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

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

On 5/2/19 1:54 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
>> 6) In 4.4.3:
>>
>>        {
>>         "ietf-dots-signal-channel:mitigation-scope": {
>>           "scope": [
>>             {
>>               "target-prefix": [
>>                  "2001:db8:6401::1/128",
>>                  "2001:db8:6401::2/128"
>>                ],
>>               "target-port-range": [
>>                 {
>>                   "lower-port": 80
>>                 },
>>                 {
>>                   "lower-port": 443
>>                 },
>>                 {
>>                    "lower-port": 8080
>>                 }
>>               ],
>>               "target-protocol": [
>>                  6
>>               ],
>>               "attack-status": "under-attack"
>>
>> This value is invalid, as you define this attribute as numeric on the next
>> page.
> [Med] The example is correct because the JSON encoding is as follows:
>
>     +----------------------+-------------+-----+---------------+--------+
>     | Parameter Name       | YANG        | CBOR| CBOR Major    | JSON   |
>     |                      | Type        | Key |    Type &     | Type   |
>     |                      |             |     | Information   |        |
>     +----------------------+-------------+-----+---------------+--------+
>     | attack-status        | enumeration |  29 | 0 unsigned    | String |
>

The example is incorrect because it is, as described at the end of 
section 4.4, the "JSON diagnostic notation" of CBOR, not JSON.

/a