draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-09.txt		draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-10.txt
	NETMOD Working Group L. Lhotka		NETMOD Working Group L. Lhotka
	Internet-Draft CZ.NIC		Internet-Draft CZ.NIC
	Intended status: Standards Track March 09, 2016		Intended status: Standards Track March 26, 2016
	Expires: September 10, 2016		Expires: September 27, 2016
	JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG		JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG
	draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-09		draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-10
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document defines encoding rules for representing configuration		This document defines encoding rules for representing configuration
	data, state data, parameters of RPC operations or actions, and		data, state data, parameters of RPC operations or actions, and
	notifications defined using YANG as JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)		notifications defined using YANG as JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)
	text.		text.
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	skipping to change at page 1, line 33 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 33 ¶
	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 September 10, 2016.		This Internet-Draft will expire on September 27, 2016.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2016 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 35 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 35 ¶
	6.6. The "binary" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		6.6. The "binary" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	6.7. The "leafref" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		6.7. The "leafref" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	6.8. The "identityref" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		6.8. The "identityref" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	6.9. The "empty" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		6.9. The "empty" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	6.10. The "union" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		6.10. The "union" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	6.11. The "instance-identifier" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		6.11. The "instance-identifier" Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	7. I-JSON Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		7. I-JSON Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	Appendix A. A Complete Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		Appendix A. A Complete Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19		Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	B.1. Changes Between Revisions -08 and -09 . . . . . . . . . . 19		B.1. Changes Between Revisions -09 and -10 . . . . . . . . . . 19
	B.2. Changes Between Revisions -07 and -08 . . . . . . . . . . 19		B.2. Changes Between Revisions -08 and -09 . . . . . . . . . . 19
	B.3. Changes Between Revisions -06 and -07 . . . . . . . . . . 19		B.3. Changes Between Revisions -07 and -08 . . . . . . . . . . 20
	B.4. Changes Between Revisions -05 and -06 . . . . . . . . . . 19		B.4. Changes Between Revisions -06 and -07 . . . . . . . . . . 20
	B.5. Changes Between Revisions -04 and -05 . . . . . . . . . . 19		B.5. Changes Between Revisions -05 and -06 . . . . . . . . . . 20
	B.6. Changes Between Revisions -03 and -04 . . . . . . . . . . 20		B.6. Changes Between Revisions -04 and -05 . . . . . . . . . . 20
	B.7. Changes Between Revisions -02 and -03 . . . . . . . . . . 20		B.7. Changes Between Revisions -03 and -04 . . . . . . . . . . 20
	B.8. Changes Between Revisions -01 and -02 . . . . . . . . . . 20		B.8. Changes Between Revisions -02 and -03 . . . . . . . . . . 20
	B.9. Changes Between Revisions -00 and -01 . . . . . . . . . . 20		B.9. Changes Between Revisions -01 and -02 . . . . . . . . . . 20
			B.10. Changes Between Revisions -00 and -01 . . . . . . . . . . 21
	Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21		Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
	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
	[I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis] as the data modeling language.		[I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis] 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]
	skipping to change at page 15, line 28 ¶		skipping to change at page 15, line 28 ¶
	compatible with XML encoding, the base64 encoding scheme is used		compatible with XML encoding, the base64 encoding scheme is used
	(Section 6.6), whilst I-JSON recommends base64url instead.		(Section 6.6), whilst I-JSON recommends base64url instead.
	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. 16 of		security issues beyond those discussed in sec. 16 of
	[I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis].		[I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis].
			This document defines no mechanisms for signing and encrypting data
			modeled with YANG. Under normal circumstances, data security and
			integrity is guaranteed by the management protocol in use, such as
			NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf]. If it is
			not the case, external mechanisms, such as PKCS #7 [RFC2315] or JOSE
			([RFC7515] and [RFC7516]), need to be considered.
	JSON processing is rather different from XML, and JSON parsers may		JSON processing is rather different from XML, and JSON parsers may
	thus suffer from other types of vulnerabilities than their XML		thus suffer from other types of vulnerabilities than their XML
	counterparts. To minimize these new security risks, software on the		counterparts. To minimize these new security risks, software on the
	receiving side SHOULD reject all messages that do not comply to the		receiving side SHOULD reject all messages that do not comply to the
	rules of this document and reply with an appropriate error message to		rules of this document and reply with an appropriate error message to
	the sender.		the sender.
	9. Acknowledgments		9. Acknowledgments
	The author wishes to thank Andy Bierman, Martin Bjorklund, Dean		The author wishes to thank Andy Bierman, Martin Bjorklund, Dean
	skipping to change at page 16, line 32 ¶		skipping to change at page 16, line 38 ¶
	2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7159>.		2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7159>.
	[RFC7493] Bray, T., Ed., "The I-JSON Message Format", RFC 7493,		[RFC7493] Bray, T., Ed., "The I-JSON Message Format", RFC 7493,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC7493, March 2015,		DOI 10.17487/RFC7493, March 2015,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7493>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7493>.
	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-09 (work in		Protocol", draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-10 (work in
	progress), December 2015.		progress), March 2016.
	[I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-metadata]		[I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-metadata]
	Lhotka, L., "Defining and Using Metadata with YANG",		Lhotka, L., "Defining and Using Metadata with YANG",
	draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-04 (work in progress),		draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-07 (work in progress),
	February 2016.		March 2016.
			[RFC2315] Kaliski, B., "PKCS #7: Cryptographic Message Syntax
			Version 1.5", RFC 2315, DOI 10.17487/RFC2315, March 1998,
			<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2315>.
	[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for		[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
	the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,		the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,		DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.
	[RFC7223] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface		[RFC7223] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
	Management", RFC 7223, DOI 10.17487/RFC7223, May 2014,		Management", RFC 7223, DOI 10.17487/RFC7223, May 2014,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7223>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7223>.
			[RFC7515] Jones, M., Bradley, J., and N. Sakimura, "JSON Web
			Signature (JWS)", RFC 7515, DOI 10.17487/RFC7515, May
			2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7515>.
			[RFC7516] Jones, M. and J. Hildebrand, "JSON Web Encryption (JWE)",
			RFC 7516, DOI 10.17487/RFC7516, May 2015,
			<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7516>.
	[W3C.REC-xml-20081126]		[W3C.REC-xml-20081126]
	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>.
	Appendix A. A Complete Example		Appendix A. A Complete Example
	The JSON document shown below represents the same data as the reply		The JSON document shown below represents the same data as the reply
	skipping to change at page 19, line 21 ¶		skipping to change at page 19, line 39 ¶
	}		}
	}		}
	]		]
	}		}
	}		}
	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 -08 and -09		B.1. Changes Between Revisions -09 and -10
			o A sentence about signing and encrypting data was added, together
			with informative references to RFCs 2315, 7515 and 7516.
			B.2. Changes Between Revisions -08 and -09
	o References to RFC 6241 term in the Terminology section were added.		o References to RFC 6241 term in the Terminology section were added.
	o Prefixes in the example in Sec. 4 were changed so as to be		o Prefixes in the example in Sec. 4 were changed so as to be
	different from node names.		different from node names.
	B.2. Changes Between Revisions -07 and -08		B.3. Changes Between Revisions -07 and -08
	o Changed the names of example modules so that they start with		o Changed the names of example modules so that they start with
	"example-".		"example-".
	B.3. Changes Between Revisions -06 and -07		B.4. Changes Between Revisions -06 and -07
	o General permit on object members whose names start with "@".		o General permit on object members whose names start with "@".
	B.4. Changes Between Revisions -05 and -06		B.5. Changes Between Revisions -05 and -06
	o More text and a new example about resolving union-type values.		o More text and a new example about resolving union-type values.
	B.5. Changes Between Revisions -04 and -05		B.6. Changes Between Revisions -04 and -05
	o Removed section "Validation of JSON-encoded Instance Data" and		o Removed section "Validation of JSON-encoded Instance Data" and
	other text about XML-JSON mapping.		other text about XML-JSON mapping.
	o Added section "Properties of the JSON Encoding".		o Added section "Properties of the JSON Encoding".
	B.6. Changes Between Revisions -03 and -04		B.7. Changes Between Revisions -03 and -04
	o I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis is used as a normative reference		o I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis is used as a normative reference
	instead of RFC 6020.		instead of RFC 6020.
	o Removed noncharacters as an I-JSON issue because it doesn't exist		o Removed noncharacters as an I-JSON issue because it doesn't exist
	in YANG 1.1.		in YANG 1.1.
	o Section about anydata encoding was added.		o Section about anydata encoding was added.
	o Require I-JSON for anyxml encoding.		o Require I-JSON for anyxml encoding.
	o Use ABNF for defining qualified name.		o Use ABNF for defining qualified name.
	B.7. Changes Between Revisions -02 and -03		B.8. Changes Between Revisions -02 and -03
	o Namespace encoding is defined without using RFC 2119 keywords.		o Namespace encoding is defined without using RFC 2119 keywords.
	o Specification for anyxml nodes was extended and clarified.		o Specification for anyxml nodes was extended and clarified.
	o Text about ordering of list entries was corrected.		o Text about ordering of list entries was corrected.
	B.8. Changes Between Revisions -01 and -02		B.9. Changes Between Revisions -01 and -02
	o Encoding of namespaces in instance-identifiers was changed.		o Encoding of namespaces in instance-identifiers was changed.
	o Text specifying the order of array elements in leaf-list and list		o Text specifying the order of array elements in leaf-list and list
	instances was added.		instances was added.
	B.9. Changes Between Revisions -00 and -01		B.10. 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. 18 change blocks.
	27 lines changed or deleted		52 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/