Re: [netconf] YANG encoding in CBOR

"Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com> Fri, 22 March 2019 17:30 UTC

Return-Path: <rwilton@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BE3A131351; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 10:30:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AQH4D6Wphttm; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 10:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99180131350; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 10:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1832; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1553275812; x=1554485412; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=HUMyYHwwn7vEgR9EnhHmJD5dtpUju1yHshbww2VzeyM=; b=NsYVSkkJqBufihbkA1xcqHRH6e2n17Iu3knME3wi9EGxv/YAZtEayNbp ocA9spdDrxJXP+RBuhj+J2Tv6roCtiFtMyK/zUc0LudQJlg6Q+DeBWALZ +3pqXfL0zdf/5fD5np1RCuuoLxxyT53vixKkbGc7UC6DYTR5nSJRvsBbO s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ADAADKGpVc/51dJa1jGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBUQQBAQEBAQsBghCBaycKhASIHI0tmDiBew0BAYRsAhe?= =?us-ascii?q?EZSI0CQ0BAQMBAQkBAwJtKIVKAQEBBCMRRQwEAgEGAg4DBAEBAQICJgICAjA?= =?us-ascii?q?VCAgBAQQBDQUIhRCNZZtmgS+KL4ELJAGLMReBQD+BEYMSPoRLM4JQglcDjG2?= =?us-ascii?q?YIAkCky4hk3yLGJMkAhEVgS4fOIFWcBWDJ5BLQTGNY4EfAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,256,1549929600"; d="scan'208";a="248849769"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 22 Mar 2019 17:30:11 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-008.cisco.com (xch-rcd-008.cisco.com [173.37.102.18]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x2MHU6GQ021002 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 22 Mar 2019 17:30:10 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-007.cisco.com (173.37.102.17) by XCH-RCD-008.cisco.com (173.37.102.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 12:30:09 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-007.cisco.com ([173.37.102.17]) by XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com ([173.37.102.17]) with mapi id 15.00.1473.003; Fri, 22 Mar 2019 12:30:09 -0500
From: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, Michel Veillette <Michel.Veillette@trilliant.com>
CC: "core@ietf.org" <core@ietf.org>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netconf] YANG encoding in CBOR
Thread-Index: AdTf3q8hCOPNH5o0Q0SJZRQQHN87VgA3tcGQAA12kQAAB/hI0A==
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 17:30:09 +0000
Message-ID: <15fbaf84b20343a1b83f40b571149a14@XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com>
References: <6235c6683ff14848a661f8b8cec94280@XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com> <BL0PR06MB5042823429DB7CDA0F33408B9A430@BL0PR06MB5042.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <588401AB-483E-40F5-95BB-20A066E56DAC@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <588401AB-483E-40F5-95BB-20A066E56DAC@tzi.org>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.61.76.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.18, xch-rcd-008.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-6.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/5-wS68TQ1A_kC0n_tqwVdNeWgo4>
Subject: Re: [netconf] YANG encoding in CBOR
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 17:30:15 -0000

I guess that the concern is that this introduces more variation in how data is interpreted between the different XML/JSON/CBOR encodings.

E.g. if someone switched from XML to CBOR, suddenly the configuration or state data may have a different meaning.

Thanks,
Rob


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>;
> Sent: 22 March 2019 16:08
> To: Michel Veillette <Michel.Veillette@trilliant.com>;
> Cc: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>;; core@ietf.org;
> netconf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netconf] YANG encoding in CBOR
> 
> On Mar 22, 2019, at 16:45, Michel Veillette <Michel.Veillette@trilliant.com>;
> wrote:
> >
> > The only potential problem I aware is when multiple enumerations are part of
> the same union.
> > Value 4 from enumeration A will be encoded the same way as Value 4 from
> enumeration B.
> 
> … and that is not a problem for the XML version, because the string is being used
> instead of the value.  (But then if two enumerations share a string, you have the
> equivalent problem in the XML serialization.)
> 
> Anyway, I haven’t seen a piece of real-world YANG that actually has this
> problem, so I would be a bit reluctant to make CBOR-based implementations
> more complex (and less efficient) so solve this (non-?)problem.
> 
> Grüße, Carsten