On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 08:24:28AM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > Yes, but the same thing can be done with anyxml, right? It has been > demonstrated in RFC 6241, ietf-yang-patch and probably elsewhere, too, > and it does the job. > > The use case of passing around literally "any XML" is really only > theoretical, I think some kind of schema is always assumed. > > So I believe we don't need two data node types for this purpose. And an > advantage of anyxml is that its definition (from YANG point of view) is > clear and unambiguous, whereas for anydata the phrase "can be modelled > with YANG" may be interpreted in different ways. We are introducing a > dubious new concept in YANG 1.1 with no apparent gain. >
I do not think we are going to repeat that debate. I think we concluded that anyxml does not mean any JSON. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
