draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-05.txt		draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-06.txt
	Network Working Group C. Hopps		Network Working Group C. Hopps
	Internet-Draft L. Berger		Internet-Draft LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
	Updates: RFC8407 (if approved) LabN Consulting, L.L.C.		Updates: 8407 (if approved) L. Berger
	Intended status: Standards Track D. Bogdanovic		Intended status: Standards Track LabN Consulting, LLC.
	Expires: August 19, 2019 Volta Networks		Expires: September 3, 2019 D. Bogdanovic
	February 15, 2019		Volta Networks
			March 2, 2019
	YANG Module Tags		YANG Module Tags
	draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-05		draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-06
	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 also provides guidance to
	model writers and, as such, this document updates [RFC8407].		future model writers, as such, this document updates RFC8407.
	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 August 19, 2019.		This Internet-Draft will expire on September 3, 2019.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2019 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		1.1. Some possible use cases of YANG module tags . . . . . . . 3
	2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		1.2. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3. Tag Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2. Tag Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3.1. IETF Standard Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2.1. IETF Standard Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3.2. Vendor Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2.2. Vendor Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	3.3. User Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2.3. User Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3.4. Reserved Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2.4. Reserved Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4. Tag Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		3. Tag Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4.1. Module Definition Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3.1. Module Definition Tagging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4.2. Implementation Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3.2. Implementation Tagging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4.3. Administrative Tagging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3.3. User Tagging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	5. Tags Module Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		4. Tags Module Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	5.1. Tags Module Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		4.1. Tags Module Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	5.2. Tags Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		4.2. YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	6. Other Classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		5. Other Classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	7. Guidelines to Model Writers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		6. Guidelines to Model Writers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	7.1. Define Standard Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		6.1. Define Standard Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	8.1. YANG Module Tag Prefix Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		7.1. YANG Module Tag Prefixes Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	8.2. YANG Module IETF Tag Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		7.2. YANG Module Tags Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		7.3. Updates to the IETF XML Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		7.4. Updates to the YANG Module Names Registry . . . . . . . . 11
	9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	Appendix B. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
			Appendix A. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
			Appendix B. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
			Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	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). One benefit of using tags for organization over a		(e.g., "#hashtags"). One benefit of using tags for organization over
	rigid structure is that it is more flexible and can more easily adapt		a rigid structure is that it is more flexible and can more easily
	over time as technologies evolve. Tags can be usefully standardized,		adapt over time as technologies evolve. Tags can be usefully
	but they can also serve as a non-standardized mechanism available for		standardized, but they can also serve as a non-standardized mechanism
	users to define themselves. This document provides a mechanism to		available for users to define themselves. This document provides a
	define tags and associate them with YANG modules in a flexible		mechanism to define tags and associate them with YANG modules in a
	manner. In particular, tags may be standardized as well as assigned		flexible manner. In particular, tags may be standardized as well as
	during module definition; assigned by implementations; or dynamically		assigned during module definition; assigned by implementations; or
	defined and set by users.		dynamically defined and set by users.
	This document defines a YANG module [RFC7950] which provides a list		This document defines a YANG module [RFC7950] 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 6 provides guidelines for authors of YANG data models.
	document updates [RFC8407].
			This document updates [RFC8407].
	The YANG data model in this document conforms to the Network		The YANG data model in this document conforms to the Network
	Management Datastore Architecture defined in [RFC8342].		Management Datastore Architecture defined in [RFC8342].
	1.1. Some possible use cases of YANG module tags		1.1. Some possible use cases of YANG module tags
	During this documents progression there were requests for example		During this documents progression there were requests for example
	uses of module tags. The following are a few example use cases for		uses of module tags. The following are a few example use cases for
	tags. This list is certainly not exhaustive.		tags. This list is certainly not exhaustive.
	skipping to change at page 4, line 5 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 10 ¶
	(e.g. YANG catalog). A query restricted to the 'ietf:routing'		(e.g. YANG catalog). A query restricted to the 'ietf:routing'
	module tag could be used to return only the IETF YANG modules		module tag could be used to return only the IETF YANG modules
	associated with routing. Without tags, a user would need to know the		associated with routing. Without tags, a user would need to know the
	name of all the IETF routing protocol YANG modules.		name of all the IETF routing protocol YANG modules.
	Future management protocol extensions could allow for filtering		Future management protocol extensions could allow for filtering
	queries of configuration or operational state on a server based on		queries of configuration or operational state on a server based on
	tags. E.g., return all operational state related to system-		tags. E.g., return all operational state related to system-
	management.		management.
	2. Conventions Used in This Document		1.2. 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		2. Tag Values
	All tags SHOULD begin with a prefix indicating who owns their		All tags SHOULD begin with a prefix indicating who owns their
	definition. An IANA registry is used to support standardizing tag		definition. An IANA registry is used to support standardizing tag
	prefixes. Currently 3 prefixes are defined with all others reserved.		prefixes Section 7.1. Currently 3 prefixes are defined with all
	No further structure is imposed by this document on the value		others reserved. No further structure is imposed by this document on
	following the standard prefix, and the value can contain any yang		the value following the standard prefix, and the value can contain
	type 'string' characters except carriage-returns, newlines and tabs.		any yang type 'string' characters except carriage-returns, newlines
			and tabs.
	3.1. IETF Standard Tags		Again, except for the conflict-avoiding prefix, this document is not
			specifying any structure on (i.e., restricting) the tag values on
			purpose. The intent is to avoid arbitrarily restricting the values
			that designers, implementers and users can use. As a result of this
			choice, designers, implementers, and users are free to add or not add
			any structure they may require to their own tag values.
			2.1. IETF Standard Tags
	An IETF standard tag is a tag that has the prefix "ietf:". All IETF		An IETF standard tag is a tag that has the prefix "ietf:". All IETF
	standard tags are registered with IANA in a registry defined later in		standard tags are registered with IANA in a registry defined later in
	this document.		this document Section 7.2.
	3.2. Vendor Tags		2.2. Vendor Tags
	A vendor tag is a tag that has the prefix "vendor:". These tags are		A vendor tag is a tag that has the prefix "vendor:". These tags are
	defined by the vendor that implements the module, and are not		defined by the vendor that implements the module, and are not
	standardized; however, it is RECOMMENDED that the vendor include		standardized; however, it is RECOMMENDED that the vendor include
	extra identification in the tag to avoid collisions such as using the		extra identification in the tag to avoid collisions such as using the
	enterpise or organization name follwing the "vendor:" prefix (e.g.,		enterpise or organization name follwing the "vendor:" prefix (e.g.,
	vendor:example.com:vendor-defined-classifier).		vendor:example.com:vendor-defined-classifier).
	3.3. User Tags		2.3. User Tags
	A user tag is any tag that has the prefix "user:". These tags are		A user tag is any tag that has the prefix "user:". These tags are
	defined by the user/administrator and will never be standardized.		defined by the user/administrator and will never be standardized.
	3.4. Reserved Tags		2.4. Reserved Tags
	Any tag not starting with the prefix "ietf:", "vendor:" or "user:" is		Any tag not starting with the prefix "ietf:", "vendor:" or "user:" is
	reserved for future standardization.		reserved for future standardization.
	4. Tag Management		3. Tag Management
	Tags can become associated with a module in a number of ways. Tags		Tags can become associated with a module in a number of ways. Tags
	may be defined and associated at module design time, at		may be defined and associated at module design time, at
	implementation time, or via user administrative control. As the main		implementation time, or via user administrative control. As the main
	consumer of tags are users, users may also remove any tag, no matter		consumer of tags are users, users may also remove any tag, no matter
	how the tag became associated with a module.		how the tag became associated with a module.
	4.1. Module Definition Association		3.1. Module Definition Tagging
	A module definition can indicate a set of tags to be added by the		A module definition MAY indicate a set of tags to be added by the
	module implementer. These design time tags are indicated using the		module implementer. These design time tags are indicated using the
	module-tag extension statement. If the module definition is IETF		module-tag extension statement.
	standards track, the tags MUST also be IETF standard tags
	(Section 3.1). Thus, new modules can drive the addition of new		If the module definition is IETF standards track, the tags MUST also
			be Section 2.1. Thus, new modules can drive the addition of new
	standard tags to the IANA registry, and the IANA registry can serve		standard tags to the IANA registry, and the IANA registry can serve
	as a check against duplication.		as a check against duplication.
	4.2. Implementation Association		3.2. Implementation Tagging
	An implementation MAY include additional tags associated with a		An implementation MAY include additional tags associated with a
	module. These tags may be standard or vendor specific tags.		module. These tags SHOULD be standard or vendor specific tags.
	4.3. Administrative Tagging		3.3. User Tagging
	Tags of any kind can be assigned and removed using normal		Tags of any kind can be assigned and removed by the user using normal
	configuration mechanisms.		configuration mechanisms.
	5. Tags Module Structure		4. Tags Module Structure
	5.1. Tags Module Tree		4.1. Tags Module Tree
	The tree associated with the "ietf-module-tags" module follows. The		The tree associated with the "ietf-module-tags" module follows. The
	meaning of the symbols can be found in [RFC8340].		meaning of the symbols can be found in [RFC8340].
	module: ietf-module-tags		module: ietf-module-tags
	+--rw module-tags		+--rw module-tags
	+--rw module* [name]		+--rw module* [name]
	+--rw name yang:yang-identifier		+--rw name yang:yang-identifier
	+--rw tag* tag		+--rw tag* tag
	+--rw masked-tag* tag		+--rw masked-tag* tag
	5.2. Tags Module		4.2. YANG Module
	<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-module-tags@2019-02-15.yang"		<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-module-tags@2019-03-02.yang"
	module ietf-module-tags {		module ietf-module-tags {
	yang-version 1.1;		yang-version 1.1;
	namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-module-tags";		namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-module-tags";
	prefix tags;		prefix tags;
	import ietf-yang-types {		import ietf-yang-types {
	prefix yang;		prefix yang;
	}		}
	organization		organization
	"IETF NetMod Working Group (NetMod)";		"IETF NetMod Working Group (NetMod)";
	contact		contact
	"NetMod Working Group - <netmod@ietf.org>";		"NetMod Working Group - <netmod@ietf.org>";
	// RFC Ed.: replace XXXX with actual RFC number and		// RFC Ed.: replace XXXX with actual RFC number and
	// remove this note.		// remove this note.
	description		description
	"This module describes a mechanism associating tags with YANG		"This module describes a mechanism associating tags with YANG
	skipping to change at page 6, line 39 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 12 ¶
	described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when,		described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when,
	they appear in all capitals, as shown here.		they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
	This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX		This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX
	(https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfcXXXX); see the RFC itself for		(https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfcXXXX); see the RFC itself for
	full legal notices.";		full legal notices.";
	// RFC Ed.: update the date below with the date of RFC publication		// RFC Ed.: update the date below with the date of RFC publication
	// and RFC number and remove this note.		// and RFC number and remove this note.
	revision 2018-10-17 {		revision 2019-03-02 {
	description		description
	"Initial revision.";		"Initial revision.";
	reference "RFC XXXX: YANG Module Tags";		reference "RFC XXXX: YANG Module Tags";
	}		}
	typedef tag {		typedef tag {
	type string {		type string {
	length "1..max";		length "1..max";
	pattern '[a-zA-Z_][a-zA-Z0-9\-_]*:[\S ]+';		pattern '[a-zA-Z_][a-zA-Z0-9\-_]*:[\S ]+';
	}		}
	skipping to change at page 7, line 35 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 6 ¶
	leaf name {		leaf name {
	type yang:yang-identifier;		type yang:yang-identifier;
	mandatory true;		mandatory true;
	description		description
	"The YANG module name.";		"The YANG module name.";
	}		}
	leaf-list tag {		leaf-list tag {
	type tag;		type tag;
	description		description
	"Tags associated with the module. See the IANA 'YANG Module		"Tags associated with the module. See the IANA 'YANG Module
	Tag Prefix' registry for reserved prefixes and the IANA		Tag Prefixes' registry for reserved prefixes and the IANA
	'YANG Module IETF Tag' registry for IETF standard tags.		'YANG Module Tags' registry for IETF standard tags.
	The 'operational' state [RFC8342] view of this list is		The 'operational' state [RFC8342] view of this list is
	constructed using the following steps:		constructed using the following steps:
	1) System tags (i.e., tags of 'system' origin) are added.		1) System tags (i.e., tags of 'system' origin) are added.
	2) User configured tags (i.e., tags of 'intended' origin)		2) User configured tags (i.e., tags of 'intended' origin)
	are added.		are added.
	3) Any tag that is equal to a masked-tag is removed.";		3) Any tag that is equal to a masked-tag is removed.";
	}		}
	leaf-list masked-tag {		leaf-list masked-tag {
	skipping to change at page 8, line 13 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 32 ¶
	operational state datastore [RFC8342] by adding them to		operational state datastore [RFC8342] by adding them to
	this list. It is not an error to add tags to this list		this list. It is not an error to add tags to this list
	that are not associated with the module, but they have no		that are not associated with the module, but they have no
	operational effect.";		operational effect.";
	}		}
	}		}
	}		}
	}		}
	<CODE ENDS>		<CODE ENDS>
	6. Other Classifications		5. Other Classifications
	It is worth noting that a different YANG module classification		It is worth noting that a different YANG module classification
	document exists [RFC8199]. That document only classifies modules in		document exists [RFC8199]. That document only classifies modules in
	a logical manner and does not define tagging or any other mechanisms.		a logical manner and does not define tagging or any other mechanisms.
	It divides YANG modules into two categories (service or element) and		It divides YANG modules into two categories (service or element) and
	then into one of three origins: standard, vendor or user. It does		then into one of three origins: standard, vendor or user. It does
	provide a good way to discuss and identify modules in general. This		provide a good way to discuss and identify modules in general. This
	document defines standard tags to support [RFC8199] style		document defines standard tags to support [RFC8199] style
	classification.		classification.
	7. Guidelines to Model Writers		6. Guidelines to Model Writers
	This section updates [RFC8407].		This section updates [RFC8407].
	7.1. Define Standard Tags		6.1. Define Standard Tags
	A module MAY indicate, using module-tag extension statements, a set		A module MAY indicate, using module-tag extension statements, a set
	of tags that are to be automatically associated with it (i.e., not		of tags that are to be automatically associated with it (i.e., not
	added through configuration).		added through configuration).
	module example-module {		module example-module {
	...		//...
	import module-tags { prefix tags; }		import module-tags { prefix tags; }
	tags:module-tag "ietf:some-new-tag";		tags:module-tag "ietf:some-new-tag";
	tags:module-tag "ietf:some-other-tag";		tags:module-tag "ietf:some-other-tag";
	...		// ...
	}		}
	The module writer can use existing standard tags, or use new tags		The module writer can use existing standard tags, or use new tags
	defined in the model definition, as appropriate. For standardized		defined in the model definition, as appropriate. For standardized
	modules new tags MUST be assigned in the IANA registry defined below,		modules new tags MUST be assigned in the IANA registry defined below,
	see Section 8.2 below.		see Section 7.2.
	8. IANA Considerations		7. IANA Considerations
	8.1. YANG Module Tag Prefix Registry		7.1. YANG Module Tag Prefixes Registry
			IANA is asked to create a new registry "YANG Module Tag Prefixes"
			grouped under a new "Protocol" category named "YANG Module Tags".
	This registry allocates tag prefixes. All YANG module tags SHOULD		This registry allocates tag prefixes. All YANG module tags SHOULD
	begin with one of the prefixes in this registry.		begin with one of the prefixes in this registry.
			Prefix entries in this registry should be short strings consisting of
			lowercase ASCII alpha-numeric characters and a final ":" character.
	The allocation policy for this registry is Specification Required		The allocation policy for this registry is Specification Required
	[RFC5226].		[RFC8126].
	The initial values for this registry are as follows.		The initial values for this registry are as follows.
	prefix description		+---------+---------------------------------------------------------+
	-------- ---------------------------------------------------		| Prefix | Description |
	ietf: IETF Standard Tag allocated in the IANA YANG Module		+---------+---------------------------------------------------------+
	IETF Tag Registry.		| ietf: | IETF Standard Tag allocated in the IANA YANG Module |
	vendor: Non-standardized tags allocated by the module implementer.		| | Tags registry. |
	user: Non-standardized tags allocated by and for the user.		| | |
			| vendor: | Non-standardized tags allocated by the module |
			| | implementer. |
			| | |
			| user: | Non-standardized tags allocated by and for the user. |
			+---------+---------------------------------------------------------+
	Other SDOs (standard organizations) wishing to standardize their own		Other standards organizations (SDOs) wishing to standardize their own
	set of tags could allocate a top level prefix from this registry.		set of tags should allocate a prefix from this registry.
	8.2. YANG Module IETF Tag Registry		7.2. YANG Module Tags Registry
			IANA is asked to create a new registry "YANG Module Tags" grouped
			under a new "Protocol" category "YANG Module Tags". This registry
			should be included below "YANG Module Tag Prefixes" when listed on
			the same page.
	This registry allocates prefixes that have the standard prefix		This registry allocates prefixes that have the standard prefix
	"ietf:". New values should be well considered and not achievable		"ietf:". New values should be well considered and not achievable
	through a combination of already existing standard tags.		through a combination of already existing standard tags.
	The allocation policy for this registry is IETF Review [RFC5226].		The allocation policy for this registry is IETF Review [RFC8126].
	The initial values for this registry are as follows.		The initial values for this registry are as follows.
	+----------------------------+--------------------------+-----------+		+----------------------------+--------------------------+-----------+
	| Tag | Description | Reference |		| Tag | Description | Reference |
	+----------------------------+--------------------------+-----------+		+----------------------------+--------------------------+-----------+
	| ietf:network-element-class | A module for a network | [RFC8199] |		| ietf:network-element-class | [RFC8199] network | [RFC8199] |
	| | element. | |		| | element. | |
	| | | |		| | | |
	| ietf:network-service-class | A module for a network | [RFC8199] |		| ietf:network-service-class | [RFC8199] network | [RFC8199] |
	| | service. | |		| | service. | |
	| | | |		| | | |
	| ietf:sdo-defined-class | A module defined by a | [RFC8199] |		| ietf:sdo-defined-class | Module is defined by a | [RFC8199] |
	| | standards organization. | |		| | standards organization. | |
	| | | |		| | | |
	| ietf:vendor-defined-class | A module defined by a | [RFC8199] |		| ietf:vendor-defined-class | Module is defined by a | [RFC8199] |
	| | vendor. | |		| | vendor. | |
	| | | |
	| ietf:user-defined-class | A module defined by the | [RFC8199] |
	| | user. | |
	| | | |		| | | |
	| ietf:hardware | A module relating to | [This |		| ietf:user-defined-class | Module is defined by the | [RFC8199] |
	| | hardware (e.g., | document] |		| | user. | |
	| | inventory). | |
	| | | |		| | | |
	| ietf:software | A module relating to | [This |		| ietf:hardware | Relates to hardware | [This |
	| | software (e.g., | document] |		| | (e.g., inventory). | document] |
	| | installed OS). | |
	| | | |		| | | |
	| ietf:qos | A module for managing | [This |		| ietf:software | Relates to software | [This |
	| | quality of service. | document] |		| | (e.g., installed OS). | document] |
	| | | |		| | | |
	| ietf:protocol | A module representing a | [This |		| ietf:protocol | Represents a protocol | [This |
	| | protocol. | document] |		| | (often combined with | document] |
			| | another tag to refine). | |
	| | | |		| | | |
	| ietf:system-management | A module relating to | [This |		| ietf:qos | Relates to quality of | [This |
	| | system management (e.g., | document] |		| | service. | document] |
	| | a system management | |
	| | protocol such as syslog, | |
	| | TACAC+, SNMP, netconf, | |
	| | ...). | |
	| | | |		| | | |
	| ietf:network-service | A module relating to | [This |		| ietf:network-service-app | Relates to a network | [This |
	| | network service (e.g., a | document] |		| | service application | document] |
	| | network service protocol | |		| | (e.g., an NTP server, | |
	| | such as an NTP server, | |
	| | DNS server, DHCP server, | |		| | DNS server, DHCP server, | |
	| | etc). | |		| | etc). | |
	| | | |		| | | |
	| ietf:oam | A module representing | [This |		| ietf:system-management | Relates to system | [This |
	| | Operations, | document] |		| | management (e.g., a | document] |
	| | Administration, and | |		| | system management | |
			| | protocol such as syslog, | |
			| | TACAC+, SNMP, netconf, | |
			| | ...). | |
			| | | |
			| ietf:oam | Relates to Operations, | [This |
			| | Administration, and | document] |
	| | Maintenance (e.g., BFD). | |		| | Maintenance (e.g., BFD). | |
	| | | |		| | | |
	| ietf:routing | A module related to | [This |		| ietf:routing | Relates to routing. | [This |
	| | routing. | document] |		| | | document] |
	| | | |		| | | |
	| ietf:signaling | A module representing | [This |		| ietf:signaling | Relates to control plane | [This |
	| | control plane signaling. | document] |		| | signaling. | document] |
	| | | |		| | | |
	| ietf:lmp | A module representing a | [This |		| ietf:link-management | Relates to link | [This |
	| | link management | document] |		| | management. | document] |
	| | protocol. | |
	+----------------------------+--------------------------+-----------+		+----------------------------+--------------------------+-----------+
	Table 1: IETF Module Tag Registry		7.3. Updates to the IETF XML Registry
			This document registers a URI in the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688].
			Following the format in [RFC3688], the following registration has
			been made:
			URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-module-tags
			Registrant Contact: The IESG.
			XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.
			7.4. Updates to the YANG Module Names Registry
			This document registers one YANG module in the "YANG Module Names"
			registry [RFC6020]. Following the format in [RFC6020], the following
			registration has been made:
			name: ietf-module-tags
			namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-module-tags
			prefix: tags
			reference: RFC XXXX (RFC Ed.: replace XXX with actual RFC number and
			remove this note.)
			8. 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].
			This document adds the ability to associate tag meta-data with YANG
			modules. This document does not define any actions based on these
			associations, and none are yet defined, and therefore it does not by
			itself introduce any new security considerations.
			Users of the tag-meta data may define various actions to be taken
			based on the tag meta-data. These actions and their definitions are
			outside the scope of this document. Users will need to consider the
			security implications of any actions they choose to define.
	9. References		9. References
	9.1. Normative References		9.1. Normative References
	[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
	IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
	[RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",		[RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
	RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,		RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.
			[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
			Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
			RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
	[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>.
	[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>.
	9.2. Informative References		9.2. Informative References
			[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
			DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
			[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
			the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
			DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.
			[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
			and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
			(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
			[RFC6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure
			Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC6242, June 2011,
			<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6242>.
	[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>.
	[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>.
	[RFC8342] Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K.,		[RFC8342] Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K.,
	and R. Wilton, "Network Management Datastore Architecture		and R. Wilton, "Network Management Datastore Architecture
	(NMDA)", RFC 8342, DOI 10.17487/RFC8342, March 2018,		(NMDA)", RFC 8342, DOI 10.17487/RFC8342, March 2018,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8342>.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8342>.
	Appendix A. Acknowledgements		[RFC8407] Bierman, A., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of
			Documents Containing YANG Data Models", BCP 216, RFC 8407,
	Special thanks to Robert Wilton for his help improving the		DOI 10.17487/RFC8407, October 2018,
	introduction and providing the example use cases.		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8407>.
	Appendix B. Example		Appendix A. Examples
	The following is a fictional example result from a query of the		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		module tags list. For the sake of brevity only a few module results
	are imagined.		are imagined.
	{		<ns0:config xmlns:ns0="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
	"ietf-module-tags:module-tags": {		<t:module-tags xmlns:t="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-module-tags">
	"module": [		<t:module>
	{		<t:name>ietf-bfd</t:name>
	"name": "ietf-bfd",		<t:tag>ietf:network-element-class</t:tag>
	"tag": [		<t:tag>ietf:oam</t:tag>
	"ietf:network-element-class",		<t:tag>ietf:protocol</t:tag>
	"ietf:oam",		<t:tag>ietf:sdo-defined-class</t:tag>
	"ietf:protocol",		</t:module>
	"ietf:sdo-defined-class"		<t:module>
	]		<t:name>ietf-isis</t:name>
	},		<t:tag>ietf:network-element-class</t:tag>
	{		<t:tag>ietf:protocol</t:tag>
	"name": "ietf-isis",		<t:tag>ietf:sdo-defined-class</t:tag>
	"tag": [		<t:tag>ietf:routing</t:tag>
	"ietf:network-element-class",		</t:module>
	"ietf:protocol",		<t:module>
	"ietf:routing"		<t:name>ietf-ssh-server</t:name>
	"ietf:sdo-defined-class",		<t:tag>ietf:network-element-class</t:tag>
	]		<t:tag>ietf:protocol</t:tag>
	},		<t:tag>ietf:sdo-defined-class</t:tag>
	{		<t:tag>ietf:system-management</t:tag>
	"name": "ietf-ssh-server",		</t:module>
	"tag": [		</t:module-tags>
	"ietf:network-element-class",		</ns0:config>
	"ietf:protocol",
	"ietf:sdo-defined-class",		Appendix B. Acknowledgements
	"ietf:system-management"
	]		Special thanks to Robert Wilton for his help improving the
	}		introduction and providing the example use cases.
	]
	}
	}
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Christan Hopps		Christian Hopps
	LabN Consulting, L.L.C.		LabN Consulting, L.L.C.
	Email: chopps@chopps.org		Email: chopps@chopps.org
	Lou Berger		Lou Berger
	LabN Consulting, L.L.C.		LabN Consulting, LLC.
	Email: lberger@labn.net		Email: lberger@labn.net
	Dean Bogdanovic		Dean Bogdanovic
	Volta Networks		Volta Networks
	Email: ivandean@gmail.com		Email: ivandean@gmail.com
End of changes. 73 change blocks.
	197 lines changed or deleted		275 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/