idnits 2.17.1
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-07.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 (January 28, 2016) is 3011 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 337
-- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '0' on line 337
== Outdated reference: A later version (-14) exists of
draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-09
** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7159 (Obsoleted by RFC 8259)
== Outdated reference: A later version (-18) exists of
draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-09
== Outdated reference: A later version (-07) exists of
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-02
-- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 7223
(Obsoleted by RFC 8343)
Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 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 January 28, 2016
5 Expires: July 31, 2016
7 JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG
8 draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-07
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 July 31, 2016.
34 Copyright Notice
36 Copyright (c) 2016 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 5.7. Metadata Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
63 6. Representing YANG Data Types in JSON Values . . . . . . . . . 10
64 6.1. Numeric Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
65 6.2. The "string" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
66 6.3. The "boolean" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
67 6.4. The "enumeration" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
68 6.5. The "bits" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
69 6.6. The "binary" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
70 6.7. The "leafref" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
71 6.8. The "identityref" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
72 6.9. The "empty" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
73 6.10. The "union" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
74 6.11. The "instance-identifier" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
75 7. I-JSON Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
76 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
77 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
78 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
79 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
80 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
81 Appendix A. A Complete Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
82 Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
83 B.1. Changes Between Revisions -05 and -06 . . . . . . . . . . 18
84 B.2. Changes Between Revisions -05 and -06 . . . . . . . . . . 19
85 B.3. Changes Between Revisions -04 and -05 . . . . . . . . . . 19
86 B.4. Changes Between Revisions -03 and -04 . . . . . . . . . . 19
87 B.5. Changes Between Revisions -02 and -03 . . . . . . . . . . 19
88 B.6. Changes Between Revisions -01 and -02 . . . . . . . . . . 19
89 B.7. Changes Between Revisions -00 and -01 . . . . . . . . . . 19
90 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
92 1. Introduction
94 The NETCONF protocol [RFC6241] uses XML [W3C.REC-xml-20081126] for
95 encoding data in its Content Layer. Other management protocols might
96 want to use other encodings while still benefiting from using YANG
97 [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis] as the data modeling language.
99 For example, the RESTCONF protocol [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf]
100 supports two encodings: XML (media type "application/yang.data+xml")
101 and JSON (media type "application/yang.data+json").
103 The specification of YANG 1.1 data modelling language
104 [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis] defines only XML encoding for data
105 instances, i.e., contents of configuration datastores, state data,
106 RPC operation or action input and output parameters, and event
107 notifications. The aim of this document is to define rules for
108 encoding the same data as JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)
109 text [RFC7159].
111 2. Terminology and Notation
113 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
114 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
115 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
117 The following terms are defined in [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis]:
119 o action,
121 o anydata,
123 o anyxml,
125 o augment,
127 o container,
129 o data node,
131 o data tree,
133 o identity,
135 o instance identifier,
137 o leaf,
139 o leaf-list,
141 o list,
143 o module,
144 o RPC operation,
146 o submodule.
148 3. Properties of the JSON Encoding
150 This document defines JSON encoding for YANG data trees and their
151 subtrees. It is always assumed that the top-level structure in JSON-
152 encoded data is an object.
154 Instances of YANG data nodes (leafs, containers, leaf-lists, lists,
155 anydata and anyxml nodes) are encoded as members of a JSON object,
156 i.e., name/value pairs. Section 4 defines how the name part is
157 formed, and the following sections deal with the value part.
159 Unlike XML element content, JSON values carry partial type
160 information (number, string, boolean). The JSON encoding is defined
161 so that this information is never in conflict with the data type of
162 the corresponding YANG leaf or leaf-list.
164 With the exception of anyxml and schema-less anydata nodes, it is
165 possible to map a JSON-encoded data tree to XML encoding as defined
166 in [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis], and vice versa. However, such
167 conversions require the YANG data model to be available.
169 In order to achieve maximum interoperability while allowing
170 implementations to use a variety of existing JSON parsers, the JSON
171 encoding rules follow, as much as possible, the constraints of the
172 I-JSON restricted profile [RFC7493]. Section 7 discusses I-JSON
173 conformance in more detail.
175 4. Names and Namespaces
177 An object member name MUST be in one of the following forms:
179 o simple - identical to the identifier of the corresponding YANG
180 data node;
182 o namespace-qualified - the data node identifier is prefixed with
183 the name of the module in which the data node is defined,
184 separated from the data node identifier by the colon character
185 (":").
187 The name of a module determines the namespace of all data node names
188 defined in that module. If a data node is defined in a submodule,
189 then the namespace-qualified member name uses the name of the main
190 module to which the submodule belongs.
192 ABNF syntax [RFC5234] of a member name is shown in Figure 1, where
193 the production for "identifier" is defined in sec. 13 of
194 [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis].
196 member-name = [identifier ":"] identifier
198 Figure 1: ABNF production for a JSON member name.
200 A namespace-qualified member name MUST be used for all members of a
201 top-level JSON object, and then also whenever the namespaces of the
202 data node and its parent node are different. In all other cases, the
203 simple form of the member name MUST be used.
205 For example, consider the following YANG module:
207 module foomod {
209 namespace "http://example.com/foomod";
211 prefix "foo";
213 container top {
214 leaf foo {
215 type uint8;
216 }
217 }
218 }
220 If the data model consists only of this module, then the following is
221 a valid JSON-encoded configuration:
223 {
224 "foomod:top": {
225 "foo": 54
226 }
227 }
229 Note that the member of the top-level object uses the namespace-
230 qualified name but the "foo" leaf doesn't because it is defined in
231 the same module as its parent container "top".
233 Now, assume the container "top" is augmented from another module,
234 "barmod":
236 module barmod {
238 namespace "http://example.com/barmod";
240 prefix "bar";
242 import foomod {
243 prefix "foo";
244 }
246 augment "/foo:top" {
247 leaf bar {
248 type boolean;
249 }
250 }
251 }
253 A valid JSON-encoded configuration containing both leafs may then
254 look like this:
256 {
257 "foomod:top": {
258 "foo": 54,
259 "barmod:bar": true
260 }
261 }
263 The name of the "bar" leaf is prefixed with the namespace identifier
264 because its parent is defined in a different module.
266 Explicit namespace identifiers are sometimes needed when encoding
267 values of the "identityref" and "instances-identifier" types. The
268 same form of namespace-qualified name as defined above is then used.
269 See Sections 6.8 and 6.11 for details.
271 5. Encoding of YANG Data Node Instances
273 Every data node instance is encoded as a name/value pair where the
274 name is formed from the data node identifier using the rules of
275 Section 4. The value depends on the category of the data node as
276 explained in the following subsections.
278 Character encoding MUST be UTF-8.
280 5.1. The "leaf" Data Node
282 A leaf instance is encoded as a name/value pair where the value can
283 be a string, number, literal "true" or "false", or the special array
284 "[null]", depending on the type of the leaf (see Section 6 for the
285 type encoding rules).
287 Example: For the leaf node definition
289 leaf foo {
290 type uint8;
291 }
293 the following is a valid JSON-encoded instance:
295 "foo": 123
297 5.2. The "container" Data Node
299 A container instance is encoded as a name/object pair. The
300 container's child data nodes are encoded as members of the object.
302 Example: For the container definition
304 container bar {
305 leaf foo {
306 type uint8;
307 }
308 }
310 the following is a valid JSON-encoded instance:
312 "bar": {
313 "foo": 123
314 }
316 5.3. The "leaf-list" Data Node
318 A leaf-list is encoded as a name/array pair, and the array elements
319 are values of some scalar type, which can be a string, number,
320 literal "true" or "false", or the special array "[null]", depending
321 on the type of the leaf-list (see Section 6 for the type encoding
322 rules).
324 The ordering of array elements follows the same rules as the ordering
325 of XML elements representing leaf-list entries in the XML encoding.
326 Specifically, the "ordered-by" properties (sec. 7.7.7 in
327 [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis]) MUST be observed.
329 Example: For the leaf-list definition
331 leaf-list foo {
332 type uint8;
333 }
335 the following is a valid JSON-encoded instance:
337 "foo": [123, 0]
339 5.4. The "list" Data Node
341 A list instance is encoded as a name/array pair, and the array
342 elements are JSON objects.
344 The ordering of array elements follows the same rules as the ordering
345 of XML elements representing list entries in the XML encoding.
346 Specifically, the "ordered-by" properties (sec. 7.7.7 in
347 [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis]) MUST be observed.
349 Unlike the XML encoding, where list keys are required to precede any
350 other siblings within a list entry, and appear in the order specified
351 by the data model, the order of members in a JSON-encoded list entry
352 is arbitrary because JSON objects are fundamentally unordered
353 collections of members.
355 Example: For the list definition
357 list bar {
358 key foo;
359 leaf foo {
360 type uint8;
361 }
362 leaf baz {
363 type string;
364 }
365 }
367 the following is a valid JSON-encoded instance:
369 "bar": [
370 {
371 "foo": 123,
372 "baz": "zig"
373 },
374 {
375 "baz": "zag",
376 "foo": 0
377 }
378 ]
380 5.5. The "anydata" Data Node
382 Anydata data node serves as a container for an arbitrary set of nodes
383 that otherwise appear as normal YANG-modeled data. A data model for
384 anydata content may or may not be known at run time. In the latter
385 case, converting JSON-encoded instances to the XML encoding defined
386 in [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis] may be impossible.
388 An anydata instance is encoded in the same way as a container, i.e.,
389 as a value/object pair. The requirement that anydata content can be
390 modeled by YANG implies the following rules for the JSON text inside
391 the object:
393 o It is valid I-JSON [RFC7493].
395 o All object member names satisfy the ABNF production in Figure 1.
397 o Any JSON array contains either only unique scalar values (as a
398 leaf-list, see Section 5.3), or only objects (as a list, see
399 Section 5.4).
401 o The "null" value is only allowed in the single-element array
402 "[null]" corresponding to the encoding of the "empty" type, see
403 Section 6.9.
405 Example: for the anydata definition
407 anydata data;
409 the following is a valid JSON-encoded instance:
411 "data": {
412 "ietf-notification:notification": {
413 "eventTime": "2014-07-29T13:43:01Z",
414 "example-event:event": {
415 "event-class": "fault",
416 "reporting-entity": {
417 "card": "Ethernet0"
418 },
419 "severity": "major"
420 }
421 }
422 }
424 5.6. The "anyxml" Data Node
426 An anyxml instance is encoded as a JSON name/value pair. The value
427 MUST satisfy I-JSON constraints.
429 Example: For the anyxml definition
431 anyxml bar;
433 the following is a valid JSON-encoded instance:
435 "bar": [true, null, true]
437 5.7. Metadata Objects
439 Apart from instances of YANG data nodes, a JSON document MAY contain
440 special object members whose name starts with the "@" character
441 (COMMERCIAL AT). Such members are used for special purposes such as
442 encoding metadata [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-metadata]. Exact syntax and
443 semantics of such members are outside the scope of this document.
445 6. Representing YANG Data Types in JSON Values
447 The type of the JSON value in an instance of the leaf or leaf-list
448 data node depends on the type of that data node as specified in the
449 following subsections.
451 6.1. Numeric Types
453 A value of the types "int8", "int16", "int32", "uint8", "uint16" and
454 "uint32" is represented as a JSON number.
456 A value of the "int64", "uint64" or "decimal64" type is represented
457 as a JSON string whose content is the lexical representation of the
458 corresponding YANG type as specified in sections 9.2.1 and 9.3.1 of
459 [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis].
461 For example, if the type of the leaf "foo" in Section 5.1 was
462 "uint64" instead of "uint8", the instance would have to be encoded as
464 "foo": "123"
466 The special handling of 64-bit numbers follows from the I-JSON
467 recommendation to encode numbers exceeding the IEEE 754-2008 double
468 precision range as strings, see sec. 2.2 in [RFC7493].
470 6.2. The "string" Type
472 A "string" value is represented as a JSON string, subject to JSON
473 string encoding rules.
475 6.3. The "boolean" Type
477 A "boolean" value is represented as the corresponding JSON literal
478 name "true" or "false".
480 6.4. The "enumeration" Type
482 An "enumeration" value is represented as a JSON string - one of the
483 names assigned by "enum" statements in YANG.
485 The representation is identical to the lexical representation of the
486 "enumeration" type in XML, see sec. 9.6 in
487 [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis].
489 6.5. The "bits" Type
491 A "bits" value is represented as a JSON string - a space-separated
492 sequence of names of bits that are set. The permitted bit names are
493 assigned by "bit" statements in YANG.
495 The representation is identical to the lexical representation of the
496 "bits" type, see sec. 9.7 in [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis].
498 6.6. The "binary" Type
500 A "binary" value is represented as a JSON string - base64-encoding of
501 arbitrary binary data.
503 The representation is identical to the lexical representation of the
504 "binary" type in XML, see sec. 9.8 in [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis].
506 6.7. The "leafref" Type
508 A "leafref" value is represented using the same rules as the type of
509 the leaf to which the leafref value refers.
511 6.8. The "identityref" Type
513 An "identityref" value is represented as a string - the name of an
514 identity. If the identity is defined in another module than the leaf
515 node containing the identityref value, the namespace-qualified form
516 (Section 4) MUST be used. Otherwise, both the simple and namespace-
517 qualified forms are permitted.
519 For example, consider the following schematic module:
521 module exmod {
522 ...
523 import ietf-interfaces {
524 prefix if;
525 }
526 import iana-if-type {
527 prefix ianaift;
528 }
529 ...
530 leaf type {
531 type identityref {
532 base "if:interface-type";
533 }
534 }
535 }
537 A valid instance of the "type" leaf is then encoded as follows:
539 "type": "iana-if-type:ethernetCsmacd"
541 The namespace identifier "iana-if-type" must be present in this case
542 because the "ethernetCsmacd" identity is not defined in the same
543 module as the "type" leaf.
545 6.9. The "empty" Type
547 An "empty" value is represented as "[null]", i.e., an array with the
548 "null" literal being its only element. For the purposes of this
549 document, "[null]" is considered an atomic scalar value.
551 This encoding of the "empty" type was chosen instead of using simply
552 "null" in order to facilitate the use of empty leafs in common
553 programming languages where the "null" value of a member is treated
554 as if the member is not present.
556 Example: For the leaf definition
558 leaf foo {
559 type empty;
560 }
562 a valid instance is
564 "foo": [null]
566 6.10. The "union" Type
568 A value of the "union" type is encoded as the value of any of the
569 member types.
571 When validating a value of the "union" type, the type information
572 conveyed by the JSON encoding MUST also be taken into account. JSON
573 syntax thus provides additional means for resolving union member type
574 that are not available in XML encoding.
576 For example, consider the following YANG definition:
578 leaf bar {
579 type union {
580 type uint16;
581 type string;
582 }
583 }
585 In RESTCONF [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf], it is possible to set the
586 value of "bar" in the following way when using the "application/
587 yang.data+xml" media type:
589 13.5
591 because the value may be interpreted as a string, i.e., the second
592 member type of the union. When using the "application/
593 yang.data+json" media type, however, this is an error:
595 "bar": 13.5
597 In this case, the JSON encoding indicates the value is supposed to be
598 a number rather than a string, and it is not a valid "uint16" value.
600 Conversely, the value of
601 "bar": "1"
603 is to be interpreted as a string.
605 6.11. The "instance-identifier" Type
607 An "instance-identifier" value is encoded as a string that is
608 analogical to the lexical representation in XML encoding, see
609 sec. 9.13.3 in [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis]. However, the encoding
610 of namespaces in instance-identifier values follows the rules stated
611 in Section 4, namely:
613 o The leftmost (top-level) data node name is always in the
614 namespace-qualified form.
616 o Any subsequent data node name is in the namespace-qualified form
617 if the node is defined in another module than its parent node, and
618 the simple form is used otherwise. This rule also holds for node
619 names appearing in predicates.
621 For example,
623 /ietf-interfaces:interfaces/interface[name='eth0']/ietf-ip:ipv4/ip
625 is a valid instance-identifer value because the data nodes
626 "interfaces", "interface" and "name" are defined in the module "ietf-
627 interfaces", whereas "ipv4" and "ip" are defined in "ietf-ip".
629 7. I-JSON Compliance
631 I-JSON [RFC7493] is a restricted profile of JSON that guarantees
632 maximum interoperability for protocols that use JSON in their
633 messages, no matter what JSON encoders/decoders are used in protocol
634 implementations. The encoding defined in this document therefore
635 observes the I-JSON requirements and recommendations as closely as
636 possible.
638 In particular, the following properties are guaranteed:
640 o Character encoding is UTF-8.
642 o Member names within the same JSON object are always unique.
644 o The order of JSON object members is never relied upon.
646 o Numbers of any type supported by YANG can be exchanged reliably.
647 See Section 6.1 for details.
649 The JSON encoding defined in this document deviates from I-JSON only
650 in the representation of the "binary" type. In order to remain
651 compatible with XML encoding, the base64 encoding scheme is used
652 (Section 6.6), whilst I-JSON recommends base64url instead.
654 8. Security Considerations
656 This document defines an alternative encoding for data modeled in the
657 YANG data modeling language. As such, it doesn't contribute any new
658 security issues beyond those discussed in sec. 16 of
659 [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis].
661 JSON processing is rather different from XML, and JSON parsers may
662 thus suffer from other types of vulnerabilities than their XML
663 counterparts. To minimize these new security risks, software on the
664 receiving side SHOULD reject all messages that do not comply to the
665 rules of this document and reply with an appropriate error message to
666 the sender.
668 9. Acknowledgments
670 The author wishes to thank Andy Bierman, Martin Bjorklund, Dean
671 Bogdanovic, Balazs Lengyel, Juergen Schoenwaelder and Phil Shafer for
672 their helpful comments and suggestions.
674 10. References
676 10.1. Normative References
678 [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis]
679 Bjorklund, M., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
680 draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-09 (work in progress),
681 December 2015.
683 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
684 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
685 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
686 .
688 [RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
689 Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
690 DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
691 .
693 [RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
694 and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
695 (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
696 .
698 [RFC7159] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
699 Interchange Format", RFC 7159, DOI 10.17487/RFC7159, March
700 2014, .
702 [RFC7493] Bray, T., Ed., "The I-JSON Message Format", RFC 7493,
703 DOI 10.17487/RFC7493, March 2015,
704 .
706 10.2. Informative References
708 [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf]
709 Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
710 Protocol", draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-09 (work in
711 progress), December 2015.
713 [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-metadata]
714 Lhotka, L., "Defining and Using Metadata with YANG",
715 draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-02 (work in progress),
716 September 2015.
718 [RFC7223] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
719 Management", RFC 7223, DOI 10.17487/RFC7223, May 2014,
720 .
722 [W3C.REC-xml-20081126]
723 Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, M., Maler, E., and
724 F. Yergeau, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth
725 Edition)", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-
726 xml-20081126, November 2008,
727 .
729 Appendix A. A Complete Example
731 The JSON document shown below represents the same data as the reply
732 to the NETCONF request appearing in Appendix D of [RFC7223].
733 The data model is a combination of two YANG modules: "ietf-
734 interfaces" and "ex-vlan" (the latter is an example module from
735 Appendix C of [RFC7223]). The "if-mib" feature defined in the "ietf-
736 interfaces" module is considered to be active.
738 {
739 "ietf-interfaces:interfaces": {
740 "interface": [
741 {
742 "name": "eth0",
743 "type": "iana-if-type:ethernetCsmacd",
744 "enabled": false
745 },
746 {
747 "name": "eth1",
748 "type": "iana-if-type:ethernetCsmacd",
749 "enabled": true,
750 "ex-vlan:vlan-tagging": true
751 },
752 {
753 "name": "eth1.10",
754 "type": "iana-if-type:l2vlan",
755 "enabled": true,
756 "ex-vlan:base-interface": "eth1",
757 "ex-vlan:vlan-id": 10
758 },
759 {
760 "name": "lo1",
761 "type": "iana-if-type:softwareLoopback",
762 "enabled": true
763 }
764 ]
765 },
766 "ietf-interfaces:interfaces-state": {
767 "interface": [
768 {
769 "name": "eth0",
770 "type": "iana-if-type:ethernetCsmacd",
771 "admin-status": "down",
772 "oper-status": "down",
773 "if-index": 2,
774 "phys-address": "00:01:02:03:04:05",
775 "statistics": {
776 "discontinuity-time": "2013-04-01T03:00:00+00:00"
777 }
778 },
779 {
780 "name": "eth1",
781 "type": "iana-if-type:ethernetCsmacd",
782 "admin-status": "up",
783 "oper-status": "up",
784 "if-index": 7,
785 "phys-address": "00:01:02:03:04:06",
786 "higher-layer-if": [
787 "eth1.10"
788 ],
789 "statistics": {
790 "discontinuity-time": "2013-04-01T03:00:00+00:00"
791 }
792 },
793 {
794 "name": "eth1.10",
795 "type": "iana-if-type:l2vlan",
796 "admin-status": "up",
797 "oper-status": "up",
798 "if-index": 9,
799 "lower-layer-if": [
800 "eth1"
801 ],
802 "statistics": {
803 "discontinuity-time": "2013-04-01T03:00:00+00:00"
804 }
805 },
806 {
807 "name": "eth2",
808 "type": "iana-if-type:ethernetCsmacd",
809 "admin-status": "down",
810 "oper-status": "down",
811 "if-index": 8,
812 "phys-address": "00:01:02:03:04:07",
813 "statistics": {
814 "discontinuity-time": "2013-04-01T03:00:00+00:00"
815 }
816 },
817 {
818 "name": "lo1",
819 "type": "iana-if-type:softwareLoopback",
820 "admin-status": "up",
821 "oper-status": "up",
822 "if-index": 1,
823 "statistics": {
824 "discontinuity-time": "2013-04-01T03:00:00+00:00"
825 }
826 }
827 ]
828 }
829 }
831 Appendix B. Change Log
833 RFC Editor: Remove this section upon publication as an RFC.
835 B.1. Changes Between Revisions -05 and -06
837 o General permit on object members whose names start with "@".
839 B.2. Changes Between Revisions -05 and -06
841 o More text and a new example about resolving union-type values.
843 B.3. Changes Between Revisions -04 and -05
845 o Removed section "Validation of JSON-encoded Instance Data" and
846 other text about XML-JSON mapping.
848 o Added section "Properties of the JSON Encoding".
850 B.4. Changes Between Revisions -03 and -04
852 o I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis is used as a normative reference
853 instead of RFC 6020.
855 o Removed noncharacters as an I-JSON issue because it doesn't exist
856 in YANG 1.1.
858 o Section about anydata encoding was added.
860 o Require I-JSON for anyxml encoding.
862 o Use ABNF for defining qualified name.
864 B.5. Changes Between Revisions -02 and -03
866 o Namespace encoding is defined without using RFC 2119 keywords.
868 o Specification for anyxml nodes was extended and clarified.
870 o Text about ordering of list entries was corrected.
872 B.6. Changes Between Revisions -01 and -02
874 o Encoding of namespaces in instance-identifiers was changed.
876 o Text specifying the order of array elements in leaf-list and list
877 instances was added.
879 B.7. Changes Between Revisions -00 and -01
881 o Metadata encoding was moved to a separate I-D, draft-lhotka-
882 netmod-yang-metadata.
884 o JSON encoding is now defined directly rather than via XML-JSON
885 mapping.
887 o The rules for namespace encoding has changed. This affect both
888 node instance names and instance-identifiers.
890 o I-JSON-related changes. The most significant is the string
891 encoding of 64-bit numbers.
893 o When validating union type, the partial type info present in JSON
894 encoding is taken into account.
896 o Added section about I-JSON compliance.
898 o Updated the example in appendix.
900 o Wrote Security Considerations.
902 o Removed IANA Considerations as there are none.
904 Author's Address
906 Ladislav Lhotka
907 CZ.NIC
909 Email: lhotka@nic.cz