Re: [art] [Uri-review] Re: Alternative representation of URIs in YANG

 Well, the picture is clear. NETCONF wants to model URIs as data
structures.  There seems to be a widespread opinion in the IETF community
that URIs are strings and that attempts to pretend they’re something else
are unsound.  Not sure how you resolve this one.  -Tim

On Jan 23, 2026 at 6:27:35 AM, Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> wrote:

> 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
>
>