[Uri-review] Re: [art] Re: Alternative representation of URIs in YANG

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

I think that Roy explained why that doesn't work.

If the goal is to encode connection parameters, then maybe that is what should be defined, with an appropriate name.

On Fri, Jan 23, 2026, at 09:12, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote:
> Hi Kent/Martin,
>
> How about we go with option 2 that limits the applicability of the 
> definition to the following:
>
> The 'ietf-url' module defines a YANG 'grouping' for a URL described as a
> constrained subset of the URI defined in <relref section="3" target="RFC3986"/>.
> The contraint is that the grouping is defined only to support connection
> parameters for an HTTP client.
>
>> On Jan 22, 2026, at 1:46 PM, Martin Thomson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2026, at 02:00, Kent Watsen wrote:
>>> Martin, since you're the one blocking the draft, can you state which of 
>>> these options are okay and which options are not okay with you?
>> 
>> Not blocking personally.  I did raise the issue, but would follow consensus (which I think is in the hands of Mahesh to judge, ultimately).
>> 
>> I'd like to offer option 6.  Use the existing URI syntax from YANG.  It's a straight-up string, which is perfect because it avoids this whole mess entirely.
>
>
> Mahesh Jethanandani
> [e-mail]