draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-03.txt   draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-04.txt 
Network Working Group C. Hopps Network Working Group C. Hopps
Internet-Draft Deutsche Telekom Internet-Draft L. Berger
Updates: rfc6087bis (if approved) L. Berger Updates: RFC8407 (if approved) LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Intended status: Standards Track LabN Consulting, L.L.C. Intended status: Standards Track D. Bogdanovic
Expires: April 20, 2019 D. Bogdanovic Expires: August 2, 2019 Volta Networks
October 17, 2018 January 29, 2019
YANG Module Tags YANG Module Tags
draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-03 draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-04
Abstract Abstract
This document provides for the association of tags with YANG modules. This document provides for the association of tags with YANG modules.
The expectation is for such tags to be used to help classify and The expectation is for such tags to be used to help classify and
organize modules. A method for defining, reading and writing a organize modules. A method for defining, reading and writing a
modules tags is provided. Tags may be standardized and assigned modules tags is provided. Tags may be standardized and assigned
during module definition; assigned by implementations; or dynamically during module definition; assigned by implementations; or dynamically
defined and set by users. This document provides guidance to future defined and set by users. This document provides guidance to future
model writers and, as such, this document updates model writers and, as such, this document updates [RFC8407].
[I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis].
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 20, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 2, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Some possible use cases of YANG module tags . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Tag Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Tag Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. IETF Standard Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.1. IETF Standard Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Vendor Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.2. Vendor Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. User Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.3. User Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.4. Reserved Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.4. Reserved Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Tag Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Tag Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Module Definition Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.1. Module Definition Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Implementation Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.2. Implementation Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. Administrative Tagging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.3. Administrative Tagging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Tags Module Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Tags Module Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. Tags Module Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5.1. Tags Module Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. Tags Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.2. Tags Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Other Classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Other Classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Guidelines to Model Writers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. Guidelines to Model Writers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1. Define Standard Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.1. Define Standard Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.1. YANG Module Tag Prefix Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.1. YANG Module Tag Prefix Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.2. YANG Module IETF Tag Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.2. YANG Module IETF Tag Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The use of tags for classification and organization is fairly The use of tags for classification and organization is fairly
ubiquitous not only within IETF protocols, but in the internet itself ubiquitous not only within IETF protocols, but in the internet itself
(e.g., #hashtags). Tags can be usefully standardized, but they can (e.g., #hashtags). One benefit of using tags for organization over a
also serve as a non-standardized mechanism available for users to rigid structure is that it is more flexible and can more easily adapt
define themselves. Our solution provides for both cases allowing for over time as technologies evolve. Tags can be usefully standardized,
the most flexibility. In particular, tags may be standardized as but they can also serve as a non-standardized mechanism available for
well as assigned during module definition; assigned by users to define themselves. This document provides a mechanism to
implementations; or dynamically defined and set by users. define tags and associate them with YANG modules in a flexible
manner. In particular, tags may be standardized as well as assigned
during module definition; assigned by implementations; or dynamically
defined and set by users.
This document defines a YANG module [RFC6020] which provides a list This document defines a YANG module [RFC6020] which provides a list
of module entries to allow for adding or removing of tags as well as of module entries to allow for adding or removing of tags as well as
viewing the set of tags associated with a module. viewing the set of tags associated with a module.
This document defines an extension statement to be used to indicate This document defines an extension statement to be used to indicate
tags that SHOULD be added by the module implementation automatically tags that SHOULD be added by the module implementation automatically
(i.e., outside of configuration). (i.e., outside of configuration).
This document also defines an IANA registry for tag prefixes as well This document also defines an IANA registry for tag prefixes as well
as a set of globally assigned tags. as a set of globally assigned tags.
Section 7 provides guidelines for authors of YANG data models. This Section 7 provides guidelines for authors of YANG data models. This
section updates [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis]. section updates [RFC8407].
1.1. Some possible use cases of YANG module tags
During this documents progression there were requests for example
uses of module tags. The following are a few example use cases for
tags. This list is certainly not exhaustive.
One example use of tags would be to help filter different discrete
categories of YANG modules supported by a device. E.g., if modules
are suitably tagged, then an XPath query can be used to list all of
the vendor modules supported by a device.
Tags can also be used to help coordination when multiple semi-
independent clients are interacting with the same devices. E.g., one
management client could mark that some modules should not be used
because they have not been verified to behave correctly, so that
other management clients avoid querying the data associated with
those modules.
Tag classification is useful for users searching module repositories
(e.g. YANG catalog). A query restricted to the 'ietf:routing'
module tag could be used to return only the IETF YANG modules
associated with routing. Without tags, a user would need to know the
name of all the IETF routing protocol YANG modules.
Future management protocol extensions could allow for filtering
queries of configuration or operational state on a server based on
tags. E.g., return all operational state related to system-
management.
2. Conventions Used in This Document 2. Conventions Used in This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals,
as shown here. as shown here.
3. Tag Values 3. Tag Values
All tags begin with a prefix indicating who owns their definition. All tags begin with a prefix indicating who owns their definition.
An IANA registry is used to support standardizing tag prefixes. An IANA registry is used to support standardizing tag prefixes.
Currently 3 prefixes are defined with all others reserved. No Currently 3 prefixes are defined with all others reserved. No
further structure is imposed by this document on the value following further structure is imposed by this document on the value following
the standard prefix, and the value can contain any yang type 'string' the standard prefix, and the value can contain any yang type 'string'
skipping to change at page 7, line 33 skipping to change at page 8, line 17
document exists [RFC8199]. That document is classifying modules in document exists [RFC8199]. That document is classifying modules in
only a logical manner and does not define tagging or any other only a logical manner and does not define tagging or any other
mechanisms. It divides YANG modules into 2 categories (service or mechanisms. It divides YANG modules into 2 categories (service or
element) and then into one of 3 origins: standard, vendor or user. element) and then into one of 3 origins: standard, vendor or user.
It does provide a good way to discuss and identify modules in It does provide a good way to discuss and identify modules in
general. This document defines standard tags to support [RFC8199] general. This document defines standard tags to support [RFC8199]
style classification. style classification.
7. Guidelines to Model Writers 7. Guidelines to Model Writers
This section updates [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis]. This section updates [RFC8407].
7.1. Define Standard Tags 7.1. Define Standard Tags
A module can indicate using module-tag extension statements a set of A module can indicate using module-tag extension statements a set of
tags that are to be automatically associated with it (i.e., not added tags that are to be automatically associated with it (i.e., not added
through configuration). through configuration).
module example-module { module example-module {
... ...
import module-tags { prefix tags; } import module-tags { prefix tags; }
skipping to change at page 10, line 5 skipping to change at page 10, line 35
| | | | | | | |
| ietf:signaling | A module representing | [This | | ietf:signaling | A module representing | [This |
| | control plane signaling. | document] | | | control plane signaling. | document] |
| | | | | | | |
| ietf:lmp | A module representing a link | [This | | ietf:lmp | A module representing a link | [This |
| | management protocol. | document] | | | management protocol. | document] |
+------------------------+------------------------------+-----------+ +------------------------+------------------------------+-----------+
Table 1: IETF Module Tag Registry Table 1: IETF Module Tag Registry
9. References 9. Acknowledgements
9.1. Normative References Special thanks to Robert Wilton for his help improving the
introduction and providing the example use cases.
[I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis] 10. References
Bierman, A., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of YANG
Data Model Documents", draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-20 10.1. Normative References
(work in progress), March 2018.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
skipping to change at page 10, line 37 skipping to change at page 11, line 23
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8199] Bogdanovic, D., Claise, B., and C. Moberg, "YANG Module [RFC8199] Bogdanovic, D., Claise, B., and C. Moberg, "YANG Module
Classification", RFC 8199, DOI 10.17487/RFC8199, July Classification", RFC 8199, DOI 10.17487/RFC8199, July
2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8199>. 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8199>.
9.2. Informative References [RFC8407] Bierman, A., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of
Documents Containing YANG Data Models", BCP 216, RFC 8407,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8407, October 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8407>.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC8340] Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams", [RFC8340] Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams",
BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018, BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8340>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8340>.
Appendix A. Example
The following is a fictional example result from a query of the
module tags list. For the sake of brevity only a few module results
are imagined.
{
"ietf-module-tags:module-tags": {
"module": [
{
"name": "ietf-bfd",
"tag": [
"ietf:protocol",
"ietf:oam",
"ietf:rfc8199-element",
"ietf:rfc8199-standard"
]
},
{
"name": "ietf-isis",
"tag": [
"ietf:protocol",
"ietf:rfc8199-element",
"ietf:rfc8199-standard",
"ietf:routing"
]
},
{
"name": "ietf-ssh-server",
"tag": [
"ietf:protocol",
"ietf:rfc8199-element",
"ietf:rfc8199-standard",
"ietf:system-management"
]
}
]
}
}
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Christan Hopps Christan Hopps
Deutsche Telekom LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Email: chopps@chopps.org Email: chopps@chopps.org
Lou Berger Lou Berger
LabN Consulting, L.L.C. LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
Email: lberger@labn.net Email: lberger@labn.net
Dean Bogdanovic Dean Bogdanovic
Volta Networks
Email: ivandean@gmail.com Email: ivandean@gmail.com
 End of changes. 23 change blocks. 
44 lines changed or deleted 125 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/