Re: [core] removing names from yang-cbor rules

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

I'm happy to take credit for a keen observation such as this, but this was
actually Eric Vyncke.

-MSK

On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 1:53 PM Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> Hi, in Murray's review, he asks about why we have two ways to encode keys
> for
> YANG-CBOR.  This review comment is captured at:
>
> https://github.com/core-wg/yang-cbor/issues/54
>
>    A generic comment about the operational issue of supporting TWO ways to
>    encode a data node: either normal string or the SID. This means that
>    either there is a 2-way negotiation mechanism or that all CORE nodes
> must
>    support both encoding and have agreed on a common SID mappings. Section
> 7
>    only briefly touches this issue with "Content-Type" but not with
>    "Accept".
>
>    -- Section 4.2.1 & 4.4.1 --
>    BTW, I like the idea of encoding a container with sequential SID and
> the delta CBOR encoding ;-)
>
> I also wonder about this.
> I think that the SID concept is advanced enough that we can just rely upon
> it.  Murray's comment is that if we support two things, then an encoder
> needs
> to pick one, and it's likely wrong.  Since this is often data at rest,
> there
> is no possible negotiation either.
>
> I propose to remove section 4.1.2:
>
>
>   4.1.2.  Using names in keys
>      CBOR diagnostic notation:
>      {
>        "ietf-system:hostname" : "myhost.example.com"
>      }
>
>      CBOR encoding:
>      A1                                         # map(1)
>        74                                      # text(20)
>           696574662D73797374656D3A686F73746E616D65
>        72                                      # text(18)
>           6D79686F73742E6578616D706C652E636F6D
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>
>
>
>