Re: [core] YANG to CBOR mapping

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

Hi Michel,

I'm not Peter, but:

{ "hat": "chair", "message": "
We get to do COMI in CoRE (we hope -- the charter is still in process)
because we have promised to work closely with the relevant network
management groups.  This means we'll need good reasons to deviate from
what NETMOD etc. already have agreed to do.
"}

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.

(If I were designing this from scratch, I would ask myself whether we
shouldn't stay closer to the schemaless roots of JSON, e.g. by exposing
the exponent in the representation data and not just in the YANG schema.
 But that is a discussion that maybe should be had in NETMOD, if at all.)

I think the specific observation about decimal64 is that it is based on
signed integers as the mantissae, so we need to allow negative numbers
in CBOR as well as unsigned ones.

To contrast this to a place where we may want to deviate, doing "bits"
as an (unsigned) integer sounds right (at least until we need more than
64 of them in one "bits" item).  This runs into the same numbering
issues we have with the intra-module names, though.

Grüße, Carsten

PS.: Typo:
   Leafs of type binary MUST be encoded using a CBOR byte string data
   item (major type 0).
(CBOR byte strings are major type 2.)