[core] Re: CoRE WG Virtual Interim 2026-02-11

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Feb 6, 2026 at 3:49 AM Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 2026-02-06, at 09:24, Esko Dijk <esko.dijk=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > I've proposed some open RFC 9595 / 9254 discussion for the agenda.
>
> Indeed.
> Most of the discussion currently happens on the [e-mail]
> list; if you are interested in CORECONF/COMI you probably want to be
> subscribed there at least right now:
>
> https://mailman3.ietf.org/mailman3/lists/yang-tooling.ietf.org/
>
> > Also happy to postpone that if we can't get at least 2 people in the
> call that know enough about YANG :)
>
> I know enough to be dangerous.
> Does that count? :-)
>
>
of course!

The thread is about choice/case nodes.
I think the result of the thread on yang-tooling is that the authors intent
is captured in the ietf-system
example, and not the statements about following RFC 7950.

At first, the idea of using YANG, but not for schema validation seemed
crazy.
But not if a constrained device was just using the CBOR data structures.
Then the extra choice/case nodes would break the parser.
The SID file has no indication of node type, so there is no way to skip
these nodes.
A YANG-aware sender (or SID generator) knows which nodes to skip.

So I am OK with clarifying the RFC, and getting the mainline pyang
up-to-date.
I think an Errata should be submitted and verified first.
I will change yangdump-pro to skip choice/case in SID items.


Grüße, Carsten
>
>
 Andy

_______________________________________________
> core mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>