> On 16 Sep 2015, at 19:55, Randy Presuhn <randy_pres...@mindspring.com> wrote: > > Hi - > >> From: Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> >> Sent: Sep 15, 2015 11:03 PM >> To: Randy Presuhn <randy_pres...@mindspring.com>, NETMOD Working Group >> <netmod@ietf.org> >> Subject: Re: [netmod] Fwd: New Version Notification for >> draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-05.txt > ... >>> This leaves me wondering what it means for the data model for >>> anydata content to be "available". In the case of ASN.1's >>> "ANY DEFINED BY" construct, there's an OBJECT IDENTIFIER to >>> unambiguously identify the grammar (and associated semantics) >>> to be used to understand the content, so tools can, if needed, >>> scurry off to obtain the parsing instructions for those >>> particular bits. How does an implementation know in the case >>> of "anydata" which datamodel to use? >> >> It can be stated in the description of the anydata statement. One can >> then ask though why we need two constructs - anyxml and anydata - >> because a data model can be specified in the description of an anyxml >> statement as well. > > How does a client (or a server, for that matter) extract that > information from the description of the anydata statement?
They don’t, unless they are terribly sophisticated. It’s up to a human implementer to parse the description text and write a corresponding code. No automation at all. In fact, the main use case for anydata/anyxml so far has been in standards where YANG played the role of a schema language. Lada > > Randy > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > netmod@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
