The YANG types identityref and instance-identifier are represented differently in the IETF JSON (RFC7951) and XML (RFC6020) encodings.
Values of these types can also be the value in a constraint, e.g., using the RFC7951 JSON encoding, I believe you would have something like (as an XPath expression):
If the identity is defined in a module other than the leaf
node containing the identityref value, the namespace-qualified form
(Section 4) MUST be used. Otherwise, both the simple and namespace-
qualified forms are permitted.
The YANG types
identityref
andinstance-identifier
are represented differently in the IETF JSON (RFC7951) and XML (RFC6020) encodings.Values of these types can also be the value in a constraint, e.g., using the RFC7951 JSON encoding, I believe you would have something like (as an XPath expression):
/bgp/global/afi-safis/afi-safi[afi-safi-name="openconfig-bgp-types:IPV4_UNICAST"]
Does the gNMI Path specification cover how these values should be encoded in a gRPC path (element)? I could not find that.
So, should
identity
values ever be used in qualified form in a gNMI path expression?RFC7951 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7951#section-6.8) says: