Re: [netmod] json empty leaf encoding strangeness [Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-04 (until 2015-06-29)]

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 6:14 AM Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 2021-12-18, at 14:35, Christian Hopps <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > This isn't about the YANG specification in general, or making YANG
> conform to any particular language. It's just about the a choice in the
> specification for the encoding of YANG in a particular format (JSON).
>
> I understand the objective to have a good representation for YANG data.
>
> For instance, in YANG-CBOR, a YANG empty is represented as a CBOR null
> (0xf6, in case you need to visualize the bits); there is no expectation
> that this will be difficult to handle by CBOR implementations.
>
> However, there is nothing wrong with representing empty with the array
> »[null]« in YANG-JSON.  It is just more complex, and apparently
> unnecessarily so.
> Whether removing this complexity to save two characters is worth doing an
> incompatible upgrade to the YANG-JSON representation format can be debated.
> I’d say: emphatically no.
>
>
Thank you for caring about backward compatibility and stability.

The other motivation that came up in this thread is that it is natural to
> have null as a value in JSON and YANG cannot describe such formats via
> YANG-JSON.  This was what I was reacting to, but, as you say, that wasn’t
> your question.
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>
>
Andy


> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>