IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netmod] yang-json document

Phil Shafer <phil@juniper.net> Fri, 06 February 2015 19:40 UTC

Return-Path: <phil@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66B681A8775 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 11:40:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 QkK9QUQr2UVB for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 11:40:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2on0128.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.100.128]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7031C1A87ED for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 11:39:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BL2PR05CA0043.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.226.43) by BN1PR05MB440.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.58.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.81.19; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 19:39:39 +0000
Received: from BN1AFFO11FD009.protection.gbl (2a01:111:f400:7c10::178) by BL2PR05CA0043.outlook.office365.com (2a01:111:e400:c04::43) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.75.20 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 19:39:38 +0000
Received: from P-EMF02-SAC.jnpr.net (66.129.239.16) by BN1AFFO11FD009.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.58.52.69) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.87.10 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 19:39:38 +0000
Received: from magenta.juniper.net (172.17.27.123) by P-EMF02-SAC.jnpr.net (172.24.192.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.146.0; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 11:39:35 -0800
Received: from idle.juniper.net (idleski.juniper.net [172.25.4.26]) by magenta.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id t16JdYW92588; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 11:39:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from phil@juniper.net)
Received: from idle.juniper.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by idle.juniper.net (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id t16JdKNR065824; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 14:39:20 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from phil@idle.juniper.net)
Message-ID: <201502061939.t16JdKNR065824@idle.juniper.net>
To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABCOCHSqbrr6HgkvxULDSynn6nYC6hOC1zEcEcEw_Or0sKCz7g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2015 14:39:20 -0500
From: Phil Shafer <phil@juniper.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-EOPAttributedMessage: 0
Received-SPF: SoftFail (protection.outlook.com: domain of transitioning juniper.net discourages use of 66.129.239.16 as permitted sender)
Authentication-Results: spf=softfail (sender IP is 66.129.239.16) smtp.mailfrom=phil@juniper.net; ietf.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:66.129.239.16; CTRY:US; IPV:NLI; EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(164054003)(87936001)(47776003)(54356999)(48376002)(50466002)(2950100001)(53416004)(46102003)(62966003)(106466001)(92566002)(77156002)(110136001)(105596002)(50986999)(76506005)(6806004)(77096005)(86362001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN1PR05MB440; H:P-EMF02-SAC.jnpr.net; FPR:; SPF:SoftFail; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:;
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BN1PR05MB440;
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-Test: UriScan:;
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004); SRVR:BN1PR05MB440;
X-Forefront-PRVS: 047999FF16
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BN1PR05MB440;
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Feb 2015 19:39:38.7879 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4; Ip=[66.129.239.16]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN1PR05MB440
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/S26Q6Snoq-jkg3PUXHpt3arBh04>
Cc: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netmod] yang-json document
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2015 19:40:02 -0000

Andy Bierman writes:
>This reminds me of the SNMP debates about optimizing for generic tools
>like a MIB walker, or data-model-aware tools like an NMS.

Sure and both types of tools have value.  Combinations of both tools
have value.

>IMO your web-banner example is invalid because a string leaf is the proper
>YANG data model design, not anyxml.

Why isn't anyxml more proper?  It requires the data to be valid
XML, which is what I want.  Why would using an opaque data type
serve me better?

Thanks,
 Phil

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status