IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (6855)

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Tue, 01 March 2022 16:14 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 820C33A0C85 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Mar 2022 08:14:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 NmubmJ8kxwCX for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Mar 2022 08:14:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3ED03A0C7D for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Mar 2022 08:14:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p5089ad4f.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.173.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4K7MlJ0022zDCdh; Tue, 1 Mar 2022 17:14:35 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <45582273-6897-4FAF-BA58-55EA5BA08F6F@att.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2022 17:14:35 +0100
Cc: Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se>, "mbj@tail-f.com" <mbj@tail-f.com>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>, "warren@kumari.net" <warren@kumari.net>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 667844075.547731-aa48b0b4c6b68a5dd396937f764ee8b7
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <79DD3FF1-8167-412F-A67F-31BDEE092C62@tzi.org>
References: <20220228185306.fr4xpjiwp6dnhlcj@anna> <CABCOCHQ6SdDxTxXvG77aWC+CDsi6W_2CkiH-TDfhxBT6PvxT8A@mail.gmail.com> <879E0AF5-1C26-454F-A46F-1ED4DED526A6@att.com> <20220301.083451.2242216390284098385.id@4668.se> <45582273-6897-4FAF-BA58-55EA5BA08F6F@att.com>
To: "SADOVNIKOV, ALEXEI" <AS549R@att.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/lgUbc8DLU9q71dGaFVWe76KYCxg>
Subject: Re: [netmod] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7950 (6855)
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 01 Mar 2022 16:14:48 -0000

(Removing RFC-editor from the list:)

On 2022-03-01, at 16:42, SADOVNIKOV, ALEXEI <AS549R@att.com> wrote:
> 
> I continue to doubt if this optimization continues to have value in presence of JSON processing, where such optimization is not possible.   I am expecting an implementation these days to implement both XML and JSON, and then it either implements something which can deal with unordered for both, or have two different implementations one of which is optimized.

This is very interesting also for YANG-CBOR.  We modeled our representation after that used in YANG-JSON, but of course CBOR can be much more efficient (in particular in conjunction with YANG-SIDs).
If there is a performance problem with the YANG-JSON approach that we could work around on the CBOR side, I would certainly like to hear about it!

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email