JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG
RFC 7951
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.
Alvaro Retana No Objection
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) Yes
(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection
(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection
(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection
(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
- 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