Re: [Rats] Call for adoption (after draft rename) for Yang module draft

"Smith, Ned" <> Tue, 12 November 2019 16:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D50B120827 for <>; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 08:30:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XYCrKqqTEa_r for <>; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 08:30:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DDAE120836 for <>; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 08:30:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message)
X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Nov 2019 08:30:27 -0800
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.68,297,1569308400"; d="scan'208";a="202463413"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 12 Nov 2019 08:30:26 -0800
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.439.0; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 08:30:26 -0800
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 08:30:26 -0800
From: "Smith, Ned" <>
To: Michael Richardson <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Rats] Call for adoption (after draft rename) for Yang module draft
Thread-Index: AQHVlCwI8/lytau3hU+AhCwtIdg/0ad/EtmAgAAHhgCAAAO0AIAGacyAgAAGuoCAAG6gAIAA8mEAgAABTID//5RNgIABPsAAgAAArYA=
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 16:30:25 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.1e.0.191013
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Rats] Call for adoption (after draft rename) for Yang module draft
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Remote Attestation Procedures <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 16:30:30 -0000

It wasn't my intention to assert that CDDL was a 'bits on the wire' format. 

On 11/12/19, 0:28 AM, "RATS on behalf of Michael Richardson" < on behalf of> wrote:

    On 2019-11-12 5:27 a.m., Smith, Ned wrote:
    > You’re saying YANG fills a gap that is similar to what OpenAPI/RAML fills?
    I don't know what those things are.
    I might say it was similar to CORBA, but I'd be dating myself and I
    never really knew CORBA very well.
    > Ideally CDDL can be mapped to other information modelling languages
    > (e.g. YANG) so that only one normative expression needs to be
    > canonized. However, that implies extra work on behalf of the YANG
    > drafts to come up with the CDDL equivalent. Maybe that is unnecessary
    > extra work for consistency sake? That would force the conversations
    > around whether ‘time’ and ‘ticks’ are the same information model
    > expression (for example).
    CDDL could be used to explain how the YANG serialization to CBOR or JSON
    But, CDDL is also not a bits-on-the-wire thing, it's also probably human
    and code generator.
    (Carsten says that this is not exclusive the case, anymore, but I think
    having Turing complete
    information modeling languages is a bad thing, and might lead to Daleks
    Invasions and Cybermen Kings)
    I would expect that an RFC or other industry document that detailed a
    series of claims might use CDDL to describe the contents of the data
    that made up the details of the claim.
    But, again, for the code generators (whether human or machine)