Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of YANG Data Model DocumentsYumaWorksandy@yumaworks.com
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.
The standardization of network configuration interfaces for use
with the Network Configuration Protocol
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
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 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 .
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.
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 .
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.
The following terms are defined in
and are not redefined here:
capabilities
client
operation
server
The following terms are defined in
and are not redefined here:
data node
module
namespace
submodule
version
YANG
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.
The following terms are used throughout this document:
published: A stable release of a module or submodule.
For example the "Request for Comments" described in
section 2.1 of is considered a stable publication.
unpublished: An unstable release of a module or submodule.
For example the "Internet‑Draft" described in
section 2.2 of is considered an unstable publication
that is a work-in-progess, subject to change at any time.
YANG fragment: A set of YANG statements that are not intended
to represent a complete YANG module or submodule. These statements
are not intended for actual use, except to provide an example
of YANG statement usage. The invalid syntax "..." is sometimes
used to indicate that additional YANG statements would be
present in a real YANG module.
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:
Brackets "[" and "]" enclose list keys.
Abbreviations before data node names: "rw" means configuration
(read-write) and "ro" state data (read-only).
Symbols after data node names: "?" means an optional node, "!" means
a presence container, and "*" denotes a list and leaf-list.
Parentheses enclose choice and case nodes, and case nodes are also
marked with a colon (":").
Ellipsis ("...") stands for contents of subtrees that are not shown.
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 and updated in
and "RFC Document Style" .
The following sections MUST be present in an Internet-Draft
containing a module:
Narrative sections
Definitions section
Security Considerations section
IANA Considerations section
References section
There are three usage scenarios for YANG that can appear in
an Internet-Draft or RFC:
normative module or submodule
example module or submodule
example YANG fragment not part of any module or submodule
The guidelines in this document refer mainly to a normative
complete module or submodule, but may be applicable to
example modules and YANG fragments as well.
The module description statement MUST contain a reference to
the latest approved IETF Trust Copyright statement,
which is available online at:
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 .
The following example is for the '2010‑01‑18' revision
of the 'ietf‑foo' module:
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-foo@2016-03-20.yang"<CODE ENDS>
The <CODE BEGINS> convention SHOULD be used for complete example modules,
but not YANG fragments. This allows module extraction tools to
ignore partial YANG modules that are not intended to be compiled.
An example module SHOULD be named using the term "example",
followed by a hyphen, followed by a descriptive name,
e.g., "example‑toaster".
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:
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:
The 'pyang' compiler can be used to produce the tree diagram,
using the '-f tree' command line parameter.
If the YANG module is comprised of groupings only, then the
tree diagram SHOULD contain the groupings.
The 'pyang' compiler can be used to produce a tree diagram
with groupings using the '-f tree --tree-print-groupings"
command line parameters.
If the YANG module contains notifications, then the
tree diagram SHOULD contain the notifications.
If the YANG module contains RPC statements, then the
tree diagram SHOULD contain the RPC statements.
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 imports definitions
from other modules (except for those defined in the
or 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.
This section contains the module(s) defined by the specification.
These modules SHOULD be written using the YANG syntax defined in . YANG 1.0 MAY be used if no YANG 1.1 constructs
or semantics are needed in the module.
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.
Note that all YANG statements within a YANG module are considered
normative, if the module itself is considered normative,
and not an example module. The use of keywords defined in
apply to YANG description statements in normative modules
exactly as they would in any other normative section.
Example YANG modules MUST NOT contain any normative text,
including any reserved words from .
See for guidelines on YANG usage.
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).
contains the security considerations template dated
2013-05-08. Authors MUST check the WEB page at the URL listed above
in case there is a more recent version available.
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 explained.
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.
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.
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
for more details.
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 specification includes the procedure
for this purpose in its IANA Considerations section.
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.
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,
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.
All modules need to be validated before submission in
an Internet Draft. The 'pyang' YANG compiler is
freely available from github:
If the 'pyang' compiler is used, then the "‑‑ietf" command line
option SHOULD be used to identify any IETF guideline issues.
A version of 'rfcstrip' is available which will extract YANG
modules from an Internet Draft or RFC. The 'rfcstrip' tool which supports
YANG module extraction is freely available:
This tool can be used to verify that the "<CODE BEGINS>" and "<CODE ENDS>"
tags are used correctly and that the normative YANG modules can be
extracted correctly.
In general, modules in IETF Standards Track specifications MUST
comply with all syntactic and semantic requirements of 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 that clarify or restrict the
minimum conformance requirements are included here.
Normative modules contained in Standards Track documents
MUST be named according to the guidelines in
the IANA Considerations section of .
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.
Example modules are non-normative, and SHOULD be named
with the prefix "example‑".
It is suggested that a stable prefix be selected representing
the entire organization. All normative YANG modules published
by the IETF MUST begin with the prefix "ietf‑".
Another standards organization, such as the IEEE, might use
the prefix "ieee‑" for all YANG modules.
Once a module name is published, it MUST NOT be reused,
even if the RFC containing the module is reclassified
to 'Historic' status. A module name cannot be changed in YANG,
and this would be treated as a a new module, not a name change.
All YANG definitions are scoped by the module containing the
definition being referenced. This allows definitions
from multiple modules to be used, even if the names are not unique.
In the example below, the identifier "foo" is used in all 3 modules:
YANG defines the following rules for prefix usage:
Prefixes are never allowed for built in data types and YANG keywords.
A prefix MUST be used for any external statement (i.e., a statement
defined with the YANG "extension" statement)
The proper module prefix MUST be used for all identifiers imported from
other modules
The proper module prefix MUST be used for all identifiers included from
a submodule.
The following guidelines apply to prefix usage of the current (local) module:
The local module prefix SHOULD be used instead of no prefix in all path expressions.
The local module prefix MUST be used instead of no prefix in all "default"
statements for an "identityref" or "instance‑identifier" data type
The local module prefix MAY be used for references to typedefs, groupings, extensions,
features, and identities defined in the module.
Prefix values SHOULD be short, but also likely to be unique.
Prefix values SHOULD NOT conflict with known modules that have been
previously published.
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 13 of .
Identifiers SHOULD follow a consistent naming pattern
throughout the module. Only lower-case letters, numbers,
and dashes SHOULD be used in identifier names.
Upper-case characters and the underscore character MAY be used
if the identifier represents a well-known value that
uses these characters.
Identifiers SHOULD include complete words and/or well-known
acronyms or abbreviations. Child nodes within a container
or list SHOULD NOT replicate the parent identifier.
YANG identifiers are hierarchical and are only meant to be
unique within the the set of sibling nodes defined in
the same module namespace.
It is permissible to use common identifiers such as "name"
or "id" in data definition statements, especially if these
data nodes share a common data type.
Identifiers SHOULD NOT carry any special semantics that
identify data modelling properties. Only YANG statements and YANG
extension statements are designed to convey machine readable data
modelling properties. For example, naming an object "config" or
"state" does not change whether it is configuration data or state
data. Only defined YANG statements or YANG extension statements can
be used to assign semantics in a machine readable format in YANG.
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.
StatementDefault Valueconfigtruemandatoryfalsemax-elementsunboundedmin-elements0ordered-bysystemstatuscurrentyin-elementfalse
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 a case,
the 'when' statement for the key leaf is redundant
and SHOULD be avoided.
This section describes guidelines for using the
XML Path Language (XPath)
within YANG modules.
YANG defines 5 separate contexts for evaluation of XPath statements:
1) The "running" datastore: collection of all YANG configuration
data nodes. The document root is the conceptual container,
(e.g., "config" in the "edit‑config" operation), which is the
parent of all top-level data definition statements with a "config"
statement value of "true".
2) State data + the "running" datastore: collection
of all YANG data nodes. The document root is the conceptual container,
parent of all top-level data definition statements.
3) Notification: an event notification document. The document root
is the notification element.
4) RPC Input: The document root is the conceptual "input" node,
which is the parent of all RPC input parameter definitions.
5) RPC Output: The document root is the conceptual "output" node,
which is the parent of all RPC output parameter definitions.
Note that these XPath contexts cannot be mixed. For example,
a "when" statement in a notification context cannot reference
configuration data.
It is especially important to consider the XPath evaluation
context for XPath expressions defined in groupings.
An XPath expression defined in a grouping
may not be portable, meaning it cannot be used in multiple
contexts and produce proper results.
If the XPath expressions defined in a grouping are intended
for a particular context, then this context SHOULD be identified
in the "description" statement for the grouping.
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:
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
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'.
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.
Example:
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.
The YANG "must" and "when" statements use an XPath boolean expression
to define the test condition for the statement. It is important
to specify these expressions in a way that will not cause inadvertent
changes in the result if the objects referenced in the expression
are updated in future revisions of the module.
For example, the leaf "foo2" must exist if the leaf "foo1" is equal
to "one" or "three":
In the next revision of the module, leaf "foo1" is extended
with a nem enum named "four":
Now the first XPath expression will allow the enum "four"
to be accepted in addition to the "one" and "three" enum values.
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 import
statement SHOULD be present if any
groupings are used from the external module.
The revision-date substatement within the include
statement SHOULD be 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.
Definitions for future use SHOULD NOT be specified in a module.
Do not specify placeholder objects like the "reserved" example below:
For published modules, the namespace MUST
be a globally unique
URI, as defined in .
This value is usually assigned by the IANA.
The organization statement MUST be present.
If the module is contained in a document
intended for IETF Standards Track status, then
the organization SHOULD be the IETF working group
chartered to write the document. For other standards
organizations, a similar approach is also suggested.
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.
The description statement MUST be present.
For modules published within IETF documents,
the appropriate IETF Trust Copyright text MUST be present,
as described in .
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.
It is not required to keep the full revision history of draft versions
(e.g., modules contained within Internet-Drafts).
That is, within a sequence of draft versions, only the most recent
revision need be recorded in the module.
However, whenever a new (i.e. changed) version is made available
(e.g., via a new version of an Internet-Draft),
the revision date of that new version MUST be updated to a date
later than that of the previous version.
It is RECOMMENDED that only valid YANG modules be
included in documents, whether or not they are published yet.
This allows:
the module to compile correctly instead
of generating disruptive fatal errors.
early implementors to use the modules
without picking a random value for the XML namespace.
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:
The following URN prefix string SHOULD be used for published
and unpublished YANG modules:
The following example URNs would be valid namespace
statement values for Standards Track modules:
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 .
The following examples are for non-Standards-Track modules.
The domain "example.com" SHOULD be used in all namespace URIs
for example modules.
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 data SHOULD
be considered carefully. It is sometimes useful to define separate
top-level containers for configuration and non-configuration data.
For some existing top-level data nodes, configuration data
was not in scope, so only one container representing operational
data was created.
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.
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.
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.
If the set of values is fixed and the data type contents
are controlled by a single naming authority, then an
enumeration data type SHOULD be used.
If extensibility of enumerated values is required,
then the 'identityref' data type SHOULD be used
instead of an enumeration or other built-in type.
Note that any module can declare an identity with base "foo‑type"
that is valid for the "foo" leaf. Identityref values are
considered to be qualified names.
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 pattern,
since a double-quoted string can modify the content.
The following typedef from demonstrates the proper
use of the "pattern" statement:
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.
The following typedef from demonstrates the proper
use of the "length" statement:
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 following typedef from demonstrates the proper
use of the "range" statement:
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.
The YANG "union" type is evaluated by testing a value
against each member type in the union. The first type definition
that accepts a value as valid is the member type used.
In general, member types SHOULD be ordered from most restrictive
to least restrictive types.
In the following example, the "enumeration" type will never
be matched because the preceding "string" type will match everything.
Incorrect:
Correct:
It is possible for different member types to match,
depending on the input encoding format. In XML, all values
are passed as string nodes, but in JSON there are different
value types for numbers, booleans, and strings.
In the following example, a JSON numeric value will always
be matched by the "int32" type but in XML the string value
representing a number will be matched by the "string" type.
The second version will match the "int32" member type
no matter how the input is encoded.
Incorrect:
Correct:
YANG provides an "empty" data type, which has one value (i.e., present).
The default is "not present", which is not actually a value.
When used within a list key, only one value can (and must) exist
for this key leaf. The type "empty" SHOULD NOT be used
for a key leaf since it is pointless.
There is really no difference between a leaf of type "empty" and a leaf-list
of type "empty". Both are limited to one instance.
The type "empty" SHOULD NOT be used for a leaf-list.
The advantage of using type "empty" instead of type "boolean"
is that the default (not present) does not take up any bytes
in a representation. The disadvantage is that the client
may not be sure if an empty leaf is missing because it
was filtered somehow or not implemented. The client may not have
a complete and accurate schema for the data returned by the server,
and not be aware of the missing leaf.
The YANG "boolean" data type provides two values ("true" and "false").
When used within a list key, two entries can exist
for this key leaf. Default values are ignored for key leafs,
but a default statement is often used for plain boolean leafs.
The advantage of the "boolean" type is that the leaf or leaf-list
has a clear representation for both values. The default value
is usually not returned unless explicitly requested by the client,
so no bytes are used in a typical representation.
In general, the "boolean" data type SHOULD be used instead
of the "empty" data type, as shown in the example below:
Incorrect:
Correct:
If an appropriate derived type exists in any
standard module, such as ,
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.
A reusable grouping is a YANG grouping that can be imported
by another module, and is intended for use by other modules.
This is not the same as a grouping that is used within the
module it is defined, but happens to be exportable to another
module because it is defined at the top-level of the YANG module.
The following guidelines apply to reusable groupings,
in order to make them as robust as possible:
Clearly identify the purpose of the grouping in the
"description" statement.
There are 5 different XPath contexts in YANG (rpc/input,
rpc/output, notification, config=true data nodes, and all data nodes).
Clearly identify which XPath contexts are applicable or excluded
for the grouping.
Do not reference data outside the grouping in any "path",
"must", or "when" statements.
Do not include a "default" sub-statement on a leaf or choice unless
the value applies on all possible contexts.
Do not include a "config" sub-statement on a data node unless
the value applies on all possible contexts.
Clearly identify any external dependencies in the grouping
"description" statement, such as nodes referenced
by absolute path from a "path", "must", or "when" statement.
The description statement MUST be present in the following
YANG statements:
anyxml
augment
choice
container
extension
feature
grouping
identity
leaf
leaf-list
list
notification
rpc
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.
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 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.
The "choice" statement is allowed to be directly present within
a "case" statement in YANG 1.1. This needs to be considered
carefully. Consider simply including the nested "choice"
as additional "case" statements within the parent "choice" statement.
Note that the "mandatory" and "default" statements within
a nested "choice" statement only apply if the "case" containing
the nested "choice" statement is first selected.
A non-presence container is used to organize data into specific subtrees.
It is not intended to have semantics within the data model beyond this
purpose, although YANG allows it (e.g., "must" statement within the
non-presence container).
Example using container wrappers:
Example without container wrappers:
Use of non-presence containers to organize data is a subjective matter
similar to use of sub-directories in a file system.
The NETCONF and RESTCONF protocols do not currently support the ability
to delete all list (or leaf-list) entries at once. This deficiency
is sometimes avoided by use of a parent container (i.e., deleting the
container also removes all child entries).
Use of top-level objects needs to be considered carefully
-top-level siblings are not ordered
-top-level siblings not are not static, and depends on the modules
that are loaded
for sub-tree filtering, retrieval of a top-level leaf-list
will be treated as a content-match node for all top-level-siblings
a top-level list with many instances may impact performance
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.
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:
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.
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.
Another consideration for deciding whether to create a new module
or add a YANG feature is the stability of the module in question.
It may be desirable to have a stable base module that is
not changed frequently. If new functionality is placed in
a separate module, then the base module does not need to
be republished. If it is designed as a YANG feature then
the module will need to be republished.
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:
The "min‑elements" and "max‑elements" statements can
be use to control how many list or leaf-list instances are
required for a particular data node.
YANG constraint statements SHOULD be used to identify conditions
that apply to all implementations of the data model.
If platform-specific limitations (e.g., the "max‑elements"
supported for a particular list) are relevant to operations,
then a data model definition statement (e.g., "max‑ports" leaf)
SHOULD be used to identify the limit.
The "must" and "when" YANG statements are used to provide
cross-object referential tests. They have very different behavior.
The "when" statement causes data node instances to be silently deleted
as soon as the condition becomes false. A false "when" expression
is not considered to be an error.
The "when" statement SHOULD be used together with the "augment"
or "uses" statements to achieve conditional model composition.
The condition SHOULD be based on static properties of the
augmented entry (e.g., list key leafs).
The "must" statement causes a datastore validation error
if the condition is false. This statement SHOULD be used
for enforcing parameter value restrictions that involve
more than one data node (e.g., end-time parameter
must be after the start-time parameter).
The YANG "augment" statement is used to define a set of
data definition statements that will be added as child nodes
of a target data node. The module namespace for these
data nodes will be the augmenting module, not the augmented
module.
A top-level "augment" statement SHOULD NOT be used if the
target data node is in the same module or submodule as the
evaluated "augment" statement. The data definition statements
SHOULD be added inline instead.
The "augment" statement is often used together with
the "when" statement and/or "if‑feature" statement
to make the augmentation conditional on some portion
of the data model.
The following example from shows how
a conditional container called "ethernet" is added to the
"interface" list only for entries of the
type "ethernetCsmacd".
YANG has very specific rules about how configuration data
can be updated in new releases of a module. These rules
allow an "old client" to continue interoperating with
a "new server".
If data nodes are added to an existing entry, the
old client MUST NOT be required to provide any
mandatory parameters that were not in the original
module definition.
It is possible to add conditional augment statements such
that the old client would not know about the new condition,
and would not specify the new condition. The conditional
augment statement can contain mandatory objects only if
the condition is false unless explicitly requested by
the client.
Only a conditional augment statement that uses the "when"
statement form of condition can be used in this manner.
The YANG features enabled on the server cannot be
controlled by the client in any way, so it is not safe
to add mandatory augmenting data nodes based on the
"if‑feature" statement.
The XPath "when" statement condition MUST NOT reference
data outside of target data node because the client
does not have any control over this external data.
In the following dummy example, it is OK to augment
the "interface" entry with "mandatory‑leaf" because
the augmentation depends on support for "some‑new‑iftype".
The old client does not know about this type so it would
never select this type, and therefore not be adding
a mandatory data node.
Note that this practice is safe only for creating data resources.
It is not safe for replacing or modifying resources if the
client does not know about the new condition. The YANG data model
MUST be packaged in a way that requires the client to be aware
of the mandatory data nodes if it is aware of the condition
for this data. In the example above, the "some‑new‑iftype"
identity is defined in the same module as the "mandatory‑leaf"
data definition statement.
This practice is not safe for identities defined in a common
module such as "iana‑if‑type" because the client is not
required to know about "my‑module" just because it knows about
the "iana‑if‑type" module.
The YANG "deviation" statement cannot appear in IETF YANG modules,
but it can be useful for documenting server capabilities.
Deviation statements are not reusable and typically not shared across
all platforms.
There are several reasons that deviations might be needed in
an implementation, e.g., an object cannot be supported
on all platforms, or feature delivery is done
in multiple development phases. Deviation statements can
also be used to add annotations to a module, which does not
affect the conformance requirements for the module.
It is suggested that deviation statements be defined in separate
modules from regular YANG definitions. This allows the deviations to be
platform-specific and/or temporary.
The order that deviation statements are evaluated can affect the
result. Therefore multiple deviation statements in the same module,
for the same target object, SHOULD NOT be used.
The "max‑elements" statement is intended to describe an architectural
limit to the number of list entries. It is not intended to
describe platform limitations. It is better to use a
"deviation" statement for the platforms that have a hard resource limit.
Example documenting platform resource limits:
The YANG "extension" statement is used to specify external
definitions. This appears in the YANG syntax as
an "unknown‑statement". Usage of extension statements in
a published module needs to be considered carefully.
The following guidelines apply to the usage of YANG extensions:
The semantics of the extension MUST NOT contradict any
YANG statements. Extensions can add semantics not covered
by the normal YANG statements.
The module containing the extension statement MUST clearly
identify the conformance requirements for the extension.
It should be clear whether all implementations of the YANG
module containing the extension need to also implement
the extension. If not, identify what conditions apply that would
require implementation of the extension.
The extension MUST clearly identify where it can be used
within other YANG statements.
The extension MUST clearly identify if YANG statements or other
extensions are allowed or required within the extension as
sub-statements.
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:
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.
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 in the new module namespace.
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, with the "require‑instance" sub-statement
set to "true". 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. This has the same
semantics as setting the "require‑instance" sub-statement to "false".
It is sometimes useful to separate configuration and operational
data, so that they do not not even share the exact same
naming characteristics. The correlation between configuration the
operational 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.
In YANG, any data that has a "config" statement value of "false"
could be considered operational data. The relationship between
configuration (i.e., "config" statement has a value of "true")
and operational data can be complex.
One challenge for client developers is determining if
the configured value is being used, which requires the
developer to know which operational data parameters are
associated with the particular configuration object(s).
If possible, operational data SHOULD be combined with
its associated configuration data. This prevents
duplication of key leafs and ancestor nodes.
It also prevents race conditions for retrieval of
dynamic entries, and allows configuration and operational
data to be retrieved together with minimal message overhead.
Not preferred:
Preferred:
If it is not possible to combine configuration and operational
data, then the keys used to represent list entries SHOULD
be the same type. The "leafref" data type SHOULD be used in
operational data for key leafs that have corresponding
configuration instances. The "require‑instance" statement
MAY be set to "false" (in YANG 1.1 modules only)
to indicate instances are allowed in the operational state
that do not exist in the associated configuration data.
The following example shows the use of the "leafref" data type:
Not preferred:
Preferred:
In the simplest use-cases, there is no interaction between
configuration and operational data.
For example, the arbitrary administrative name or
sequence number assigned to an access control rule. The configured
value is always the value that is being used by the system.
However, some configuration parameters interact with routing
and other signalling protocols, such that the operational value in use
by the system may not be the same as the configured value.
Other parameters specify the desired state, but environmental
and other factors can cause the actual state to be different.
For example a "temperature" configuration setting only
represents the desired temperature. An operational data
parameter is needed that reports the actual temperature
in order to determine if the cooling system is operating
correctly. YANG has no mechanism other than the "description"
statement to associate the desired temperature and
the actual temperature.
Careful consideration needs to be given to the location
of operational data. It can either be located
within the configuration subtree for which it applies,
or it can be located outside the particular configuration subtree.
Placing operational data within the configuration subtree
is appropriate if the operational values can only exist
if the configuration exists.
The "interfaces" and "interfaces‑state" subtrees defined in
are an example of a complex relationship between configuration
and operational data. The operational values can include interface
entries that have been discovered or initialized by the system.
An interface may be in use that has not been configured at all.
Therefore, the operational data for an interface cannot be located
within the configuration for that same interface.
Sometimes the configured value represents some sort of
procedure to be followed, in which the system will
select an actual value, based on protocol negotiation.
For example a "duplex" mode configuration may be "auto"
to auto-negotiate the actual value to be used. The operational
parameter will never contain the value "auto". It will always contain
the result of the auto-negotiation, such as "half" or "full".
This is just one way in which the configuration data model
is not exactly the same as the operational data model.
Another is if the detailed properties of the data are different
for configured vs. learned entries.
If all the data model properties are aligned between configuration
and operational data, then it can be useful to define the
configuration parameters within a grouping, and then replicate that
grouping within the operational data portion of
the data model.
Note that this mechanism can also be used if the configuration
and operational data are in separate sub-trees:
The need to replicate objects or define different operational data
objects depends on the data model. It is not possible to define
one approach that will be optimal for all data models.
Designers SHOULD describe the relationship in detail between
configuration objects and any associated operational data objects.
The "description" statements for both the configuration and the
operational data SHOULD be used for this purpose.
It is generally likely that certain YANG statements require more
runtime resources than other statements. Although there are no
performance requirements for YANG validation, the following information
MAY be considered when designing YANG data models:
Lists are generally more expensive than containers
"when‑stmt" evaluation is generally more expensive than "if‑feature"
or "choice" statements
"must" statement is generally more expensive than "min‑entries",
"max‑entries", "mandatory", or "unique" statements
"identityref" leafs are generally more expensive than "enumeration" leafs
"leafref" and "instance‑identifier" types with "require‑instance" set to true
are generally more expensive than if "require‑instance" is set to false
A YANG module MUST NOT be designed such that the set of modules
found on a server implementation can be predetermined in advance.
Only the modules imported by a particular module can be assumed
to be present in an implementation.
An open system MAY include any combination of YANG modules.
The set of YANG 1.1 guidelines will grow as operational experience is gained
with the new language features. This section contains an initial set
of guidelines.
Standard modules SHOULD NOT import multiple revisions of the same module
into a module. This MAY be done if the authors can demonstrate that
the "avoided" definitions from the most recent of the multiple revisions are somehow
broken or harmful to interoperability.
The YANG 1.1 feature logic is much more expressive than YANG 1.0.
A "description" statement SHOULD describe the "if‑feature" logic in text,
to help readers understand the module.
YANG features SHOULD be used instead of the "when" statement, if possible.
Features are advertised by the server and objects conditional by if-feature are
conceptually grouped together. There is no such commonality
supported for "when" statements.
Features generally require less server implementation complexity
and runtime resources than objects that use "when" statements.
Features are generally static (i.e., set when module is loaded and not changed
at runtime). However every client edit might cause a "when"
statement result to change.
The "anyxml" statement MUST NOT be used to represent a conceptual subtree
of YANG data nodes. The "anydata" statement MUST be used for this purpose.
The use of "action" statements or "rpc" statements is a subjective
design decision. RPC operations are not associated with any particular
data node. Actions are associated with a specific data node definition.
An "action" statement SHOULD be used if the protocol operation
is specific to a subset of all data nodes instead of all possible data nodes.
The same action name MAY be used in different definitions within different data node.
For example, a "reset" action defined with a data node definition
for an interface might have different parameters than for a power supply
or a VLAN. The same action name SHOULD be used to represent similar semantics.
The NETCONF Access Control Model (NACM) does not support
parameter access control for RPC operations. The user is given
permission (or not) to invoke the RPC operation with any parameters.
For example, if each client is only allowed to reset their own interface,
then NACM cannot be used.
For example, NACM cannot enforce access access control based on the value
of the "interface" parameter, only the "reset" operation itself:
However, NACM can enforce access access control for individual interface
instances, using a "reset" action, If the user does not have read access
to the specific "interface" instance, then it cannot invoke the "reset"
action for that interface instance:
YANG modules can change over time. Typically, new data model definitions
are needed to support new features.
YANG update rules defined in section 11 of
MUST be followed for published modules. They MAY be followed for
unpublished modules.
The YANG update rules only apply to published module revisions.
Each organization will have their own way to identity published
work which is considered to be stable, and unpublished work
which is considered to be unstable. For example, in the IETF,
the RFC document is used for published work, and the Internet-Draft
is used for unpublished work.
This document registers one URI in the IETF XML registry .
The following registration has been made:
Per this document, the following assignment has been made in the YANG Module
Names Registry for the YANG module template in .
FieldValueNameietf-templateNamespaceurn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-templatePrefixtempReferenceRFC XXXX
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
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.
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].
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:
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:
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:
The structure and contents of this document are adapted from ,
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.
The following changes have been made to the guidelines published in :
Updated NETCONF reference from RFC 4741 to RFC 6241
Updated NETCONF over SSH citation from RFC 4742 to RFC 6242
Updated YANG Types reference from RFC 6021 to RFC 6991
Updated obsolete URLs for IETF resources
Changed top-level data node guideline
Clarified XPath usage for a literal value representing a YANG identity
Clarified XPath usage for a when-stmt
Clarified XPath usage for 'proceeding‑sibling' and 'following‑sibling' axes
Added terminology guidelines
Added YANG tree diagram definition and guideline
Updated XPath guidelines for type conversions and function library usage.
Updated data types section
Updated notifications section
Clarified conditional key leaf nodes
Clarify usage of 'uint64' and 'int64' data types
Added text on YANG feature usage
Added Identifier Naming Conventions
Clarified use of mandatory nodes with conditional augmentations
Clarified namespace and domain conventions for example modules
Added <EXAMPLE BEGINS> and <EXAMPLE ENDS> convention
Added YANG 1.1 guidelines
Added Data Model Constraints section
Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement LevelsHarvard UniversityIn many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents.Instructions to RFC AuthorsUSC/Information Sciences Institute4676 Admiralty WayMarina del ReyCA 90292+1 310-822-1511+1 310-823-6714Postel@ISI.EDUUSC/Information Sciences Institute4676 Admiralty WayMarina del ReyCA 90292+1 310-822-1511+1 310-823-6714jkrey@isi.edu
General
RFC authorsThe IETF XML RegistryThis document describes an IANA maintained registry for IETF standards which use Extensible Markup Language (XML) related items such as Namespaces, Document Type Declarations (DTDs), Schemas, and Resource Description Framework (RDF) Schemas.Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic SyntaxWorld Wide Web ConsortiumMassachusetts Institute of Technology77 Massachusetts AvenueCambridgeMA02139USA+1-617-253-5702+1-617-258-5999timbl@w3.orghttp://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/Day Software5251 California Ave., Suite 110IrvineCA92617USA+1-949-679-2960+1-949-679-2972fielding@gbiv.comhttp://roy.gbiv.com/Adobe Systems Incorporated345 Park AveSan JoseCA95110USA+1-408-536-3024LMM@acm.orghttp://larry.masinter.net/
Applications
uniform resource identifierURIURLURNWWWresource
A Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) is a compact sequence of characters
that identifies an abstract or physical resource. This specification
defines the generic URI syntax and a process for resolving URI references
that might be in relative form, along with guidelines and security
considerations for the use of URIs on the Internet.
The URI syntax defines a grammar that is a superset of all valid URIs,
allowing an implementation to parse the common components of a URI
reference without knowing the scheme-specific requirements of every
possible identifier. This specification does not define a generative
grammar for URIs; that task is performed by the individual
specifications of each URI scheme.
Rights Contributors Provide to the IETF TrustThe IETF policies about rights in Contributions to the IETF are designed to ensure that such Contributions can be made available to the IETF and Internet communities while permitting the authors to retain as many rights as possible. This memo details the IETF policies on rights in Contributions to the IETF. It also describes the objectives that the policies are designed to meet. This memo obsoletes RFCs 3978 and 4748 and, with BCP 79 and RFC 5377, replaces Section 10 of RFC 2026. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.RFC Streams, Headers, and BoilerplatesIABRFC documents contain a number of fixed elements such as the title page header, standard boilerplates, and copyright/IPR statements. This document describes them and introduces some updates to reflect current usage and requirements of RFC publication. In particular, this updated structure is intended to communicate clearly the source of RFC creation and review. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)YANG is a data modeling language used to model configuration and state data manipulated by the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF), NETCONF remote procedure calls, and NETCONF notifications. [STANDARDS TRACK]YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)YANG is a data modeling language used to model configuration and state data manipulated by the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF), NETCONF remote procedure calls, and NETCONF notifications. This document obsoletes RFC 6020.Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)Common YANG Data TypesThis document introduces a collection of common data types to be used with the YANG data modeling language. This document obsoletes RFC 6021.XML Path Language (XPath) Version 1.0The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3
This memo documents the process used by the Internet community for the standardization of protocols and procedures. It defines the stages in the standardization process, the requirements for moving a document between stages and the types of documents used during this process. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of MIB DocumentsThis memo provides guidelines for authors and reviewers of IETF standards-track specifications containing MIB modules. Applicable portions may be used as a basis for reviews of other MIB documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCsMany protocols make use of identifiers consisting of constants and other well-known values. Even after a protocol has been defined and deployment has begun, new values may need to be assigned (e.g., for a new option type in DHCP, or a new encryption or authentication transform for IPsec). To ensure that such quantities have consistent values and interpretations across all implementations, their assignment must be administered by a central authority. For IETF protocols, that role is provided by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).</t><t> In order for IANA to manage a given namespace prudently, it needs guidelines describing the conditions under which new values can be assigned or when modifications to existing values can be made. If IANA is expected to play a role in the management of a namespace, IANA must be given clear and concise instructions describing that role. This document discusses issues that should be considered in formulating a policy for assigning values to a namespace and provides guidelines for authors on the specific text that must be included in documents that place demands on IANA.</t><t> This document obsoletes RFC 2434. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of YANG Data Model DocumentsThis 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. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.A YANG Data Model for Interface Management
This document defines a YANG data model for the management of network interfaces. It is expected that interface-type-specific data models augment the generic interfaces data model defined in this document. The data model includes configuration data and state data (status information and counters for the collection of statistics).
RFC Document StyleNetwork Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) Access Control ModelThe standardization of network configuration interfaces for use with the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) requires a structured and secure operating environment that promotes human usability and multi-vendor interoperability. There is a need for standard mechanisms to restrict NETCONF protocol access for particular users to a pre-configured subset of all available NETCONF protocol operations and content. This document defines such an access control model. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
changed CODE BEGINS guideline for example modules
updated tree diagram guidelines
clarified published and unpublished terms
added section on Empty and Boolean data types
clarified how to update the revision statement
updated operational state guidelines
added 'YANG fragment' to terminology section
update contact statement guideline
update example modules guidelines
add guidelines on top-level data nodes
add guideline on use of NP containers
added guidelines on union types
add guideline on deviations
added section on open systems considerations
added guideline about definitions reserved for future use
Changed example 'my‑module' to 'example‑module'
Added section Updating YANG Modules (Published vs. Unpublished)
Added Example Modules section
Added "<EXAMPLE BEGINS>" convention for full example modules
Added section on using action vs. rpc
Changed term "operational state" to "operational data"
Added section on YANG Data Node Constraints
Added guidelines on using must vs. when statements
Made ietf-foo module validate for I-D submission
Clarified that YANG 1.1 SHOULD be used but YANG 1.0 MAY be used if no
YANG 1.1 features needed
Changed SHOULD follow YANG naming conventions to MUST follow
(for standards track documents only)
Clarified module naming conventions for normative modules,
example modules, and modules from other SDOs.
Added prefix value selection guidelines
Added new section on guidelines for reusable groupings
Made header guidelines less IETF-specific
Added new section on guidelines for extension statements
Added guidelines for nested "choice" statement within a "case" statement
Added sections for deviation statements and performance considerations
Added YANG 1.1 section
Updated YANG reference from 1.0 to 1.1
Updated draft based on github data tracker issues added
by Benoit Clause (Issues 12 - 18)
Updated draft based on mailing list comments.
All issues from the issue tracker have been addressed.
Issue 1: Tree Diagrams:
Added 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
Issue 2: XPath function restrictions:
Added paragraphs in XPath usage section for 'id', 'namespace‑uri',
'name', and 'lang' functions
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.
Issue 4: XPath preceding-sibling and following-sibling:
Checked and text in XPath usage section already has proposed
text from Lada.
Issue 5: XPath 'when‑stmt' reference to descendant nodes:
Added exception and example in XPath Usage section for
augmented nodes.
Issue 6: XPath numeric conversions: Changed 'numeric expressions'
to 'numeric and boolean expressions'
Issue 7: XPath module containment:
Added sub-section on XPath wildcards
Issue 8: status-stmt usage:
Added text to Lifecycle Management section about transitioning
from active to deprecated and then to obsolete.
Issue 9: resource identification in notifications:
Add text to Notifications section about identifying resources
and using the leafref data type.
Issue 10: single quoted strings:
Added text to Data Types section about using a single-quoted
string for patterns.
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:
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.
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.
Copyright Notice -- verify that the draft has the appropriate
text regarding the rights that document contributers provide to
the IETF Trust . 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:
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.
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:
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).
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
.
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:
Other Issues -- check for any issues mentioned
in http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist.html
that are not covered elsewhere.
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:
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-template@2016-03-20.yang"<CODE ENDS>