Add standin files; use term "processing model", define basic one.#21
Add standin files; use term "processing model", define basic one.#21
Conversation
| ([^TODO] | ||
| The detailed conditions under which certain transformations can be | ||
| applied to YANG-CBOR data representations after these have been | ||
| generated are TBD; several processing models are conceivable for this. | ||
| One such condition might be: | ||
| Where information starts out in a legacy representation, these tags | ||
| are only used when an Unambiguous Round Trip can be achieved. | ||
| are only used when an Unambiguous Round Trip can be achieved.) | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would say this:
Transformations of YANG-CBOR data representation after these have been generated, are out of scope of this document.
… and put all these considerations into that separate document: https://github.com/marenamat/ietf-draft-marenamat-netmod-core-yang-transcoding (please send a pull request there adding yourself as an author if you wish)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I put in a pointer to that document, but coordinating them now is a bit late in the day...
Let's do that in the next iteration.
| For consistency with this specification, an intermediate decoder of a | ||
| tag 37 stand-in MUST use lowercase characters in the uuid hex string | ||
| generated. | ||
| generated ([^TODO] align with processing model). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What about something like "The canonical string representation of tag 37 uses lowercase characters in the uuid hex string."
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Canonical is not really a defined term here -- I would like to keep the MUST in there as one example for how a processing model might treat this.
| They already are CBOR tags and thus in the registry, but might | ||
| get lost in the bulk of that (and are only identified as YANG-CBOR | ||
| stand-in Tags in the specification). | ||
| ISSUE: Do we want to have a separate registry for stand-in files? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe we could have a registry composing the stand-in tables, so that one can see that the standard way to represent e.g. ip-address with a stand-in is a tag 52/54?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that is a good point. We haven't really found out how we want these table to compose, which I think is the next item of work; then we might have a better grasp for how we can organize a collection of them.
marenamat
left a comment
marenamat
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Overall good direction, I think that it may be a good time to ask for wg adoption maybe? Or is it still too early?
|
note: gonna upload my draft with the original name, we can rename it later |
I'm not sure. Let's get a temperature reading from the mailing list... |
2 participants
No description provided.