/yang-cbor/draft-veillette-core-yang-cbor-mapping-latest.html#rfc.section.4.2) 
"Collections such as containers, list instances, notifications, RPC inputs, RPC outputs, action inputs and action outputs MUST be encoded using a CBOR map data item (major type 5)."
However, we don't have a specific example.
This is the case also for notifications, RPC inputs, RPC outputs, action inputs and action outputs.
However, we have these examples in CoOL and in CoMI.

Is it sufficient?

Regards,
Michel

-----Original Message-----
From: peter van der Stok [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: March-10-16 4:07 AM
To: Core <[e-mail]>; Michel Veillette <[e-mail]>
Subject: YANG to CBOR mapping


Hi Michel,

I read through the provisional draft; and have a few high level remarks

It is nice to see that you follow the same structure as in netmod-yang-json.

The mapping from YANG name to string, I understand.
The mappings of the SID and the hash pose me problems.
The SID and and hash are both numbers, why not map them both to unsigned integer (major type 0)?
The server does not care how these numbers are produced, it only needs to map the number to the memory locations in the server.

I would also suggest that you add a section about mapping instances of lists.
When you want memory reduction, the sending of a single instance of a list instead of a whole list may result in the saving of tens of bytes if not much more.

Greetings,

peter