idnits 2.17.1
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-06.txt:
Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No issues found here.
Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section
2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case
when there are no actions for IANA.)
Miscellaneous warnings:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
== The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
match the current year
-- The document date (October 07, 2015) is 3117 days in the past. Is this
intentional?
Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
-- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '123' on line 335
-- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '0' on line 335
== Outdated reference: A later version (-14) exists of
draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-07
** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7159 (Obsoleted by RFC 8259)
== Outdated reference: A later version (-18) exists of
draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-07
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 7223
(Obsoleted by RFC 8343)
Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 4 comments (--).
Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
the items above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 NETMOD Working Group L. Lhotka
3 Internet-Draft CZ.NIC
4 Intended status: Standards Track October 07, 2015
5 Expires: April 9, 2016
7 JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG
8 draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-06
10 Abstract
12 This document defines encoding rules for representing configuration,
13 state data, RPC operation or action input and output parameters, and
14 notifications defined using YANG as JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)
15 text.
17 Status of This Memo
19 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
20 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
22 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
23 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
24 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
25 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
27 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
28 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
29 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
30 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
32 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 9, 2016.
34 Copyright Notice
36 Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
37 document authors. All rights reserved.
39 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
40 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
41 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
42 publication of this document. Please review these documents
43 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
44 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
45 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
46 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
47 described in the Simplified BSD License.
49 Table of Contents
51 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
52 2. Terminology and Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
53 3. Properties of the JSON Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
54 4. Names and Namespaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
55 5. Encoding of YANG Data Node Instances . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
56 5.1. The "leaf" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
57 5.2. The "container" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
58 5.3. The "leaf-list" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
59 5.4. The "list" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
60 5.5. The "anydata" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
61 5.6. The "anyxml" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
62 6. Representing YANG Data Types in JSON Values . . . . . . . . . 10
63 6.1. Numeric Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
64 6.2. The "string" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
65 6.3. The "boolean" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
66 6.4. The "enumeration" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
67 6.5. The "bits" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
68 6.6. The "binary" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
69 6.7. The "leafref" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
70 6.8. The "identityref" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
71 6.9. The "empty" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
72 6.10. The "union" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
73 6.11. The "instance-identifier" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
74 7. I-JSON Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
75 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
76 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
77 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
78 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
79 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
80 Appendix A. A Complete Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
81 Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
82 B.1. Changes Between Revisions -05 and -06 . . . . . . . . . . 18
83 B.2. Changes Between Revisions -04 and -05 . . . . . . . . . . 18
84 B.3. Changes Between Revisions -03 and -04 . . . . . . . . . . 19
85 B.4. Changes Between Revisions -02 and -03 . . . . . . . . . . 19
86 B.5. Changes Between Revisions -01 and -02 . . . . . . . . . . 19
87 B.6. Changes Between Revisions -00 and -01 . . . . . . . . . . 19
88 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
90 1. Introduction
92 The NETCONF protocol [RFC6241] uses XML [W3C.REC-xml-20081126] for
93 encoding data in its Content Layer. Other management protocols might
94 want to use other encodings while still benefiting from using YANG
95 [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis] as the data modeling language.
97 For example, the RESTCONF protocol [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf]
98 supports two encodings: XML (media type "application/yang.data+xml")
99 and JSON (media type "application/yang.data+json").
101 The specification of YANG 1.1 data modelling language
102 [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis] defines only XML encoding for data
103 instances, i.e., contents of configuration datastores, state data,
104 RPC operation or action input and output parameters, and event
105 notifications. The aim of this document is to define rules for
106 encoding the same data as JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)
107 text [RFC7159].
109 2. Terminology and Notation
111 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
112 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
113 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
115 The following terms are defined in [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis]:
117 o action,
119 o anydata,
121 o anyxml,
123 o augment,
125 o container,
127 o data node,
129 o data tree,
131 o identity,
133 o instance identifier,
135 o leaf,
137 o leaf-list,
139 o list,
141 o module,
143 o RPC operation,
144 o submodule.
146 3. Properties of the JSON Encoding
148 This document defines JSON encoding for YANG data trees and their
149 subtrees. It is always assumed that the top-level structure in JSON-
150 encoded data is an object.
152 Instances of YANG data nodes (leafs, containers, leaf-lists, lists,
153 anydata and anyxml nodes) are encoded as members of a JSON object,
154 i.e., name/value pairs. Section 4 defines how the name part is
155 formed, and the following sections deal with the value part.
157 Unlike XML element content, JSON values carry partial type
158 information (number, string, boolean). The JSON encoding is defined
159 so that this information is never in conflict with the data type of
160 the corresponding YANG leaf or leaf-list.
162 With the exception of anyxml and schema-less anydata nodes, it is
163 possible to map a JSON-encoded data tree to XML encoding as defined
164 in [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis], and vice versa. However, such
165 conversions require the YANG data model to be available.
167 In order to achieve maximum interoperability while allowing
168 implementations to use a variety of existing JSON parsers, the JSON
169 encoding rules follow, as much as possible, the constraints of the
170 I-JSON restricted profile [RFC7493]. Section 7 discusses I-JSON
171 conformance in more detail.
173 4. Names and Namespaces
175 An object member name MUST be in one of the following forms:
177 o simple - identical to the identifier of the corresponding YANG
178 data node;
180 o namespace-qualified - the data node identifier is prefixed with
181 the name of the module in which the data node is defined,
182 separated from the data node identifier by the colon character
183 (":").
185 The name of a module determines the namespace of all data node names
186 defined in that module. If a data node is defined in a submodule,
187 then the namespace-qualified member name uses the name of the main
188 module to which the submodule belongs.
190 ABNF syntax [RFC5234] of a member name is shown in Figure 1, where
191 the production for "identifier" is defined in sec. 13 of
192 [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis].
194 member-name = [identifier ":"] identifier
196 Figure 1: ABNF production for a JSON member name.
198 A namespace-qualified member name MUST be used for all members of a
199 top-level JSON object, and then also whenever the namespaces of the
200 data node and its parent node are different. In all other cases, the
201 simple form of the member name MUST be used.
203 For example, consider the following YANG module:
205 module foomod {
207 namespace "http://example.com/foomod";
209 prefix "foo";
211 container top {
212 leaf foo {
213 type uint8;
214 }
215 }
216 }
218 If the data model consists only of this module, then the following is
219 a valid JSON-encoded configuration:
221 {
222 "foomod:top": {
223 "foo": 54
224 }
225 }
227 Note that the member of the top-level object uses the namespace-
228 qualified name but the "foo" leaf doesn't because it is defined in
229 the same module as its parent container "top".
231 Now, assume the container "top" is augmented from another module,
232 "barmod":
234 module barmod {
236 namespace "http://example.com/barmod";
238 prefix "bar";
240 import foomod {
241 prefix "foo";
242 }
244 augment "/foo:top" {
245 leaf bar {
246 type boolean;
247 }
248 }
249 }
251 A valid JSON-encoded configuration containing both leafs may then
252 look like this:
254 {
255 "foomod:top": {
256 "foo": 54,
257 "barmod:bar": true
258 }
259 }
261 The name of the "bar" leaf is prefixed with the namespace identifier
262 because its parent is defined in a different module.
264 Explicit namespace identifiers are sometimes needed when encoding
265 values of the "identityref" and "instances-identifier" types. The
266 same form of namespace-qualified name as defined above is then used.
267 See Sections 6.8 and 6.11 for details.
269 5. Encoding of YANG Data Node Instances
271 Every data node instance is encoded as a name/value pair where the
272 name is formed from the data node identifier using the rules of
273 Section 4. The value depends on the category of the data node as
274 explained in the following subsections.
276 Character encoding MUST be UTF-8.
278 5.1. The "leaf" Data Node
280 A leaf instance is encoded as a name/value pair where the value can
281 be a string, number, literal "true" or "false", or the special array
282 "[null]", depending on the type of the leaf (see Section 6 for the
283 type encoding rules).
285 Example: For the leaf node definition
287 leaf foo {
288 type uint8;
289 }
291 the following is a valid JSON-encoded instance:
293 "foo": 123
295 5.2. The "container" Data Node
297 A container instance is encoded as a name/object pair. The
298 container's child data nodes are encoded as members of the object.
300 Example: For the container definition
302 container bar {
303 leaf foo {
304 type uint8;
305 }
306 }
308 the following is a valid JSON-encoded instance:
310 "bar": {
311 "foo": 123
312 }
314 5.3. The "leaf-list" Data Node
316 A leaf-list is encoded as a name/array pair, and the array elements
317 are values of some scalar type, which can be a string, number,
318 literal "true" or "false", or the special array "[null]", depending
319 on the type of the leaf-list (see Section 6 for the type encoding
320 rules).
322 The ordering of array elements follows the same rules as the ordering
323 of XML elements representing leaf-list entries in the XML encoding.
324 Specifically, the "ordered-by" properties (sec. 7.7.7 in
325 [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis]) MUST be observed.
327 Example: For the leaf-list definition
329 leaf-list foo {
330 type uint8;
331 }
333 the following is a valid JSON-encoded instance:
335 "foo": [123, 0]
337 5.4. The "list" Data Node
339 A list instance is encoded as a name/array pair, and the array
340 elements are JSON objects.
342 The ordering of array elements follows the same rules as the ordering
343 of XML elements representing list entries in the XML encoding.
344 Specifically, the "ordered-by" properties (sec. 7.7.7 in
345 [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis]) MUST be observed.
347 Unlike the XML encoding, where list keys are required to precede any
348 other siblings within a list entry, and appear in the order specified
349 by the data model, the order of members in a JSON-encoded list entry
350 is arbitrary because JSON objects are fundamentally unordered
351 collections of members.
353 Example: For the list definition
355 list bar {
356 key foo;
357 leaf foo {
358 type uint8;
359 }
360 leaf baz {
361 type string;
362 }
363 }
365 the following is a valid JSON-encoded instance:
367 "bar": [
368 {
369 "foo": 123,
370 "baz": "zig"
371 },
372 {
373 "baz": "zag",
374 "foo": 0
375 }
376 ]
378 5.5. The "anydata" Data Node
380 Anydata data node serves as a container for an arbitrary set of nodes
381 that otherwise appear as normal YANG-modeled data. A data model for
382 anydata content may or may not be known at run time. In the latter
383 case, converting JSON-encoded instances to the XML encoding defined
384 in [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis] may be impossible.
386 An anydata instance is encoded in the same way as a container, i.e.,
387 as a value/object pair. The requirement that anydata content can be
388 modeled by YANG implies the following rules for the JSON text inside
389 the object:
391 o It is valid I-JSON [RFC7493].
393 o All object member names satisfy the ABNF production in Figure 1.
395 o Any JSON array contains either only unique scalar values (as a
396 leaf-list, see Section 5.3), or only objects (as a list, see
397 Section 5.4).
399 o The "null" value is only allowed in the single-element array
400 "[null]" corresponding to the encoding of the "empty" type, see
401 Section 6.9.
403 Example: for the anydata definition
405 anydata data;
407 the following is a valid JSON-encoded instance:
409 "data": {
410 "ietf-notification:notification": {
411 "eventTime": "2014-07-29T13:43:01Z",
412 "example-event:event": {
413 "event-class": "fault",
414 "reporting-entity": {
415 "card": "Ethernet0"
416 },
417 "severity": "major"
418 }
419 }
420 }
422 5.6. The "anyxml" Data Node
424 An anyxml instance is encoded as a JSON name/value pair which MUST
425 satisfy I-JSON constraints. Otherwise it is unrestricted, i.e., the
426 value can be an object, array, number, string or one of the literals
427 "true", "false" and "null".
429 There is no universal procedure for mapping JSON-encoded anyxml
430 instances to XML, and vice versa.
432 Example: For the anyxml definition
434 anyxml bar;
436 the following is a valid JSON-encoded instance:
438 "bar": [true, null, true]
440 6. Representing YANG Data Types in JSON Values
442 The type of the JSON value in an instance of the leaf or leaf-list
443 data node depends on the type of that data node as specified in the
444 following subsections.
446 6.1. Numeric Types
448 A value of the types "int8", "int16", "int32", "uint8", "uint16" and
449 "uint32" is represented as a JSON number.
451 A value of the "int64", "uint64" or "decimal64" type is represented
452 as a JSON string whose content is the lexical representation of the
453 corresponding YANG type as specified in sections 9.2.1 and 9.3.1 of
454 [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis].
456 For example, if the type of the leaf "foo" in Section 5.1 was
457 "uint64" instead of "uint8", the instance would have to be encoded as
459 "foo": "123"
461 The special handling of 64-bit numbers follows from the I-JSON
462 recommendation to encode numbers exceeding the IEEE 754-2008 double
463 precision range as strings, see sec. 2.2 in [RFC7493].
465 6.2. The "string" Type
467 A "string" value is represented as a JSON string, subject to JSON
468 string encoding rules.
470 6.3. The "boolean" Type
472 A "boolean" value is represented as the corresponding JSON literal
473 name "true" or "false".
475 6.4. The "enumeration" Type
477 An "enumeration" value is represented as a JSON string - one of the
478 names assigned by "enum" statements in YANG.
480 The representation is identical to the lexical representation of the
481 "enumeration" type in XML, see sec. 9.6 in
482 [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis].
484 6.5. The "bits" Type
486 A "bits" value is represented as a JSON string - a space-separated
487 sequence of names of bits that are set. The permitted bit names are
488 assigned by "bit" statements in YANG.
490 The representation is identical to the lexical representation of the
491 "bits" type, see sec. 9.7 in [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis].
493 6.6. The "binary" Type
495 A "binary" value is represented as a JSON string - base64-encoding of
496 arbitrary binary data.
498 The representation is identical to the lexical representation of the
499 "binary" type in XML, see sec. 9.8 in [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis].
501 6.7. The "leafref" Type
503 A "leafref" value is represented using the same rules as the type of
504 the leaf to which the leafref value refers.
506 6.8. The "identityref" Type
508 An "identityref" value is represented as a string - the name of an
509 identity. If the identity is defined in another module than the leaf
510 node containing the identityref value, the namespace-qualified form
511 (Section 4) MUST be used. Otherwise, both the simple and namespace-
512 qualified forms are permitted.
514 For example, consider the following schematic module:
516 module exmod {
517 ...
518 import ietf-interfaces {
519 prefix if;
520 }
521 import iana-if-type {
522 prefix ianaift;
523 }
524 ...
525 leaf type {
526 type identityref {
527 base "if:interface-type";
528 }
529 }
530 }
532 A valid instance of the "type" leaf is then encoded as follows:
534 "type": "iana-if-type:ethernetCsmacd"
536 The namespace identifier "iana-if-type" must be present in this case
537 because the "ethernetCsmacd" identity is not defined in the same
538 module as the "type" leaf.
540 6.9. The "empty" Type
542 An "empty" value is represented as "[null]", i.e., an array with the
543 "null" literal being its only element. For the purposes of this
544 document, "[null]" is considered an atomic scalar value.
546 This encoding of the "empty" type was chosen instead of using simply
547 "null" in order to facilitate the use of empty leafs in common
548 programming languages where the "null" value of a member is treated
549 as if the member is not present.
551 Example: For the leaf definition
553 leaf foo {
554 type empty;
555 }
557 a valid instance is
559 "foo": [null]
561 6.10. The "union" Type
563 A value of the "union" type is encoded as the value of any of the
564 member types.
566 When validating a value of the "union" type, the type information
567 conveyed by the JSON encoding MUST also be taken into account. JSON
568 syntax thus provides additional means for resolving union member type
569 that are not available in XML encoding.
571 For example, consider the following YANG definition:
573 leaf bar {
574 type union {
575 type uint16;
576 type string;
577 }
578 }
580 In RESTCONF [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf], it is possible to set the
581 value of "bar" in the following way when using the "application/
582 yang.data+xml" media type:
584 13.5
586 because the value may be interpreted as a string, i.e., the second
587 member type of the union. When using the "application/
588 yang.data+json" media type, however, this is an error:
590 "bar": 13.5
592 In this case, the JSON encoding indicates the value is supposed to be
593 a number rather than a string, and it is not a valid "uint16" value.
595 Conversely, the value of
596 "bar": "1"
598 is to be interpreted as a string.
600 6.11. The "instance-identifier" Type
602 An "instance-identifier" value is encoded as a string that is
603 analogical to the lexical representation in XML encoding, see
604 sec. 9.13.3 in [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis]. However, the encoding
605 of namespaces in instance-identifier values follows the rules stated
606 in Section 4, namely:
608 o The leftmost (top-level) data node name is always in the
609 namespace-qualified form.
611 o Any subsequent data node name is in the namespace-qualified form
612 if the node is defined in another module than its parent node, and
613 the simple form is used otherwise. This rule also holds for node
614 names appearing in predicates.
616 For example,
618 /ietf-interfaces:interfaces/interface[name='eth0']/ietf-ip:ipv4/ip
620 is a valid instance-identifer value because the data nodes
621 "interfaces", "interface" and "name" are defined in the module "ietf-
622 interfaces", whereas "ipv4" and "ip" are defined in "ietf-ip".
624 7. I-JSON Compliance
626 I-JSON [RFC7493] is a restricted profile of JSON that guarantees
627 maximum interoperability for protocols that use JSON in their
628 messages, no matter what JSON encoders/decoders are used in protocol
629 implementations. The encoding defined in this document therefore
630 observes the I-JSON requirements and recommendations as closely as
631 possible.
633 In particular, the following properties are guaranteed:
635 o Character encoding is UTF-8.
637 o Member names within the same JSON object are always unique.
639 o The order of JSON object members is never relied upon.
641 o Numbers of any type supported by YANG can be exchanged reliably.
642 See Section 6.1 for details.
644 The JSON encoding defined in this document deviates from I-JSON only
645 in the representation of the "binary" type. In order to remain
646 compatible with XML encoding, the base64 encoding scheme is used
647 (Section 6.6), whilst I-JSON recommends base64url instead.
649 8. Security Considerations
651 This document defines an alternative encoding for data modeled in the
652 YANG data modeling language. As such, it doesn't contribute any new
653 security issues beyond those discussed in sec. 16 of
654 [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis].
656 JSON processing is rather different from XML, and JSON parsers may
657 thus suffer from other types of vulnerabilities than their XML
658 counterparts. To minimize these new security risks, software on the
659 receiving side SHOULD reject all messages that do not comply to the
660 rules of this document and reply with an appropriate error message to
661 the sender.
663 9. Acknowledgments
665 The author wishes to thank Andy Bierman, Martin Bjorklund, Dean
666 Bogdanovic, Balazs Lengyel, Juergen Schoenwaelder and Phil Shafer for
667 their helpful comments and suggestions.
669 10. References
671 10.1. Normative References
673 [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis]
674 Bjorklund, M., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
675 draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-07 (work in progress),
676 September 2015.
678 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
679 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/
680 RFC2119, March 1997,
681 .
683 [RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
684 Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, DOI 10.17487/
685 RFC5234, January 2008,
686 .
688 [RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
689 and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
690 (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
691 .
693 [RFC7159] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
694 Interchange Format", RFC 7159, DOI 10.17487/RFC7159, March
695 2014, .
697 [RFC7493] Bray, T., Ed., "The I-JSON Message Format", RFC 7493, DOI
698 10.17487/RFC7493, March 2015,
699 .
701 10.2. Informative References
703 [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf]
704 Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
705 Protocol", draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-07 (work in
706 progress), July 2015.
708 [RFC7223] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
709 Management", RFC 7223, DOI 10.17487/RFC7223, May 2014,
710 .
712 [W3C.REC-xml-20081126]
713 Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, M., Maler, E., and
714 F. Yergeau, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth
715 Edition)", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-
716 xml-20081126, November 2008,
717 .
719 Appendix A. A Complete Example
721 The JSON document shown below represents the same data as the reply
722 to the NETCONF request appearing in Appendix D of [RFC7223].
723 The data model is a combination of two YANG modules: "ietf-
724 interfaces" and "ex-vlan" (the latter is an example module from
725 Appendix C of [RFC7223]). The "if-mib" feature defined in the "ietf-
726 interfaces" module is considered to be active.
728 {
729 "ietf-interfaces:interfaces": {
730 "interface": [
731 {
732 "name": "eth0",
733 "type": "iana-if-type:ethernetCsmacd",
734 "enabled": false
735 },
736 {
737 "name": "eth1",
738 "type": "iana-if-type:ethernetCsmacd",
739 "enabled": true,
740 "ex-vlan:vlan-tagging": true
742 },
743 {
744 "name": "eth1.10",
745 "type": "iana-if-type:l2vlan",
746 "enabled": true,
747 "ex-vlan:base-interface": "eth1",
748 "ex-vlan:vlan-id": 10
749 },
750 {
751 "name": "lo1",
752 "type": "iana-if-type:softwareLoopback",
753 "enabled": true
754 }
755 ]
756 },
757 "ietf-interfaces:interfaces-state": {
758 "interface": [
759 {
760 "name": "eth0",
761 "type": "iana-if-type:ethernetCsmacd",
762 "admin-status": "down",
763 "oper-status": "down",
764 "if-index": 2,
765 "phys-address": "00:01:02:03:04:05",
766 "statistics": {
767 "discontinuity-time": "2013-04-01T03:00:00+00:00"
768 }
769 },
770 {
771 "name": "eth1",
772 "type": "iana-if-type:ethernetCsmacd",
773 "admin-status": "up",
774 "oper-status": "up",
775 "if-index": 7,
776 "phys-address": "00:01:02:03:04:06",
777 "higher-layer-if": [
778 "eth1.10"
779 ],
780 "statistics": {
781 "discontinuity-time": "2013-04-01T03:00:00+00:00"
782 }
783 },
784 {
785 "name": "eth1.10",
786 "type": "iana-if-type:l2vlan",
787 "admin-status": "up",
788 "oper-status": "up",
789 "if-index": 9,
790 "lower-layer-if": [
791 "eth1"
792 ],
793 "statistics": {
794 "discontinuity-time": "2013-04-01T03:00:00+00:00"
795 }
796 },
797 {
798 "name": "eth2",
799 "type": "iana-if-type:ethernetCsmacd",
800 "admin-status": "down",
801 "oper-status": "down",
802 "if-index": 8,
803 "phys-address": "00:01:02:03:04:07",
804 "statistics": {
805 "discontinuity-time": "2013-04-01T03:00:00+00:00"
806 }
807 },
808 {
809 "name": "lo1",
810 "type": "iana-if-type:softwareLoopback",
811 "admin-status": "up",
812 "oper-status": "up",
813 "if-index": 1,
814 "statistics": {
815 "discontinuity-time": "2013-04-01T03:00:00+00:00"
816 }
817 }
818 ]
819 }
820 }
822 Appendix B. Change Log
824 RFC Editor: Remove this section upon publication as an RFC.
826 B.1. Changes Between Revisions -05 and -06
828 o More text and a new example about resolving union-type values.
830 B.2. Changes Between Revisions -04 and -05
832 o Removed section "Validation of JSON-encoded Instance Data" and
833 other text about XML-JSON mapping.
835 o Added section "Properties of the JSON Encoding".
837 B.3. Changes Between Revisions -03 and -04
839 o I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis is used as a normative reference
840 instead of RFC 6020.
842 o Removed noncharacters as an I-JSON issue because it doesn't exist
843 in YANG 1.1.
845 o Section about anydata encoding was added.
847 o Require I-JSON for anyxml encoding.
849 o Use ABNF for defining qualified name.
851 B.4. Changes Between Revisions -02 and -03
853 o Namespace encoding is defined without using RFC 2119 keywords.
855 o Specification for anyxml nodes was extended and clarified.
857 o Text about ordering of list entries was corrected.
859 B.5. Changes Between Revisions -01 and -02
861 o Encoding of namespaces in instance-identifiers was changed.
863 o Text specifying the order of array elements in leaf-list and list
864 instances was added.
866 B.6. Changes Between Revisions -00 and -01
868 o Metadata encoding was moved to a separate I-D, draft-lhotka-
869 netmod-yang-metadata.
871 o JSON encoding is now defined directly rather than via XML-JSON
872 mapping.
874 o The rules for namespace encoding has changed. This affect both
875 node instance names and instance-identifiers.
877 o I-JSON-related changes. The most significant is the string
878 encoding of 64-bit numbers.
880 o When validating union type, the partial type info present in JSON
881 encoding is taken into account.
883 o Added section about I-JSON compliance.
885 o Updated the example in appendix.
887 o Wrote Security Considerations.
889 o Removed IANA Considerations as there are none.
891 Author's Address
893 Ladislav Lhotka
894 CZ.NIC
896 Email: lhotka@nic.cz