Re: [Dots] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 08:30:51AM +0000, [e-mail] wrote:
> Re-,
> 
> Actually, there is no interoperability problem. 

The reference to both draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor and RFCs 7951+7049 presents
an attractive nuisance of an interoperability problem; to say that "both
approaches produce a valid encoding" without qualifier that an extra
consultation to tables 4 and 6 is grossly misleading.

> The implementers do only need to look at tables 4 and 6:

If that's what they have to do, you need to point them there, instead of
just the "normal" ways to go from YANG to CBOR.

-Ben

>    All parameters in the payload of the DOTS signal channel MUST be
>    mapped to CBOR types as shown in Table 4.
> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Alexey Melnikov [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Envoyé : jeudi 2 mai 2019 10:20
> > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN
> > Cc : Alissa Cooper; The IESG; [e-mail]; Liang
> > Xia; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Objet : Re: Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-dots-signal-channel-31:
> > (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On 2 May 2019, at 08:18, <[e-mail]>
> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > >> = Section 13.1 =
> > >>
> > >> I don't understand why RFC 7951 is a normative reference but
> > >> draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor is an informative reference.
> > >
> > > [Med] We used to have both as informative references, but unless I'm
> > mistaken 7951 was moved to normative so that at least one method is
> > supported.
> > 
> > As other IESG reviewers pointed out (better than my own description), having
> > 2 non identical ways to encode the same information is going to cause
> > interoperability problems. It also forces implementations to support both
> > encodings and it makes draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor Normative.
> > 
> > I would encourage the WG to pick one mechanism. If it ends up being draft-
> > ietf-core-yang-cbor, I am happy to progress it quick. (CORE WG is one of the
> > WGs I am responsible for)
> > 
> > Best Regards,
> > Alexey
>