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/