Re: [Netconf] Opinion poll on RESTCONF encoding

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <
mjethanandani@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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:
>
>
>    1. 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.
>    2. 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.
>
>
This really isn't subject to the opinion of the WG.
HTTP uses the Accept header.
The only issue for RESTCONF is what does the server do if
there is no Accept header from the client?
Currently I think the draft says the server will send XML by default.
It needs to change to be silent and let the server send whatever it wants.

Even if (2) was done the server still MUST support the Accept header.

> Mahesh & Mehmet
>
>
>
Andy

>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>
>