draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-01.txt		draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-02.txt
	NETMOD Working Group L. Lhotka		NETMOD Working Group L. Lhotka
	Internet-Draft CZ.NIC		Internet-Draft CZ.NIC
	Intended status: Standards Track October 13, 2014		Intended status: Standards Track November 27, 2014
	Expires: April 16, 2015		Expires: May 31, 2015
	JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG		JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG
	draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-01		draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-02
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document defines encoding rules for representing configuration,		This document defines encoding rules for representing configuration,
	state data, RPC input and output parameters, and notifications		state data, RPC input and output parameters, and notifications
	defined using YANG as JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) text.		defined using YANG as JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) text.
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
	skipping to change at page 1, line 32		skipping to change at page 1, line 32
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on April 16, 2015.		This Internet-Draft will expire on May 31, 2015.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 2, line 18		skipping to change at page 2, line 18
	2. Terminology and Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. Terminology and Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3. Validation of JSON-encoded		3. Validation of JSON-encoded
	Instance Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		Instance Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	4. Names and Namespaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		4. Names and Namespaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	5. Encoding of YANG Data Node Instances . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		5. Encoding of YANG Data Node Instances . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	5.1. The "leaf" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		5.1. The "leaf" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	5.2. The "container" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		5.2. The "container" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	5.3. The "leaf-list" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		5.3. The "leaf-list" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	5.4. The "list" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		5.4. The "list" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	5.5. The "anyxml" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		5.5. The "anyxml" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	6. The Mapping of YANG Datatypes to JSON Values . . . . . . . . 8		6. The Mapping of YANG Data Types to JSON Values . . . . . . . . 9
	6.1. Numeric Datatypes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		6.1. Numeric Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	6.2. The "string" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		6.2. The "string" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	6.3. The "boolean" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		6.3. The "boolean" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	6.4. The "enumeration" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		6.4. The "enumeration" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	6.5. The "bits" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		6.5. The "bits" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	6.6. The "binary" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		6.6. The "binary" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	6.7. The "leafref" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		6.7. The "leafref" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	6.8. The "identityref" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		6.8. The "identityref" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	6.9. The "empty" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		6.9. The "empty" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	6.10. The "union" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		6.10. The "union" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	6.11. The "instance-identifier" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		6.11. The "instance-identifier" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	7. I-JSON Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		7. I-JSON Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	Appendix A. A Complete Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		Appendix A. A Complete Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	B.1. Changes Between Revisions -00 and -01 . . . . . . . . . . 16		B.1. Changes Between Revisions -01 and -02 . . . . . . . . . . 17
	Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		B.2. Changes Between Revisions -00 and -01 . . . . . . . . . . 17
			Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	The NETCONF protocol [RFC6241] uses XML [W3C.REC-xml-20081126] for		The NETCONF protocol [RFC6241] uses XML [W3C.REC-xml-20081126] for
	encoding data in its Content Layer. Other management protocols might		encoding data in its Content Layer. Other management protocols might
	want to use other encodings while still benefiting from using YANG		want to use other encodings while still benefiting from using YANG
	[RFC6020] as the data modeling language.		[RFC6020] as the data modeling language.
	For example, the RESTCONF protocol [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf]		For example, the RESTCONF protocol [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf]
	supports two encodings: XML (media type "application/yang.data+xml")		supports two encodings: XML (media type "application/yang.data+xml")
	skipping to change at page 6, line 37		skipping to change at page 6, line 37
	Character encoding MUST be UTF-8.		Character encoding MUST be UTF-8.
	Any data node instance is encoded as a name/value pair where the name		Any data node instance is encoded as a name/value pair where the name
	is formed from the data node identifier using the rules of Section 4.		is formed from the data node identifier using the rules of Section 4.
	The value depends on the category of the data node as explained in		The value depends on the category of the data node as explained in
	the following subsections.		the following subsections.
	5.1. The "leaf" Data Node		5.1. The "leaf" Data Node
	A leaf instance is encoded as a name/value pair where the value can		A leaf instance is encoded as a name/value pair where the value can
	be a string, number, literal 'true' or 'false' or the special array		be a string, number, literal "true" or "false", or the special array
	'[null]', depending on the type of the leaf (see Section 6 for the		"[null]", depending on the type of the leaf (see Section 6 for the
	type encoding rules).		type encoding rules).
	Example: For the leaf node definition		Example: For the leaf node definition
	leaf foo {		leaf foo {
	type uint8;		type uint8;
	}		}
	the following is a valid JSON-encoded instance:		the following is a valid JSON-encoded instance:
	skipping to change at page 7, line 27		skipping to change at page 7, line 27
	the following is a valid instance:		the following is a valid instance:
	"bar": {		"bar": {
	"foo": 123		"foo": 123
	}		}
	5.3. The "leaf-list" Data Node		5.3. The "leaf-list" Data Node
	A leaf-list is encoded as a name/array pair, and the array elements		A leaf-list is encoded as a name/array pair, and the array elements
	are values whose type depends on the datatype of the leaf-list (see		are values of the same type, which can be a string, number, literal
	Section 6).		"true" or "false", or the special array "[null]", depending on the
			type of the leaf-list (see Section 6 for the type encoding rules).
			The order of array elements MUST be the same as the order of XML
			elements representing leaf-list entries in the XML encoding.
	Example: For the leaf-list definition		Example: For the leaf-list definition
	leaf-list foo {		leaf-list foo {
	type uint8;		type uint8;
	}		}
	the following is a valid instance:		the following is a valid instance:
	"foo": [123, 0]		"foo": [123, 0]
	5.4. The "list" Data Node		5.4. The "list" Data Node
	A list instance is encoded as a name/array pair, and the array		A list instance is encoded as a name/array pair, and the array
	elements are JSON objects.		elements are JSON objects.
			The order of array elements MUST be the same as the order of XML
			elements representing list entries in the XML encoding.
	Unlike the XML encoding, where list keys are required to precede any		Unlike the XML encoding, where list keys are required to precede any
	other siblings, and to appear in the order specified by the data		other siblings, and to appear in the order specified by the data
	model, the order of members within a JSON-encoded list entry is		model, the order of members within a JSON-encoded list entry is
	arbitrary because JSON objects are fundamentally unordered		arbitrary because JSON objects are fundamentally unordered
	collections of members.		collections of members.
	Example: For the list definition		Example: For the list definition
	list bar {		list bar {
	key foo;		key foo;
	leaf foo {		leaf foo {
	type uint8;		type uint8;
	}		}
	leaf baz {		leaf baz {
	type string;		type string;
	}		}
	}		}
	skipping to change at page 8, line 22		skipping to change at page 8, line 31
	}		}
	the following is a valid instance:		the following is a valid instance:
	"bar": [		"bar": [
	{		{
	"foo": 123,		"foo": 123,
	"baz": "zig"		"baz": "zig"
	},		},
	{		{
	"baz": "zag",		"foo": 0,
	"foo": 0		"baz": "zag"
	}		}
	]		]
	5.5. The "anyxml" Data Node		5.5. The "anyxml" Data Node
	An anyxml instance is translated to a name/value pair. The value can		An anyxml instance is encoded as a name/value pair. The value can be
	be of any valid JSON type, i.e. an object, array, number, string or		of any valid JSON type, i.e. an object, array, number, string or one
	any of the literals 'true', 'false' and 'null'.		of the literals "true", "false" and "null".
	This document defines no mapping between the contents of JSON- and		This document defines no mapping between the contents of JSON- and
	XML-encoded anyxml instances. It is not necessary because anyxml		XML-encoded anyxml instances. Note that the mapping is not needed
	contents are not subject to YANG-based validation (see sec. 7.10 in		for the purposes of validation (Section 3) because anyxml contents
			are not subject to YANG-based validation (see sec. 7.10 in
	[RFC6020]).		[RFC6020]).
	Example: For the anyxml definition		Example: For the anyxml definition
	anyxml bar;		anyxml bar;
	the following is a valid instance:		the following is a valid instance:
	"bar": [true, null, true]		"bar": [true, null, true]
	6. The Mapping of YANG Datatypes to JSON Values		6. The Mapping of YANG Data Types to JSON Values
	The type of the JSON value in an instance of the leaf or leaf-list		The type of the JSON value in an instance of the leaf or leaf-list
	data node depends on the datatype of that data node as specified in		data node depends on the type of that data node as specified in the
	the following subsections.		following subsections.
	6.1. Numeric Datatypes		6.1. Numeric Types
	A value of the "int8", "int16", "int32", "uint8", "uint16" is		A value of the "int8", "int16", "int32", "uint8", "uint16" and
	represented as a JSON number.		"uint32" is represented as a JSON number.
	A value of the "int64", "uint64" or "decimal64" type is encoded as a		A value of the "int64", "uint64" or "decimal64" type is encoded as a
	JSON string whose contents is the lexical representation of that		JSON string whose contents is the lexical representation of that
	numeric value as specified in sections 9.2.1 and 9.3.1 of [RFC6020].		numeric value as specified in sections 9.2.1 and 9.3.1 of [RFC6020].
	For example, if the type of the leaf "foo" in Section 5.1 was		For example, if the type of the leaf "foo" in Section 5.1 was
	"unit64" instead of "uint8", the instance would have to be encoded as		"uint64" instead of "uint8", the instance would have to be encoded as
	"foo": "123"		"foo": "123"
	The special handling of 64-bit numbers follows from I-JSON		The special handling of 64-bit numbers follows from I-JSON
	recommendation to encode numbers exceeding the IEEE 754-2000 double		recommendation to encode numbers exceeding the IEEE 754-2000 double
	precision range as strings, see sec. 2.2 in [I-D.ietf-json-i-json].		precision range as strings, see sec. 2.2 in [I-D.ietf-json-i-json].
	6.2. The "string" Type		6.2. The "string" Type
	A "string" value encoded as a JSON string, subject to JSON encoding		A "string" value encoded as a JSON string, subject to JSON encoding
	rules.		rules.
	6.3. The "boolean" Type		6.3. The "boolean" Type
	A "boolean" value is mapped to the corresponding JSON literal name		A "boolean" value is mapped to the corresponding JSON literal name
	'true' or 'false'.		"true" or "false".
	6.4. The "enumeration" Type		6.4. The "enumeration" Type
	An "enumeration" value is mapped in the same way as a string except		An "enumeration" value is mapped in the same way as a string except
	that the permitted values are defined by "enum" statements in YANG.		that the permitted values are defined by "enum" statements in YANG.
	See sec. 9.6 in [RFC6020].		See sec. 9.6 in [RFC6020].
	6.5. The "bits" Type		6.5. The "bits" Type
	A "bits" value is mapped to a JSON string identical to the lexical		A "bits" value is mapped to a JSON string identical to the lexical
	skipping to change at page 10, line 45		skipping to change at page 11, line 7
	A valid instance of the "type" leaf is then encoded as follows:		A valid instance of the "type" leaf is then encoded as follows:
	"type": "iana-if-type:ethernetCsmacd"		"type": "iana-if-type:ethernetCsmacd"
	The namespace identifier "iana-if-type" must be present in this case		The namespace identifier "iana-if-type" must be present in this case
	because the "ethernetCsmacd" identity is not defined in the same		because the "ethernetCsmacd" identity is not defined in the same
	module as the "type" leaf.		module as the "type" leaf.
	6.9. The "empty" Type		6.9. The "empty" Type
	An "empty" value is mapped to '[null]', i.e., an array with the		An "empty" value is mapped to "[null]", i.e., an array with the
	'null' literal being its only element.		"null" literal being its only element.
	This encoding was chosen instead of using simply 'null' in order to		This encoding was chosen instead of using simply "null" in order to
	facilitate the use of empty leafs in common programming languages.		facilitate the use of empty leafs in common programming languages.
	When used in a boolean context, the '[null]' value, unlike 'null',		When used in a boolean context, the "[null]" value, unlike "null",
	evaluates to true.		evaluates to true.
	Example: For the leaf definition		Example: For the leaf definition
	leaf foo {		leaf foo {
	type empty;		type empty;
	}		}
	a valid instance is		a valid instance is
	skipping to change at page 11, line 52		skipping to change at page 12, line 14
	"bar": 13.5		"bar": 13.5
	In this case, the JSON encoding indicates the value is supposed to be		In this case, the JSON encoding indicates the value is supposed to be
	a number rather than string.		a number rather than string.
	6.11. The "instance-identifier" Type		6.11. The "instance-identifier" Type
	An "instance-identifier" value is encoded as a string that is		An "instance-identifier" value is encoded as a string that is
	analogical to the lexical representation in XML encoding, see		analogical to the lexical representation in XML encoding, see
	sec. 9.13.3 in [RFC6020]. The only difference is that XML namespace		sec. 9.13.3 in [RFC6020]. However, the encoding of namespaces in
	prefixes used for qualifying node names in the instance-identifier		instance-identifier values follows the rules stated in Section 4,
	value are replaced by the corresponding module names according to the		namely:
	rules of Section 4.
	Conversely, when translating such a value from JSON to XML, the		o The namespace identifier is the module name where each data node
	namespace identifier (YANG module name) in each component of the		is defined.
	instance-identifier MUST be replaced by the XML namespace prefix that
	is associated with the namespace URI reference of the module.
	For example, assume "ex" is the prefix associated with the namespace		o The encoding of a node name with an explicit namespace is as shown
	URI that is defined in the "example" module. Then the XML-encoded		in Figure 1.
	instance-identifier
	/ex:system/ex:user[ex:name='fred']		o The leftmost (top-level) node name is always prefixed with the
			namespace identifier.
	corresponds to the following JSON-encoded instance-identifier:		o Any subsequent node name has the namespace identifier if and only
			if its parent node has a different namespace. This also holds for
			node names appearing in predicates.
	/example:system/example:user[example:name='fred']		For example,
			/ietf-interfaces:interfaces/interface[name='eth0']/ietf-ip:ipv4/ip
			is a valid instance-identifer value because the data nodes
			"interfaces", "interface" and "name" are defined in the module "ietf-
			interfaces", whereas "ipv4" and "ip" are defined in "ietf-ip".
			When translating an instance-identifier value from JSON to XML, the
			namespace identifier (YANG module name) in each component of the
			instance-identifier MUST be replaced by an XML namespace prefix that
			is associated with the namespace URI reference of the module in the
			scope of the element containing the instance-identifier value.
	7. I-JSON Compliance		7. I-JSON Compliance
	I-JSON [I-D.ietf-json-i-json] is a restricted profile of JSON that		I-JSON [I-D.ietf-json-i-json] is a restricted profile of JSON that
	guarantees maximum interoperability for protocols that use JSON in		guarantees maximum interoperability for protocols that use JSON in
	their messages, no matter what JSON encoders/decoders are used in		their messages, no matter what JSON encoders/decoders are used in
	protocol implementations. The encoding defined in this document		protocol implementations. The encoding defined in this document
	therefore observes the I-JSON requirements and recommendations as		therefore observes the I-JSON requirements and recommendations as
	closely as possible.		closely as possible.
	skipping to change at page 12, line 50		skipping to change at page 13, line 23
	o Numbers of any type supported by YANG can be exchanged reliably.		o Numbers of any type supported by YANG can be exchanged reliably.
	See Section 6.1 for details.		See Section 6.1 for details.
	The only two cases where a JSON instance document encoded according		The only two cases where a JSON instance document encoded according
	to this document may deviate from I-JSON were dictated by the need to		to this document may deviate from I-JSON were dictated by the need to
	be able to encode the same instance data in both JSON and XML. These		be able to encode the same instance data in both JSON and XML. These
	two exceptions are:		two exceptions are:
	o Leaf values encoded as strings may contain code points identifying		o Leaf values encoded as strings may contain code points identifying
	Noncharacters that belong to the XML character set (see sec. 2.2		Noncharacters that belong to the XML character set (see sec. 2.2
	in [W3C.REC-xml-20081126]).		in [W3C.REC-xml-20081126]). This issue is likely to be solved in
			YANG 1.1 because noncharacters will not be allowed in string
			values, see sec. 9.4 in [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis].
	o Values of the "binary" type are encoded with the base64 encoding		o Values of the "binary" type are encoded with the base64 encoding
	scheme (see sec. 9.8.2 in [RFC6020]) whereas I-JSON recommends		scheme (Section 6.6), whereas I-JSON recommends base64url instead.
	base64url instead. However, the use of base64 should not cause		Theoretically, values of the "binary" type might appear in URI
	any interoperability problems because these values never appear in		references, such as Request-URI in RESTCONF, although in practice
	an URL.		the cases where it is really needed should be extremely rare.
	8. Security Considerations		8. Security Considerations
	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, it doesn't contribute any new		YANG data modeling language. As such, it doesn't contribute any new
	security issues beyond those discussed in sec. 15 of [RFC6020].		security issues beyond those discussed in sec. 15 of [RFC6020].
	JSON is rather different from XML, and JSON parsers may thus suffer		JSON is rather different from XML, and JSON parsers may thus suffer
	from other types of vulnerabilities than their XML counterparts. To		from other types of vulnerabilities than their XML counterparts. To
	minimize these security risks, it is important that client and server		minimize these security risks, it is important that client and server
	software supporting JSON encoding behaves as required in sec. 3 of		software supporting JSON encoding behaves as required in sec. 3 of
	[I-D.ietf-json-i-json]. That is, any received JSON data that violate		[I-D.ietf-json-i-json]. That is, any received JSON data that violate
	any of I-JSON strict constraints MUST NOT be trusted nor acted upon.		any of I-JSON strict constraints MUST NOT be trusted nor acted upon.
	Violations due to the presence of Unicode Noncharacters in the data		Violations due to the presence of Unicode Noncharacters in the data
	exceptions (see Section 7) SHOULD be carefully examined.		(see Section 7) SHOULD be carefully examined.
	9. Acknowledgments		9. Acknowledgments
	The author wishes to thank Andy Bierman, Martin Bjorklund, Juergen		The author wishes to thank Andy Bierman, Martin Bjorklund, Balazs
	Schoenwaelder and Phil Shafer for their helpful comments and		Lengyel, Juergen Schoenwaelder and Phil Shafer for their helpful
	suggestions.		comments and suggestions.
	10. References		10. References
	10.1. Normative References		10.1. Normative References
	[I-D.ietf-json-i-json]		[I-D.ietf-json-i-json]
	Bray, T., "The I-JSON Message Format", draft-ietf-json-		Bray, T., "The I-JSON Message Format", draft-ietf-json-
	i-json-03 (work in progress), August 2014.		i-json-03 (work in progress), August 2014.
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	skipping to change at page 14, line 16		skipping to change at page 14, line 38
	Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, M., Maler, E., and		Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, M., Maler, E., and
	F. Yergeau, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth		F. Yergeau, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth
	Edition)", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-		Edition)", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-
	xml-20081126, November 2008,		xml-20081126, November 2008,
	<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126>.		<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126>.
	10.2. Informative References		10.2. Informative References
	[I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf]		[I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf]
	Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF		Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
	Protocol", draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-02 (work in		Protocol", draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-03 (work in
	progress), October 2014.		progress), October 2014.
			[I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis]
			Bjorklund, M., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the
			Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", draft-ietf-
			netmod-rfc6020bis-02 (work in progress), November 2014.
	[RFC7223] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface		[RFC7223] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
	Management", RFC 7223, May 2014.		Management", RFC 7223, May 2014.
	[W3C.REC-xpath-19991116]		[W3C.REC-xpath-19991116]
	Clark, J. and S. DeRose, "XML Path Language (XPath)		Clark, J. and S. DeRose, "XML Path Language (XPath)
	Version 1.0", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation		Version 1.0", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation
	REC-xpath-19991116, November 1999,		REC-xpath-19991116, November 1999,
	<http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xpath-19991116>.		<http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xpath-19991116>.
	Appendix A. A Complete Example		Appendix A. A Complete Example
	skipping to change at page 16, line 37		skipping to change at page 17, line 20
	}		}
	}		}
	]		]
	}		}
	}		}
	Appendix B. Change Log		Appendix B. Change Log
	RFC Editor: Remove this section upon publication as an RFC.		RFC Editor: Remove this section upon publication as an RFC.
	B.1. Changes Between Revisions -00 and -01		B.1. Changes Between Revisions -01 and -02
			o Encoding of namespaces in instance-identifiers was changed.
			o Text specifying the order of array elements in leaf-list and list
			instances was added.
			B.2. Changes Between Revisions -00 and -01
	o Metadata encoding was moved to a separate I-D, draft-lhotka-		o Metadata encoding was moved to a separate I-D, draft-lhotka-
	netmod-yang-metadata.		netmod-yang-metadata.
	o JSON encoding is now defined directly rather than via XML-JSON		o JSON encoding is now defined directly rather than via XML-JSON
	mapping.		mapping.
	o The rules for namespace encoding has changed. This affect both		o The rules for namespace encoding has changed. This affect both
	node instance names and instance-identifiers.		node instance names and instance-identifiers.
End of changes. 38 change blocks.
	63 lines changed or deleted		98 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/