draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-07.txt		draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-08.txt
	NETMOD Working Group L. Lhotka		NETMOD Working Group L. Lhotka
	Internet-Draft CZ.NIC		Internet-Draft CZ.NIC
	Intended status: Standards Track January 28, 2016		Intended status: Standards Track February 24, 2016
	Expires: July 31, 2016		Expires: August 27, 2016
	JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG		JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG
	draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-07		draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-08
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document defines encoding rules for representing configuration,		This document defines encoding rules for representing configuration,
	state data, RPC operation or action input and output parameters, and		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
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	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 July 31, 2016.		This Internet-Draft will expire on August 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
	carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect		carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
	to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must		to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2. Terminology and Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. Terminology and Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3. Properties of the JSON Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		3. Properties of the JSON Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		5.1. The "leaf" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		5.4. The "list" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	5.5. The "anydata" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		5.5. The "anydata" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	5.6. The "anyxml" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		5.6. The "anyxml" Data Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	skipping to change at page 2, line 39		skipping to change at page 2, line 39
	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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	Appendix A. A Complete Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		Appendix A. A Complete Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	B.1. Changes Between Revisions -05 and -06 . . . . . . . . . . 18		B.1. Changes Between Revisions -07 and -08 . . . . . . . . . . 18
	B.2. Changes Between Revisions -05 and -06 . . . . . . . . . . 19		B.2. Changes Between Revisions -06 and -07 . . . . . . . . . . 19
	B.3. Changes Between Revisions -04 and -05 . . . . . . . . . . 19		B.3. Changes Between Revisions -05 and -06 . . . . . . . . . . 19
	B.4. Changes Between Revisions -03 and -04 . . . . . . . . . . 19		B.4. Changes Between Revisions -04 and -05 . . . . . . . . . . 19
	B.5. Changes Between Revisions -02 and -03 . . . . . . . . . . 19		B.5. Changes Between Revisions -03 and -04 . . . . . . . . . . 19
	B.6. Changes Between Revisions -01 and -02 . . . . . . . . . . 19		B.6. Changes Between Revisions -02 and -03 . . . . . . . . . . 19
	B.7. Changes Between Revisions -00 and -01 . . . . . . . . . . 19		B.7. Changes Between Revisions -01 and -02 . . . . . . . . . . 19
			B.8. Changes Between Revisions -00 and -01 . . . . . . . . . . 20
	Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20		Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	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]
	supports two encodings: XML (media type "application/yang.data+xml")		supports two encodings: XML (media type "application/yang.data+xml")
	and JSON (media type "application/yang.data+json").		and JSON (media type "application/yang.data+json").
	The specification of YANG 1.1 data modelling language		The specification of YANG 1.1 data modelling language
	[I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis] defines only XML encoding for data		[I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis] defines only XML encoding of data trees,
	instances, i.e., contents of configuration datastores, state data,		i.e., contents of configuration datastores, state data, input/output
	RPC operation or action input and output parameters, and event		parameters of RPC operations or actions, and event notifications.
	notifications. The aim of this document is to define rules for		The aim of this document is to define rules for encoding the same
	encoding the same data as JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)		data as JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) text [RFC7159].
	text [RFC7159].
	2. Terminology and Notation		2. Terminology and Notation
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
	document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].		document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
	The following terms are defined in [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis]:		The following terms are defined in [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis]:
	o action,		o action,
	skipping to change at page 4, line 17		skipping to change at page 4, line 21
	3. Properties of the JSON Encoding		3. Properties of the JSON Encoding
	This document defines JSON encoding for YANG data trees and their		This document defines JSON encoding for YANG data trees and their
	subtrees. It is always assumed that the top-level structure in JSON-		subtrees. It is always assumed that the top-level structure in JSON-
	encoded data is an object.		encoded data is an object.
	Instances of YANG data nodes (leafs, containers, leaf-lists, lists,		Instances of YANG data nodes (leafs, containers, leaf-lists, lists,
	anydata and anyxml nodes) are encoded as members of a JSON object,		anydata and anyxml nodes) are encoded as members of a JSON object,
	i.e., name/value pairs. Section 4 defines how the name part is		i.e., name/value pairs. Section 4 defines how the name part is
	formed, and the following sections deal with the value part.		formed, and the following sections deal with the value part. The
			encoding rules are identical for all types of data trees, i.e.,
			configuration and state data, parameters of RPC operations and
			actions, and notifications.
	Unlike XML element content, JSON values carry partial type		Unlike XML element content, JSON values carry partial type
	information (number, string, boolean). The JSON encoding is defined		information (number, string, boolean). The JSON encoding is defined
	so that this information is never in conflict with the data type of		so that this information is never in conflict with the data type of
	the corresponding YANG leaf or leaf-list.		the corresponding YANG leaf or leaf-list.
	With the exception of anyxml and schema-less anydata nodes, it is		With the exception of anyxml and schema-less anydata nodes, it is
	possible to map a JSON-encoded data tree to XML encoding as defined		possible to map a JSON-encoded data tree to XML encoding as defined
	in [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis], and vice versa. However, such		in [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis], and vice versa. However, such
	conversions require the YANG data model to be available.		conversions require the YANG data model to be available.
	In order to achieve maximum interoperability while allowing		In order to achieve maximum interoperability while allowing
	implementations to use a variety of existing JSON parsers, the JSON		implementations to use a variety of existing JSON parsers, the JSON
	encoding rules follow, as much as possible, the constraints of the		encoding rules follow, as much as possible, the constraints of the
	I-JSON restricted profile [RFC7493]. Section 7 discusses I-JSON		I-JSON restricted profile [RFC7493]. Section 7 discusses I-JSON
	conformance in more detail.		conformance in more detail.
	4. Names and Namespaces		4. Names and Namespaces
	An object member name MUST be in one of the following forms:		A JSON object member name MUST be in one of the following forms:
	o simple - identical to the identifier of the corresponding YANG		o simple - identical to the identifier of the corresponding YANG
	data node;		data node;
	o namespace-qualified - the data node identifier is prefixed with		o namespace-qualified - the data node identifier is prefixed with
	the name of the module in which the data node is defined,		the name of the module in which the data node is defined,
	separated from the data node identifier by the colon character		separated from the data node identifier by the colon character
	(":").		(":").
	The name of a module determines the namespace of all data node names		The name of a module determines the namespace of all data node names
	skipping to change at page 5, line 20		skipping to change at page 5, line 27
	Figure 1: ABNF production for a JSON member name.		Figure 1: ABNF production for a JSON member name.
	A namespace-qualified member name MUST be used for all members of a		A namespace-qualified member name MUST be used for all members of a
	top-level JSON object, and then also whenever the namespaces of the		top-level JSON object, and then also whenever the namespaces of the
	data node and its parent node are different. In all other cases, the		data node and its parent node are different. In all other cases, the
	simple form of the member name MUST be used.		simple form of the member name MUST be used.
	For example, consider the following YANG module:		For example, consider the following YANG module:
	module foomod {		module example-foomod {
	namespace "http://example.com/foomod";		namespace "http://example.com/foomod";
	prefix "foo";		prefix "foo";
	container top {		container top {
	leaf foo {		leaf foo {
	type uint8;		type uint8;
	}		}
	}		}
	}		}
	If the data model consists only of this module, then the following is		If the data model consists only of this module, then the following is
	a valid JSON-encoded configuration:		a valid JSON-encoded configuration:
	{		{
	"foomod:top": {		"example-foomod:top": {
	"foo": 54		"foo": 54
	}		}
	}		}
	Note that the member of the top-level object uses the namespace-		Note that the member of the top-level object uses the namespace-
	qualified name but the "foo" leaf doesn't because it is defined in		qualified name but the "foo" leaf doesn't because it is defined in
	the same module as its parent container "top".		the same module as its parent container "top".
	Now, assume the container "top" is augmented from another module,		Now, assume the container "top" is augmented from another module,
	"barmod":		"example-barmod":
	module barmod {		module example-barmod {
	namespace "http://example.com/barmod";		namespace "http://example.com/barmod";
	prefix "bar";		prefix "bar";
	import foomod {		import example-foomod {
	prefix "foo";		prefix "foo";
	}		}
	augment "/foo:top" {		augment "/foo:top" {
	leaf bar {		leaf bar {
	type boolean;		type boolean;
	}		}
	}		}
	}		}
	A valid JSON-encoded configuration containing both leafs may then		A valid JSON-encoded configuration containing both leafs may then
	look like this:		look like this:
	{		{
	"foomod:top": {		"example-foomod:top": {
	"foo": 54,		"foo": 54,
	"barmod:bar": true		"example-barmod:bar": true
	}		}
	}		}
	The name of the "bar" leaf is prefixed with the namespace identifier		The name of the "bar" leaf is prefixed with the namespace identifier
	because its parent is defined in a different module.		because its parent is defined in a different module.
	Explicit namespace identifiers are sometimes needed when encoding		Explicit namespace identifiers are sometimes needed when encoding
	values of the "identityref" and "instances-identifier" types. The		values of the "identityref" and "instances-identifier" types. The
	same form of namespace-qualified name as defined above is then used.		same form of namespace-qualified name as defined above is then used.
	See Sections 6.8 and 6.11 for details.		See Sections 6.8 and 6.11 for details.
	skipping to change at page 12, line 20		skipping to change at page 12, line 20
	6.8. The "identityref" Type		6.8. The "identityref" Type
	An "identityref" value is represented as a string - the name of an		An "identityref" value is represented as a string - the name of an
	identity. If the identity is defined in another module than the leaf		identity. If the identity is defined in another module than the leaf
	node containing the identityref value, the namespace-qualified form		node containing the identityref value, the namespace-qualified form
	(Section 4) MUST be used. Otherwise, both the simple and namespace-		(Section 4) MUST be used. Otherwise, both the simple and namespace-
	qualified forms are permitted.		qualified forms are permitted.
	For example, consider the following schematic module:		For example, consider the following schematic module:
	module exmod {		module example-mod {
	...		...
	import ietf-interfaces {		import ietf-interfaces {
	prefix if;		prefix if;
	}		}
	import iana-if-type {		import iana-if-type {
	prefix ianaift;		prefix ianaift;
	}		}
	...		...
	leaf type {		leaf type {
	type identityref {		type identityref {
	skipping to change at page 15, line 36		skipping to change at page 15, line 36
	The author wishes to thank Andy Bierman, Martin Bjorklund, Dean		The author wishes to thank Andy Bierman, Martin Bjorklund, Dean
	Bogdanovic, Balazs Lengyel, Juergen Schoenwaelder and Phil Shafer for		Bogdanovic, Balazs Lengyel, Juergen Schoenwaelder and Phil Shafer for
	their helpful comments and suggestions.		their helpful comments and suggestions.
	10. References		10. References
	10.1. Normative References		10.1. Normative References
	[I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis]		[I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis]
	Bjorklund, M., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",		Bjorklund, M., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
	draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-09 (work in progress),		draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-11 (work in progress),
	December 2015.		February 2016.
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,		DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax		[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
	Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,		Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,		DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
	skipping to change at page 16, line 22		skipping to change at page 16, line 22
	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-09 (work in
	progress), December 2015.		progress), December 2015.
	[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-02 (work in progress),		draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-03 (work in progress),
	September 2015.		January 2016.
	[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>.
	[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
	to the NETCONF <get> request appearing in Appendix D of [RFC7223].		to the NETCONF <get> request appearing in Appendix D of [RFC7223].
	The data model is a combination of two YANG modules: "ietf-		The data model is a combination of two YANG modules: "ietf-
	interfaces" and "ex-vlan" (the latter is an example module from		interfaces" and "ex-vlan" (the latter is an example module from
	Appendix C of [RFC7223]). The "if-mib" feature defined in the "ietf-		Appendix C of [RFC7223]). The "if-mib" feature defined in the "ietf-
	interfaces" module is considered to be active.		interfaces" module is supported.
	{		{
	"ietf-interfaces:interfaces": {		"ietf-interfaces:interfaces": {
	"interface": [		"interface": [
	{		{
	"name": "eth0",		"name": "eth0",
	"type": "iana-if-type:ethernetCsmacd",		"type": "iana-if-type:ethernetCsmacd",
	"enabled": false		"enabled": false
	},		},
	{		{
	skipping to change at page 18, line 45		skipping to change at page 18, line 45
	}		}
	}		}
	]		]
	}		}
	}		}
	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 -05 and -06		B.1. Changes Between Revisions -07 and -08
			o Changed the names of example modules so that they start with
			"example-".
			B.2. 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.2. Changes Between Revisions -05 and -06		B.3. 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.3. Changes Between Revisions -04 and -05		B.4. 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.4. Changes Between Revisions -03 and -04		B.5. 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.5. Changes Between Revisions -02 and -03		B.6. 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.6. Changes Between Revisions -01 and -02		B.7. 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.7. Changes Between Revisions -00 and -01		B.8. 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. 27 change blocks.
	41 lines changed or deleted		49 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/