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

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

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
worked.
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)