On 6/14/21 07:47, Ivaylo Petrov wrote: > Hello Joe, > > Thank you for your review and apologies for the delay! Please find our > answers to your questions below. The diff with -15 is available here > [1]. The updated version is available as txt [2] and as html [3]. > > Thanks, > Ivaylo > > [1]: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor&url2=http://core-wg.github.io/yang-cbor/draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor-latest.txt > [2]: https://core-wg.github.io/yang-cbor/draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor-latest.txt > [3]: https://core-wg.github.io/yang-cbor/draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor-latest.html Thanks, Ivaylo. I'll look through the diffs, but it sounds like you addressed all of my comments. >> Section 4.4.1 >> >> I think documenting the true/false value of the primitives here (noted in the >> CBOR encoding) would aid in clarity. For example, "primitive(20) [false]". > [IP]: I am not against that, I am only concerned if that would be > readable for others that are used to the diagnostic notation, > otherwise I am fine to apply this change. Sounds like Carsten addressed this in a follow-up. I think his response is reasonable whereby manual effort is removed in favor of an update toolchain. > >> === >> >> Section 4.5.1 >> >> I'm being pedantic here, but ahead of the { 60123 : { ... example, you usually >> state "CBOR diagnostic output". You don't here, though. I think you should >> add it. > [IP]: I might be misunderstanding the point, but it appears to me that > there is such a note already, only it unfortunately appeared at the > top of the previous page in the txt version and was quite easy to > miss. Yep. Sorry. Those darn page breaks... >> === >> >> Section 6.13.1 >> >> It isn't clear to me how a YANG list with multiple keys or a YANG list with no >> keys would be encoded in CBOR. I think examples and some clarifying text would >> help. > [IP]: I have modified one of the examples so that it uses two keys. As > for the other point, Is it possible to have a list with no keys being > referenced through an instance-identifier? My understanding is that > this is not possible, but I might be wrong. If it is not possible, we > will only need to clarify this in the text. If it is possible, can we > use the position in the list to identify the element? I'm referring to something like the last example in Section 9.13.4 of RFC 7950 for an i-i for a list entry without keys. In this case, a numeric identifier is used. Joe -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
