[Netconf] Opinion poll on RESTCONF encoding

Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com> Thu, 27 August 2015 00:02 UTC

Return-Path: <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 307F51B3677 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:02:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 0nktzJKzaqUu for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:02:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x230.google.com (mail-pa0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC4BF1B36D8 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:02:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pacti10 with SMTP id ti10so3956068pac.0 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:02:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:subject:message-id:date:to:mime-version; bh=du89sBABwJ4fRi/QnjXlR89zQZVI6kfE0h56HM58p3M=; b=F3J9jnZRVUAiPoS6v544xY0sgj/9nYda2YqQjDWCSmbBUSAogz5MixbB0dJARioe63 bEYgHXxFk45MF+4zgMSDUnX+9CdvHm9oLADzHX22Pi5foMaq1GiPgmKQDOrtRzaDFvst R33Ua5rOAZq0BqUlKTuZJGhYwCCR2WxH+3ZGIsy71dPhkxErS8Ba6XT3imelMAmCrkWe I+nHmW09ExiQaAr61VITwVU7Mb8/b+LTLs2gPAcskkYAMvVKXrWgmqM8Stc5Pmzgf32/ tdPqk+GJdc1LajEoipCaaUQ5FbiQtVIBnXrmUkj2rTgBput3lp7t7+Ark5YlVyzmg23j VKvQ==
X-Received: by 10.66.164.130 with SMTP id yq2mr2017711pab.67.1440633759468; Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:02:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dmp-sjc23-3.cisco.com (dmp-sjc23-3.cisco.com. [128.107.157.235]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id xv1sm215081pbb.25.2015.08.26.17.02.38 for <netconf@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:02:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B3144C3E-FB45-4D94-AD2D-59170861C102"
Message-Id: <1232641A-BE91-4AAD-962D-779E4D85403A@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 17:03:57 -0700
To: Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/bQtT9uON1rE284qE0cSKS55TVsg>
Subject: [Netconf] Opinion poll on RESTCONF encoding
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing 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: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 00:02:42 -0000

A little more than two weeks ago, the chairs of NETCONF WG had issued a opinion poll on RESCONF encoding. The options given were:

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.

The option x+j won by a large margin and at this time can be declared as the rough consensus by the WG.

Separately, a secondary question was raised around how the encoding could be or would be discovered. On that we do not seem to have a consensus. Two proposals that were made are:

Client sends all supported encodings in Accept request-header, with an (optional) preference indication via quality (q). Server responds with one of the encodings or 406 (not supported). The encoding formats would be limited to a small set - XML and JSON with this option to encourage interoperability.
Server advertises support of encodings using the ./well-known/host-meta file and XRD.

Please indicate your opinion on the discovery of encoding part of the discussion. This opinion will not change the consensus on the poll of RESTCONF encoding.

Mahesh & Mehmet