--- 1/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-08.txt 2016-03-09 09:16:08.141722522 -0800 +++ 2/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-09.txt 2016-03-09 09:16:08.177723404 -0800 @@ -1,42 +1,42 @@ NETMOD Working Group L. Lhotka Internet-Draft CZ.NIC -Intended status: Standards Track February 24, 2016 -Expires: August 27, 2016 +Intended status: Standards Track March 09, 2016 +Expires: September 10, 2016 JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG - draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-08 + draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-09 Abstract - This document defines encoding rules for representing configuration, - state data, parameters of RPC operations or actions, and + This document defines encoding rules for representing configuration + data, state data, parameters of RPC operations or actions, and notifications defined using YANG as JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) text. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - This Internet-Draft will expire on August 27, 2016. + This Internet-Draft will expire on September 10, 2016. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents @@ -44,76 +44,77 @@ to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology and Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Properties of the JSON Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 4. Names and Namespaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 5. Encoding of YANG Data Node Instances . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 4. Names and Namespaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 5. Encoding of YANG Data Node Instances . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1. The "leaf" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.2. The "container" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 5.3. The "leaf-list" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 5.3. The "leaf-list" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.4. The "list" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.5. The "anydata" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.6. The "anyxml" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.7. Metadata Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Representing YANG Data Types in JSON Values . . . . . . . . . 10 - 6.1. Numeric Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 6.1. Numeric Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.2. The "string" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.3. The "boolean" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.4. The "enumeration" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.5. The "bits" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 6.6. The "binary" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 6.6. The "binary" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.7. The "leafref" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.8. The "identityref" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 6.9. The "empty" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 6.9. The "empty" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6.10. The "union" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6.11. The "instance-identifier" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7. I-JSON Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - Appendix A. A Complete Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - B.1. Changes Between Revisions -07 and -08 . . . . . . . . . . 18 - B.2. Changes Between Revisions -06 and -07 . . . . . . . . . . 19 - B.3. Changes Between Revisions -05 and -06 . . . . . . . . . . 19 - B.4. Changes Between Revisions -04 and -05 . . . . . . . . . . 19 - B.5. Changes Between Revisions -03 and -04 . . . . . . . . . . 19 - B.6. Changes Between Revisions -02 and -03 . . . . . . . . . . 19 - B.7. Changes Between Revisions -01 and -02 . . . . . . . . . . 19 - B.8. Changes Between Revisions -00 and -01 . . . . . . . . . . 20 - Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 + Appendix A. A Complete Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 + B.1. Changes Between Revisions -08 and -09 . . . . . . . . . . 19 + B.2. Changes Between Revisions -07 and -08 . . . . . . . . . . 19 + B.3. Changes Between Revisions -06 and -07 . . . . . . . . . . 19 + B.4. Changes Between Revisions -05 and -06 . . . . . . . . . . 19 + B.5. Changes Between Revisions -04 and -05 . . . . . . . . . . 19 + B.6. Changes Between Revisions -03 and -04 . . . . . . . . . . 20 + B.7. Changes Between Revisions -02 and -03 . . . . . . . . . . 20 + B.8. Changes Between Revisions -01 and -02 . . . . . . . . . . 20 + B.9. Changes Between Revisions -00 and -01 . . . . . . . . . . 20 + Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 1. Introduction The NETCONF protocol [RFC6241] uses XML [W3C.REC-xml-20081126] for encoding data in its Content Layer. Other management protocols might want to use other encodings while still benefiting from using YANG [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis] as the data modeling language. For example, the RESTCONF protocol [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf] supports two encodings: XML (media type "application/yang.data+xml") and JSON (media type "application/yang.data+json"). The specification of YANG 1.1 data modelling language [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis] defines only XML encoding of data trees, - i.e., contents of configuration datastores, state data, input/output - parameters of RPC operations or actions, and event notifications. - The aim of this document is to define rules for encoding the same - data as JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) text [RFC7159]. + i.e., configuration data, state data, input/output parameters of RPC + operations or actions, and notifications. The aim of this document + is to define rules for encoding the same data as JavaScript Object + Notation (JSON) text [RFC7159]. 2. Terminology and Notation The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. The following terms are defined in [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis]: o action, @@ -138,34 +139,45 @@ o leaf-list, o list, o module, o RPC operation, o submodule. + The following terms are defined in [RFC6241]: + + o configuration data, + + o notification, + + o state data. + 3. Properties of the JSON Encoding This document defines JSON encoding for YANG data trees and their subtrees. It is always assumed that the top-level structure in JSON- encoded data is an object. Instances of YANG data nodes (leafs, containers, leaf-lists, lists, anydata and anyxml nodes) are encoded as members of a JSON object, i.e., name/value pairs. Section 4 defines how the name part is formed, and the following sections deal with the value part. The encoding rules are identical for all types of data trees, i.e., - configuration and state data, parameters of RPC operations and + configuration data, state data, parameters of RPC operations, actions, and notifications. + With the exception of "anydata" encoding (Section 5.5), all rules in + this document are also applicable to YANG 1.0 [RFC6020]. + Unlike XML element content, JSON values carry partial type information (number, string, boolean). The JSON encoding is defined so that this information is never in conflict with the data type of the corresponding YANG leaf or leaf-list. With the exception of anyxml and schema-less anydata nodes, it is possible to map a JSON-encoded data tree to XML encoding as defined in [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis], and vice versa. However, such conversions require the YANG data model to be available. @@ -204,64 +216,64 @@ top-level JSON object, and then also whenever the namespaces of the data node and its parent node are different. In all other cases, the simple form of the member name MUST be used. For example, consider the following YANG module: module example-foomod { namespace "http://example.com/foomod"; - prefix "foo"; + prefix "foomod"; container top { leaf foo { type uint8; } } } If the data model consists only of this module, then the following is - a valid JSON-encoded configuration: + a valid JSON-encoded configuration data: { "example-foomod:top": { "foo": 54 } } Note that the member of the top-level object uses the namespace- qualified name but the "foo" leaf doesn't because it is defined in the same module as its parent container "top". Now, assume the container "top" is augmented from another module, "example-barmod": module example-barmod { namespace "http://example.com/barmod"; - prefix "bar"; + prefix "barmod"; import example-foomod { - prefix "foo"; + prefix "foomod"; } augment "/foo:top" { leaf bar { type boolean; } } } - A valid JSON-encoded configuration containing both leafs may then - look like this: + A valid JSON-encoded configuration data containing both leafs may + then look like this: { "example-foomod:top": { "foo": 54, "example-barmod:bar": true } } The name of the "bar" leaf is prefixed with the namespace identifier because its parent is defined in a different module. @@ -708,22 +719,27 @@ 10.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF Protocol", draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-09 (work in progress), December 2015. [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-metadata] Lhotka, L., "Defining and Using Metadata with YANG", - draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-03 (work in progress), - January 2016. + draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-04 (work in progress), + February 2016. + + [RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for + the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020, + DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010, + . [RFC7223] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface Management", RFC 7223, DOI 10.17487/RFC7223, May 2014, . [W3C.REC-xml-20081126] Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, M., Maler, E., and F. Yergeau, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth Edition)", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC- xml-20081126, November 2008, @@ -828,70 +844,77 @@ } } ] } } Appendix B. Change Log RFC Editor: Remove this section upon publication as an RFC. -B.1. Changes Between Revisions -07 and -08 +B.1. Changes Between Revisions -08 and -09 + + o References to RFC 6241 term in the Terminology section were added. + + o Prefixes in the example in Sec. 4 were changed so as to be + different from node names. + +B.2. Changes Between Revisions -07 and -08 o Changed the names of example modules so that they start with "example-". -B.2. Changes Between Revisions -06 and -07 +B.3. Changes Between Revisions -06 and -07 o General permit on object members whose names start with "@". -B.3. Changes Between Revisions -05 and -06 +B.4. Changes Between Revisions -05 and -06 o More text and a new example about resolving union-type values. -B.4. Changes Between Revisions -04 and -05 +B.5. Changes Between Revisions -04 and -05 o Removed section "Validation of JSON-encoded Instance Data" and other text about XML-JSON mapping. o Added section "Properties of the JSON Encoding". -B.5. Changes Between Revisions -03 and -04 +B.6. Changes Between Revisions -03 and -04 o I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis is used as a normative reference instead of RFC 6020. o Removed noncharacters as an I-JSON issue because it doesn't exist in YANG 1.1. o Section about anydata encoding was added. o Require I-JSON for anyxml encoding. o Use ABNF for defining qualified name. -B.6. Changes Between Revisions -02 and -03 +B.7. Changes Between Revisions -02 and -03 o Namespace encoding is defined without using RFC 2119 keywords. o Specification for anyxml nodes was extended and clarified. o Text about ordering of list entries was corrected. -B.7. Changes Between Revisions -01 and -02 +B.8. Changes Between Revisions -01 and -02 o Encoding of namespaces in instance-identifiers was changed. o Text specifying the order of array elements in leaf-list and list instances was added. -B.8. Changes Between Revisions -00 and -01 +B.9. 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.