Re: [Netconf] Opinion poll for the RESTCONF encoding

Hi,

I did not say the CORE WG is going to standardize RESTCONF over CoAP.
Their charter is being reviewed now. My preference is to keep CoMI as
lightweight as possible.

A RESTCONF-over-CoAP server would be non-standard.
IMO it is not unreasonable to expect the server to support JSON
to work with RESTCONF clients, to claim RESTCONF conformance.

If there was a standard mapping of RESTCONF to CoAP,
then the server would claim conformance to that RFC, not RESTCONF.

Andy

On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 4:17 AM, Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> wrote:

>
> On 13/08/2015 20:03, Kent Watsen wrote:
>
>
> I almost voted "nm" before for this reason and, with the recent info about
> 406 including supported encodings, I'm now even more open to the idea...
>
> I guess that I'm not convinced that either XML or JSON will necessarily
> end up as the prevalent encoding longer term, I think that one of the more
> efficient binary encodings will eventually win out.
>
> But if RESTCONF mandates XML or JSON now then it seems fairly unlikely
> that this requirement will be dropped any time in the near future because
> nobody likes to break backwards compatibility.
>
>
> My only reservation is that I'm torn if interoperability is better
> achieved by mandate or market forces.
>
> Yes, I can emphasise with that view.
>
>  If it is outrageously onerous, the CoMI folks can always define
> "COMICONF" that is a one-line diff to RESTCONF  ;)
>
> At the end of the day, I'm also OK with x+j, but felt that nm was slightly
> better.
>
> I guess that what I have proposed really sits between x+j and nm, given
> that it is weaker than x+j but stronger than nm (i.e. RECOMMENDED rather
> than OPTIONAL).
>
> Thanks,
> Rob
>
>
>
> Kent
>
> From: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
> Date: Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 5:31 AM
> To: " <netconf@ietf.org>netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Netconf] Opinion poll for the RESTCONF encoding
>
> I seem to be swimming against the tide, but my vote is for nm.
>
> More precisely, I would write "A server SHOULD support either XML or JSON
> encoding.  For maximum interoperability it is RECOMMENDED that both client
> and servers support both XML and JSON".
>
> Justification: Don't cause a server to be non compliant with RESTCONF if
> they have a specific reason for requiring a different encoding.
>
> As for the client/server compatibility issue - I think that market forces
> will mean that this isn't an issue in practice.
>
> Thanks,
> Rob
>
>
> On 06/08/2015 21:18, Ersue, Mehmet (Nokia - DE/Munich) wrote:
>
> Dear NETCONF WG,
>
> last October we had an opinion poll on the RESTCONF encoding, which ended
> with a close consensus in favor of XML as mandatory.
> See
> *https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/YSEbLd-nnI0dlkeiIeGW-z6JqDg*
> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/YSEbLd-nnI0dlkeiIeGW-z6JqDg>
> Based on the recent discussion on this topic and opinions against
> mandatory statements in RESTCONF, NETCONF WG co-chairs would like to start
> a new opinion poll.
>
> As stated in the mail for the previous poll, the result of the poll
> depends on the count of people voting.
> So, all interested NETCONF WG members, please speak up so that we get a
> better data to judge on WG (rough) consensus.
> If the voting result is again close, the WG co-chairs will (again) declare
> consensus in the sake of progress, based on the “dominant view” determined
> by the co-chairs and AD.
>
> Please do state your opinion with short and concrete reasoning, by August
> 19, 2015 18:00 PST about the following options:
>
> x) XML is mandatory, JSON optional,
> j) JSON is mandatory, XML optional,
> x&j) XML and JSON are both mandatory,
> x+j) Either XML or JSON is mandatory the other one is optional,
> nm) Both XML and JSON are optional and _*not*_ mandatory.
>
> For “x+j” and “nm” please provide a solution for a successful negotiation
> or determination of the encoding to be used between server and client.
> For the solution discussion a separate thread will be started and can be
> finalized also after the poll deadline.
>
> You may think that one or the other option is useless from your pov. In
> this case please ignore it.
>
> Looking forward to counting your votes and reading your reasoning.
> Thank you.
>
> Best Regards,
> Mehmet & Mahesh
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing listNetconf@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>
>