Re: [netmod] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-09: (with COMMENT)

[Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stephen,

thanks for your comments, please see my responses inline.

Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]> writes:

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> - I would have thought that it'd be useful to point out any
> issues with round-tripping, e.g. going from XML to JSON and
> back to XML or vice-versa. But I didn't see any mention of
> that. How come?

I believe fifth paragraph in sec. 3 is what you are asking for:

   With the exception of anyxml and schema-less anydata nodes, it is
   possible to map a JSON-encoded data tree to XML encoding as defined
   in [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis], and vice versa.  However, such
   conversions require the YANG data model to be available.

>
> - I'm not sure if anyone has considered XMLDSIG or use of JOSE
> with YANG. If one did, then this kind of mapping would not
> allow one to preserve digital signatures without a lot of
> work. I assume that that's considered ok. (Which it can be,
> depending on how one does object level security, if one does
> object level security.)

I am not an expert on digital signatures and their representations, but
I'd say they could be modelled as YANG's "binary" type (and transferred
base64-encoded). This should work equally well in XML and JSON,
including round trips.

>
> - It's not clear to me if the discussion of the secdir review
> [1] concluded. It seemed to just stall. Is there more to be
> said? (If so, be great if the shepherd would kick that
> discussion.)

I don't have much more to say without seeing alternative proposals.

Lada

>
>    [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06408.html
>
>

-- 
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C