Internet Engineering Task Force                               A. Bierman
Internet-Draft                                         InterWorking Labs
Intended status: Informational                            April 20,                              May 18, 2010
Expires: October 22, November 19, 2010

   Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of YANG Data Model Documents
                    draft-ietf-netmod-yang-usage-04
                    draft-ietf-netmod-yang-usage-05

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 NETCONF
   implementations which utilize YANG data model modules.

Status of this Memo

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 22, November 19, 2010.

Copyright Notice

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

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.1.  Requirements Notation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.2.  NETCONF Terms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.3.  YANG Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.4.  Terms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.  General Documentation Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.1.  Module Copyright . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.2.  Narrative Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.3.  Definitions Section  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.4.  Security Considerations Section  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.5.  IANA Considerations Section  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       3.5.1.  Documents that Create a New Name Space . . . . . . . .  8
       3.5.2.  Documents that Extend an Existing Name Space . . . . .  9
     3.6.  Reference Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.7.  Copyright Notices  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.8.  Intellectual Property Section  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   4.  YANG Usage Guidelines  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.1.  Module Naming Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.2.  Identifiers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.3.  Defaults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.4.  Conditional Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     4.5.  Lifecycle Management  XPath Usage  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.6.  Header Contents . . . 11
     4.6.  Lifecycle Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     4.7.  Temporary  Module Header, Meta, and Revision Statements . . . . . . . 13
     4.8.  Namespace Assignments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     4.8.
     4.9.  Top Level Database Objects Data Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     4.9. 15
     4.10. Data Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     4.10.
     4.11. Reusable Type Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     4.11. Object 16
     4.12. Data Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     4.12.
     4.13. Operation Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     4.13.
     4.14. Notification Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 18
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 19
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 20
   7.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 21
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 22
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 22
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 22
   Appendix A.  Module Review Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 23
   Appendix B.  YANG Module Template  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 25
   Appendix C.  Change Log  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 28
     C.1.  Changes from 04 to 05  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
     C.2.  Changes from 03 to 04  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
     C.2. 28
     C.3.  Changes from 02 to 03  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
     C.3. 29
     C.4.  Changes from 01 to 02  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
     C.4. 29
     C.5.  Changes from 00 to 01  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 29
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 31

1.  Introduction

   The standardization of network configuration interfaces for use with
   the NETCONF [RFC4741] 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 YANG [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang] data models.  It is
   similar to the MIB SMIv2 usage guidelines specification [RFC4181] in
   intent and structure.

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

   This document defines usage guidelines related to the NETCONF
   operations layer, and NETCONF content layer, as defined in [RFC4741].

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 YANG module content.  Yang  YANG modules complying
   with this document will treat the RFC 2119 terminology as if it were
   describing best current practices.

2.2.  NETCONF Terms

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

   o  capabilities

   o  client

   o  operation

   o  server

2.3.  YANG Terms

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

   o  data node

   o  module

   o  namespace

   o  submodule

   o  version

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

2.4.  Terms

   The following terms are used throughout this document:

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

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

3.  General Documentation Guidelines

   YANG data model modules under review are likely to be contained in
   Internet Drafts.  All guidelines for Internet Draft authors MUST be
   followed.  These guidelines are available online at:

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

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

   o  YANG data model boilerplate section

   o  Narrative sections

   o  Definitions section

   o  Security Considerations section

   o  IANA Considerations section

   o  References section

3.1.  Module Copyright

   The module description statement MUST contain a reference to the
   latest approved IETF Trust Copyright statement, which is available on-line, in
   section 4 of the Trust Legal Provisions (TLP) document,
   on-line at:

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

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

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

   <CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-foo@2010-01-18.yang"

3.2.  Narrative Sections

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

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

3.3.  Definitions Section

   This section contains the module(s) defined by the specification.
   These modules MUST be written in YANG [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang].

   See Section 4 for guidelines on YANG usage.

3.4.  Security Considerations Section

   Each specification that defines one or more modules MUST contain a
   section that discusses security considerations relevant to those
   modules.  This section MUST be patterned after the latest approved
   template (available at http://www.ops.ietf.org/yang-security.html).
   [ed.: this online document does not exist yet.]

   In particular, writable module objects 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
   module objects
   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.

3.5.  IANA Considerations Section

   In order to comply with IESG policy as set forth in
   http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html, every Internet-Draft that is
   submitted to the IESG for publication MUST contain an IANA
   Considerations section.  The requirements for this section vary
   depending what actions are required of the IANA.  Refer to the
   guidelines in [RFC5226] for more details.

3.5.1.  Documents that Create a New Name Space

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

   Specifically, if any YANG module namespace statement value contained
   in the document is not already registered with IANA, then a new YANG
   Namespace registry entry must be requested from the IANA.  The YANG
   specification includes the procedure for this purpose in its IANA
   Considerations section.

3.5.2.  Documents that Extend an Existing Name Space

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

3.6.  Reference Sections

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

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

3.7.  Copyright Notices  Intellectual Property Section

   The proper copyright notices IPR statements MUST be present in the module
   description statement.  Refer to the IETF Trust Legal Provision for
   the exact legal text that needs to be included.

3.8.  Intellectual Property Section

   The proper IPR statements MUST be present in the document, according document, according
   to the most current Internet Draft boilerplate.  Refer to the IETF
   Trust Legal Provision for the exact legal text that needs to be
   included.

4.  YANG Usage Guidelines

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

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

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

4.1.  Module Naming Conventions

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

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

   All published module names MUST be unique.

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

4.2.  Identifiers

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

4.3.  Defaults

   In general, it is suggested that sub-statements containing very
   common default values SHOULD NOT be present.  For example, 'status current;',
   'config true;', 'mandatory false;', and 'max-elements unbounded;'  The following sub-
   statements are
   common defaults commonly used with the default value, which would make
   the module difficult to read if used everywhere they are allowed.

   Instead, it is suggested that common statements SHOULD only be used
   when being set to a value other than the default value.

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

4.4.  Conditional Statements

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

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

   Objects SHOULD NOT directly reference NETCONF capabilities, in order
   to specify optional behavior.  Instead,

   If a 'feature' statement SHOULD
   be defined instead of data definition is optional, depending on server support for a
   NETCONF protocol capability, and the 'if-feature' then a YANG 'feature' statement SHOULD
   be used within the optional object definition.

   If the condition associated with defined to indicate the desired semantics NETCONF capability is not
   dependent on any particular instance value supported within the database, then
   an 'if-feature' statement SHOULD be used instead of a 'when'
   statement.
   data model.

4.5.  XPath Usage

   The 'attribute' and 'namespace' axis SHOULD NOT be used because the
   associated XML node types axes are not supported in YANG, and may not
   MAY be
   supported consistently across empty in a NETCONF server implementations. implementation.

   The 'position' and 'last' functions MAY be used with caution, within
   a single caution.  A
   server implementation.  These functions may be useful in
   some cases when processing user-ordered lists. is not required to maintain any particular XML document order
   for system-ordered data nodes.  A server is only required to maintain
   the relative XML document order of all instances of a particular
   user-ordered list or leaf-
   list. leaf-list.

   The 'preceding', and 'following' axes SHOULD NOT be used.  These
   constructs rely on XML document order within a NETCONF server
   configuration database, which may not be supported consistently or
   produce reliable results across implementations.  Predicate
   expressions based on static node properties (e.g., name, value,
   ancestors, descendants) SHOULD be used instead.

   The 'preceding-sibling' and 'following-sibling' axes MAY be used,
   with caution.  A server is not required to maintain a persistent or
   deterministic XML document order, which will affect use of these
   axes.

   Implicit 'position' function calls within predicates SHOULD NOT MAY be
   used. used with
   caution. (e.g., //chapter[42]).  Note that a NETCONF server is only
   required to maintain relative document order for related instances of
   a user-ordered list or leaf-list data definition (i.e., 'ordered-by'
   statement set to 'user').

   Data nodes which use the 'int64' and 'uint64' built-in type MAY be
   used with caution, within relational 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.

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

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

4.5.

4.6.  Lifecycle Management

   The status statement SHOULD NOT be present if its value is 'current'.
   It MUST be present if its value is 'deprecated' or
   '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 sub-statement (within within the imports statement) statement SHOULD
   be present if any groupings are used from the external module.

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

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

4.6.  Header Contents

4.7.  Module Header, Meta, and Revision Statements

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

   The organization statement MUST be present.  If the module is
   contained in a documented 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 document
   author contact information SHOULD be present.  In addition, the Area
   Director and other contact information MAY be present.

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

   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.

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

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

   Each new revision MUST include a revision date which is higher than
   any other revision date in the module.

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

4.7.  Temporary

4.8.  Namespace Assignments

   It is desirable to include only valid YANG modules in documents,
   whether they are published yet or not.  This allows:

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

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

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

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

   A standard namespace statement value SHOULD have the following form:

   <URN prefix string>:<module-name>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.8.

4.9.  Top Level Database Objects Data Definitions

   There SHOULD only be one top-level data node defined in each YANG
   module.  However, there MAY be more than one if needed.

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

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

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

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

4.9.

4.10.  Data Types

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

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

   If extensibility of enumerated values is required, then the
   identityref data type SHOULD be used instead of an enumeration or
   other built-in type.

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

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

   For string data types, object data definition semantics SHOULD NOT rely on
   preservation of leading and trailing whitespace characters.

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

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

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

4.10.

4.11.  Reusable Type Definitions

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

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

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

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

   The description statement MUST be present.

   If the type definition semantics are defined in an external document,
   then the reference statement SHOULD be present.

4.11.  Object Definitions

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

   o  extension

   o  feature

   o  identity

   o  typedef

   o  grouping

   o  augment

   o  rpc

   o  notification document,
   then the reference statement SHOULD be present.

4.12.  Data Definitions

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

   o  anyxml

   o  augment

   o  choice

   o  container

   o  extension
   o  feature

   o  grouping

   o  identity

   o  leaf

   o  leaf-list

   o  list

   o  choice  notification

   o  anyxml  rpc

   o  typedef

   If the object data definition semantics are defined in an external document,
   then a reference statement SHOULD be present.

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

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

   For list and leaf-list objects, data definitions, if the number of possible
   instances is required to be bounded for all implementations, then the max-
   elements
   max-elements statements SHOULD be present.

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

4.12.

4.13.  Operation Definitions

   The description statement MUST be present in 'rpc' statements
   defining new operations.

   If the operation semantics are defined in an external document, then
   a reference statement SHOULD be present.

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

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

4.13.

4.14.  Notification Definitions

   The description statement MUST be present.

   If the notification semantics are defined in an external document,
   then a reference statement SHOULD be present.

5.  IANA Considerations

   There are no actions requested

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

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

   Registrant Contact: The NETMOD WG of IANA at this time. the IETF.

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

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

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

6.  Security Considerations

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

   http://www.ops.ietf.org/yang-security.html [ed.: this online document
   does not exist yet.]

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

7.  Acknowledgments

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

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

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

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

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

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

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

   [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang]
              Bjorklund, M., "YANG - A data modeling language for
              NETCONF", draft-ietf-netmod-yang-12 (work in progress),
              April 2010.

   [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-types]
              Schoenwaelder, J., "Common YANG Data Types",
              draft-ietf-netmod-yang-types-08
              draft-ietf-netmod-yang-types-09 (work in progress),
              April 2010.

8.2.  Informative References

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

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

Appendix A.  Module Review Checklist

   This section is adapted from RFC 4181.

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

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

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

   3.  IETF Trust Copyright -- verify that the draft contains the latest
       approved TLP boilerplate as described in Section 3.1.

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

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

       XML Namespace Registry:  Register the YANG module namespace.

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

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

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

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

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

   9.  Technical Content -- review the actual technical content for
       compliance with the guidelines in this document.  The use of a
       YANG module compiler is recommended when checking for syntax
       errors; see [YANG
       errors, [ed.: online YANG validation tool URL TBD] for more information. TBD].  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.

Appendix B.  YANG Module Template

<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-template.yang" "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:DRAFT-02";
      "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-template";

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    reference "RFC XXXX";

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

    // replace YYYY-MM-DD '2010-05-18' with a real the module publication date (year-month-day)
    // here The format is an example revision date: 2009-08-12 (year-month-day)
    revision YYYY-MM-DD "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>
                                 Figure 1

Appendix C.  Change Log

C.1.  Changes from 04 to 05

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

   o  Put XPath guidelines in separate section.

   o  Clarified XPath usage for XML document order dependencies.

   o  Updated <CODE BEGINS> guidelines to current conventions.

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

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

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

C.2.  Changes from 03 to 04

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

   o  Fixed bugs and typos found in WGLC reviews.

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

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

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

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

   o  Introduced dangling URL reference to online YANG security
      guidelines

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

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

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

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

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

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

   o  Updated the TLP text within the example module again.

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

C.2.

C.3.  Changes from 02 to 03

   o  Updated figure 1 to align with 4741bis draft.

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

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

C.3.

C.4.  Changes from 01 to 02

   o  Updated figure 1 per mailing list comments.

   o  Updated suggested organization to include the working group name.

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

   o  Updated Code Component requirements as per new TLP.

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

   o  Updated references to the TLP in a couple sections.

   o  Change manager/agent terminology to client/server.

C.4.

C.5.  Changes from 00 to 01

   o  Added transport 'TLS' to figure 1.

   o  Added note about RFC 2119 terminology.

   o  Corrected URL for instructions to authors.

   o  Updated namespace procedures section.

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

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

   o  Added section on temporary namespace statement values.

   o  Added section on top level database objects.

   o  Added ietf-template.yang appendix.

Author's Address

   Andy Bierman
   InterWorking Labs

   Email: andyb@iwl.com