> On 23 Sep 2015, at 15:11, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:14:52AM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I must admit I am getting lost in these discussions. It seems to me there
>>>> is a lot of hand-waving and hidden assumptions that moreover differ from
>>>> one person to another. As I already said in Prague, both anyxml and
>>>> anydata are IMO constructs of marginal utility and it is frustrating we
>>>> spend so much effort on them.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I agree that anyxml is of marginal utility, anydata however is needed
>>> for any rpc/action/notification or future language construct that can
>>> work with generic YANG content and hence I think its behaviour and
>>> encoding should be well defined.
>>
>> But then I believe we should have stricter rules for anydata than just
>> "an unknown set of nodes that can be modelled with YANG" - it should be
>> stated that the data model for an anydata instance MUST be known at
>> run-time. Otherwise I think anyxml can cover all use cases you mention
>> as well (as it has done in the past), and there is no need to introduce
>> a new data node type with a definition that allows for multiple
>> interpretations.
>>
>
> Lada, we are not repeating the discussion. It was long and painful
> enough and we finally accepted and verified Y34-05. If you have better
> wording to propose, feel free to make a proposal. But I am not going
> to open Y34 again just because you still do not like it.
Experience has shown that the current formulation is understood differently by
different people.
Earlier in this thread, you proposed this text to be added to the yang-json
spec:
An anydata data node can contain an unknown set of nodes that can
be modelled by YANG. A data model for anydata content may or may
not exist at run time. If the data model for anydata content is
available, then the anydata content MUST be encoded according to
the rules of this specification. If the data model for anydata
content is not available, the encoding MUST follow the rules of
this specification except for rules that require data model
knowledge (and as a consequence, numbers may appear as strings or
namespace qualifiers may not match module names).
So let me repeat: shouldn’t this text really go to 6020bis? Or do you think
that XML encoding needn’t abide by the data model if it is known?
>
> That said, "MUST be known at run-time" may already fall apart with the
> mount proposals discussed in NETCONF (or it is sufficiently unclear to
> whom it MUST be known).
To the server and client so that they both work with the same data model. Of
course, it is true that currently there are no means for passing this
information (either way) but I guess your text above suffers from the same
problem: how can you tell whether the data model for anydata content is
available or not?
Lada
>
> /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/>
--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
