< draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor-18.txt   draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor-19.txt >
Internet Engineering Task Force M. Veillette, Ed. Internet Engineering Task Force M. Veillette, Ed.
Internet-Draft Trilliant Networks Inc. Internet-Draft Trilliant Networks Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track I. Petrov, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track I. Petrov, Ed.
Expires: 23 June 2022 Google Switzerland GmbH Expires: 21 September 2022 Google Switzerland GmbH
A. Pelov A. Pelov
Acklio Acklio
C. Bormann C. Bormann
Universität Bremen TZI Universität Bremen TZI
M. Richardson M. Richardson
Sandelman Software Works Sandelman Software Works
20 December 2021 20 March 2022
CBOR Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG CBOR Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG
draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor-18 draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor-19
Abstract Abstract
Based on the Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR, RFC 8949), Based on the Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR, RFC 8949),
this document defines encoding rules for representing configuration this document defines encoding rules for representing configuration
data, state data, parameters and results of Remote Procedure Call data, state data, parameters and results of Remote Procedure Call
(RPC) operations or actions, and notifications, defined using YANG (RPC) operations or actions, and notifications, defined using YANG
(RFC 7950). (RFC 7950).
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 41 skipping to change at page 1, line 41
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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://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 23 June 2022. This Internet-Draft will expire on 21 September 2022.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2022 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology and Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology and Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Properties of the CBOR Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Properties of the CBOR Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. CBOR diagnostic notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1. CBOR diagnostic notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. YANG Schema Item iDentifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2. YANG Schema Item iDentifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.3. Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Encoding of Representation Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. Encoding of Representation Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1. The 'leaf' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.1. The 'leaf' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1.1. Using SIDs in keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.1.1. Using SIDs in keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1.2. Using names in keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.1.2. Using names in keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2. The 'container' and other nodes from the data tree . . . 12 4.2. The 'container' and other nodes from the data tree . . . 12
4.2.1. Using SIDs in keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.2.1. Using SIDs in keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2.2. Using names in keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.2.2. Using names in keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3. The 'leaf-list' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.3. The 'leaf-list' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3.1. Using SIDs in keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.3.1. Using SIDs in keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3.2. Using names in keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.3.2. Using names in keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.4. The 'list' and 'list' entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.4. The 'list' and 'list' entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.4.1. Using SIDs in keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.4.1. Using SIDs in keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.4.2. Using names in keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.4.2. Using names in keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.5. The 'anydata' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.5. The 'anydata' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
skipping to change at page 3, line 4 skipping to change at page 3, line 4
5.2. Using names in keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 5.2. Using names in keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6. Representing YANG Data Types in CBOR . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6. Representing YANG Data Types in CBOR . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.1. The unsigned integer Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6.1. The unsigned integer Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.2. The integer Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6.2. The integer Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.3. The 'decimal64' Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6.3. The 'decimal64' Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.4. The 'string' Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 6.4. The 'string' Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.5. The 'boolean' Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 6.5. The 'boolean' Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.6. The 'enumeration' Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 6.6. The 'enumeration' Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
6.7. The 'bits' Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 6.7. The 'bits' Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6.8. The 'binary' Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 6.8. The 'binary' Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
6.9. The 'leafref' Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 6.9. The 'leafref' Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
6.10. The 'identityref' Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 6.10. The 'identityref' Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
6.10.1. SIDs as identityref . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 6.10.1. SIDs as identityref . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
6.10.2. Name as identityref . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 6.10.2. Name as identityref . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
6.11. The 'empty' Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 6.11. The 'empty' Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6.12. The 'union' Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 6.12. The 'union' Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6.13. The 'instance-identifier' Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 6.13. The 'instance-identifier' Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
6.13.1. SIDs as instance-identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 6.13.1. SIDs as instance-identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
6.13.2. Names as instance-identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 6.13.2. Names as instance-identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
7. Content-Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 7. Content-Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
9.1. Media-Types Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 9.1. Media-Types Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
9.2. CoAP Content-Formats Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 9.2. CoAP Content-Formats Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
9.3. CBOR Tags Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 9.3. CBOR Tags Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The specification of the YANG 1.1 data modeling language [RFC7950] The specification of the YANG 1.1 data modeling language [RFC7950]
defines an XML encoding for data instances, i.e., contents of defines an XML encoding for data instances, i.e., contents of
configuration datastores, state data, RPC inputs and outputs, action configuration datastores, state data, RPC inputs and outputs, action
inputs and outputs, and event notifications. inputs and outputs, and event notifications.
skipping to change at page 4, line 41 skipping to change at page 4, line 41
The following term is defined in [RFC8040]: The following term is defined in [RFC8040]:
* yang-data extension * yang-data extension
The following term is defined in [RFC8791]: The following term is defined in [RFC8791]:
* YANG data structure * YANG data structure
This specification also makes use of the following terminology: This specification also makes use of the following terminology:
* YANG Schema Item iDentifier (YANG SID or simply SID): Unsigned * YANG Schema Item iDentifier (YANG SID or simply SID): 63-bit
integer used to identify different YANG items. unsigned integer used to identify different YANG items.
* delta: Difference between the current YANG SID and a reference * delta: Difference between the current YANG SID and a reference
YANG SID. A reference YANG SID is defined for each context for YANG SID. A reference YANG SID is defined for each context for
which deltas are used. which deltas are used.
* absolute SID: YANG SID not encoded as a delta. This is usually * absolute SID: YANG SID not encoded as a delta. This is usually
called out explicitly only in positions where normally a delta called out explicitly only in positions where normally a delta
would be found. would be found.
* representation tree: a YANG data tree, possibly enclosed by a * representation tree: a YANG data tree, possibly enclosed by a
skipping to change at page 5, line 43 skipping to change at page 5, line 43
A representation node such as container, list entry, YANG data A representation node such as container, list entry, YANG data
structure, notification, RPC input, RPC output, action input, or structure, notification, RPC input, RPC output, action input, or
action output is serialized using a CBOR map in which each schema action output is serialized using a CBOR map in which each schema
node defined within is encoded using a key and a value. This node defined within is encoded using a key and a value. This
specification supports two types of CBOR keys; YANG Schema Item specification supports two types of CBOR keys; YANG Schema Item
iDentifier (YANG SID) as defined in Section 3.2 and names as defined iDentifier (YANG SID) as defined in Section 3.2 and names as defined
in Section 3.3. Each of these key types is encoded using a specific in Section 3.3. Each of these key types is encoded using a specific
CBOR type which allows their interpretation during the CBOR type which allows their interpretation during the
deserialization process. Protocols or mechanisms implementing this deserialization process. Protocols or mechanisms implementing this
specification can mandate the use of a specific key type. specification can mandate the use of a specific key type or allow the
generator to choose freely per key.
In order to minimize the size of the encoded data, the mapping avoids In order to minimize the size of the encoded data, the mapping avoids
any unnecessary meta-information beyond that directly provided by the any unnecessary meta-information beyond that directly provided by the
CBOR basic generic data model (Section 2 of [RFC8949]). For CBOR basic generic data model (Section 2 of [RFC8949]). For
instance, CBOR tags are used solely in the case of an absolute SID, instance, CBOR tags are used solely in the case of an absolute SID,
anyxml data nodes, or the union datatype, to distinguish explicitly anyxml data nodes, or the union datatype, to distinguish explicitly
the use of different YANG datatypes encoded using the same CBOR major the use of different YANG datatypes encoded using the same CBOR major
type. type.
Unless specified otherwise by the protocol or mechanism implementing Unless specified otherwise by the protocol or mechanism implementing
skipping to change at page 8, line 14 skipping to change at page 8, line 14
3.2. YANG Schema Item iDentifier 3.2. YANG Schema Item iDentifier
Some of the items defined in YANG [RFC7950] require the use of a Some of the items defined in YANG [RFC7950] require the use of a
unique identifier. In both Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) unique identifier. In both Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)
[RFC6241] and RESTCONF [RFC8040], these identifiers are implemented [RFC6241] and RESTCONF [RFC8040], these identifiers are implemented
using text strings. To allow the implementation of data models using text strings. To allow the implementation of data models
defined in YANG in constrained devices and constrained networks, a defined in YANG in constrained devices and constrained networks, a
more compact method to identify YANG items is required. This compact more compact method to identify YANG items is required. This compact
identifier, called YANG Schema Item iDentifier, is an unsigned identifier, called YANG Schema Item iDentifier, is an unsigned
integer. The following items are identified using YANG SIDs (often integer limited to 63 bits of range (i.e., 0..9223372036854775807 or
shortened to SIDs): 0..0x7fffffffffffffff). The following items are identified using
YANG SIDs (often shortened to SIDs):
* identities * identities
* data nodes * data nodes
* RPCs and associated input(s) and output(s) * RPCs and associated input(s) and output(s)
* actions and associated input(s) and output(s) * actions and associated input(s) and output(s)
* YANG data structures * YANG data structures
skipping to change at page 8, line 46 skipping to change at page 8, line 47
To minimize their size, SIDs used as keys in CBOR maps are encoded To minimize their size, SIDs used as keys in CBOR maps are encoded
using deltas, i.e., signed (negative or unsigned) integers that are using deltas, i.e., signed (negative or unsigned) integers that are
added to the reference SID applying to the map. The reference SID of added to the reference SID applying to the map. The reference SID of
an outermost map is zero, unless a different reference SID is an outermost map is zero, unless a different reference SID is
unambiguously conferred from the environment in which the outermost unambiguously conferred from the environment in which the outermost
map is used. The reference SID of a map that is most directly map is used. The reference SID of a map that is most directly
embedded in a map entry with a name-based key is zero. For all other embedded in a map entry with a name-based key is zero. For all other
maps, the reference SID is the SID computed for the map entry it is maps, the reference SID is the SID computed for the map entry it is
most directly embedded in. (The embedding may be indirect if an most directly embedded in. (The embedding may be indirect if an
array intervenes, e.g., in a YANG list.) Where absolute SIDs are array intervenes, e.g., in a YANG list.) Where absolute SIDs are
desired in map key positions where a bare integer implies a delta, desired in map key positions (where a bare integer implies a delta),
they may be encoded using CBOR tag 47 (as defined in Section 9.3). they need to be identified as absolute SID values by using CBOR tag
number 47 (as defined in Section 4.2.1).
Thus, conversion from SIDs to deltas and back to SIDs is a stateless Thus, conversion from SIDs to deltas and back to SIDs is a stateless
process solely based on the data serialized or deserialized combined process solely based on the data serialized or deserialized combined
with, potentially, an outermost reference SID unambiguously conferred with, potentially, an outermost reference SID unambiguously conferred
by the environment. by the environment.
Mechanisms and processes used to assign SIDs to YANG items and to Mechanisms and processes used to assign SIDs to YANG items and to
guarantee their uniqueness are outside the scope of the present guarantee their uniqueness are outside the scope of the present
specification. If SIDs are to be used, the present specification is specification. If SIDs are to be used, the present specification is
used in conjunction with a specification defining this management. used in conjunction with a specification defining this management. A
[I-D.ietf-core-sid] is the definitive way to assign SID values for related document, [I-D.ietf-core-sid], is intended to serve as the
YANG modules managed by the IETF. With YANG modules managed by non- definitive way to assign SID values for YANG modules managed by the
IETF entities, use of [I-D.ietf-core-sid] is RECOMMENDED. The IETF, and recommends itself for YANG modules managed by non-IETF
present specification has been designed to allow different methods of entities, as well. The present specification has been designed to
assignment to be used within separate domains. allow different methods of assignment to be used within separate
domains.
To provide implementations with a way to internally indicate the To provide implementations with a way to internally indicate the
absence of a SID, the SID value 0 is reserved and will not be absence of a SID, the SID value 0 is reserved and will not be
allocated; it is not used in interchange. allocated; it is not used in interchange.
3.3. Name 3.3. Name
This specification also supports the encoding of YANG item This specification also supports the encoding of YANG item
identifiers as text strings, similar to those used by the JSON identifiers as text strings, similar to those used by the JSON
Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG [RFC7951]. This approach can be Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG [RFC7951]. This approach can be
skipping to change at page 10, line 8 skipping to change at page 10, line 10
ABNF syntax [RFC5234] of a name is shown in Figure 1, where the ABNF syntax [RFC5234] of a name is shown in Figure 1, where the
production for "identifier" is defined in Section 14 of [RFC7950]. production for "identifier" is defined in Section 14 of [RFC7950].
name = [identifier ":"] identifier name = [identifier ":"] identifier
Figure 1: ABNF Production for a simple or namespace qualified name Figure 1: ABNF Production for a simple or namespace qualified name
A namespace qualified name MUST be used for all members of a top- A namespace qualified name MUST be used for all members of a top-
level CBOR map and then also whenever the namespaces of the level CBOR map and then also whenever the namespaces of the
representation node and its parent node are different. In all other representation node and its parent node are different. In all other
cases, the simple form of the name SHOULD be used. cases, the simple form of the name MUST be used.
Definition example: Definition example:
module example-foomod { module example-foomod {
container top { container top {
leaf foo { leaf foo {
type uint8; type uint8;
} }
} }
} }
skipping to change at page 13, line 28 skipping to change at page 13, line 28
leaf boot-datetime { leaf boot-datetime {
type date-and-time; type date-and-time;
} }
} }
} }
4.2.1. Using SIDs in keys 4.2.1. Using SIDs in keys
In the context of containers and other nodes from the data tree, CBOR In the context of containers and other nodes from the data tree, CBOR
map keys within inner CBOR maps can be encoded using deltas or map keys within inner CBOR maps can be encoded using deltas (bare
absolute SIDs (tag 47). integers) or absolute SIDs (tagged with tag number 47).
Delta values are computed as follows: Delta values are computed as follows:
* In the case of a 'container', deltas are equal to the SID of the * In the case of a 'container', deltas are equal to the SID of the
current representation node minus the SID of the parent current representation node minus the SID of the parent
'container'. 'container'.
* In the case of a 'list', deltas are equal to the SID of the * In the case of a 'list', deltas are equal to the SID of the
current representation node minus the SID of the parent 'list'. current representation node minus the SID of the parent 'list'.
skipping to change at page 16, line 51 skipping to change at page 16, line 51
item (major type 4). Each list entry within this CBOR array is item (major type 4). Each list entry within this CBOR array is
encoded using a CBOR map data item (major type 5) based on the encoded using a CBOR map data item (major type 5) based on the
encoding rules of a collection as defined in Section 4.2. encoding rules of a collection as defined in Section 4.2.
It is important to note that this encoding rule also applies to a It is important to note that this encoding rule also applies to a
'list' representation node instance that has a single entry. 'list' representation node instance that has a single entry.
The following examples show the encoding of a 'server' list using The following examples show the encoding of a 'server' list using
SIDs or names. SIDs or names.
Definition example from [RFC7317]: Definition example simplified from [RFC7317]:
list server { list server {
key name; key name;
leaf name { leaf name {
type string; type string;
} }
choice transport { choice transport {
case udp { case udp {
container udp { container udp {
skipping to change at page 22, line 8 skipping to change at page 22, line 8
An anydata serves as a container for an arbitrary set of An anydata serves as a container for an arbitrary set of
representation nodes that otherwise appear as normal YANG-modeled representation nodes that otherwise appear as normal YANG-modeled
data. An anydata representation node instance is encoded using the data. An anydata representation node instance is encoded using the
same rules as a container, i.e., CBOR map. The requirement that same rules as a container, i.e., CBOR map. The requirement that
anydata content can be modeled by YANG implies the following: anydata content can be modeled by YANG implies the following:
* CBOR map keys of any inner representation nodes MUST be set to * CBOR map keys of any inner representation nodes MUST be set to
valid deltas or names. valid deltas or names.
* The CBOR array MUST contain either unique scalar values (as a * CBOR arrays MUST contain either unique scalar values (as a leaf-
leaf-list, see Section 4.3), or maps (as a list, see Section 4.4). list, see Section 4.3), or maps (as a list, see Section 4.4).
* CBOR map values MUST follow the encoding rules of one of the * CBOR map values MUST follow the encoding rules of one of the
datatypes listed in Section 4. datatypes listed in Section 4.
The following example shows a possible use of an anydata. In this The following example shows a possible use of an anydata. In this
example, an anydata is used to define a representation node example, an anydata is used to define a representation node
containing a notification event; this representation node can be part containing a notification event; this representation node can be part
of a YANG list to create an event logger. of a YANG list to create an event logger.
Definition example: Definition example:
skipping to change at page 23, line 29 skipping to change at page 23, line 29
18 4D # unsigned(77) 18 4D # unsigned(77)
A2 # map(2) A2 # map(2)
01 # unsigned(1) 01 # unsigned(1)
66 # text(6) 66 # text(6)
302F342F3231 # "0/4/21" 302F342F3231 # "0/4/21"
02 # unsigned(2) 02 # unsigned(2)
6A # text(10) 6A # text(10)
4F70656E2070696E2032 # "Open pin 2" 4F70656E2070696E2032 # "Open pin 2"
In some implementations, it might be simpler to use the absolute SID In some implementations, it might be simpler to use the absolute SID
encoding (tag 47) for the anydata root element. CBOR diagnostic encoding (tag number 47) for the anydata root element. CBOR
notation: diagnostic notation:
{ {
60123 : { / last-event (SID 60123) / 60123 : { / last-event (SID 60123) /
47(60200) : { / event-port-fault (SID 60200) / 47(60200) : { / event-port-fault (SID 60200) /
1 : "0/4/21", / port-name (SID 60201) / 1 : "0/4/21", / port-name (SID 60201) /
2 : "Open pin 2" / port-fault (SID 60202) / 2 : "Open pin 2" / port-fault (SID 60202) /
} }
} }
} }
skipping to change at page 24, line 26 skipping to change at page 24, line 26
66 # text(6) 66 # text(6)
302F342F3231 # "0/4/21" 302F342F3231 # "0/4/21"
6A # text(10) 6A # text(10)
706F72742D6661756C74 # "port-fault" 706F72742D6661756C74 # "port-fault"
6A # text(10) 6A # text(10)
4F70656E2070696E2032 # "Open pin 2" 4F70656E2070696E2032 # "Open pin 2"
4.6. The 'anyxml' 4.6. The 'anyxml'
An anyxml representation node is used to serialize an arbitrary CBOR An anyxml representation node is used to serialize an arbitrary CBOR
content, i.e., its value can be any CBOR binary object. An anyxml content, i.e., its value can be any CBOR binary object. (The "xml"
value MAY contain CBOR data items tagged with one of the tags listed in the name is a misnomer that only applied to YANG-XML [RFC7950].)
in Section 9.3. The tags listed in Section 9.3 SHALL be supported. An anyxml value MAY contain CBOR data items tagged with one of the
tags listed in Section 9.3. The tags listed in Section 9.3 SHALL be
supported.
The following example shows a valid CBOR encoded anyxml The following example shows a valid CBOR encoded anyxml
representation node instance consisting of a CBOR array containing representation node instance consisting of a CBOR array containing
the CBOR simple values 'true', 'null' and 'true'. the CBOR simple values 'true', 'null' and 'true'.
Definition example from [RFC7951]: Definition example from [RFC7951]:
module bar-module { module bar-module {
... ...
anyxml bar; # SID 60000 anyxml bar; # SID 60000
skipping to change at page 27, line 38 skipping to change at page 27, line 38
03 # unsigned(3) 03 # unsigned(3)
70 # text(16) 70 # text(16)
4D6178696D756D206578636565646564 # "Maximum exceeded" 4D6178696D756D206578636565646564 # "Maximum exceeded"
5.2. Using names in keys 5.2. Using names in keys
The yang-data extensions encoded using names are carried in a CBOR The yang-data extensions encoded using names are carried in a CBOR
map containing a single item pair. The key of this item is set to map containing a single item pair. The key of this item is set to
the namespace qualified name of the yang-data extension container; the namespace qualified name of the yang-data extension container;
the value is set to the CBOR encoding of this container as defined in the value is set to the CBOR encoding of this container as defined in
Section 3.3. Section 4.2.
This example shows a serialization example of the yang-errors yang- This example shows a serialization example of the yang-errors yang-
data extension as defined in [I-D.ietf-core-comi] using names as data extension as defined in [I-D.ietf-core-comi] using names as
defined Section 3.3. defined Section 3.3.
CBOR diagnostic notation: CBOR diagnostic notation:
{ {
"ietf-coreconf:error" : { "ietf-coreconf:error" : {
"error-tag" : "invalid-value", "error-tag" : "invalid-value",
skipping to change at page 31, line 9 skipping to change at page 31, line 9
} }
CBOR diagnostic notation: true CBOR diagnostic notation: true
CBOR encoding: F5 CBOR encoding: F5
6.6. The 'enumeration' Type 6.6. The 'enumeration' Type
Leafs of type enumeration MUST be encoded using a CBOR unsigned Leafs of type enumeration MUST be encoded using a CBOR unsigned
integer (major type 0) or CBOR negative integer (major type 1), integer (major type 0) or CBOR negative integer (major type 1),
depending on the actual value. Enumeration values are either depending on the actual value, or exceptionally as a tagged text
explicitly assigned using the YANG statement 'value' or automatically string (see below). Enumeration values are either explicitly
assigned based on the algorithm defined in Section 9.6.4.2 of assigned using the YANG statement 'value' or automatically assigned
[RFC7950]. based on the algorithm defined in Section 9.6.4.2 of [RFC7950].
The following example shows the encoding of an 'oper-status' leaf The following example shows the encoding of an 'oper-status' leaf
representation node instance set to 'testing'. representation node instance set to 'testing'.
Definition example from [RFC7317]: Definition example from [RFC7317]:
leaf oper-status { leaf oper-status {
type enumeration { type enumeration {
enum up { value 1; } enum up { value 1; }
enum down { value 2; } enum down { value 2; }
skipping to change at page 32, line 16 skipping to change at page 32, line 16
Keeping in mind that bit positions are either explicitly assigned Keeping in mind that bit positions are either explicitly assigned
using the YANG statement 'position' or automatically assigned based using the YANG statement 'position' or automatically assigned based
on the algorithm defined in Section 9.7.4.2 of [RFC7950], each on the algorithm defined in Section 9.7.4.2 of [RFC7950], each
element of type bits could be seen as a set of bit positions (or element of type bits could be seen as a set of bit positions (or
offsets from position 0), that have a value of either 1, which offsets from position 0), that have a value of either 1, which
represents the bit being set or 0, which represents that the bit is represents the bit being set or 0, which represents that the bit is
not set. not set.
Leafs of type bits MUST be encoded either using a CBOR array or byte Leafs of type bits MUST be encoded either using a CBOR array or byte
string (major type 2). In case CBOR array representation is used, string (major type 2), or exceptionally as a tagged text string (see
each element is either a positive integer (major type 0 with value 0 below). In case CBOR array representation is used, each element is
being disallowed) that can be used to calculate the offset of the either a positive integer (major type 0 with value 0 being
next byte string, or a byte string (major type 2) that carries the disallowed) that can be used to calculate the offset of the next byte
information whether certain bits are set or not. The initial offset string, or a byte string (major type 2) that carries the information
value is 0 and each unsigned integer modifies the offset value of the whether certain bits are set or not. The initial offset value is 0
next byte string by the integer value multiplied by 8. For example, and each unsigned integer modifies the offset value of the next byte
if the bit offset is 0 and there is an integer with value 5, the string by the integer value multiplied by 8. For example, if the bit
first byte of the byte string that follows will represent bit offset is 0 and there is an integer with value 5, the first byte of
positions 40 to 47 both ends included. If the byte string has a the byte string that follows will represent bit positions 40 to 47
second byte, it will carry information about bits 48 to 55 and so on. both ends included. If the byte string has a second byte, it will
Within each byte, bits are assigned from least to most significant. carry information about bits 48 to 55 and so on. Within each byte,
After the byte string, the offset is modified by the number of bytes bits are assigned from least to most significant. After the byte
in the byte string multiplied by 8. Bytes with no bits set (zero string, the offset is modified by the number of bytes in the byte
bytes) at the end of the byte string are never generated: If they string multiplied by 8. Bytes with no bits set (zero bytes) at the
would occur at the end of the array, the zero bytes are simply end of the byte string are never generated: If they would occur at
omitted; if they occur at the end of a byte string preceding an the end of the array, the zero bytes are simply omitted; if they
integer, the zero bytes are removed and the integer adjusted upwards occur at the end of a byte string preceding an integer, the zero
by the number of zero bytes removed. An example follows. bytes are removed and the integer adjusted upwards by the number of
zero bytes removed. An example follows.
The following example shows the encoding of an 'alarm-state' leaf The following example shows the encoding of an 'alarm-state' leaf
representation node instance with the 'critical' (position 3), representation node instance with the 'critical' (position 3),
'warning' (position 8) and 'indeterminate' (position 128) flags set. 'warning' (position 8) and 'indeterminate' (position 128) flags set.
typedef alarm-state { typedef alarm-state {
type bits { type bits {
bit unknown; bit unknown;
bit under-repair; bit under-repair;
bit critical; bit critical;
skipping to change at page 33, line 30 skipping to change at page 33, line 30
leaf alarm-state { leaf alarm-state {
type alarm-state; type alarm-state;
} }
CBOR diagnostic notation: [h'0401', 14, h'01'] CBOR diagnostic notation: [h'0401', 14, h'01']
CBOR encoding: 83 42 0401 0E 41 01 CBOR encoding: 83 42 0401 0E 41 01
In a number of cases the array would only need to have one element -- In a number of cases the array would only need to have one element --
a byte string with a few bytes inside. For this case, it is expected a byte string with a few bytes inside. For this case, it is REQUIRED
to omit the array element and have only the byte array that would to omit the array element and have only the byte array that would
have been inside. To illustrate this, let us consider the same have been inside. To illustrate this, let us consider the same
example YANG definition, but this time encoding only 'under-repair' example YANG definition, but this time encoding only 'under-repair'
and 'critical' flags. The result would be and 'critical' flags. The result would be
CBOR diagnostic notation: h'06' CBOR diagnostic notation: h'06'
CBOR encoding: 41 06 CBOR encoding: 41 06
Elements in the array MUST be either byte strings that do not end in Elements in the array MUST be either byte strings that do not end in
a zero byte, or positive unsigned integers, where byte strings and a zero byte, or positive unsigned integers, where byte strings and
integers MUST alternate, i.e., adjacent byte strings or adjacent integers MUST alternate, i.e., adjacent byte strings or adjacent
integers are an error. An array with a single byte string MUST integers are an error. An array with a single byte string MUST
instead be encoded as just that byte string. An array with a single instead be encoded as just that byte string. An array with a single
positive integer is an error. positive integer is an error. Note that a recipient can handle
trailing zero bytes in the byte strings using the normal rules
without any issue, so an implementation MAY silently accept them.
Values of 'bits' types defined in a 'union' type MUST be encoded Values of 'bits' types defined in a 'union' type MUST be encoded
using a CBOR text string data item (major type 3) and MUST contain a using a CBOR text string data item (major type 3) and MUST contain a
space-separated sequence of names of 'bits' that are set (see also space-separated sequence of names of 'bits' that are set (see also
Section 6.12). The encoding MUST be enclosed by the bits CBOR tag as Section 6.12). The encoding MUST be enclosed by the bits CBOR tag as
specified in Section 9.3. specified in Section 9.3.
The following example shows the encoding of an 'alarm-state' leaf The following example shows the encoding of an 'alarm-state' leaf
representation node instance defined using a union type with the representation node instance defined using a union type with the
'under-repair' and 'critical' flags set. 'under-repair' and 'critical' flags set.
skipping to change at page 35, line 33 skipping to change at page 35, line 41
} }
CBOR diagnostic notation: "eth1" CBOR diagnostic notation: "eth1"
CBOR encoding: 64 65746831 CBOR encoding: 64 65746831
6.10. The 'identityref' Type 6.10. The 'identityref' Type
This specification supports two approaches for encoding identityref: This specification supports two approaches for encoding identityref:
as a YANG Schema Item iDentifier as defined in Section 3.2, or as a as a YANG Schema Item iDentifier as defined in Section 3.2, or as a
name as defined in Section 6.8 of [RFC7951]. name as defined in Section 6.8 of [RFC7951]. See Section 6.12 for an
exceptional case when this representation needs to be tagged.
6.10.1. SIDs as identityref 6.10.1. SIDs as identityref
When representation nodes of type identityref are implemented using When representation nodes of type identityref are implemented using
SIDs, they MUST be encoded using a CBOR unsigned integer data item SIDs, they MUST be encoded using a CBOR unsigned integer data item
(major type 0). (Note that, as they are not used in the position of (major type 0). (Note that, as they are not used in the position of
CBOR map keys, no delta mechanism is employed for SIDs used for CBOR map keys, no delta mechanism is employed for SIDs used for
identityref.) identityref.)
The following example shows the encoding of a 'type' leaf The following example shows the encoding of a 'type' leaf
representation node instance set to the value 'iana-if- representation node instance set to the value 'iana-if-
type:ethernetCsmacd' (SID 1880). type:ethernetCsmacd' (SID 1880).
Definition example from [RFC7317]: Definition example from [RFC7317]:
identity interface-type { identity interface-type {
} }
identity iana-interface-type { identity iana-interface-type {
skipping to change at page 38, line 46 skipping to change at page 38, line 46
} }
CBOR diagnostic notation: "2001:db8:a0b:12f0::1" CBOR diagnostic notation: "2001:db8:a0b:12f0::1"
CBOR encoding: 74 323030313A6462383A6130623A313266303A3A31 CBOR encoding: 74 323030313A6462383A6130623A313266303A3A31
6.13. The 'instance-identifier' Type 6.13. The 'instance-identifier' Type
This specification supports two approaches for encoding an instance- This specification supports two approaches for encoding an instance-
identifier, one based on YANG Schema Item iDentifier as defined in identifier, one based on YANG Schema Item iDentifier as defined in
Section 3.2 and one based on names as defined in Section 3.3. Section 3.2 and one based on names as defined in Section 3.3. See
Section 6.12 for an exceptional case when this representation needs
to be tagged.
6.13.1. SIDs as instance-identifier 6.13.1. SIDs as instance-identifier
SIDs uniquely identify a schema node. In the case of a single SIDs uniquely identify a schema node. In the case of a single
instance schema node, i.e., a schema node defined at the root of a instance schema node, i.e., a schema node defined at the root of a
YANG module or submodule or schema nodes defined within a container, YANG module or submodule or schema nodes defined within a container,
the SID is sufficient to identify this instance (representation the SID is sufficient to identify this instance (representation
node). (Note that no delta mechanism is employed for SIDs used for node). (Note that no delta mechanism is employed for SIDs used for
identityref, see Section 6.10.1.) identityref, see Section 6.10.1.)
skipping to change at page 43, line 42 skipping to change at page 43, line 42
CBOR encoding: CBOR encoding:
78 34 # text(52) 78 34 # text(52)
2F696574662D73797374656D3A73797374656D2F61757468656E74696361 2F696574662D73797374656D3A73797374656D2F61757468656E74696361
74696F6E2F757365725B6E616D653D276A61636B275D 74696F6E2F757365725B6E616D653D276A61636B275D
7. Content-Types 7. Content-Types
This specification defines the media-type application/yang-data+cbor, This specification defines the media-type application/yang-data+cbor,
which can be used without parameters or with the parameter id=name or which can be used without parameters or with the id parameter set to
id=sid. either name or sid.
This media-type represents a YANG-CBOR document containing a This media-type represents a YANG-CBOR document containing a
representation tree. If the media-type parameter id is present, representation tree. If the media-type parameter id is present,
depending on its value, each representation node is identified by its depending on its value, each representation node is identified by its
associated namespace qualified name as defined in Section 3.3 associated namespace qualified name as defined in Section 3.3
(id=name), or by its associated YANG SID (represented as a SID delta (id=name), or by its associated YANG SID (represented, e.g., in CBOR
or via tag 47) as defined in Section 3.2 (id=sid), respectively. If map keys as a SID delta or via tag number 47) as defined in
no id parameter is given, both forms may be present. Section 3.2 (id=sid), respectively. If no id parameter is given,
both forms may be present.
The format of an application/yang-data+cbor representation is that of The format of an application/yang-data+cbor representation is that of
a CBOR map, mapping names and/or SIDs (as defined above) into a CBOR map, mapping names and/or SIDs (as defined above) into
instance values (using the rules defined in Section 4). instance values (using the rules defined in Section 4).
It is not foreseen at this point that the valid set of values for the It is not foreseen at this point that the valid set of values for the
id parameter will extend beyond name, sid, or being unset; if that id parameter will extend beyond name, sid, or being unset; if that
does happen, any new value is foreseen to be of the form does happen, any new value is foreseen to be of the form
[a-z][a-z0-9]*(-[a-z0-9]+)*. [a-z][a-z0-9]*(-[a-z0-9]+)*.
skipping to change at page 44, line 38 skipping to change at page 44, line 38
* application/yang-data+cbor -- for use by more complex applications * application/yang-data+cbor -- for use by more complex applications
that can benefit from the increased efficiency of SID identifiers that can benefit from the increased efficiency of SID identifiers
but also need to integrate databases of YANG modules before SID but also need to integrate databases of YANG modules before SID
mappings are defined for them. mappings are defined for them.
All three content-types are based on the same representation All three content-types are based on the same representation
mechanisms, parts of which are simply not used in the first and mechanisms, parts of which are simply not used in the first and
second case. second case.
How the use of one of these content types is selected in a transfer
protocol is outside the scope of this specification. The last
paragraph of Section 5.2 of [RFC8040] discusses how to indicate and
request the usage of specific content-types in RESTCONF. Similar
mechanisms are available in CoAP [RFC7252] using the Content-Format
and Accept Options; [I-D.ietf-core-comi] demonstrates specifics on
how Content-Format may be used to indicate the id=sid case.
8. Security Considerations 8. Security Considerations
The security considerations of [RFC8949] and [RFC7950] apply. The security considerations of [RFC8949] and [RFC7950] apply.
This document defines an alternative encoding for data modeled in the This document defines an alternative encoding for data modeled in the
YANG data modeling language. As such, this encoding does not YANG data modeling language. As such, this encoding does not
contribute any new security issues in addition to those identified contribute any new security issues in addition to those identified
for the specific protocol or context for which it is used. for the specific protocol or context for which it is used.
To minimize security risks, software on the receiving side SHOULD To minimize security risks, software on the receiving side SHOULD
reject all messages that do not comply to the rules of this document reject all messages that do not comply to the rules of this document
and reply with an appropriate error message to the sender. and reply with an appropriate error message to the sender.
For instance, when the 'id' parameter to the media type is used, it
is important to properly reject identifiers of the other type, to
avoid scenarios where different implementations interpret a given
content in different ways.
When SIDs are in use, the interpretation of encoded data not only When SIDs are in use, the interpretation of encoded data not only
relies on having the right YANG modules, but also on having the right relies on having the right YANG modules, but also on having the right
SID mapping information. Management and evolution of that mapping SID mapping information. Management and evolution of that mapping
information therefore requires the same care as the management and information therefore requires the same care as the management and
evolution of the YANG modules themselves. The procedures in evolution of the YANG modules themselves. The procedures in
[I-D.ietf-core-sid] are RECOMMENDED for this purpose. [I-D.ietf-core-sid] are being defined with this in mind.
9. IANA Considerations 9. IANA Considerations
9.1. Media-Types Registry 9.1. Media-Types Registry
This document adds the following Media-Type to the "Media Types" This document adds the following Media-Type to the "Media Types"
registry. registry.
+================+============================+===========+ +================+============================+===========+
| Name | Template | Reference | | Name | Template | Reference |
skipping to change at page 47, line 12 skipping to change at page 47, line 35
Table 4: CBOR tags defined by this specification Table 4: CBOR tags defined by this specification
// RFC Ed.: please replace RFC XXXX with RFC number and remove this // RFC Ed.: please replace RFC XXXX with RFC number and remove this
note note
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-core-sid]
Veillette, M., Pelov, A., Petrov, I., Bormann, C., and M.
Richardson, "YANG Schema Item iDentifier (YANG SID)", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-core-sid-18, 18
November 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-
ietf-core-sid-18.txt>.
[IANA.cbor-tags] [IANA.cbor-tags]
IANA, "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags", IANA, "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Tags",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/cbor-tags>. <https://www.iana.org/assignments/cbor-tags>.
[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, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax [RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
[RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language", [RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016, RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.
[RFC7951] Lhotka, L., "JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG",
RFC 7951, DOI 10.17487/RFC7951, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7951>.
[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8259] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8259>.
[RFC8610] Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise Data [RFC8610] Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise Data
Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to
Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and
JSON Data Structures", RFC 8610, DOI 10.17487/RFC8610, JSON Data Structures", RFC 8610, DOI 10.17487/RFC8610,
June 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8610>. June 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8610>.
[RFC8791] Bierman, A., Björklund, M., and K. Watsen, "YANG Data
Structure Extensions", RFC 8791, DOI 10.17487/RFC8791,
June 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8791>.
[RFC8949] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object [RFC8949] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949, Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8949, December 2020, DOI 10.17487/RFC8949, December 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8949>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8949>.
10.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-core-comi] [I-D.ietf-core-comi]
Veillette, M., Stok, P. V. D., Pelov, A., Bierman, A., and Veillette, M., Stok, P. V. D., Pelov, A., Bierman, A., and
I. Petrov, "CoAP Management Interface (CORECONF)", Work in I. Petrov, "CoAP Management Interface (CORECONF)", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-core-comi-11, 17 Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-core-comi-11, 17
January 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf- January 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-
core-comi-11.txt>. core-comi-11.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-core-sid]
Veillette, M., Pelov, A., Petrov, I., Bormann, C., and M.
Richardson, "YANG Schema Item iDentifier (YANG SID)", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-core-sid-18, 18
November 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-
ietf-core-sid-18.txt>.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., [RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011, (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
[RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types", [RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types",
RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013, RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6991>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6991>.
[RFC7228] Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for [RFC7228] Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for
Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228, Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7228, May 2014, DOI 10.17487/RFC7228, May 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7228>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7228>.
[RFC7252] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>.
[RFC7317] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "A YANG Data Model for [RFC7317] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "A YANG Data Model for
System Management", RFC 7317, DOI 10.17487/RFC7317, August System Management", RFC 7317, DOI 10.17487/RFC7317, August
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7317>. 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7317>.
[RFC7951] Lhotka, L., "JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG",
RFC 7951, DOI 10.17487/RFC7951, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7951>.
[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.
[RFC8259] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8259>.
[RFC8343] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface [RFC8343] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
Management", RFC 8343, DOI 10.17487/RFC8343, March 2018, Management", RFC 8343, DOI 10.17487/RFC8343, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8343>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8343>.
[RFC8344] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for IP Management", [RFC8344] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for IP Management",
RFC 8344, DOI 10.17487/RFC8344, March 2018, RFC 8344, DOI 10.17487/RFC8344, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8344>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8344>.
[RFC8791] Bierman, A., Björklund, M., and K. Watsen, "YANG Data
Structure Extensions", RFC 8791, DOI 10.17487/RFC8791,
June 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8791>.
Acknowledgments Acknowledgments
This document has been largely inspired by the extensive works done This document has been largely inspired by the extensive works done
by Andy Bierman and Peter van der Stok on [I-D.ietf-core-comi]. by Andy Bierman and Peter van der Stok on [I-D.ietf-core-comi].
[RFC7951] has also been a critical input to this work. The authors [RFC7951] has also been a critical input to this work. The authors
would like to thank the authors and contributors to these two drafts. would like to thank the authors and contributors to these two drafts.
The authors would also like to acknowledge the review, feedback, and The authors would also like to acknowledge the review, feedback, and
comments from Ladislav Lhotka and Jürgen Schönwälder. comments from Ladislav Lhotka and Jürgen Schönwälder.
 End of changes. 43 change blocks. 
94 lines changed or deleted 124 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/