Skip to content

Update JSON_ETF encoding rules in gnmi specification #238

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
dplore wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Update JSON_ETF encoding rules in gnmi specification #238

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 3 additions & 1 deletion rpc/gnmi/gnmi-specification.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -479,7 +479,9 @@ used. This results in quoted string values, and unquoted number values.
described in [RFC7951](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7951). Data specified with
a type of JSON MUST be valid JSON, but no additional constraints are placed upon
it. An implementation MUST NOT serialise data with mixed `JSON` and `JSON_IETF`
encodings.
encodings. Also note, data must be encoded using namespace
qualified names where required per
[RFC7951 Section 4]([https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7951](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7951#section-6.8)).
Copy link

@earies earies Mar 6, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Agree but my only comment would be - is this necessary?

The encoding is JSON_IETF and that encoding should just dictate conformance to RFC7951. Is there any case where RFC compliance should be diverged here?

It's been a while since I read this entire section (will go back and read) but if it isn't already we should cover what the expectation is for prefix encoding as well w/ this value encoding when it comes to RFC7951 compliance

Copy link
Member Author

@dplore dplore Mar 6, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Strictly speaking, this reminder in the doc should not be necessary since RFC7951 requires it and OC requires RFC7951. But it's observed there is not compliance with this, even within OpenConfig's own published tools. Given the miss, a little redundancy in the docs seems warranted.

FWIW, I did some searching within OpenConfig repositories and do see this open issue for ygot which is still accurate/unresolved: openconfig/ygot#107

Copy link
Member Author

@dplore dplore Mar 6, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah, nevermind, ygot does implement prefixing:
https://github.com/openconfig/ygot/blob/98713a6f0eb19805b91a4fddec2fa6b2c152e71d/ygot/render.go#L1102


Both the client and target MUST support the `JSON` encoding as a minimum.

Expand Down