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

Versions: (draft-bierman-netmod-rfc6087bis) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 RFC 8407

Network Working Group                                         A. Bierman
Internet-Draft                                                 YumaWorks
Intended status: Standards Track                          April 24, 2015
Expires: October 26, 2015


   Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of YANG Data Model Documents
                    draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-02

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 that utilize YANG
   data model modules.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted 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 October 26, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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 October 26, 2015                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents           April 2015


   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.  YANG Tree Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  General Documentation Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.1.  Module Copyright . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.2.  Terminology Section  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.3.  Tree Diagrams  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.4.  Narrative Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.5.  Definitions Section  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.6.  Security Considerations Section  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.7.  IANA Considerations Section  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       4.7.1.  Documents that Create a New Namespace  . . . . . . . . 11
       4.7.2.  Documents that Extend an Existing Namespace  . . . . . 11
     4.8.  Reference Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.9.  Validation Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   5.  YANG Usage Guidelines  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.1.  Module Naming Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.2.  Identifiers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.3.  Defaults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.4.  Conditional Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     5.5.  XPath Usage  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       5.5.1.  Function Library . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       5.5.2.  Axes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       5.5.3.  Types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       5.5.4.  Wildcards  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     5.6.  Lifecycle Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     5.7.  Module Header, Meta, and Revision Statements . . . . . . . 18
     5.8.  Namespace Assignments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     5.9.  Top-Level Data Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     5.10. Data Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     5.11. Reusable Type Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     5.12. Data Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     5.13. Operation Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     5.14. Notification Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     5.15. Feature Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     5.16. Data Correlation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27



Bierman                 Expires October 26, 2015                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents           April 2015


     7.1.  Security Considerations Section Template . . . . . . . . . 27
   8.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
   9.  Changes Since RFC 6087 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
     10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
     10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
   Appendix A.  Change Log  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
     A.1.  00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
   Appendix B.  Module Review Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
   Appendix C.  YANG Module Template  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38








































Bierman                 Expires October 26, 2015                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents           April 2015


1.  Introduction

   The standardization of network configuration interfaces for use with
   the Network Configuration Protocol [RFC6241] 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 [RFC6020] data models.  YANG is used to define
   the data structures, protocol operations, and notification content
   used within a NETCONF server.  A server that 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 Structure of Management Information
   version 2 (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 that 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 that
   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 [RFC6241].
   These guidelines are intended to be used by authors and reviewers to
   improve the readability and interoperability of published YANG data
   models.

   Note that this document is not a YANG tutorial and the reader is
   expected to know the YANG data modeling language before using this
   document.









Bierman                 Expires October 26, 2015                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents           April 2015


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 [RFC6241] and are not redefined
   here:

   o  capabilities

   o  client

   o  operation

   o  server

2.3.  YANG Terms

   The following terms are defined in [RFC6020] 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 that are specific to
   submodules, the term 'submodule' is used instead.



Bierman                 Expires October 26, 2015                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents           April 2015


2.4.  Terms

   The following terms are used throughout this document:

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

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










































Bierman                 Expires October 26, 2015                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents           April 2015


3.  YANG Tree Diagrams

   YANG tree diagrams provide a concise representation of a YANG module
   to help readers understand the module structure.

   The meaning of the symbols in YANG tree diagrams is as follows:

   o  Brackets "[" and "]" enclose list keys.

   o  Abbreviations before data node names: "rw" means configuration
      (read-write) and "ro" state data (read-only).

   o  Symbols after data node names: "?" means an optional node, "!"
      means a presence container, and "*" denotes a list and leaf-list.

   o  Parentheses enclose choice and case nodes, and case nodes are also
      marked with a colon (":").

   o  Ellipsis ("...") stands for contents of subtrees that are not
      shown.































Bierman                 Expires October 26, 2015                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents           April 2015


4.  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.  The RFC Editor provides guidelines for authors of RFCs,
   which are first published as Internet-Drafts.  These guidelines
   should be followed and are defined in [RFC2223] and updated in
   [RFC5741] and "RFC Document Style" [RFC-STYLE].

   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

4.1.  Module Copyright

   The module description statement MUST contain a reference to the
   latest approved IETF Trust Copyright statement, which is available
   online 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 [RFC6020].  The following
   example is for the '2010-01-18' revision of the 'ietf-foo' module:

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



Bierman                 Expires October 26, 2015                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents           April 2015


     <CODE ENDS>

   Note that this convention MUST NOT be used for example modules or
   module fragments.

   [FIXME: should a new convention called <EXAMPLE BEGINS> be added for
   YANG example modules?]

4.2.  Terminology Section

   A terminology section MUST be present if any terms are defined in the
   document or if any terms are imported from other documents.

   If YANG tree diagrams are used, then a sub-section explaining the
   YANG tree diagram syntax MUST be present, containing the following
   text:

     A simplified graphical representation of the data model is used in
     this document.  The meaning of the symbols in these diagrams is
     defined in [RFCXXXX].

     -- RFC Editor: Replace XXXX with RFC number and remove note

4.3.  Tree Diagrams

   YANG tree diagrams provide a concise representation of a YANG module,
   and SHOULD be included to help readers understand YANG module
   structure.  Tree diagrams MAY be split into sections to correspond to
   document structure.

   The following example shows a simple YANG tree diagram:

      +--rw top-level-config-container
      |  +--rw config-list* [key-name]
      |     +--rw key-name                    string
      |     +--rw optional-parm?              string
      |     +--rw mandatory-parm              identityref
      |     +--ro read-only-leaf              string
      +--ro top-level-nonconfig-container
         +--ro nonconfig-list* [name]
            +--ro name               string
            +--ro type               string

4.4.  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



Bierman                 Expires October 26, 2015                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents           April 2015


   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 imports definitions
   from other modules (except for those defined in the [RFC6020] or
   [RFC6991] 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.

4.5.  Definitions Section

   This section contains the module(s) defined by the specification.
   These modules MUST be written using the YANG syntax defined in
   [RFC6020].  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 5 for guidelines on YANG usage.

4.6.  Security Considerations Section

   Each specification that defines one or more 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 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/
   yang-security-guidelines).  Section 7.1 contains the security
   considerations template dated 2013-05-08.  Authors MUST check the
   webpage at the URL listed above in case there is a more recent
   version available.

   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.





Bierman                 Expires October 26, 2015               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents           April 2015


   o  Operations (i.e., YANG 'rpc' statements) that 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.

4.7.  IANA Considerations Section

   In order to comply with IESG policy as set forth in
   http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist.html, every Internet-Draft that
   is submitted to the IESG for publication MUST contain an IANA
   Considerations section.  The requirements for this section vary
   depending on what actions are required of the IANA.  If there are no
   IANA considerations applicable to the document, then the IANA
   Considerations section stating that there are no actions is removed
   by the RFC Editor before publication.  Refer to the guidelines in
   [RFC5226] for more details.

4.7.1.  Documents that Create a New Namespace

   If an Internet-Draft defines a new namespace that is to be
   administered by the IANA, then the document MUST include an IANA
   Considerations section that specifies how the namespace 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
   [RFC6020] specification includes the procedure for this purpose in
   its IANA Considerations section.

4.7.2.  Documents that Extend an Existing Namespace

   It is possible to extend an existing namespace using a YANG submodule
   that belongs to an existing module already administered by IANA.  In
   this case, the document containing the main module MUST be updated to
   use the latest revision of the submodule.

4.8.  Reference Sections

   For every import or include statement that 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 that appears in a module
   contained in the specification, which identifies a separate document,



Bierman                 Expires October 26, 2015               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents           April 2015


   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.

4.9.  Validation Tools

   All modules need to be validated before submission in an Internet
   Draft.  The 'pyang' YANG compiler is freely available from github:

      https://github.com/mbj4668/pyang

   If the 'pyang' compiler is used, then the "--ietf" command line
   option SHOULD be used to identify any IETF guideline issues.



































Bierman                 Expires October 26, 2015               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents           April 2015


5.  YANG Usage Guidelines

   In general, modules in IETF Standards Track specifications MUST
   comply with all syntactic and semantic requirements of YANG
   [RFC6020].  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 that clarify or restrict the minimum conformance
   requirements are included here.

5.1.  Module Naming Conventions

   Modules contained in Standards Track documents SHOULD be named
   according to the guidelines in the IANA Considerations section of
   [RFC6020].

   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.

5.2.  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 [RFC6020].

5.3.  Defaults

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




Bierman                 Expires October 26, 2015               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents           April 2015


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

                            Statement Defaults

5.4.  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).

   If any 'if-feature' statements apply to a list node, then the same
   'if-feature' statements MUST apply to any key leaf nodes for the
   list.  There MUST NOT be any 'if-feature' statements applied to any
   key leaf that do not also apply to the parent list node.

   There SHOULD NOT be any 'when' statements applied to a key leaf node.
   It is possible that a 'when' statement for an ancestor node of a key
   leaf will have the exact node-set result as the key leaf.  In such as
   case, the 'when' statement for the key leaf is redundant and SHOULD
   be avoided.




Bierman                 Expires October 26, 2015               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents           April 2015


5.5.  XPath Usage

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

5.5.1.  Function Library

   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 'id' function SHOULD NOT be used.  The 'ID' attribute is not
   present in YANG documents so this function has no meaning.  The YANG
   compiler SHOULD return an empty string for this function.

   The 'namespace-uri' and 'name' functions SHOULD NOT be used.
   Expanded names in XPath are different than YANG.  A specific
   canonical representation of a YANG expanded name does not exist.

   The 'lang' function SHOULD NOT be used.  This function does not apply
   to YANG because there is no 'lang' attribute set with the document.
   The YANG compiler SHOULD return 'false' for this function.

   The 'local-name', 'namespace-uri', 'name', 'string', and 'number'
   functions SHOULD NOT be used if the argument is a node-set.  If so,
   the function result will be determined by the document order of the
   node-set.  Since this order can be different on each server, the
   function results can also be different.  Any function call that
   implicitly converts a node-set to a string will also have this issue.

   The 'local-name' function SHOULD NOT be used to reference local names
   outside of the YANG module defining the must or when expression
   containing the 'local-name' function.  Example of a local-name
   function that should not be used:

      /*[local-name()='foo']

5.5.2.  Axes

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

   The 'preceding', and 'following' axes SHOULD NOT be used.  These
   constructs rely on XML document order within a NETCONF server



Bierman                 Expires October 26, 2015               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents           April 2015


   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,
   however they MAY be used if document order is not relevant to the
   outcome of the expression.

   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'.

5.5.3.  Types

   Data nodes that use the 'int64' and 'uint64' built-in type SHOULD NOT
   be used within numeric or boolean 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.

   XPath expressions that contain a literal value representing a YANG
   identity SHOULD always include the declared prefix of the module
   where the identity is defined.

   XPath expressions for 'when' statements SHOULD NOT reference the
   context node or any descendant nodes of the context node.  They MAY
   reference descendant nodes if the 'when' statement is contained
   within an 'augment' statement, and the referenced nodes are not
   defined within the 'augment' statement.



Bierman                 Expires October 26, 2015               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents           April 2015


   Example:

      augment "/rt:active-route/rt:input/rt:destination-address" {
         when "rt:address-family='v4ur:ipv4-unicast'" {
           description
             "This augment is valid only for IPv4 unicast.";
         }
         // nodes defined here within the augment-stmt
         // cannot be referenced in the when-stmt
      }

5.5.4.  Wildcards

   It is possible to construct XPath expressions that will evaluate
   differently when combined with several modules within a server
   implementation, then when evaluated within the single module.  This
   is due to augmenting nodes from other modules.

   Wildcard expansion is done within a server against all the nodes from
   all namespaces, so it is possible for a 'must' or 'when' expression
   that uses the '*' operator will always evaluate to false if processed
   within a single YANG module.  In such cases, the 'description'
   statement SHOULD clarify that augmenting objects are expected to
   match the wildcard expansion.

      when /foo/services/*/active {
        description
          "No services directly defined in this module.
           Matches objects that have augmented the services container.";
      }

5.6.  Lifecycle Management

   The status statement MUST be present if its value is 'deprecated' or
   'obsolete'.  The status SHOULD NOT be changed from 'current' directly
   to 'obsolete'.  An object SHOULD be available for at least one year
   with 'deprecated' status before it is changed to 'obsolete'.

   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 substatement within the imports statement SHOULD be
   present if any groupings are used from the external module.

   The revision-date substatement within the include statement SHOULD be



Bierman                 Expires October 26, 2015               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents           April 2015


   present if any groupings are used from the external submodule.

   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 that is (directly
   or indirectly) included by the main module.

5.7.  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 4.1.

   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 that contains
   the module.  Modules are often extracted from their original
   documents, and it is useful for developers and operators to know how
   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 that 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



Bierman                 Expires October 26, 2015               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents           April 2015


   MUST be updated to a higher value each time the Internet-Draft is re-
   posted.

5.8.  Namespace Assignments

   It is RECOMMENDED that only valid YANG modules be included in
   documents, whether or not they are published yet.  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 that 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 namespace statement values
   for Standards Track modules:

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

       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 [RFC6020].

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



Bierman                 Expires October 26, 2015               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents           April 2015


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

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

5.9.  Top-Level Data Definitions

   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 separation of configuration data and operational state SHOULD be
   considered carefully.  It is often useful to define separate top-
   level containers for configuration and non-configuration data.

   The number of top-level data nodes within a module SHOULD be
   minimized.  It is often useful to retrieve related information within
   a single subtree.  If data is too distributed, is becomes difficult
   to retrieve all at once.

   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.

5.10.  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
   '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.  A single quoted string SHOULD be used to specify the



Bierman                 Expires October 26, 2015               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents           April 2015


   pattern, since a double-quoted string can modify the content.

   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.

5.11.  Reusable Type Definitions

   If an appropriate derived type exists in any standard module, such as
   [RFC6991], 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.

5.12.  Data Definitions

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






Bierman                 Expires October 26, 2015               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents           April 2015


   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 '&lt;b&gt;' and '&lt;/b&gt;', 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.

   It has been found that the 'anyxml' statement is not implemented
   consistently across all servers.  It is possible that mixed mode XML
   will not be supported, or configuration anyxml nodes will not
   supported.

   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 October 26, 2015               [Page 22]


Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents           April 2015


   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.

5.13.  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.

5.14.  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.

   If the notification refers to a specific resource instance, then this
   instance SHOULD be identified in the notification data.  This is
   usually done by including 'leafref' leaf nodes with the key leaf
   values for the resource instance.  For example:

     notification interface-up {
       description "Sent when an interface is activated.";
       leaf name {
         type leafref {
           path "/if:interfaces/if:interface/if:name";
         }
       }
     }

   Note that there are no formal YANG statements to identify any data
   node resources associated with a notification.  The description
   statement for the notification SHOULD specify if and how the
   notification identifies any data node resources associated with the
   specific event.




Bierman                 Expires October 26, 2015               [Page 23]


Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents           April 2015


5.15.  Feature Definitions

   The YANG "feature" statement is used to define a label for a set of
   optional functionality within a module.  The "if-feature" statement
   is used in the YANG statements associated with a feature.

   The set of YANG features available in a module should be considered
   carefully.  The description-stmt within a feature-stmt MUST specify
   any interactions with other features.

   If there is a large set of objects associated with a YANG feature,
   then consider moving those objects to a separate module, instead of
   using a YANG feature.  Note that the set of features within a module
   is easily discovered by the reader, but the set of related modules
   within the entire YANG library is not as easy to identity.  Module
   names with a common prefix can help readers identity the set of
   related modules, but this assumes the reader will have discovered and
   installed all the relevant modules.

   If one feature requires implementation of another feature, then an
   "if-feature" statement SHOULD be used in the dependent "feature"
   statement.

   For example, feature2 requires implementation of feature1:

      feature feature1 {
        description "Some protocol feature";
      }

      feature feature2 {
        if-feature "feature1";
        description "Another protocol feature";
      }

5.16.  Data Correlation

   Data can be correlated in various ways, using common data types,
   common data naming, and common data organization.  There are several
   ways to extend the functionality of a module, based on the degree of
   coupling between the old and new functionality:

   o  inline: update the module with new protocol-accessible objects.
      The naming and data organization of the original objects is used.
      The new objects are in the original module namespace.

   o  augment: create a new module with new protocol-accessible objects
      that augment the original data structure.  The naming and data
      organization of the original objects is used.  The new objects are



Bierman                 Expires October 26, 2015               [Page 24]


Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents           April 2015


      in the new module namespace.

   o  mirror: create new objects in a new module or the original module,
      except use new a naming scheme and data location.  The naming can
      be coupled in different ways.  Tight coupling is achieved with a
      "leafref" data type.  This method SHOULD be used.  If the new data
      instances are not limited to the values in use in the original
      data structure, then the "require-instance" sub-statement MUST be
      set to "false".  Loose coupling is achieved by using key leafs
      with the same data type as the original data structure.

   It is sometimes useful to separate configuration and operational
   state, so that they do not not even share the exact same naming
   characteristics.  The correlation between configuration the
   operational state data that is affected by changes in configuration
   is a complex problem.  There may not be a simple 1:1 relationship
   between a configuration data node and an operational data node.
   Further work is needed in YANG to clarify this relationship.
   Protocol work may also be needed to allow a client to retrieve this
   type of information from a server.  At this time the best practice is
   to clearly document any relationship to other data structures in the
   "description" statement.





























Bierman                 Expires October 26, 2015               [Page 25]


Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents           April 2015


6.  IANA Considerations

   This document registers one URI in the IETF XML registry [RFC3688].

   The following registration has been made:

       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.

   Per this document, the following assignment has been made in the YANG
   Module Names Registry for the YANG module template in Appendix C.

         +-----------+-------------------------------------------+
         | Field     | Value                                     |
         +-----------+-------------------------------------------+
         | Name      | ietf-template                             |
         | Namespace | urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-template |
         | Prefix    | temp                                      |
         | Reference | RFC XXXX                                  |
         +-----------+-------------------------------------------+

                         YANG Registry Assignment


























Bierman                 Expires October 26, 2015               [Page 26]


Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents           April 2015


7.  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://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/
   yang-security-guidelines

   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 webpage 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

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

   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.

7.1.  Security Considerations Section Template

   X. Security Considerations

   The YANG module defined in this memo is designed to be accessed via
   the NETCONF protocol [RFC6241].  The lowest NETCONF layer is the
   secure transport layer and the mandatory-to-implement secure
   transport is SSH [RFC6242].

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



Bierman                 Expires October 26, 2015               [Page 27]


Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents           April 2015


   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 October 26, 2015               [Page 28]


Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents           April 2015


8.  Acknowledgments

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

   The working group thanks Martin Bjorklund, Juergen Schoenwaelder,
   Ladislav Lhotka, and Jernej Tuljak for their extensive reviews and
   contributions to this document.











































Bierman                 Expires October 26, 2015               [Page 29]


Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents           April 2015


9.  Changes Since RFC 6087

   The following changes have been made to the guidelines published in
   [RFC6087]:

   o  Updated NETCONF reference from RFC 4741 to RFC 6241

   o  Updated NETCONF over SSH citation from RFC 4742 to RFC 6242

   o  Updated YANG Types reference from RFC 6021 to RFC 6991

   o  Updated obsolete URLs for IETF resources

   o  Changed top-level data node guideline

   o  Clarified XPath usage for a literal value representing a YANG
      identity

   o  Clarified XPath usage for a when-stmt

   o  Clarified XPath usage for 'proceeding-sibling' and
      'following-sibling' axes

   o  Added terminology guidelines

   o  Added YANG tree diagram definition and guideline

   o  Updated XPath guidelines for type conversions and function library
      usage.

   o  Updated data types section

   o  Updated notifications section

   o  Clarified conditional key leaf nodes

   o  Clarify usage of 'uint64' and 'int64' data types

   o  Added text on YANG feature usage












Bierman                 Expires October 26, 2015               [Page 30]


Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents           April 2015


10.  References

10.1.  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.

   [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.

   [RFC6020]  Bjorklund, M., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the
              Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
              October 2010.

   [RFC6241]  Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
              and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
              (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, June 2011.

   [RFC6991]  Schoenwaelder, J., "Common YANG Data Types", RFC 6991,
              July 2013.

   [W3C.REC-xpath-19991116]
              Clark, J. and S. DeRose, "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>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [RFC-STYLE]
              Braden, R., Ginoza, S., and A. Hagens, "RFC Document
              Style", September 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/rfc-style>.

   [RFC4181]  Heard, C., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of MIB



Bierman                 Expires October 26, 2015               [Page 31]


Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents           April 2015


              Documents", BCP 111, RFC 4181, September 2005.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.

   [RFC6087]  Bierman, A., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of YANG
              Data Model Documents", RFC 6087, January 2011.











































Bierman                 Expires October 26, 2015               [Page 32]


Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents           April 2015


Appendix A.  Change Log

       -- RFC Ed.: remove this section before publication.

A.1.  00 to 01

   All issues from the issue tracker have been addressed.

     https://github.com/netmod-wg/rfc6087bis/issues

   o  Issue 1: Tree Diagrams: Added Section 3 so RFCs with YANG modules
      can use an Informative reference to this RFC for tree diagrams.
      Updated guidelines to reference this RFC when tree diagrams are
      used

   o  Issue 2: XPath function restrictions: Added paragraphs in XPath
      usage section for 'id', 'namespace-uri', 'name', and 'lang'
      functions

   o  Issue 3: XPath function document order issues: Added paragraph in
      XPath usage section about node-set ordering for 'local-name',
      'namespace-uri', 'name', 'string' and 'number' functions.  Also
      any function that implicitly converts a node-set to a string.

   o  Issue 4: XPath preceding-sibling and following-sibling: Checked
      and text in XPath usage section already has proposed text from
      Lada.

   o  Issue 5: XPath 'when-stmt' reference to descendant nodes: Added
      exception and example in XPath Usage section for augmented nodes.

   o  Issue 6: XPath numeric conversions: Changed 'numeric expressions'
      to 'numeric and boolean expressions'

   o  Issue 7: XPath module containment: Added sub-section on XPath
      wildcards

   o  Issue 8: status-stmt usage: Added text to Lifecycle Management
      section about transitioning from active to deprecated and then to
      obsolete.

   o  Issue 9: resource identification in notifications: Add text to
      Notifications section about identifying resources and using the
      leafref data type.

   o  Issue 10: single quoted strings: Added text to Data Types section
      about using a single-quoted string for patterns.




Bierman                 Expires October 26, 2015               [Page 33]


Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents           April 2015


Appendix B.  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
   an Internet-Draft:

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

   o  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/id-info/guidelines.html.

   o  Copyright Notice -- verify that the draft has the appropriate text
      regarding the rights that document contributers provide to the
      IETF Trust [RFC5378].  Verify that it contains the full IETF Trust
      copyright notice at the beginning of the document.  The IETF Trust
      Legal Provisions (TLP) can be found at:


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

   o  Security Considerations section -- verify that the draft uses the
      latest approved template from the OPS area website (http://
      trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/yang-security-guidelines)
      and that the guidelines therein have been followed.

   o  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 [RFC6020].






Bierman                 Expires October 26, 2015               [Page 34]


Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents           April 2015


   o  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
      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).

   o  License -- verify that the draft contains the Simplified BSD
      License in each YANG module or submodule.  Some guidelines related
      to this requirement are described in Section 4.1.  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/

   o  Other Issues -- check for any issues mentioned in
      http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist.html that are not covered
      elsewhere.

   o  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 October 26, 2015               [Page 35]


Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents           April 2015


Appendix C.  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) <insert year> IETF Trust and the persons
          identified as authors of the code.  All rights reserved.

          Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
          without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject
          to the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License



Bierman                 Expires October 26, 2015               [Page 36]


Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents           April 2015


          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 RFC XXXX


        // 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 October 26, 2015               [Page 37]


Internet-Draft        Guidelines for YANG Documents           April 2015


Author's Address

   Andy Bierman
   YumaWorks

   Email: andy@yumaworks.com













































Bierman                 Expires October 26, 2015               [Page 38]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/