draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-06.txt   draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-07.txt 
NETMOD Working Group L. Lhotka NETMOD Working Group L. Lhotka
Internet-Draft CZ.NIC Internet-Draft CZ.NIC
Intended status: Standards Track October 07, 2015 Intended status: Standards Track January 28, 2016
Expires: April 9, 2016 Expires: July 31, 2016
JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-06 draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-07
Abstract Abstract
This document defines encoding rules for representing configuration, This document defines encoding rules for representing configuration,
state data, RPC operation or action input and output parameters, and state data, RPC operation or action input and output parameters, and
notifications defined using YANG as JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) notifications defined using YANG as JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)
text. text.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 33 skipping to change at page 1, line 33
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 9, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 31, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 2, line 18 skipping to change at page 2, line 18
2. Terminology and Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology and Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Properties of the JSON Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Properties of the JSON Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Names and Namespaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Names and Namespaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Encoding of YANG Data Node Instances . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Encoding of YANG Data Node Instances . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. The "leaf" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1. The "leaf" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. The "container" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2. The "container" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.3. The "leaf-list" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.3. The "leaf-list" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.4. The "list" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.4. The "list" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.5. The "anydata" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.5. The "anydata" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.6. The "anyxml" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.6. The "anyxml" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.7. Metadata Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Representing YANG Data Types in JSON Values . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Representing YANG Data Types in JSON Values . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. Numeric Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.1. Numeric Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.2. The "string" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.2. The "string" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.3. The "boolean" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.3. The "boolean" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.4. The "enumeration" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.4. The "enumeration" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.5. The "bits" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.5. The "bits" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.6. The "binary" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.6. The "binary" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.7. The "leafref" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.7. The "leafref" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.8. The "identityref" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.8. The "identityref" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.9. The "empty" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.9. The "empty" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
skipping to change at page 2, line 39 skipping to change at page 2, line 40
6.11. The "instance-identifier" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.11. The "instance-identifier" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. I-JSON Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7. I-JSON Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix A. A Complete Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Appendix A. A Complete Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
B.1. Changes Between Revisions -05 and -06 . . . . . . . . . . 18 B.1. Changes Between Revisions -05 and -06 . . . . . . . . . . 18
B.2. Changes Between Revisions -04 and -05 . . . . . . . . . . 18 B.2. Changes Between Revisions -05 and -06 . . . . . . . . . . 19
B.3. Changes Between Revisions -03 and -04 . . . . . . . . . . 19 B.3. Changes Between Revisions -04 and -05 . . . . . . . . . . 19
B.4. Changes Between Revisions -02 and -03 . . . . . . . . . . 19 B.4. Changes Between Revisions -03 and -04 . . . . . . . . . . 19
B.5. Changes Between Revisions -01 and -02 . . . . . . . . . . 19 B.5. Changes Between Revisions -02 and -03 . . . . . . . . . . 19
B.6. Changes Between Revisions -00 and -01 . . . . . . . . . . 19 B.6. Changes Between Revisions -01 and -02 . . . . . . . . . . 19
B.7. Changes Between Revisions -00 and -01 . . . . . . . . . . 19
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The NETCONF protocol [RFC6241] uses XML [W3C.REC-xml-20081126] for The NETCONF protocol [RFC6241] uses XML [W3C.REC-xml-20081126] for
encoding data in its Content Layer. Other management protocols might encoding data in its Content Layer. Other management protocols might
want to use other encodings while still benefiting from using YANG want to use other encodings while still benefiting from using YANG
[I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis] as the data modeling language. [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis] as the data modeling language.
For example, the RESTCONF protocol [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf] For example, the RESTCONF protocol [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf]
skipping to change at page 10, line 20 skipping to change at page 10, line 20
"reporting-entity": { "reporting-entity": {
"card": "Ethernet0" "card": "Ethernet0"
}, },
"severity": "major" "severity": "major"
} }
} }
} }
5.6. The "anyxml" Data Node 5.6. The "anyxml" Data Node
An anyxml instance is encoded as a JSON name/value pair which MUST An anyxml instance is encoded as a JSON name/value pair. The value
satisfy I-JSON constraints. Otherwise it is unrestricted, i.e., the MUST satisfy I-JSON constraints.
value can be an object, array, number, string or one of the literals
"true", "false" and "null".
There is no universal procedure for mapping JSON-encoded anyxml
instances to XML, and vice versa.
Example: For the anyxml definition Example: For the anyxml definition
anyxml bar; anyxml bar;
the following is a valid JSON-encoded instance: the following is a valid JSON-encoded instance:
"bar": [true, null, true] "bar": [true, null, true]
5.7. Metadata Objects
Apart from instances of YANG data nodes, a JSON document MAY contain
special object members whose name starts with the "@" character
(COMMERCIAL AT). Such members are used for special purposes such as
encoding metadata [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-metadata]. Exact syntax and
semantics of such members are outside the scope of this document.
6. Representing YANG Data Types in JSON Values 6. Representing YANG Data Types in JSON Values
The type of the JSON value in an instance of the leaf or leaf-list The type of the JSON value in an instance of the leaf or leaf-list
data node depends on the type of that data node as specified in the data node depends on the type of that data node as specified in the
following subsections. following subsections.
6.1. Numeric Types 6.1. Numeric Types
A value of the types "int8", "int16", "int32", "uint8", "uint16" and A value of the types "int8", "int16", "int32", "uint8", "uint16" and
"uint32" is represented as a JSON number. "uint32" is represented as a JSON number.
skipping to change at page 15, line 36 skipping to change at page 15, line 36
The author wishes to thank Andy Bierman, Martin Bjorklund, Dean The author wishes to thank Andy Bierman, Martin Bjorklund, Dean
Bogdanovic, Balazs Lengyel, Juergen Schoenwaelder and Phil Shafer for Bogdanovic, Balazs Lengyel, Juergen Schoenwaelder and Phil Shafer for
their helpful comments and suggestions. their helpful comments and suggestions.
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis] [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis]
Bjorklund, M., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language", Bjorklund, M., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-07 (work in progress), draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-09 (work in progress),
September 2015. December 2015.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/ Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax [RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, DOI 10.17487/ Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
RFC5234, January 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., [RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011, (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
[RFC7159] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data [RFC7159] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", RFC 7159, DOI 10.17487/RFC7159, March Interchange Format", RFC 7159, DOI 10.17487/RFC7159, March
2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7159>. 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7159>.
[RFC7493] Bray, T., Ed., "The I-JSON Message Format", RFC 7493, DOI [RFC7493] Bray, T., Ed., "The I-JSON Message Format", RFC 7493,
10.17487/RFC7493, March 2015, DOI 10.17487/RFC7493, March 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7493>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7493>.
10.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf] [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf]
Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-07 (work in Protocol", draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-09 (work in
progress), July 2015. progress), December 2015.
[I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-metadata]
Lhotka, L., "Defining and Using Metadata with YANG",
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-02 (work in progress),
September 2015.
[RFC7223] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface [RFC7223] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
Management", RFC 7223, DOI 10.17487/RFC7223, May 2014, Management", RFC 7223, DOI 10.17487/RFC7223, May 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7223>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7223>.
[W3C.REC-xml-20081126] [W3C.REC-xml-20081126]
Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, M., Maler, E., and Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, M., Maler, E., and
F. Yergeau, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth F. Yergeau, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth
Edition)", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC- Edition)", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-
xml-20081126, November 2008, xml-20081126, November 2008,
skipping to change at page 18, line 42 skipping to change at page 18, line 47
] ]
} }
} }
Appendix B. Change Log Appendix B. Change Log
RFC Editor: Remove this section upon publication as an RFC. RFC Editor: Remove this section upon publication as an RFC.
B.1. Changes Between Revisions -05 and -06 B.1. Changes Between Revisions -05 and -06
o General permit on object members whose names start with "@".
B.2. Changes Between Revisions -05 and -06
o More text and a new example about resolving union-type values. o More text and a new example about resolving union-type values.
B.2. Changes Between Revisions -04 and -05 B.3. Changes Between Revisions -04 and -05
o Removed section "Validation of JSON-encoded Instance Data" and o Removed section "Validation of JSON-encoded Instance Data" and
other text about XML-JSON mapping. other text about XML-JSON mapping.
o Added section "Properties of the JSON Encoding". o Added section "Properties of the JSON Encoding".
B.3. Changes Between Revisions -03 and -04 B.4. Changes Between Revisions -03 and -04
o I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis is used as a normative reference o I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis is used as a normative reference
instead of RFC 6020. instead of RFC 6020.
o Removed noncharacters as an I-JSON issue because it doesn't exist o Removed noncharacters as an I-JSON issue because it doesn't exist
in YANG 1.1. in YANG 1.1.
o Section about anydata encoding was added. o Section about anydata encoding was added.
o Require I-JSON for anyxml encoding. o Require I-JSON for anyxml encoding.
o Use ABNF for defining qualified name. o Use ABNF for defining qualified name.
B.4. Changes Between Revisions -02 and -03 B.5. Changes Between Revisions -02 and -03
o Namespace encoding is defined without using RFC 2119 keywords. o Namespace encoding is defined without using RFC 2119 keywords.
o Specification for anyxml nodes was extended and clarified. o Specification for anyxml nodes was extended and clarified.
o Text about ordering of list entries was corrected. o Text about ordering of list entries was corrected.
B.5. Changes Between Revisions -01 and -02 B.6. Changes Between Revisions -01 and -02
o Encoding of namespaces in instance-identifiers was changed. o Encoding of namespaces in instance-identifiers was changed.
o Text specifying the order of array elements in leaf-list and list o Text specifying the order of array elements in leaf-list and list
instances was added. instances was added.
B.6. Changes Between Revisions -00 and -01 B.7. Changes Between Revisions -00 and -01
o Metadata encoding was moved to a separate I-D, draft-lhotka- o Metadata encoding was moved to a separate I-D, draft-lhotka-
netmod-yang-metadata. netmod-yang-metadata.
o JSON encoding is now defined directly rather than via XML-JSON o JSON encoding is now defined directly rather than via XML-JSON
mapping. mapping.
o The rules for namespace encoding has changed. This affect both o The rules for namespace encoding has changed. This affect both
node instance names and instance-identifiers. node instance names and instance-identifiers.
 End of changes. 19 change blocks. 
32 lines changed or deleted 46 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/