Re: [art] [Uri-review] Re: Alternative representation of URIs in YANG from Kent Watsen on 2026-01-23 (uri@w3.org from January 2026)

From: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2026 14:27:35 +0000
To: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
Cc: "Dale R. Worley" <worley@ariadne.com>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>, tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>, art@ietf.org, "uri@w3.org" <uri@w3.org>, uri-review@ietf.org
Message-ID: <0100019beb40df8e-1fc9f289-7efb-4d2e-a868-54733efc443c-000000@email.amazonses.co>

Hi Martin,

> I'd like to offer option 6.  Use the existing URI syntax from YANG.  It's a straight-up string, which is perfect because it avoids this whole mess entirely.

This is where the draft started, but the NETCONF WG objected due to it not having regular types with strong validation.  Hence the transition to a structured URI.  Going back to a "string" is not an real option.

Kent

Received on Friday, 23 January 2026 14:27:40 UTC