Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-08.txt> (JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG) to Proposed Standard

[tom p. <[e-mail]>]

<focussing on datastores>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ladislav Lhotka" <[e-mail]>
To: "tom p." <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 1:26 PM

Tom,

> On 25 Feb 2016, at 13:42, tom p. <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> In the interests of clarity
>
> - datastores are not mentioned.  These loom large in YANG and NETCONF
> and, I think, have been misunderstood by those wishing to extend YANG
in
> various, new directions.  Therefore I think that the I-D should say
> something, even if it is that the concept of datastore is alien to the
> envisaged uses of JSON (I could envisage a use where datastores do
> apply, but it is probably an unrealistic use:-)

I don't understand. This draft is about encoding a data tree in JSON
under the assumption that the data tree is valid with respect to a YANG
data model. How is this related to datastores? In particular, I don't
think the concept of datastores is alien to it in any way (proofs exist
to the contrary).

<tp>

It is the I-D that introduces datastores

"   The specification of YANG 1.1 data modelling language
   [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis] defines only XML encoding of data trees,
   i.e., contents of configuration datastores, state data, input/output
   parameters of RPC operations or actions, and event notifications.
   The aim of this document is to define rules for encoding the same
   data as JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) text [RFC7159]."

and goes on to give a definition of action and RPC operation but not of
configuration datastore, state data or event notification.  To me, that
looks odd.  The I-D tells me I could take rfc6020bis and replace every
XMP snippet with JSON text and for that, I think I need a knowledge of
datastores!  I suggest adding those three missing definitions to section
2, nothing more.

Tom Petch


<snip>