Re: [netmod] xpath expressions in JSON

[Vladimir Vassilev <[e-mail]>]

On 10/15/18 4:25 PM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:

> Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]> writes:
>
>> Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2018-10-10 at 19:23 -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 6:59 PM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <[e-mail]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 2018-10-10, 9:59 AM, "netmod on behalf of Martin Bjorklund" <
>>>>> [e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>      Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>      > Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]> writes:
>>>>>      >
>>>>>      > > Hi,
>>>>>      > >
>>>>>      > > While reviewing restconf-notif, I saw this example:
>>>>>      > >
>>>>>      > >    {
>>>>>      > >       "ietf-subscribed-notifications:input": {
>>>>>      > >          "stream": "NETCONF",
>>>>>      > >          "stream-xpath-filter": "/ds:foo/",
>>>>>      > >          "dscp": "10"
>>>>>      > >       }
>>>>>      > >    }
>>>>>      > >
>>>>>      > > Note the "stream-xpath-filter".  It has a prefix in the XPath
>>>>> string.
>>>>>      > > How are prefixes declared when JSON is used?
>>>>>      > >
>>>>>      > > The leaf "stream-xpath-filter" says:
>>>>>      > >
>>>>>      > >               o  The set of namespace declarations are those in
>>>>> scope on
>>>>>      > >                  the 'stream-xpath-filter' leaf element.
>>>>>      > >
>>>>>      > > (I think I provided that text...)
>>>>>      > >
>>>>>      > > This assumes that the encoding is XML, or at leas that the encoding
>>>>>      > > can somehow transfer namespace declarations.
>>>>>      >
>>>>>      > It can't. There are two options:
>>>>>      >
>>>>>      > 1. have different representations of this value in XML and JSON,
>>>>>      >    analogically to instance indentifiers (sec. 6.11 in RFC 7951).
>>>>>      >
>>>>>      > 2. use a module name rather than a prefix in XML, too.
>>>>>      >
>>>>>      > I would suggest #2.
>>>>> <RR> But that means making non-backwards compatible change to the XML
>>>>> representation?
>>>> Not really. It means NETMOD WG would be creating its own special variant of
>>>> XPath.
>>> The thing is that XPath is "XML Path Language", so using it outside XML is
>>> problematic.
>> Not necessarily.  Section 5 of the XPath 1.0 spec defins the "data
>> model" where an XPath expression is applied.  We could make a formal
>> specification of how a YANG data tree maps to this data model (pretty
>> straightforward...).  I think experience from implementations over the
>> last 8 years show that this in fact works quite well.
> Except some parts that don't apply. For example, siblings nodes in XPath
> are ordered, whereas in YANG 'foo[1]' may give unpredictable results.

Not all XPath expressions map to something meaningful in the context of 
YANG data.  However a subset of them do.

IMO introducing yang:ypath1.0 makes sense but it is practical to define 
it as a subset of yang:xpath1.0. Martins proposal 2) for an encoding 
independent solution where the prefixes are restricted to be module 
names works. Proposal 1) seems to be a step back clogging YANG with 
encoding specific details.

Vladimir

>
> This is probably OK in YANG modules but not so much if XPath expressions
> are used as configuration data.
>
> Lada
>
>>
>> /martin
>>
>>
>>
>>> Lada
>>>
>>>>>      Hmm, so you mean change the leaf "stream-xpath-filter" to say:
>>>>>
>>>>>               o  The set of namespace declarations has one member for each
>>>>>                  YANG module supported by the server.  This member maps
>>>>>                  from the YANG module name to the YANG module namespace.
>>>>>
>>>>>                  This means that in the XPath expression, the module name
>>>>>                  serves as the prefix.
>>>>>
>>>>>      .... and then also give an example of this.
>>>>>
>>>>>      This is probably what we need to do in all places where yang:xpath1.0
>>>>>      is used, going forward.  Maybe even define a new type
>>>>>      yang:xpath1.0-2 (name?) with the set of namespace declarations
>>>>>      built-in.
>>>>
>>>> We should avoid making off-the-shelf implementations of standards like XPath
>>>> unusable.
>>>> At the very least this should be only available if the server supports it
>>>> (with a capability URI)
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>> <RR> So we need an update to RFC7951?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Reshad.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>>   
>>>>>      /martin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>      >
>>>>>      > Lada
>>>>>      >
>>>>>      > >
>>>>>      > > How is this supposed to work with JSON?
>>>>>      > >
>>>>>      > >
>>>>>      > > /martin
>>>>>      > >
>>>>>      > > _______________________________________________
>>>>>      > > netmod mailing list
>>>>>      > > [e-mail]
>>>>>      > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>>>>      >
>>>>>      > --
>>>>>      > Ladislav Lhotka
>>>>>      > Head, CZ.NIC Labs
>>>>>      > PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
>>>>>      >
>>>>>
>>>>>      _______________________________________________
>>>>>      netmod mailing list
>>>>>      [e-mail]
>>>>>      https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> netmod mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Ladislav Lhotka
>>> Head, CZ.NIC Labs
>>> PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
>>>