[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-bierman-netmod-yang-usage) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 RFC 6087

Internet Engineering Task Force                               A. Bierman
Internet-Draft                                                   Brocade
Intended status: Informational                           October 2, 2010
Expires: April 5, 2011


   Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of YANG Data Model Documents
                    draft-ietf-netmod-yang-usage-11

Abstract

   This memo provides guidelines for authors and reviewers of standards
   track specifications containing YANG data model modules.  Applicable
   portions may be used as a basis for reviews of other YANG data model
   documents.  Recommendations and procedures are defined, which are
   intended to increase interoperability and usability of Network
   Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) implementations which utilize YANG
   data model modules.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 5, 2011.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of



Bierman                   Expires April 5, 2011                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents         October 2010


   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.1.  Requirements Notation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.2.  NETCONF Terms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.3.  YANG Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.4.  Terms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.  General Documentation Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.1.  Module Copyright . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.2.  Narrative Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.3.  Definitions Section  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.4.  Security Considerations Section  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.5.  IANA Considerations Section  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       3.5.1.  Documents that Create a New Name Space . . . . . . . .  9
       3.5.2.  Documents that Extend an Existing Name Space . . . . .  9
     3.6.  Reference Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   4.  YANG Usage Guidelines  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.1.  Module Naming Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.2.  Identifiers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.3.  Defaults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.4.  Conditional Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.5.  XPath Usage  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.6.  Lifecycle Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     4.7.  Module Header, Meta, and Revision Statements . . . . . . . 14
     4.8.  Namespace Assignments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     4.9.  Top Level Data Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     4.10. Data Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     4.11. Reusable Type Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     4.12. Data Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     4.13. Operation Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     4.14. Notification Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     6.1.  Security Considerations Section Template . . . . . . . . . 21
   7.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   Appendix A.  Module Review Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
   Appendix B.  YANG Module Template  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
   Appendix C.  Change Log  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
     C.1.  Changes from 10 to 11  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
     C.2.  Changes from 09 to 10  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32



Bierman                   Expires April 5, 2011                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents         October 2010


     C.3.  Changes from 08 to 09  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
     C.4.  Changes from 07 to 08  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
     C.5.  Changes from 06 to 07  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
     C.6.  Changes from 05 to 06  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
     C.7.  Changes from 04 to 05  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
     C.8.  Changes from 03 to 04  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
     C.9.  Changes from 02 to 03  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
     C.10. Changes from 01 to 02  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
     C.11. Changes from 00 to 01  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36









































Bierman                   Expires April 5, 2011                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents         October 2010


1.  Introduction

   The standardization of network configuration interfaces for use with
   the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) [RFC4741] requires a
   modular set of data models, which can be reused and extended over
   time.

   This document defines a set of usage guidelines for standards track
   documents containing YANG [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang] data models.  YANG
   is used to define the data structures, protocol operations, and
   notification content used within a NETCONF server.  A server which
   supports a particular YANG module will support client NETCONF
   operation requests, as indicated by the specific content defined in
   the YANG module.

   This document is similar to the SMIv2 usage guidelines specification
   [RFC4181] in intent and structure.  However, since that document was
   written a decade after SMIv2 modules had been in use, it was
   published as a 'best current practice' (BCP).  This document is not a
   BCP, but rather an informational reference, intended to promote
   consistency in documents containing YANG modules.

   Many YANG constructs are defined as optional to use, such as the
   description statement.  However, in order to maximize
   interoperability of NETCONF implementations utilizing YANG data
   models, it is desirable to define a set of usage guidelines which may
   require a higher level of compliance than the minimum level defined
   in the YANG specification.

   In addition, YANG allows constructs such as infinite length
   identifiers and string values, or top-level mandatory nodes, that a
   compliant server is not required to support.  Only constructs which
   all servers are required to support can be used in IETF YANG modules.

   This document defines usage guidelines related to the NETCONF
   operations layer, and NETCONF content layer, as defined in [RFC4741].
   These guidelines are intended to be used by authors and reviewers to
   improve the readability and interoperability of published YANG data
   models.












Bierman                   Expires April 5, 2011                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents         October 2010


2.  Terminology

2.1.  Requirements Notation

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

   RFC 2119 language is used here to express the views of the NETMOD
   working group regarding content for YANG modules.  YANG modules
   complying with this document will treat the RFC 2119 terminology as
   if it were describing best current practices.

2.2.  NETCONF Terms

   The following terms are defined in [RFC4741] and are not redefined
   here:

   o  capabilities

   o  client

   o  operation

   o  server

2.3.  YANG Terms

   The following terms are defined in [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang] and are not
   redefined here:

   o  data node

   o  module

   o  namespace

   o  submodule

   o  version

   o  YANG

   o  YIN

   Note that the term 'module' may be used as a generic term for a YANG
   module or submodule.  When describing properties which are specific
   to submodules, the term 'submodule' is used instead.



Bierman                   Expires April 5, 2011                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents         October 2010


2.4.  Terms

   The following terms are used throughout this document:

   published:  A stable release of a module or submodule, usually
      contained in an RFC.

   unpublished:  An unstable release of a module or submodule, usually
      contained in an Internet-Draft.










































Bierman                   Expires April 5, 2011                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents         October 2010


3.  General Documentation Guidelines

   YANG data model modules under review are likely to be contained in
   Internet-Drafts.  All guidelines for Internet-Draft authors MUST be
   followed.  These guidelines are defined in [RFC2223] and updated in
   [RFC5741].  Additional information is also available online at:

   http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-editor/instructions2authors.txt

   The following sections MUST be present in an Internet-Draft
   containing a module:

   o  Narrative sections

   o  Definitions section

   o  Security Considerations section

   o  IANA Considerations section

   o  References section

3.1.  Module Copyright

   The module description statement MUST contain a reference to the
   latest approved IETF Trust Copyright statement, which is available
   on-line at:

   http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/

   Each YANG module or submodule contained within an Internet-Draft or
   RFC is considered to be a code component.  The strings '<CODE
   BEGINS>' and '<CODE ENDS>' MUST be used to identify each code
   component.

   The '<CODE BEGINS>' tag SHOULD be followed by a string identifying
   the file name specified in section 5.2 of [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang].
   The following example is for the '2010-01-18' revision of the 'ietf-
   foo' module:












Bierman                   Expires April 5, 2011                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents         October 2010


   <CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-foo@2010-01-18.yang"
   module ietf-foo {
       // ...
      revision 2010-01-18 {
         description "Latest revision";
         reference "RFC XXXXX";
      }
      // ...
   }
   <CODE ENDS>



                                 Figure 1

3.2.  Narrative Sections

   The narrative part MUST include an overview section that describes
   the scope and field of application of the module(s) defined by the
   specification and that specifies the relationship (if any) of these
   modules to other standards, particularly to standards containing
   other YANG modules.  The narrative part SHOULD include one or more
   sections to briefly describe the structure of the modules defined in
   the specification.

   If the module(s) defined by the specification import definitions from
   other modules (except for those defined in the YANG
   [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang] or YANG Types [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-types]
   documents), or are always implemented in conjunction with other
   modules, then those facts MUST be noted in the overview section, as
   MUST be noted any special interpretations of definitions in other
   modules.

3.3.  Definitions Section

   This section contains the module(s) defined by the specification.
   These modules MUST be written using the YANG syntax defined in
   [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang].  A YIN syntax version of the module MAY also
   be present in the document.  There MAY also be other types of modules
   present in the document, such as SMIv2, which are not affected by
   these guidelines.

   See Section 4 for guidelines on YANG usage.

3.4.  Security Considerations Section

   Each specification that defines one or more modules MUST contain a
   section that discusses security considerations relevant to those



Bierman                   Expires April 5, 2011                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents         October 2010


   modules.  This section MUST be patterned after the latest approved
   template (available at
   http://www.ops.ietf.org/netconf/yang-security-considerations.txt).

   In particular:

   o  Writable data nodes that could be especially disruptive if abused
      MUST be explicitly listed by name and the associated security
      risks MUST be explained.

   o  Readable data nodes that contain especially sensitive information
      or that raise significant privacy concerns MUST be explicitly
      listed by name and the reasons for the sensitivity/privacy
      concerns MUST be explained.

   o  Operations (i.e., YANG 'rpc' statements) which are potentially
      harmful to system behavior or that raise significant privacy
      concerns MUST be explicitly listed by name and the reasons for the
      sensitivity/privacy concerns MUST be explained.

3.5.  IANA Considerations Section

   In order to comply with IESG policy as set forth in
   http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html, every Internet-Draft that is
   submitted to the IESG for publication which has action items for IANA
   MUST contain an IANA Considerations section.  The requirements for
   this section vary depending what actions are required of the IANA.
   If there are no IANA considerations applicable to the document, then
   the IANA Considerations section is not required.  Refer to the
   guidelines in [RFC5226] for more details.

3.5.1.  Documents that Create a New Name Space

   If an Internet-Draft defines a new name space that is to be
   administered by the IANA, then the document MUST include an IANA
   Considerations section, that specifies how the name space is to be
   administered.

   Specifically, if any YANG module namespace statement value contained
   in the document is not already registered with IANA, then a new YANG
   Namespace registry entry MUST be requested from the IANA.  The YANG
   [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang] specification includes the procedure for this
   purpose in its IANA Considerations section.

3.5.2.  Documents that Extend an Existing Name Space

   It is possible to extend an existing namespace using a YANG submodule
   which belongs to an existing module already administered by IANA.  In



Bierman                   Expires April 5, 2011                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents         October 2010


   this case, the document containing the main module MUST be updated to
   use the latest revision of the submodule.

3.6.  Reference Sections

   For every import or include statement which appears in a module
   contained in the specification, which identifies a module in a
   separate document, a corresponding normative reference to that
   document MUST appear in the Normative References section.  The
   reference MUST correspond to the specific module version actually
   used within the specification.

   For every normative reference statement which appears in a module
   contained in the specification, which identifies a separate document,
   a corresponding normative reference to that document SHOULD appear in
   the Normative References section.  The reference SHOULD correspond to
   the specific document version actually used within the specification.
   If the reference statement identifies an informative reference, which
   identifies a separate document, a corresponding informative reference
   to that document MAY appear in the Informative References section.































Bierman                   Expires April 5, 2011                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents         October 2010


4.  YANG Usage Guidelines

   In general, modules in IETF standards-track specifications MUST
   comply with all syntactic and semantic requirements of YANG.
   [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang].  The guidelines in this section are intended
   to supplement the YANG specification, which is intended to define a
   minimum set of conformance requirements.

   In order to promote interoperability and establish a set of practices
   based on previous experience, the following sections establish usage
   guidelines for specific YANG constructs.

   Only guidelines which clarify or restrict the minimum conformance
   requirements are included here.

4.1.  Module Naming Conventions

   Modules contained in standards track documents SHOULD be named
   according to the guidelines in the IANA considerations section of
   [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang].

   A distinctive word or acronym (e.g., protocol name or working group
   acronym) SHOULD be used in the module name.  If new definitions are
   being defined to extend one or more existing modules, then the same
   word or acronym should be reused, instead of creating a new one.

   All published module names MUST be unique.  For a YANG module
   published in an RFC, this uniqueness is guaranteed by IANA.  For
   unpublished modules, the authors need to check that no other work in
   progress is using the same module name.

   Once a module name is published, it MUST NOT be reused, even if the
   RFC containing the module is reclassified to 'Historic' status.

4.2.  Identifiers

   Identifiers for all YANG identifiers in published modules MUST be
   between 1 and 64 characters in length.  These include any construct
   specified as an 'identifier-arg-str' token in the ABNF in section 12
   of [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang].

4.3.  Defaults

   In general, it is suggested that sub-statements containing very
   common default values SHOULD NOT be present.  The following sub-
   statements are commonly used with the default value, which would make
   the module difficult to read if used everywhere they are allowed.




Bierman                   Expires April 5, 2011                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents         October 2010


                     +---------------+---------------+
                     | Statement     | Default Value |
                     +---------------+---------------+
                     | config        | true          |
                     |               |               |
                     | mandatory     | false         |
                     |               |               |
                     | max-elements  | unbounded     |
                     |               |               |
                     | min-elements  | 0             |
                     |               |               |
                     | ordered-by    | system        |
                     |               |               |
                     | status        | current       |
                     |               |               |
                     | yin-element   | false         |
                     +---------------+---------------+

4.4.  Conditional Statements

   A module may be conceptually partitioned in several ways, using the
   'if-feature' and/or 'when' statements.

   Data model designers need to carefully consider all modularity
   aspects, including the use of YANG conditional statements.

   If a data definition is optional, depending on server support for a
   NETCONF protocol capability, then a YANG 'feature' statement SHOULD
   be defined to indicate that the NETCONF capability is supported
   within the data model.

   If any notification data, or any data definition, for a non-
   configuration data node is not mandatory, then the server may or may
   not be required to return an instance of this data node.  If any
   conditional requirements exist for returning the data node in a
   notification payload or retrieval request, they MUST be documented
   somewhere.  For example, a 'when' or 'if-feature' statement could
   apply to the data node, or the conditional requirements could be
   explained in a 'description' statement within the data node or one of
   its ancestors (if any).

4.5.  XPath Usage

   This section describes guidelines for using the XML Path Language
   [W3C.REC-xpath-19991116] (XPath) within YANG modules.

   The 'attribute' and 'namespace' axes are not supported in YANG, and
   MAY be empty in a NETCONF server implementation.



Bierman                   Expires April 5, 2011                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents         October 2010


   The 'position' and 'last' functions SHOULD NOT be used.  This applies
   to implicit use of the 'position' function as well (e.g.,
   '//chapter[42]').  A server is only required to maintain the relative
   XML document order of all instances of a particular user-ordered list
   or leaf-list.  The 'position' and 'last' functions MAY be used if
   they are evaluated in a context where the context node is a user-
   ordered 'list' or 'leaf-list'.

   The 'preceding', and 'following' axes SHOULD NOT be used.  These
   constructs rely on XML document order within a NETCONF server
   configuration database, which may not be supported consistently or
   produce reliable results across implementations.  Predicate
   expressions based on static node properties (e.g., element name or
   value, 'ancestor' or 'descendant' axes) SHOULD be used instead.  The
   'preceding' and 'following' axes MAY be used if document order is not
   relevant to the outcome of the expression (e.g., check for global
   uniqueness of a parameter value.)

   The 'preceding-sibling' and 'following-sibling' axes SHOULD NOT used.
   A server is only required to maintain the relative XML document order
   of all instances of a particular user-ordered list or leaf-list.  The
   'preceding-sibling' and 'following-sibling' axes MAY be used if they
   are evaluated in a context where the context node is a user-ordered
   'list' or 'leaf-list'.

   Data nodes which use the 'int64' and 'uint64' built-in type SHOULD
   NOT be used within numeric expressions.  There are boundary
   conditions in which the translation from the YANG 64-bit type to an
   XPath number can cause incorrect results.  Specifically, an XPath
   'double' precision floating point number cannot represent very large
   positive or negative 64-bit numbers because it only provides a total
   precision of 53 bits.  The 'int64' and 'uint64' data types MAY be
   used in numeric expressions if the value can be represented with no
   more than 53 bits of precision.

   Data modelers need to be careful not to confuse the YANG value space
   and the XPath value space.  The data types are not the same in both,
   and conversion between YANG and XPath data types SHOULD be considered
   carefully.

   Explicit XPath data type conversions MAY be used (e.g., 'string',
   'boolean', or 'number' functions), instead of implicit XPath data
   type conversions.

4.6.  Lifecycle Management

   The status statement MUST be present if its value is 'deprecated' or
   'obsolete'.



Bierman                   Expires April 5, 2011                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents         October 2010


   The module or submodule name MUST NOT be changed, once the document
   containing the module or submodule is published.

   The module namespace URI value MUST NOT be changed, once the document
   containing the module is published.

   The revision-date sub-statement within the imports statement SHOULD
   be present if any groupings are used from the external module.

   The revision-date sub-statement within the include statement SHOULD
   be present if any groupings are used from the external sub-module.

   If submodules are used, then the document containing the main module
   MUST be updated so that the main module revision date is equal or
   more recent than the revision date of any submodule which is
   (directly or indirectly) included by the main module.

4.7.  Module Header, Meta, and Revision Statements

   For published modules, the namespace MUST be a globally unique URI,
   as defined in [RFC3986].  This value is usually assigned by the IANA.

   The organization statement MUST be present.  If the module is
   contained in a document intended for standards-track status, then the
   organization SHOULD be the IETF working group chartered to write the
   document.

   The contact statement MUST be present.  If the module is contained in
   a document intended for standards-track status, then the working
   group WEB and mailing information MUST be present, and the main
   document author or editor contact information SHOULD be present.  If
   additional authors or editors exist, their contact information MAY be
   present.  In addition, the Area Director and other contact
   information MAY be present.

   The description statement MUST be present.  The appropriate IETF
   Trust Copyright text MUST be present, as described in Section 3.1.

   If the module relies on information contained in other documents,
   which are not the same documents implied by the import statements
   present in the module, then these documents MUST be identified in the
   reference statement.

   A revision statement MUST be present for each published version of
   the module.  The revision statement MUST have a reference
   substatement.  It MUST identify the published document which contains
   the module.  Modules are often extracted from their original
   documents and it is useful for developers and operators to know how



Bierman                   Expires April 5, 2011                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents         October 2010


   to find the original source document in a consistent manner.  The
   revision statement MAY have a description substatement.

   Each new revision MUST include a revision date which is higher than
   any other revision date in the module.  The revision date does not
   need to be updated if the module contents do not change in the new
   document revision.

   It is acceptable to reuse the same revision statement within
   unpublished versions (i.e., Internet-Drafts), but the revision date
   MUST be updated to a higher value each time the Internet-Draft is re-
   published.

4.8.  Namespace Assignments

   It is RECOMMENDED that only valid YANG modules are included in
   documents, whether they are published yet or not.  This allows:

   o  the module to compile correctly instead of generating disruptive
      fatal errors.

   o  early implementors to use the modules without picking a random
      value for the XML namespace.

   o  early interoperability testing since independent implementations
      will use the same XML namespace value.

   Until a URI is assigned by the IANA, a proposed namespace URI MUST be
   provided for the namespace statement in a YANG module.  A value
   SHOULD be selected which is not likely to collide with other YANG
   namespaces.  Standard module names, prefixes, and URI strings already
   listed in the YANG Module Registry MUST NOT be used.

   A standard namespace statement value SHOULD have the following form:

   <URN prefix string>:<module-name>

   The following URN prefix string SHOULD be used for published and
   unpublished YANG modules:

   urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:

   The following example URNs would be valid temporary namespace
   statement values for standards-track modules:

      urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-netconf-partial-lock





Bierman                   Expires April 5, 2011                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents         October 2010


      urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-netconf-state

      urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-netconf

   Note that a different URN prefix string SHOULD be used for non-
   standards track modules.  The string SHOULD be selected according to
   the guidelines in [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang].

   The following examples of non-standards track modules are only
   suggestions.  There are no guidelines for this type of URN in this
   document:

      http://example.com/ns/example-interfaces

      http://example.com/ns/example-system

4.9.  Top Level Data Definitions

   There SHOULD only be one top-level data node defined in each YANG
   module, if any data nodes are defined at all.

   The top-level data organization SHOULD be considered carefully, in
   advance.  Data model designers need to consider how the functionality
   for a given protocol or protocol family will grow over time.

   The names and data organization SHOULD reflect persistent
   information, such as the name of a protocol.  The name of the working
   group SHOULD NOT be used because this may change over time.

   A mandatory database data definition is defined as a node that a
   client must provide for the database to be valid.  The server is not
   required to provide a value.

   Top-level database data definitions MUST NOT be mandatory.  If a
   mandatory node appears at the top-level, it will immediately cause
   the database to be invalid.  This can occur when the server boots or
   when a module is loaded dynamically at runtime.

4.10.  Data Types

   Selection of an appropriate data type (i.e., built-in type, existing
   derived type, or new derived type) is very subjective and therefore
   few requirements can be specified on that subject.

   Data model designers SHOULD use the most appropriate built-in data
   type for the particular application.

   If extensibility of enumerated values is required, then the



Bierman                   Expires April 5, 2011                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents         October 2010


   'identityref' data type SHOULD be used instead of an enumeration or
   other built-in type.

   For string data types, if a machine-readable pattern can be defined
   for the desired semantics, then one or more pattern statements SHOULD
   be present.

   For string data types, if the length of the string is required to be
   bounded in all implementations, then a length statement MUST be
   present.

   For numeric data types, if the values allowed by the intended
   semantics are different than those allowed by the unbounded intrinsic
   data type (e.g., 'int32'), then a range statement SHOULD be present.

   The signed numeric data types (i.e., 'int8', 'int16', 'int32', and
   'int64') SHOULD NOT be used unless negative values are allowed for
   the desired semantics.

   For 'enumeration' or 'bits' data types, the semantics for each 'enum'
   or 'bit' SHOULD be documented.  A separate description statement
   (within each 'enum' or 'bit' statement) SHOULD be present.

4.11.  Reusable Type Definitions

   If an appropriate derived type exists in any standard module, such as
   [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-types], then it SHOULD be used instead of
   defining a new derived type.

   If an appropriate units identifier can be associated with the desired
   semantics, then a units statement SHOULD be present.

   If an appropriate default value can be associated with the desired
   semantics, then a default statement SHOULD be present.

   If a significant number of derived types are defined, and it is
   anticipated that these data types will be reused by multiple modules,
   then these derived types SHOULD be contained in a separate module or
   submodule, to allow easier reuse without unnecessary coupling.

   The description statement MUST be present.

   If the type definition semantics are defined in an external document
   (other than another YANG module indicated by an import statement),
   then the reference statement MUST be present.






Bierman                   Expires April 5, 2011                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents         October 2010


4.12.  Data Definitions

   The description statement MUST be present in the following YANG
   statements:

   o  anyxml

   o  augment

   o  choice

   o  container

   o  extension

   o  feature

   o  grouping

   o  identity

   o  leaf

   o  leaf-list

   o  list

   o  notification

   o  rpc

   o  typedef

   If the data definition semantics are defined in an external document,
   (other than another YANG module indicated by an import statement),
   then a reference statement MUST be present.

   The 'anyxml' construct may be useful to represent an HTML banner
   containing markup elements, such as '<b>' and '</b>', and MAY be used
   in such cases .  However, this construct SHOULD NOT be used if other
   YANG data node types can be used instead to represent the desired
   syntax and semantics.

   If there are referential integrity constraints associated with the
   desired semantics that can be represented with XPath, then one or
   more must statements SHOULD be present.

   For list and leaf-list data definitions, if the number of possible



Bierman                   Expires April 5, 2011                [Page 18]

Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents         October 2010


   instances is required to be bounded for all implementations, then the
   max-elements statements SHOULD be present.

   If any must or when statements are used within the data definition,
   then the data definition description statement SHOULD describe the
   purpose of each one.

4.13.  Operation Definitions

   If the operation semantics are defined in an external document (other
   than another YANG module indicated by an import statement), then a
   reference statement MUST be present.

   If the operation impacts system behavior in some way, it SHOULD be
   mentioned in the description statement.

   If the operation is potentially harmful to system behavior in some
   way, it MUST be mentioned in the Security Considerations section of
   the document.

4.14.  Notification Definitions

   The description statement MUST be present.

   If the notification semantics are defined in an external document
   (other than another YANG module indicated by an import statement),
   then a reference statement MUST be present.
























Bierman                   Expires April 5, 2011                [Page 19]

Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents         October 2010


5.  IANA Considerations

   This document registers one URI in the IETF XML registry [RFC3688].
   The following registration is requested:

   URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-template

   Registrant Contact: The NETMOD WG of the IETF.

   XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.

   This document requests the following assignment in the YANG Module
   Names Registry for the YANG module template in Appendix B.

       +---------------+-------------------------------------------+
       | Field         | Value                                     |
       +---------------+-------------------------------------------+
       | name          | ietf-template                             |
       |               |                                           |
       | namespace     | urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-template |
       |               |                                           |
       | prefix        | temp                                      |
       |               |                                           |
       | reference     | RFCXXXX                                   |
       +---------------+-------------------------------------------+


























Bierman                   Expires April 5, 2011                [Page 20]

Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents         October 2010


6.  Security Considerations

   This document defines documentation guidelines for NETCONF content
   defined with the YANG data modeling language.  The guidelines for how
   to write a Security Considerations section for a YANG module are
   defined in the online document

   http://www.ops.ietf.org/netconf/yang-security-considerations.txt

   This document does not introduce any new or increased security risks
   into the management system.

   The following section contains the security considerations template
   dated 2010-06-16.  Be sure to check the WEB page at the URL listed
   above in case there is a more recent version available.

   Each specification that defines one or more YANG modules MUST contain
   a section that discusses security considerations relevant to those
   modules.  This section MUST be patterned after the latest approved
   template (available at [ed: URL TBD]).

   In particular, writable data nodes that could be especially
   disruptive if abused MUST be explicitly listed by name and the
   associated security risks MUST be spelled out.

   Similarly, readable data nodes that contain especially sensitive
   information or that raise significant privacy concerns MUST be
   explicitly listed by name and the reasons for the sensitivity/privacy
   concerns MUST be explained.

   Further, if new RPC operations have been defined, then the security
   considerations of each new RPC operation MUST be explained.


6.1.  Security Considerations Section Template
















Bierman                   Expires April 5, 2011                [Page 21]

Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents         October 2010


   X. Security Considerations

   The YANG module defined in this memo is designed to be accessed
   via the NETCONF protocol [RFC4741]. The lowest NETCONF layer is
   the secure transport layer and the mandatory to implement secure
   transport is SSH [RFC4742].

   -- if you have any writeable data nodes (those are all the
   -- "config true" nodes, and remember, that is the default)
   -- describe their specific sensitivity or vulnerability.

   There are a number of data nodes defined in this YANG module
   which are writable/creatable/deletable (i.e. config true, which
   is the default).  These data nodes may be considered sensitive
   or vulnerable in some network environments.  Write operations
   (e.g. edit-config) to these data nodes without proper protection
   can have a negative effect on network operations.  These are
   the subtrees and data nodes and their sensitivity/vulnerability:

    <list subtrees and data nodes and state why they are sensitive>

   -- for all YANG modules you must evaluate whether any readable data
   -- nodes (those are all the "config false" nodes, but also all other
   -- nodes, because they can also be read via operations like get or
   -- get-config) are sensitive or vulnerable (for instance, if they
   -- might reveal customer information or violate personal privacy
   -- laws such as those of the European Union if exposed to
   -- unauthorized parties)

   Some of the readable data nodes in this YANG module may be
   considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments.
   It is thus important to control read access (e.g. via get,
   get-config or notification) to these data nodes.  These are the
   subtrees and data nodes and their sensitivity/vulnerability:

    <list subtrees and data nodes and state why they are sensitive>

   -- if your YANG module has defined any rpc operations
   -- describe their specific sensitivity or vulnerability.

   Some of the RPC operations in this YANG module may be considered
   sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments.  It is thus
   important to control access to these operations.  These are the
   operations and their sensitivity/vulnerability:

    <list RPC operations and state why they are sensitive>





Bierman                   Expires April 5, 2011                [Page 22]

Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents         October 2010


                                 Figure 2


















































Bierman                   Expires April 5, 2011                [Page 23]

Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents         October 2010


7.  Acknowledgments

   The structure and contents of this document are adapted from
   Guidelines for MIB Documents [RFC4181], by C. M. Heard.

   The working group thanks Martin Bjorklund and Juergen Schoenwaelder
   for their extensive reviews and contributions to this document.












































Bierman                   Expires April 5, 2011                [Page 24]

Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents         October 2010


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2223]  Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Instructions to RFC Authors",
              RFC 2223, October 1997.

   [RFC3688]  Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
              January 2004.

   [RFC3986]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
              Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
              RFC 3986, January 2005.

   [RFC4741]  Enns, R., "NETCONF Configuration Protocol", RFC 4741,
              December 2006.

   [RFC5378]  Bradner, S. and J. Contreras, "Rights Contributors Provide
              to the IETF Trust", BCP 78, RFC 5378, November 2008.

   [RFC5741]  Daigle, L., Kolkman, O., and IAB, "RFC Streams, Headers,
              and Boilerplates", RFC 5741, December 2009.

   [W3C.REC-xpath-19991116]
              DeRose, S. and J. Clark, "XML Path Language (XPath)
              Version 1.0", World Wide Web Consortium
              Recommendation REC-xpath-19991116, November 1999,
              <http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xpath-19991116>.

   [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang]
              Bjorklund, M., "YANG - A data modeling language for the
              Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)",
              draft-ietf-netmod-yang-13 (work in progress), June 2010.

   [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-types]
              Schoenwaelder, J., "Common YANG Data Types",
              draft-ietf-netmod-yang-types-09 (work in progress),
              April 2010.

8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC4181]  Heard, C., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of MIB
              Documents", BCP 111, RFC 4181, September 2005.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an



Bierman                   Expires April 5, 2011                [Page 25]

Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents         October 2010


              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.

















































Bierman                   Expires April 5, 2011                [Page 26]

Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents         October 2010


Appendix A.  Module Review Checklist

   This section is adapted from RFC 4181.

   The purpose of a YANG module review is to review the YANG module both
   for technical correctness and for adherence to IETF documentation
   requirements.  The following checklist may be helpful when reviewing
   a draft document:

   1.  I-D Boilerplate -- verify that the draft contains the required
       Internet-Draft boilerplate (see
       http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt), including the
       appropriate statement to permit publication as an RFC, and that
       I-D boilerplate does not contain references or section numbers.

   2.  Abstract -- verify that the abstract does not contain references,
       that it does not have a section number, and that its content
       follows the guidelines in
       http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt.

   3.  IETF Trust Copyright -- verify that the draft has the appropriate
       text regarding the rights that document contributers provide to
       the IETF Trust [RFC5378].  Some guidelines related to this
       requirement are described in Section 3.1.  The IETF Trust license
       policy (TLP) can be found at:

       http://trustee.ietf.org/docs/IETF-Trust-License-Policy.pdf

   4.  Security Considerations Section -- verify that the draft uses the
       latest approved template from the OPS area web site (http://
       www.ops.ietf.org/netconf/yang-security-considerations.txt) and
       that the guidelines therein have been followed.

   5.  IANA Considerations Section -- this section must always be
       present.  For each module within the document, ensure that the
       IANA Considerations section contains entries for the following
       IANA registries:

       XML Namespace Registry:  Register the YANG module namespace.

       YANG Module Registry:  Register the YANG module name, prefix,
          namespace, and RFC number, according to the rules specified in
          [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang].

   6.  References -- verify that the references are properly divided
       between normative and informative references, that RFC 2119 is
       included as a normative reference if the terminology defined
       therein is used in the document, that all references required by



Bierman                   Expires April 5, 2011                [Page 27]

Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents         October 2010


       the boilerplate are present, that all YANG modules containing
       imported items are cited as normative references, and that all
       citations point to the most current RFCs unless there is a valid
       reason to do otherwise (for example, it is OK to include an
       informative reference to a previous version of a specification to
       help explain a feature included for backward compatibility).  Be
       sure citations for all imported modules are present somewhere in
       the document text (outside the YANG module).

   7.  Copyright Notices -- verify that the draft contains an
       abbreviated IETF Trust copyright notice in the description
       statement of each YANG module or sub-module, and that it contains
       the full IETF Trust copyright notice at the end of the document.
       Make sure that the correct year is used in all copyright dates.
       Use the approved text from the latest Trust Legal Provisions
       (TLP) document, which can be found at:

       http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/

   8.  Other Issues -- check for any issues mentioned in
       http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html that are not covered
       elsewhere.

   9.  Technical Content -- review the actual technical content for
       compliance with the guidelines in this document.  The use of a
       YANG module compiler is recommended when checking for syntax
       errors.  A list of freely available tools and other information
       can be found at:

       http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/netconf/trac/wiki

       Checking for correct syntax, however, is only part of the job.
       It is just as important to actually read the YANG module document
       from the point of view of a potential implementor.  It is
       particularly important to check that description statements are
       sufficiently clear and unambiguous to allow interoperable
       implementations to be created.














Bierman                   Expires April 5, 2011                [Page 28]

Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents         October 2010


Appendix B.  YANG Module Template




<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-template@2010-05-18.yang"

module ietf-template {

    // replace this string with a unique namespace URN value
    namespace
      "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-template";

    // replace this string, and try to pick a unique prefix
    prefix "temp";


    // import statements here: e.g.,
    // import ietf-yang-types { prefix yang; }
    // import ietf-inet-types { prefix inet; }

    // identify the IETF working group if applicable
    organization
       "IETF NETMOD (NETCONF Data Modeling Language) Working Group";

    // update this contact statement with your info
    contact
       "WG Web:   <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/your-wg-name/>
        WG List:  <mailto:your-wg-name@ietf.org>

        WG Chair: your-WG-chair
               <mailto:your-WG-chair@example.com>

        Editor:   your-name
                  <mailto:your-email@example.com>";


    // replace the first sentence in this description statement.
    // replace the copyright notice with the most recent
    // version, if it has been updated since the publication
    // of this document
    description
     "This module defines a template for other YANG modules.

      Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
      the document authors.  All rights reserved.

      Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or



Bierman                   Expires April 5, 2011                [Page 29]

Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents         October 2010


      without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject
      to the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License
      set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
      Relating to IETF Documents
      (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).

      This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX; see
      the RFC itself for full legal notices.";

    // RFC Ed.: replace XXXX with actual RFC number and remove this note

    reference "RFC XXXX";

    // RFC Ed.: remove this note
    // Note: extracted from draft-ietf-netmod-yang-usage-04.txt


    // replace '2010-05-18' with the module publication date
    // The format is (year-month-day)
    revision "2010-05-18" {
      description
        "Initial version";
    }

    // extension statements

    // feature statements

    // identity statements

    // typedef statements

    // grouping statements

    // data definition statements

    // augment statements

    // rpc statements

    // notification statements

    // DO NOT put deviation statements in a published module

}

<CODE ENDS>




Bierman                   Expires April 5, 2011                [Page 30]

Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents         October 2010


                                 Figure 3


















































Bierman                   Expires April 5, 2011                [Page 31]

Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents         October 2010


Appendix C.  Change Log

C.1.  Changes from 10 to 11

   o  Removed Intellectual Property section, since no longer required.

   o  Reworded XPath guidelines related to XML document order, 'int64'
      and 'uint64' data types, and 'anyxml' data nodes.

C.2.  Changes from 09 to 10

   o  Added security considerations section template.

   o  Added guideline for documenting conditional requirements for non-
      mandatory non-configuration data nodes.

   o  Clarified that revision date update applies to the module
      contents.

C.3.  Changes from 08 to 09

   o  Clarifications and corrections to address Gen-ART review comments.

C.4.  Changes from 07 to 08

   o  Corrected YANG security considerations URL.

   o  Expanded 'CODE BEGINS' example.

   o  Added RPC operations to the security considerations guidelines
      section.

   o  Removed guideline about leading and trailing whitespace.

C.5.  Changes from 06 to 07

   o  Corrected title change bug; supposed to be page header instead.

   o  Fixed typos added to last revision.

   o  Added sentence to checklist to make sure text outside module
      contains citations for imports.

C.6.  Changes from 05 to 06

   o  Several clarifications and corrections, based on the AD review by
      Dan Romascanu.




Bierman                   Expires April 5, 2011                [Page 32]

Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents         October 2010


C.7.  Changes from 04 to 05

   o  Changed 'object' terminology to 'data definition'.

   o  Put XPath guidelines in separate section.

   o  Clarified XPath usage for XML document order dependencies.

   o  Updated <CODE BEGINS> guidelines to current conventions.

   o  Added informative reference for IANA considerations guidelines and
      XML registry.

   o  Updated IANA Considerations section to reserve the ietf-template
      module in the YANG Module Name Registry so it cannot be reused
      accidently.

   o  Many other clarifications and fixed typos found in WGLC reviews.

C.8.  Changes from 03 to 04

   o  Removed figure 1 to reduce duplication, just refer to 4741bis
      draft.

   o  Fixed bugs and typos found in WGLC reviews.

   o  Removed some guidelines and referring to YANG draft instead of
      duplicating YANG rules here.

   o  Changed security guidelines so they refer to the IETF Trust TLP
      instead of MIB-specific references.

   o  Change temporary namespace guidelines so the DRAFT-XX and RFC-nnnn
      suffix strings are not used.

   o  Changed some MIB boilerplate so it refers to YANG boilerplate
      instead.

   o  Introduced dangling URL reference to online YANG security
      guidelines

      http://www.ops.ietf.org/yang-security.html

      [ed.: Text from Bert Wijnen will be completed soon and posted
      online, and then this URL will be finalized.]

   o  Moved reference for identifying the source document inside the
      each revision statement.



Bierman                   Expires April 5, 2011                [Page 33]

Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents         October 2010


   o  Removed guideline about valid XPath since YANG already requires
      valid XPath.

   o  Added guideline that strings should not rely on preservation of
      leading and trailing whitespace characters.

   o  Relaxed some XPath and anyxml guidelines from SHOULD NOT or MUST
      NOT to MAY use with caution.

   o  Updated the TLP text within the example module again.

   o  Reversed order of change log so most recent entries are first.

C.9.  Changes from 02 to 03

   o  Updated figure 1 to align with 4741bis draft.

   o  Updated guidelines for import-by-revision and include-by-revision.

   o  Added file name to code begins convention in ietf-template module.

C.10.  Changes from 01 to 02

   o  Updated figure 1 per mailing list comments.

   o  Updated suggested organization to include the working group name.

   o  Updated ietf-template.yang to use new organization statement
      value.

   o  Updated Code Component requirements as per new TLP.

   o  Updated ietf-template.yang to use new Code Component begin and end
      markers.

   o  Updated references to the TLP in a couple sections.

   o  Change manager/agent terminology to client/server.

C.11.  Changes from 00 to 01

   o  Added transport 'TLS' to figure 1.

   o  Added note about RFC 2119 terminology.

   o  Corrected URL for instructions to authors.





Bierman                   Expires April 5, 2011                [Page 34]

Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents         October 2010


   o  Updated namespace procedures section.

   o  Updated guidelines on module contact, reference, and organization
      statements.

   o  Added note on use of preceding-sibling and following-sibling axes
      in XPath expressions.

   o  Added section on temporary namespace statement values.

   o  Added section on top level database objects.

   o  Added ietf-template.yang appendix.






































Bierman                   Expires April 5, 2011                [Page 35]

Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents         October 2010


Author's Address

   Andy Bierman
   Brocade

   Email: andy.bierman@brocade.com













































Bierman                   Expires April 5, 2011                [Page 36]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/