draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-00.txt		draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-01.txt
	NETMOD L. Lhotka		NETMOD Working Group L. Lhotka
	Internet-Draft CZ.NIC		Internet-Draft CZ.NIC
	Intended status: Standards Track April 21, 2014		Intended status: Standards Track October 13, 2014
	Expires: October 23, 2014		Expires: April 16, 2015
	JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG		JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG
	draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-00		draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-01
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document defines rules for representing configuration and state		This document defines encoding rules for representing configuration,
	data defined using YANG as JSON text. It does so by specifying a		state data, RPC input and output parameters, and notifications
	procedure for translating the subset of YANG-compatible XML documents		defined using YANG as JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) text.
	to JSON text, and vice versa. A JSON encoding of XML attributes is
	also defined so as to allow for including metadata in JSON documents.
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	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 October 23, 2014.		This Internet-Draft will expire on April 16, 2015.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2014 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
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	2. Terminology and Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2. Terminology and Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3. Specification of the Translation Procedure . . . . . . . . . 5		3. Validation of JSON-encoded
	3.1. Names and Namespaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		Instance Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3.2. Mapping XML Elements to JSON Objects . . . . . . . . . . 8		4. Names and Namespaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3.2.1. The "leaf" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		5. Encoding of YANG Data Node Instances . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	3.2.2. The "container" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		5.1. The "leaf" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	3.2.3. The "leaf-list" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		5.2. The "container" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	3.2.4. The "list" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		5.3. The "leaf-list" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	3.2.5. The "anyxml" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		5.4. The "list" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	3.3. Mapping YANG Datatypes to JSON Values . . . . . . . . . . 11		5.5. The "anyxml" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	3.3.1. Numeric Datatypes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		6. The Mapping of YANG Datatypes to JSON Values . . . . . . . . 8
	3.3.2. The "string" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		6.1. Numeric Datatypes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	3.3.3. The "boolean" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		6.2. The "string" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	3.3.4. The "enumeration" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		6.3. The "boolean" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	3.3.5. The "bits" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		6.4. The "enumeration" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	3.3.6. The "binary" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		6.5. The "bits" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	3.3.7. The "leafref" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		6.6. The "binary" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	3.3.8. The "identityref" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		6.7. The "leafref" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	3.3.9. The "empty" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		6.8. The "identityref" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	3.3.10. The "union" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		6.9. The "empty" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	3.3.11. The "instance-identifier" Type . . . . . . . . . . . 13		6.10. The "union" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	4. Encoding Metadata in JSON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		6.11. The "instance-identifier" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		7. I-JSON Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	Appendix A. A Complete Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		Appendix A. A Complete Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20		Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
			B.1. Changes Between Revisions -00 and -01 . . . . . . . . . . 16
			Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	The aim of this document is define rules for representing		The NETCONF protocol [RFC6241] uses XML [W3C.REC-xml-20081126] for
	configuration and state data defined using the YANG data modeling		encoding data in its Content Layer. Other management protocols might
	language [RFC6020] as JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)		want to use other encodings while still benefiting from using YANG
	text [RFC7159]. The result can be potentially applied in two		[RFC6020] as the data modeling language.
	different ways:
	1. JSON may be used instead of the standard XML [XML] encoding in
	the context of the NETCONF protocol [RFC6241] and/or with
	existing data models expressed in YANG. An example application
	is the RESTCONF Protocol [RESTCONF].
	2. Other documents that choose JSON to represent structured data can
	use YANG for defining the data model, i.e., both syntactic and
	semantic constraints that the data have to satisfy.
	JSON mapping rules could be specified in a similar way as the XML
	mapping rules in [RFC6020]. This would however require solving
	several problems. To begin with, YANG uses XPath [XPath] quite
	extensively, but XPath is not defined for JSON and such a definition
	would be far from straightforward.
	In order to avoid these technical difficulties, this document employs
	an alternative approach: it defines a relatively simple procedure
	which allows for translating the subset of XML that can be modeled
	using YANG to JSON, and vice versa. Consequently, validation of a
	JSON text against a data model can done by translating the JSON text
	to XML, which is then validated according to the rules stated in
	[RFC6020].
	The translation procedure is adapted to YANG specifics and
	requirements, namely:
	1. The translation is driven by a concrete YANG data model and uses
	information about data types to achieve better results than
	generic XML-JSON translation procedures.
	2. Various document types are supported, namely configuration data,
	configuration + state data, RPC input and output parameters, and
	notifications.
	3. XML namespaces specified in the data model are mapped to
	namespaces of JSON objects. However, explicit namespace
	identifiers are rarely needed in JSON text.
	4. Section 4 defines JSON encoding of XML attributes. Although XML
	attributes cannot be modeled with YANG, they are often used for
	attaching metadata to elements, and a standard JSON encoding is
	therefore needed.
	5. Translation of XML mixed content, comments and processing
	instructions is outside the scope of this document.
	Item 1 above also means that, depending on the data model, the same
	XML element can be translated to different JSON objects. For
	example,
	<foo>123</foo>
	is translated to
	"foo": 123
	if the "foo" node is defined as a leaf with the "uint8" datatype, or		For example, the RESTCONF protocol [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf]
	to		supports two encodings: XML (media type "application/yang.data+xml")
			and JSON (media type "application/yang.data+json).
	"foo": ["123"]		The specification of the YANG data modelling language [RFC6020]
			defines only XML encoding for data instances, i.e. contents of
			configuration datastores, state data, RFC input and output
			parameters, and event notifications. The aim of this document is to
			define rules for encoding the same data as JavaScript Object Notation
			(JSON) text [RFC7159].
	if the "foo" node is defined as a leaf-list with the "string"		In order to achieve maximum interoperability while allowing
	datatype, and the <foo> element has no siblings of the same name.		implementations to use a variety of available JSON parsers, the JSON
			encoding rules follow, as much as possible, the constraints of the
			I-JSON restricted profile [I-D.ietf-json-i-json]. Section Section 7
			discusses I-JSON conformance in more detail.
	2. Terminology and Notation		2. Terminology and Notation
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
	document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].		document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
	The following terms are defined in [RFC6020]:		The following terms are defined in [RFC6020]:
	o anyxml		o anyxml
	o augment		o augment
	o container		o container
	o data node		o data node
	o data tree
	o datatype
	o feature
	o identity		o identity
	o instance identifier		o instance identifier
	o leaf		o leaf
	o leaf-list		o leaf-list
	o list		o list
	o module		o module
	o submodule		o submodule
	The following terms are defined in [XMLNS]:		3. Validation of JSON-encoded Instance Data
	o local name
	o prefixed name
	o qualified name
	3. Specification of the Translation Procedure
	The translation procedure defines a 1-1 correspondence between the		Instance data validation as defined in [RFC6020] is only applicable
	subset of YANG-compatible XML documents and JSON text. This means		to XML-encoded data. For one, semantic constraints in "must"
	that the translation can be applied in both directions and it is		statements are expressed using XPath 1.0 [W3C.REC-xpath-19991116],
	always invertible.		which can be properly interpreted only in the XML context.
	The translation procedure is applicable only to data hierarchies that		This document along with the corresponding "XML Mapping Rules"
	are modelled by a YANG data model. An input XML document MAY contain		sections from [RFC6020] also define an implicit schema-driven mapping
	enclosing elements representing NETCONF "Operations" and "Messages"		of JSON-encoded instances to XML-encoded instances (and vice versa).
	layers. However, these enclosing elements do not appear in the		This mapping is mostly straightforward. In cases where doubts could
	resulting JSON document.		arise, this document gives explicit instructions for mapping JSON-
			encoded instances to XML.
	Any YANG-compatible XML document can be translated, except documents		In order to validate a JSON instance document, it MUST first be
	with mixed content. This is only a minor limitation since mixed		mapped, at least conceptually, to the corresponding XML instance
	content is marginal in YANG - it is allowed only in anyxml data		document. By definition, the JSON document is then valid if and only
	nodes.		if the XML document is valid according to the rules stated in
			[RFC6020].
	The following sections specify rules mainly for translating XML		4. Names and Namespaces
	documents to JSON text. Rules for the inverse translation are stated
	only where necessary, otherwise they can be easily inferred.
	REQUIRED parameters of the translation procedure are:		Instances of YANG data nodes (leafs, containers, leaf-lists, lists
			and anyxml nodes) are always encoded as members of a JSON object,
			i.e., as name/value pairs. This section defines how the name part is
			formed, and the following sections deal with the value part.
	o YANG data model consisting of a set of YANG modules,		Except in the cases specified below, the member name is identical to
			the identifier of the corresponding YANG data node. Every such name
			belongs to a namespace which is associated with the YANG module where
			the corresponding data node is defined. If the data node is defined
			in a submodule, then the namespace is determined by the main module
			to which the submodule belongs.
	o type of the input document,		If the namespace of a member name has to be explicitly specified, the
			module name SHALL be used as a prefix to the (local) member name.
			Both parts of the member name SHALL be separated with a colon
			character (":"). In other words, the namespace-qualified name will
			have the following form:
	o optional features (defined via the "feature" statement) that are		<module name>:<local name>
	considered active.
	The permissible types of input documents are listed in Table 1		Figure 1: Encoding a namespace identifier with a local name.
	together with the corresponding part of the data model that is used
	for the translation.
	+------------------------------+---------------------------------+		Names with namespace identifiers in the form shown in Figure 1 MUST
	| Document Type | Data Model Section |		be used for all top-level YANG data nodes, and also for all nodes
	+------------------------------+---------------------------------+		whose parent node belongs to a different namespace. Otherwise, names
	| configuration and state data | main data tree |		with namespace identifiers MUST NOT be used.
	| | |
	| configuration | main data tree ("config true") |
	| | |
	| RPC input parameters | "input" data nodes under "rpc" |
	| | |
	| RPC output parameters | "output" data nodes under "rpc" |
	| | |
	| notification | "notification" data nodes |
	+------------------------------+---------------------------------+
	Table 1: YANG Document Types		For example, consider the following YANG module:
	When translating XML to JSON, the type of the input document can		module foomod {
	often be determined form the encapsulating elements belonging to the
	"Operations" or "Messages" layer as defined by the NETCONF protocol
	(see Sec. 1.2 in [RFC6241]).
	A particular application MAY decide to support only a subset of		namespace "http://example.com/foomod";
	document types from Table 1.
	XML documents can be translated to JSON text only if they are valid		prefix "foo";
	instances of the YANG data model and selected document type, also
	taking into account the active features, if there are any.
	The resulting JSON document is always a single object ([RFC7159],		container top {
	Sec. 4) whose members are translated from the original XML document		leaf foo {
	using the rules specified in the following sections.		type uint8;
			}
			}
			}
	3.1. Names and Namespaces		If the data model consists only of this module, then the following is
			a valid JSON-encoded configuration:
	The local part of a JSON name is always identical to the local name		{
	of the corresponding XML element.		"foomod:top": {
			"foo": 54
			}
			}
	Each JSON name lives in a namespace which is uniquely identified by		Note that the top-level container instance contains the namespace
	the name of the YANG module where the corresponding data node is		identifier (module name) but the "foo" leaf doesn't because it is
	defined. If the data node is defined in a submodule, then the		defined in the same module as its parent container.
	namespace identifier is the name of the main module to which the
	submodule belongs. The translation procedure MUST correctly map YANG
	namespace URIs to YANG module names and vice versa.
	The namespace SHALL be expressed in JSON text by prefixing the local		Now, assume the container "top" is augmented from another module,
	name in the following way:		"barmod":
	<module name>:<local name>		module barmod {
	Figure 1: Encoding a namespace identifier with a local name.		namespace "http://example.com/barmod";
	The namespace identifier MUST be used for local names that are		prefix "bar";
	ambiguous, i.e., whenever the data model permits a sibling data node
	with the same local name. Otherwise, the namespace identifier is
	OPTIONAL.
	For example, consider the following YANG module:		import foomod {
			prefix "foo";
			}
	module foomod {		augment "/foo:top" {
	namespace "http://example.com/foomod";		leaf bar {
	prefix "fm";		type boolean;
	container foo {
	leaf bar {
	type boolean;
	}
	}
	}		}
			}
			}
	If the data model consists only of this module, then the following is		A valid JSON-encoded configuration containing both leafs may then
	a valid JSON document:		look like this:
	{		{
	"foo": {		"foomod:top": {
	"bar": true		"foo": 54,
	}		"barmod:bar": true
	}		}
			}
	Now, assume the container "foo" is augmented from another module:		The name of the "bar" leaf must be prefixed with the namespace
			identifier because its parent is defined in a different module, hence
			it belongs to another namespace.
	module barmod {		Explicit namespace identifiers are sometimes needed when encoding
	namespace "http://example.com/barmod";		values of the "identityref" and "instances-identifier" types. The
	prefix "bm";		same form as shown in Figure 1 is then used as well. See Sections
	import foomod {		6.8 and 6.11 for details.
	prefix fm;
	}
	augment "/fm:foo" {
	leaf bar {
	type uint8;
	}
	}
	}
	In the data model combining "foomod" and "barmod", we have two		5. Encoding of YANG Data Node Instances
	sibling data nodes with the same local name, namely "bar". In this
	case, a valid JSON document has to specify an explicit namespace
	identifier (module name) for both leaves:
	{		Every complete JSON instance document, such as a configuration
	"foo": {		datastore content, is an object. Its members are instances of all
	"foomod:bar": true,		top-level data nodes defined by the YANG data model.
	"barmod:bar": 123
	}
	}
	3.2. Mapping XML Elements to JSON Objects		Character encoding MUST be UTF-8.
	An XML element that is modelled as a YANG data node is translated to		Any data node instance is encoded as a name/value pair where the name
	a name/value pair where the name is formed from the name of the XML		is formed from the data node identifier using the rules of Section 4.
	element using the rules in Section 3.1. The value depends on the		The value depends on the category of the data node as explained in
	type of the data node as specified in the following sections.		the following subsections.
	3.2.1. The "leaf" Data Node		5.1. The "leaf" Data Node
	An XML element that is modeled as YANG leaf is translated to a name/		A leaf instance is encoded as a name/value pair where the value can
	value pair and the type of the value is derived from the YANG		be a string, number, literal 'true' or 'false' or the special array
	datatype of the leaf (see Section 3.3 for the datatype mapping		'[null]', depending on the type of the leaf (see Section 6 for the
	rules).		type encoding rules).
	Example: For the leaf node definition		Example: For the leaf node definition
	leaf foo {		leaf foo {
	type uint8;		type uint8;
	}		}
	the XML element
	<foo>123</foo>
	corresponds to the JSON name/value pair		the following is a valid JSON-encoded instance:
	"foo": 123		"foo": 123
	3.2.2. The "container" Data Node		5.2. The "container" Data Node
	An XML element that is modeled as YANG container is translated to a		An container instance is encoded as a name/object pair. The
	name/object pair.		container's child data nodes are encoded as members of the object.
	Example: For the container definition		Example: For the container definition
	container bar {
	leaf foo {
	type uint8;
	}
	}
	the XML element
	<bar>		container bar {
	<foo>123</foo>		leaf foo {
	</bar>		type uint8;
			}
			}
	corresponds to the JSON name/value pair		the following is a valid instance:
	"bar": {		"bar": {
	"foo": 123		"foo": 123
	}		}
	3.2.3. The "leaf-list" Data Node		5.3. The "leaf-list" Data Node
	A sequence of one or more sibling XML elements with the same		A leaf-list is encoded as a name/array pair, and the array elements
	qualified name that is modeled as YANG leaf-list is translated to a		are values whose type depends on the datatype of the leaf-list (see
	name/array pair, and the array elements are primitive values whose		Section 6).
	type depends on the datatype of the leaf-list (see Section 3.3).
	Example: For the leaf-list definition		Example: For the leaf-list definition
	leaf-list foo {		leaf-list foo {
	type uint8;		type uint8;
	}		}
	the XML elements
	<foo>123</foo>
	<foo>0</foo
	correspond to the JSON name/value pair		the following is a valid instance:
	"foo": [123, 0]		"foo": [123, 0]
	3.2.4. The "list" Data Node		5.4. The "list" Data Node
	A sequence of one or more sibling XML elements with the same		A list instance is encoded as a name/array pair, and the array
	qualified name that is modeled as YANG list is translated to a name/		elements are JSON objects.
	array pair, and the array elements are JSON objects.
	Unlike the XML encoding, where the list keys are required to come		Unlike the XML encoding, where list keys are required to precede any
	before any other siblings, and in the order specified by the data		other siblings, and to appear in the order specified by the data
	model, the order of members within a JSON list entry is arbitrary,		model, the order of members within a JSON-encoded list entry is
	because JSON objects are fundamentally unordered collections of		arbitrary because JSON objects are fundamentally unordered
	members.		collections of members.
	Example: For the list definition		Example: For the list definition
			list bar {
			key foo;
			leaf foo {
			type uint8;
			}
			leaf baz {
			type string;
			}
			}
	list bar {		the following is a valid instance:
	key foo;
	leaf foo {
	type uint8;
	}
	leaf baz {
	type string;
	}
	}
	the XML elements		"bar": [
			{
			"foo": 123,
			"baz": "zig"
			},
			{
			"baz": "zag",
			"foo": 0
			}
			]
	<bar>		5.5. The "anyxml" Data Node
	<foo>123</foo>
	<baz>zig</baz>
	</bar>
	<bar>
	<foo>0</foo>
	<baz>zag</baz>
	</bar>
	correspond to the JSON name/value pair		An anyxml instance is translated to a name/value pair. The value can
			be of any valid JSON type, i.e. an object, array, number, string or
			any of the literals 'true', 'false' and 'null'.
	"bar": [		This document defines no mapping between the contents of JSON- and
	{		XML-encoded anyxml instances. It is not necessary because anyxml
	"foo": 123,		contents are not subject to YANG-based validation (see sec. 7.10 in
	"baz": "zig"		[RFC6020]).
	},
	{
	"foo": 0,
	"baz": "zag"
	}
	]
	3.2.5. The "anyxml" Data Node		Example: For the anyxml definition
	An XML element that is modeled as a YANG anyxml data node is		anyxml bar;
	translated to a name/object pair. The content of such an element is
	not modelled by YANG, and there may not be a straightforward mapping
	to JSON text (e.g., if it is a mixed XML content). Therefore,
	translation of anyxml contents is necessarily application-specific
	and outside the scope of this document.
	Example: For the anyxml definition		the following is a valid instance:
	anyxml bar;		"bar": [true, null, true]
	the XML element		6. The Mapping of YANG Datatypes to JSON Values
	<bar>		The type of the JSON value in an instance of the leaf or leaf-list
	<p xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">		data node depends on the datatype of that data node as specified in
	This is <em>very</em> cool.		the following subsections.
	</p>
	</bar>
	may be translated to the following JSON name/value pair:		6.1. Numeric Datatypes
	{		A value of the "int8", "int16", "int32", "uint8", "uint16" is
	"bar": {		represented as a JSON number.
	"p": "This is *very* cool."
	}
	}
	3.3. Mapping YANG Datatypes to JSON Values		A value of the "int64", "uint64" or "decimal64" type is encoded as a
			JSON string whose contents is the lexical representation of that
			numeric value as specified in sections 9.2.1 and 9.3.1 of [RFC6020].
	3.3.1. Numeric Datatypes		For example, if the type of the leaf "foo" in Section 5.1 was
			"unit64" instead of "uint8", the instance would have to be encoded as
	A value of one of the YANG numeric datatypes ("int8", "int16",		"foo": "123"
	"int32", "int64", "uint8", "uint16", "uint32", "uint64" and
	"decimal64") is mapped to a JSON number using the same lexical
	representation.
	3.3.2. The "string" Type		The special handling of 64-bit numbers follows from I-JSON
			recommendation to encode numbers exceeding the IEEE 754-2000 double
			precision range as strings, see sec. 2.2 in [I-D.ietf-json-i-json].
	A "string" value is mapped to an identical JSON string, subject to		6.2. The "string" Type
	JSON encoding rules.
	3.3.3. The "boolean" Type		A "string" value encoded as a JSON string, subject to JSON encoding
			rules.
	A "boolean" value is mapped to the corresponding JSON value 'true' or		6.3. The "boolean" Type
	'false'.
	3.3.4. The "enumeration" Type		A "boolean" value is mapped to the corresponding JSON literal name
			'true' or 'false'.
			6.4. The "enumeration" Type
	An "enumeration" value is mapped in the same way as a string except		An "enumeration" value is mapped in the same way as a string except
	that the permitted values are defined by "enum" statements in YANG.		that the permitted values are defined by "enum" statements in YANG.
			See sec. 9.6 in [RFC6020].
	3.3.5. The "bits" Type		6.5. The "bits" Type
	A "bits" value is mapped to a string identical to the lexical		A "bits" value is mapped to a JSON string identical to the lexical
	representation of this value in XML, i.e., space-separated names		representation of this value in XML, i.e., space-separated names
	representing the individual bit values that are set.		representing the individual bit values that are set. See sec. 9.7 in
			[RFC6020].
	3.3.6. The "binary" Type		6.6. The "binary" Type
	A "binary" value is mapped to a JSON string identical to the lexical		A "binary" value is mapped to a JSON string identical to the lexical
	representation of this value in XML, i.e., base64-encoded binary		representation of this value in XML, i.e., base64-encoded binary
	data.		data. See sec. 9.8 in [RFC6020].
	3.3.7. The "leafref" Type		6.7. The "leafref" Type
	A "leafref" value is mapped according to the same rules as the type		A "leafref" value is mapped according to the same rules as the type
	of the leaf being referred to.		of the leaf being referred to.
	3.3.8. The "identityref" Type		6.8. The "identityref" Type
	An "identityref" value is mapped to a string representing the
	qualified name of the identity. Its namespace MAY be expressed as
	shown in Figure 1. If the namespace part is not present, the
	namespace of the name of the JSON object containing the value is
	assumed.
	3.3.9. The "empty" Type
	An "empty" value is mapped to '[null]', i.e., an array with the
	'null' value being its only element.
	This encoding was chosen instead of using simply 'null' in order to
	facilitate the use of empty leafs in common programming languages.
	When used in a boolean context, the '[null]' value, unlike 'null',
	evaluates to 'true'.
	Example: For the leaf definition
	leaf foo {
	type empty;
	}
	the XML element
	<foo/>
	corresponds to the JSON name/value pair
	"foo": [null]
	3.3.10. The "union" Type
	YANG "union" type represents a choice among multiple alternative		An "identityref" value is mapped to a string representing the name of
	types. The actual type of the XML value MUST be determined using the		an identity. Its namespace MUST be expressed as shown in Figure 1 if
	procedure specified in Sec. 9.12 of [RFC6020] and the mapping rules		it is different from the namespace of the leaf node containing the
	for that type are used.		identityref value, and MAY be expressed otherwise.
	For example, consider the following YANG definition:		For example, consider the following schematic module:
	leaf-list bar {		module exmod {
	type union {		...
	type uint16;		import ietf-interfaces {
	type string;		prefix if;
	}		}
			import iana-if-type {
			prefix ianaift;
			}
			...
			leaf type {
			type identityref {
			base "if:interface-type";
	}		}
			}
			}
	The sequence of three XML elements		A valid instance of the "type" leaf is then encoded as follows:
	<bar>6378</bar>
	<bar>14.5</bar>
	<bar>infinity</bar>
	will then be translated to this name/array pair:
	"bar": [6378, "14.5", "infinity"]
	3.3.11. The "instance-identifier" Type
	An "instance-identifier" value is a string representing a simplified
	XPath specification. It is mapped to an analogical JSON string in
	which all occurrences of XML namespace prefixes are either removed or
	replaced with the corresponding module name according to the rules of
	Section 3.1.
	When translating such a value from JSON to XML, all components of the
	instance-identifier MUST be given appropriate XML namespace prefixes.
	It is RECOMMENDED that these prefixes be those defined via the
	"prefix" statement in the corresponding YANG modules.
	For example, assume "ex" is the prefix defined for the "example"
	module. Then the XML-encoded instance identifier
	/ex:system/ex:user[ex:name='fred']
	corresponds to the following JSON-encoded instance identifier:		"type": "iana-if-type:ethernetCsmacd"
	/example:system/example:user[example:name='fred']		The namespace identifier "iana-if-type" must be present in this case
			because the "ethernetCsmacd" identity is not defined in the same
			module as the "type" leaf.
	or simply		6.9. The "empty" Type
	/system/user[name='fred']		An "empty" value is mapped to '[null]', i.e., an array with the
			'null' literal being its only element.
	if the local names of the data nodes "system", "user" and "name" are		This encoding was chosen instead of using simply 'null' in order to
	unambiguous.		facilitate the use of empty leafs in common programming languages.
			When used in a boolean context, the '[null]' value, unlike 'null',
			evaluates to true.
	4. Encoding Metadata in JSON		Example: For the leaf definition
	By design, YANG does not allow for modeling XML attributes. However,		leaf foo {
	attributes are often used in XML instance documents for attaching		type empty;
	various types of metadata information to elements. It is therefore		}
	desirable to have a standard way for representing attributes in JSON
	documents as well.
	The metadata encoding defined in the rest of this section satisfies		a valid instance is
	the following two important requirements:
	1. There has to be a way for adding metadata to instances of all		"foo": [null]
	types of YANG data nodes, i.e., leafs, containers, list and leaf-
	list entries, and anyxml nodes.
	2. The encoding of YANG data node instances as defined in the		6.10. The "union" Type
	previous sections must not change.
	Existing proposals for metadata encoding in JSON, such as		A value of the "union" type is encoded as the value of any of the
	[JSON-META], are oriented on rather specific uses of metadata, and		member types.
	fall short with respect to the first requirement.
	All attributes assigned to an XML element are mapped in JSON to		Unlike XML, JSON conveys part of the type information already in the
	members (name/value pairs) of a single object, henceforth denoted as		encoding. When validating a value of the "union" type, this
	the metadata object. The placement of this object depends on the		information MUST also be taken into account.
	type of the element from YANG viewpoint, as specified in the
	following paragraphs.
	For an XML element that is translated to a JSON object (i.e., a		For example, consider the following YANG definition:
	container, anyxml node and list entry), the metadata object is added
	as a new member of that object with the name "@".
	Examples:		leaf bar {
			type union {
			type uint16;
			type string;
			}
			}
	o If "cask" is a container or anyxml node, the XML instance with		In RESTCONF [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf], it is fully acceptable to
	attributes		set the value of "bar" in the following way when using the
			"application/yang.data+xml" media type:
	<cask foo="a" bar="b">		<bar>13.5</bar>
	...
	</cask>
	is mapped to the following JSON object:		because the value may be interpreted as a string, i.e., the second
			member type of the union. When using the "application/
			yang.data+json" media type, however, this is an error:
	"cask": {		"bar": 13.5
	"@": {
	"foo": "a",
	"bar": "b"
	}
	...
	}
	o If "seq" is a list, then the pair of XML elements		In this case, the JSON encoding indicates the value is supposed to be
			a number rather than string.
	<seq foo="a">		6.11. The "instance-identifier" Type
	<name>one</name>
	</seq>
	<seq bar="b">
	<name>two</name>
	</seq>
	is mapped to the following JSON array:		An "instance-identifier" value is encoded as a string that is
			analogical to the lexical representation in XML encoding, see
			sec. 9.13.3 in [RFC6020]. The only difference is that XML namespace
			prefixes used for qualifying node names in the instance-identifier
			value are replaced by the corresponding module names according to the
			rules of Section 4.
	"seq": [		Conversely, when translating such a value from JSON to XML, the
	{		namespace identifier (YANG module name) in each component of the
	"@": {		instance-identifier MUST be replaced by the XML namespace prefix that
	"foo": "a"		is associated with the namespace URI reference of the module.
	},
	"name": "one"
	},
	{
	"@": {
	"bar": "b"
	},
	"name": "two"
	}
	]
	In order to assign attributes to a leaf instance, a sibling name/		For example, assume "ex" is the prefix associated with the namespace
	value pair is added, where the name is the symbol "@" concatenated		URI that is defined in the "example" module. Then the XML-encoded
	with the identifier of the leaf.		instance-identifier
	For example, the element		/ex:system/ex:user[ex:name='fred']
	<flag foo="a" bar="b">true</foo>		corresponds to the following JSON-encoded instance-identifier:
	is mapped to the following two name/value pairs:		/example:system/example:user[example:name='fred']
	"flag": true,		7. I-JSON Compliance
	"@flag": {
	"foo": "a",
	"bar": "b"
	}
	Finally, for a leaf-list instance, which is represented as a JSON		I-JSON [I-D.ietf-json-i-json] is a restricted profile of JSON that
	array with primitive values, attributes may be assigned to one or		guarantees maximum interoperability for protocols that use JSON in
	more entries by adding a sibling name/value pair, where the name is		their messages, no matter what JSON encoders/decoders are used in
	the symbol "@" concatenated with the identifier of the leaf-list, and		protocol implementations. The encoding defined in this document
	the value is a JSON array whose i-th element is the metadata object		therefore observes the I-JSON requirements and recommendations as
	with attributes assigned to the i-th entry of the leaf-list, or nil		closely as possible.
	if the i-th entry has no attributes.
	Trailing nil values in the array, i.e., those following the last non-		In particular, the following properties are guaranteed:
	nil metadata object, MAY be omitted.
	For example, a leaf-list instance with four entries		o Character encoding is UTF-8.
	<folio>6</folio>		o Member names within the same JSON object are always unique.
	<folio foo="a">3</folio>
	<folio bar="b">7</folio>
	<folio>8</folio>
	is mapped to the following two name/value pairs:		o The order of JSON object members is never relied upon.
	"folio": [6, 3, 7, 8],		o Numbers of any type supported by YANG can be exchanged reliably.
	"@folio": [nil, {"foo": "a"}, {"bar": "b"}]		See Section 6.1 for details.
	The encoding of attributes as specified above has the following two		The only two cases where a JSON instance document encoded according
	limitations:		to this document may deviate from I-JSON were dictated by the need to
			be able to encode the same instance data in both JSON and XML. These
			two exceptions are:
	o Mapping of namespaces of XML attributes is undefined.		o Leaf values encoded as strings may contain code points identifying
			Noncharacters that belong to the XML character set (see sec. 2.2
			in [W3C.REC-xml-20081126]).
	o Attribute values can only be strings, other data types are not		o Values of the "binary" type are encoded with the base64 encoding
	supported.		scheme (see sec. 9.8.2 in [RFC6020]) whereas I-JSON recommends
			base64url instead. However, the use of base64 should not cause
			any interoperability problems because these values never appear in
			an URL.
	5. IANA Considerations		8. Security Considerations
	TBD - register application/yang.data+json media type?		This document defines an alternative encoding for data modeled in the
			YANG data modeling language. As such, it doesn't contribute any new
			security issues beyond those discussed in sec. 15 of [RFC6020].
	6. Security Considerations		JSON is rather different from XML, and JSON parsers may thus suffer
			from other types of vulnerabilities than their XML counterparts. To
			minimize these security risks, it is important that client and server
			software supporting JSON encoding behaves as required in sec. 3 of
			[I-D.ietf-json-i-json]. That is, any received JSON data that violate
			any of I-JSON strict constraints MUST NOT be trusted nor acted upon.
			Violations due to the presence of Unicode Noncharacters in the data
			exceptions (see Section 7) SHOULD be carefully examined.
	TBD.		9. Acknowledgments
	7. Acknowledgments		The author wishes to thank Andy Bierman, Martin Bjorklund, Juergen
			Schoenwaelder and Phil Shafer for their helpful comments and
			suggestions.
	The author wishes to thank Andy Bierman, Martin Bjorklund and Phil		10. References
	Shafer for their helpful comments and suggestions.
	8. References		10.1. Normative References
	8.1. Normative References		[I-D.ietf-json-i-json]
			Bray, T., "The I-JSON Message Format", draft-ietf-json-
			i-json-03 (work in progress), August 2014.
	[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, March 1997.		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
	[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for		[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the
	Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,		Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
	September 2010.		October 2010.
	[RFC6241] Enns, R., Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., and A.		[RFC6241] Enns, R., Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., and A.
	Bierman, "NETCONF Configuration Protocol", RFC 6241, June		Bierman, "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC
	2011.		6241, June 2011.
	[RFC7159] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data		[RFC7159] Bray, T., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
	Interchange Format", RFC 7159, March 2014.		Interchange Format", RFC 7159, March 2014.
	[XMLNS] Bray, T., Hollander, D., Layman, A., Tobin, R., and H.		[W3C.REC-xml-20081126]
	Thompson, "Namespaces in XML 1.0 (Third Edition)", World		Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, M., Maler, E., and
	Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-xml-names-20091208,
	December 2009,
	<http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-xml-names-20091208>.
	[XML] Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C., 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,
	<http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816>.		<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126>.
	8.2. Informative References
	[IF-CFG] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface		10.2. Informative References
	Management", draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-16 (work in
	progress), January 2014.
	[JSON-META]		[I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf]
	Sakimura, N., "JSON Metadata", draft-sakimura-json-		Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
	metadata-01 (work in progress), November 2013.		Protocol", draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-02 (work in
			progress), October 2014.
	[RESTCONF]		[RFC7223] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
	Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., Watsen, K., and R. Fernando,		Management", RFC 7223, May 2014.
	"RESTCONF Protocol", draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-00 (work
	in progress), March 2014.
	[XPath] Clark, J., "XML Path Language (XPath) Version 1.0", World		[W3C.REC-xpath-19991116]
	Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-xpath-19991116,		Clark, J. and S. DeRose, "XML Path Language (XPath)
	November 1999,		Version 1.0", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation
			REC-xpath-19991116, November 1999,
	<http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xpath-19991116>.		<http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xpath-19991116>.
	Appendix A. A Complete Example		Appendix A. A Complete Example
	The JSON document shown below was translated from a reply to the		The JSON document shown below represents the same data as the reply
	NETCONF <get> request that can be found in Appendix D of [IF-CFG].		to the NETCONF <get> request appearing in Appendix D of [RFC7223].
	The data model is a combination of two YANG modules: "ietf-		The data model is a combination of two YANG modules: "ietf-
	interfaces" and "ex-vlan" (the latter is an example module from		interfaces" and "ex-vlan" (the latter is an example module from
	Appendix C of [IF-CFG]). The "if-mib" feature defined in the "ietf-		Appendix C of [RFC7223]). The "if-mib" feature defined in the "ietf-
	interfaces" module is considered to be active.		interfaces" module is considered to be active.
	{		{
	"interfaces": {		"ietf-interfaces:interfaces": {
	"interface": [		"interface": [
	{		{
	"name": "eth0",		"name": "eth0",
	"type": "iana-if-type:ethernetCsmacd",		"type": "iana-if-type:ethernetCsmacd",
	"enabled": false		"enabled": false
	},		},
	{		{
	"name": "eth1",		"name": "eth1",
	"type": "iana-if-type:ethernetCsmacd",		"type": "iana-if-type:ethernetCsmacd",
	"enabled": true,		"enabled": true,
	"vlan-tagging": true		"ex-vlan:vlan-tagging": true
	},		},
	{		{
	"name": "eth1.10",		"name": "eth1.10",
	"type": "iana-if-type:l2vlan",		"type": "iana-if-type:l2vlan",
	"enabled": true,		"enabled": true,
	"base-interface": "eth1",		"ex-vlan:base-interface": "eth1",
	"vlan-id": 10		"ex-vlan:vlan-id": 10
	},		},
	{		{
	"name": "lo1",		"name": "lo1",
	"type": "iana-if-type:softwareLoopback",		"type": "iana-if-type:softwareLoopback",
	"enabled": true		"enabled": true
	}		}
	]		]
	},		},
	"interfaces-state": {		"ietf-interfaces:interfaces-state": {
	"interface": [		"interface": [
	{		{
	"name": "eth0",		"name": "eth0",
	"type": "iana-if-type:ethernetCsmacd",		"type": "iana-if-type:ethernetCsmacd",
	"admin-status": "down",		"admin-status": "down",
	"oper-status": "down",		"oper-status": "down",
	"if-index": 2,		"if-index": 2,
	"phys-address": "00:01:02:03:04:05",		"phys-address": "00:01:02:03:04:05",
	"statistics": {		"statistics": {
	"discontinuity-time": "2013-04-01T03:00:00+00:00"		"discontinuity-time": "2013-04-01T03:00:00+00:00"
	skipping to change at page 20, line 21		skipping to change at page 16, line 33
	"oper-status": "up",		"oper-status": "up",
	"if-index": 1,		"if-index": 1,
	"statistics": {		"statistics": {
	"discontinuity-time": "2013-04-01T03:00:00+00:00"		"discontinuity-time": "2013-04-01T03:00:00+00:00"
	}		}
	}		}
	]		]
	}		}
	}		}
			Appendix B. Change Log
			RFC Editor: Remove this section upon publication as an RFC.
			B.1. Changes Between Revisions -00 and -01
			o Metadata encoding was moved to a separate I-D, draft-lhotka-
			netmod-yang-metadata.
			o JSON encoding is now defined directly rather than via XML-JSON
			mapping.
			o The rules for namespace encoding has changed. This affect both
			node instance names and instance-identifiers.
			o I-JSON-related changes. The most significant is the string
			encoding of 64-bit numbers.
			o When validating union type, the partial type info present in JSON
			encoding is taken into account.
			o Added section about I-JSON compliance.
			o Updated the example in appendix.
			o Wrote Security Considerations.
			o Removed IANA Considerations as there are none.
	Author's Address		Author's Address
	Ladislav Lhotka		Ladislav Lhotka
	CZ.NIC		CZ.NIC
	Email: lhotka@nic.cz		Email: lhotka@nic.cz
End of changes. 160 change blocks.
	569 lines changed or deleted		436 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/