JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-10
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2016-08-11
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2016-08-05
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2016-08-01
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from REF |
2016-07-29
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to REF from EDIT |
2016-06-17
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF |
2016-03-30
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC |
2016-03-30
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF |
2016-03-30
|
10 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2016-03-30
|
10 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2016-03-28
|
10 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2016-03-28
|
10 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2016-03-28
|
10 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2016-03-28
|
10 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-03-28
|
10 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-03-28
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2016-03-28
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-10.txt |
2016-03-23
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
2016-03-17
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2016-03-17
|
09 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2016-03-17
|
09 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - I would have thought that it'd be useful to point out any issues with round-tripping, e.g. going from XML to JSON and … [Ballot comment] - I would have thought that it'd be useful to point out any issues with round-tripping, e.g. going from XML to JSON and back to XML or vice-versa. But I didn't see any mention of that. How come? - I'm not sure if anyone has considered XMLDSIG or use of JOSE with YANG. If one did, then this kind of mapping would not allow one to preserve digital signatures without a lot of work. I assume that that's considered ok. (Which it can be, depending on how one does object level security, if one does object level security.) - It's not clear to me if the discussion of the secdir review [1] concluded. It seemed to just stall. Is there more to be said? (If so, be great if the shepherd would kick that discussion.) [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06408.html |
2016-03-17
|
09 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2016-03-17
|
09 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2016-03-16
|
09 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2016-03-16
|
09 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2016-03-16
|
09 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2016-03-16
|
09 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2016-03-16
|
09 | Benoît Claise | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2016-03-16
|
09 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2016-03-16
|
09 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2016-03-15
|
09 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2016-03-15
|
09 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2016-03-15
|
09 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2016-03-15
|
09 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2016-03-15
|
09 | Benoît Claise | Ballot has been issued |
2016-03-15
|
09 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2016-03-15
|
09 | Benoît Claise | Created "Approve" ballot |
2016-03-15
|
09 | Benoît Claise | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-03-15
|
09 | Benoît Claise | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from Waiting for Writeup |
2016-03-10
|
09 | Ralph Droms | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Ralph Droms. |
2016-03-10
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Hilarie Orman. |
2016-03-09
|
09 | Ladislav Lhotka | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2016-03-09
|
09 | Ladislav Lhotka | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-09.txt |
2016-03-09
|
08 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2016-03-02
|
08 | Benoît Claise | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-03-17 |
2016-03-02
|
08 | Benoît Claise | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2016-02-29
|
08 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2016-02-29
|
08 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-08.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this … (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-08.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal IANA Specialist ICANN |
2016-02-27
|
08 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Warren Kumari |
2016-02-27
|
08 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Warren Kumari |
2016-02-25
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Ralph Droms |
2016-02-25
|
08 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Ralph Droms |
2016-02-25
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Hilarie Orman |
2016-02-25
|
08 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Hilarie Orman |
2016-02-24
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2016-02-24
|
08 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: bclaise@cisco.com, netmod-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json@ietf.org, kwatsen@juniper.net, netmod@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: bclaise@cisco.com, netmod-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json@ietf.org, kwatsen@juniper.net, netmod@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the NETCONF Data Modeling Language WG (netmod) to consider the following document: - 'JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-03-09. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document defines encoding rules for representing configuration, state data, parameters of RPC operations or actions, and notifications defined using YANG as JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) text. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2016-02-24
|
08 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2016-02-24
|
08 | Benoît Claise | Last call was requested |
2016-02-24
|
08 | Benoît Claise | Ballot writeup was generated |
2016-02-24
|
08 | Benoît Claise | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2016-02-24
|
08 | Benoît Claise | Last call announcement was generated |
2016-02-24
|
08 | Benoît Claise | Last call announcement was generated |
2016-02-24
|
08 | Benoît Claise | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-02-24
|
08 | Ladislav Lhotka | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-08.txt |
2016-02-23
|
07 | Kent Watsen | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? A Proposed Standard is being requested. A proposed standard is needed to ensure interoperability. The title page header indicates that it is Standards Track document. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This document defines encoding rules for representing configuration, state data, RPC operation or action input and output parameters, and notifications defined using YANG as JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) text. Working Group Summary The JSON encoding is one of the two media types supported by the RESTCONF protocol [draft-ietf-netconf-restconf]. This document was discussed multiple times during the RESTCONF specification process. The main issue has been around the encoding of the "anyxml" type, which YANG 1.1 no longer recommends using. The document went through 3 WG last calls, and there is broad consensus on the final version. Document Quality There are several existing RESTCONF implementations, and some others being worked on, that either support both XML and JSON encoding, or are JSON-only, for example: * YumaWork’s YumaPro platform's SDK * Linux Foundation’s OpenDaylight platform * Juniper’s Contrail Service Orchestration platform Other tools and libraries also support the JSON encoding defined in this document, including: * The popular `pyang` utility * The libyang library Personnel The Shepherd is Kent Watsen. The AD is Benoit Claise. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The Document Shepherd went through the checklist listed here: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/DraftShepherdWriteupWgAlternate (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No concerns (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No portions of the document have been flagged as needing to be reviewed from a particular or from broader perspective. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. The Document Shepherd has no specific concerns or issues with this document. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Yes (on October 18th) (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosure has been filed. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The WG consensus behind the document is solid. The only point of contention during the review process was related to the fact that some YANG 1.0 concepts, most notably the "anyxml" data node, are rather XML-specific. However, this is only marginally important because YANG 1.1 now recommends using "any data" as an encoding-independent analogy of "anyxml". (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No one has threatened an appeal otherwise indicated extreme discontent. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-09 == Outdated reference: A later version (-03) exists of draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-02 (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. This document has been reviewed by members of the YANG Doctors group. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Y es, all references have been partitioned into these two groupings. The groupings seem okay except the normative reference to RFC6241, is the only text that uses this reference does so in an informative way, so I think that this reference should be moved to informative. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? There are no normative references to documents and aren’t ready for advancement. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. There are no normative references to documents and aren’t ready for advancement. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. Publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFCs. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). This document does not have an IANA Considerations section. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. This document does not define any new IANA registries. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. The ABNF in Section 4 passed visual inspection. The examples throughout the document passed visual inspection. |
2016-02-22
|
07 | Benoît Claise | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2016-02-22
|
07 | Benoît Claise | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard |
2016-02-22
|
07 | Benoît Claise | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2016-02-22
|
07 | Benoît Claise | Working group state set to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2016-02-22
|
07 | Benoît Claise | Changed document writeup |
2016-01-28
|
07 | Ladislav Lhotka | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-07.txt |
2015-10-14
|
06 | (System) | Notify list changed from "Thomas Nadeau" , "Kent Watsen" to (None) |
2015-10-07
|
06 | Ladislav Lhotka | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-06.txt |
2015-09-10
|
05 | Ladislav Lhotka | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-05.txt |
2015-06-12
|
04 | Ladislav Lhotka | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-04.txt |
2015-05-22
|
03 | Jürgen Schönwälder | Notification list changed to "Thomas Nadeau" <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>, "Kent Watsen" <kwatsen@juniper.net> from "Thomas Nadeau" <tnadeau@lucidvision.com> |
2015-05-22
|
03 | Jürgen Schönwälder | Document shepherd changed to Kent Watsen |
2015-02-24
|
03 | Ladislav Lhotka | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-03.txt |
2014-11-27
|
02 | Ladislav Lhotka | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-02.txt |
2014-10-28
|
01 | Benoît Claise | Notification list changed to "Thomas Nadeau" <tnadeau@lucidvision.com> |
2014-10-28
|
01 | Benoît Claise | Document shepherd changed to Thomas Nadeau |
2014-10-13
|
01 | Ladislav Lhotka | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-01.txt |
2014-04-22
|
00 | Ladislav Lhotka | New version available: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-00.txt |