Skip to main content

JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG
RFC 7951

Yes

(Benoît Claise)

No Objection

Alvaro Retana
(Alia Atlas)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Barry Leiba)
(Ben Campbell)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Terry Manderson)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.

Alvaro Retana No Objection

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -09)

                            

(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2016-03-17 for -09)
- 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

(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)