--- 1/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-usage-00.txt 2009-08-13 00:12:08.000000000 +0200 +++ 2/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-usage-01.txt 2009-08-13 00:12:08.000000000 +0200 @@ -1,18 +1,18 @@ Internet Engineering Task Force A. Bierman Internet-Draft Netconf Central -Intended status: Informational May 18, 2009 -Expires: November 19, 2009 +Intended status: Informational August 12, 2009 +Expires: February 13, 2010 Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of YANG Data Model Documents - draft-ietf-netmod-yang-usage-00 + draft-ietf-netmod-yang-usage-01 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), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. @@ -21,21 +21,21 @@ 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." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. - This Internet-Draft will expire on November 19, 2009. + This Internet-Draft will expire on February 13, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights @@ -50,52 +50,57 @@ intended to increase interoperability and usability of NETCONF implementations which utilize YANG data model modules. 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 2.4. Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. General Documentation Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1. YANG Data Model Boilerplate Section . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . 8 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. Module Life-cycle Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 4.5. Lifecycle Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.6. Header Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 4.7. Data Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 4.8. Reusable Type Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 4.9. Object Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 4.10. RPC Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 4.11. Notification Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - Appendix A. Module Review Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 - Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 + 4.7. Temporary Namespace Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 4.8. Top Level Database Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 4.9. Data Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 + 4.10. Reusable Type Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 + 4.11. Object Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 + 4.12. RPC Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 4.13. Notification Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 + 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 + 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 + 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 + 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 + 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 + Appendix A. Module Review Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 + Appendix B. YANG Module Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 + Appendix C. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 + C.1. Changes from 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 + Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 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 usage guidelines specification [RFC4181] in intent @@ -116,38 +121,43 @@ +-------------+ +--------------------+ +-------------------+ | | | +-------------+ +-----------------+ +---------------+ (3) | Operations | | | | | +-------------+ +-----------------+ +---------------+ | | | +-------------+ +--------------------+ +----------------+ (2) | RPC | | , | | | +-------------+ +--------------------+ +----------------+ | | | - +-------------+ +-----------------------------+ - (1) | Transport | | BEEP, SSH, SSL, console | + +-------------+ +--------------------------------+ + (1) | Transport | | BEEP, SSH, SSL, TLS, console | | Protocol | | | - +-------------+ +-----------------------------+ + +-------------+ +--------------------------------+ Figure 1 This document defines usage guidelines related to the NETCONF operations layer (3), and NETCONF content layer (4). 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 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 agent o application o capabilities @@ -186,21 +196,21 @@ o Unpublished Document: An unstable release of a module, 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.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc-editor/instructions2authors.txt + 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 @@ -260,40 +270,41 @@ 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. 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, specifies how the name space is to be + 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 [ed: - procedure TBD]. + 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 If an Internet-Draft defines any extensions to a YANG Namespace already administered by the IANA, then the document MUST include an IANA Considerations section, specifies how the name space extension is to be administered. Specifically, if any YANG submodule belongs-to value contained in the document is associated with a module that contains a namespace statement value equal to a YANG Namespace already administered by the - IANA, then a new YANG Module registry entry and YANG Namespace Update - Procedure must be requested from the IANA [ed: procedure TBD]. + IANA, then the existing YANG Namespace must be updated to include the + new submodule. 3.6. Reference Sections [ed: 2223bis text TBD] 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 @@ -378,232 +389,321 @@ to specify optional behavior. Instead, a 'feature' statement SHOULD be defined to represent the NETCONF capability, and the 'if-feature' statement SHOULD be used within the object definition. If the condition associated with the desired semantics is not dependent on any particular instance value within the database, then an 'if-feature' statement SHOULD be used instead of a 'when' statement. All 'must' and 'when' statements MUST contain valid XPath. If any - name tests are present, they MUST contain valid module prefixes - and/or data node names. + name tests are present, they MUST contain valid module prefixes and + data node names. References to non-existent nodes are considered + invalid in YANG, even though they are permitted in XPath. The 'attribute' and 'namespace' axis SHOULD NOT be used because the associated XML node types are not supported in YANG, and may not be supported consistently across NETCONF agent implementations. The 'position' and 'last' functions SHOULD NOT be used. Also, the - 'preceding', 'preceding-sibling', 'following', and 'following- - sibling' axis SHOULD NOT be used. These constructs rely on XML - document order within a NETCONF agent 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. + 'preceding', and 'following' axes SHOULD NOT be used. These + constructs rely on XML document order within a NETCONF agent + 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. An agent 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 be used. (e.g., //chapter[42]). Data nodes which use the 'int64' and 'uint64' built-in type SHOULD NOT be used 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. 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. Module Life-cycle Management +4.5. 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 SHOULD NOT be changed, once the document containing the module is published. The revision-date sub-statement (within the imports statement) SHOULD be present. It MUST be present (in all published modules) if any groupings are used from the external module. The revision-date sub-statement (within the include statement) MAY be present. It SHOULD be present (in all published modules) if any groupings are used from the external sub-module. 4.6. Header Contents - o The namespace MUST be a globally unique URI, as defined in - [RFC3986]. This value is usually assigned by the IANA. + For published modules, the namespace MUST be a globally unique URI, + as defined in [RFC3986]. This value is usually assigned by the IANA. - o Until a URI is assigned by the IANA, a temporary namespace URI MAY - be selected which is not likely to collide with other YANG - namespaces, such as the filename of the Internet Draft containing - the module. This value MUST be a valid URI (e.g., - 'file:///draft-ietf-foo-bar-00'). + 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. - o The organization statement MUST be present. + The contact statement MUST be present. If the module is contained in + a documented 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. - o The contact statement MUST be present. + The description statement MUST be present. If the module is + contained in an unpublished document, then the file name of this + document SHOULD be identified in the description statement. This + text MUST be removed when the document is published. - o The description statement MUST be present. + 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. - o If the module represents a model defined in one or more external - documents, then a reference statement MUST be present. + The reference statement MUST be present. It MUST identify the + published document which contains the module. - o A revision statement MUST be present for each published version of + 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. - o Each new revision MUST include a revision date which is higher - than any other revision date in the module. + Each new revision MUST include a revision date which is higher than + any other revision date in the module. - o 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. + 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. Data Types +4.7. Temporary Namespace Assignments - o 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. + It is desirable to include only valid YANG modules in documents, + whether they are published yet or not. - o Data model designers SHOULD use the most appropriate built-in data + o allows the module to compile correctly instead of generating + disruptive fatal errors. + + o allows early implementors to use the modules without picking a + random value for this field. + + o allows early interoperability testing since independent + implementations will use the same namespace value. + + Until a URI is assigned by the IANA, a temporary 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. + + An unpublished module namespace statement value SHOULD include the + field 'DRAFT-nn', where 'nn' is replaced by the current Internet + Draft number. + + If the YANG module has been previously published, then the RPC being + updated needs to be identified. In this case, an unpublished module + namespace statement value SHOULD include the field + 'DRAFT-XXXXBIS-nn', where 'XXXX' is replaced by the RFC number being + updated, and 'nn' is replaced by the current Internet Draft number. + + A temporary namespace statement value SHOULD have the following form: + :: + + The suggested URN prefix string that SHOULD be used is shown below. + This value will be defined by the IANA. urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang: + + The following example URNs would be valid temporary namespace + statement values: + + urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-netconf-partial-lock:DRAFT-09 + + urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-netconf-state:DRAFT-07 + + urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-netconf:DRAFT-4741BIS-01 + +4.8. Top Level Database Objects + + 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 is defined as a node that a manager must + provide for the database to be valid. The agent will not provide a + value under any conditions. + + Top-level database objects 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 agent + boots or when a module is loaded dynamically at runtime. + + Top level objects are declared in YANG as mandatory with the + mandatory statement or the min-elements statement. All nested non- + presence containers are transparent, so a mandatory node nested + within one or more non-presence containers causes the top-level + container to be considered mandatory. + +4.9. 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. - o If extensibility of enumerated values is required, then the + If extensibility of enumerated values is required, then the identityref data type SHOULD be used instead of an enumeration or other built-in type. - o 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 a machine-readable pattern can be defined + for the desired semantics, then one or more pattern statements SHOULD + be present. - o For string data types, if the length of the string is not required - to be unbounded in all implementations, then a length statement - SHOULD be present. [ed: should the 'resource-denied' error be - mentioned here?] + For string data types, if the length of the string is not required to + be unbounded in all implementations, then a length statement SHOULD + be present. [ed: should the 'resource-denied' error be mentioned + here?] - o 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. + 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. - o The signed numeric data types (i.e., 'int8', 'int16', 'int32', and + 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. - o 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. + 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. -4.8. Reusable Type Definitions +4.10. Reusable Type Definitions - o 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 + 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. - o If an appropriate units identifier can be associated with the - desired semantics, then a units statement SHOULD be present. + If an appropriate units identifier can be associated with the desired + semantics, then a units statement SHOULD be present. - o If an appropriate default value can be associated with the desired + If an appropriate default value can be associated with the desired semantics, then a default statement SHOULD be present. - o 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. + 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. - o The description statement MUST be present. + The description statement MUST be present. - o If the type definition semantics are defined in an external - document, then the reference statement SHOULD be present. + If the type definition semantics are defined in an external document, + then the reference statement SHOULD be present. -4.9. Object Definitions +4.11. Object Definitions - o The description statement MUST be present in the following body + The description statement MUST be present in the following body statements: - * extension + o extension - * feature + o feature - * identity + o identity - * typedef + o typedef - * grouping + o grouping - * augment + o augment - * rpc + o rpc - * notification + o notification - o The description statement MUST be present in the following data + The description statement MUST be present in the following data definition constructs: - * container + o container - * leaf + o leaf - * leaf-list + o leaf-list - * list + o list - * choice - * anyxml + o choice - o If the object semantics are defined in an external document, then - a reference statement SHOULD be present. + o anyxml - o The 'anyxml' construct MUST NOT be used within configuration data. + If the object semantics are defined in an external document, then a + reference statement SHOULD be present. - o If there are referential integrity constraints associated with the + The 'anyxml' construct MUST NOT be used within configuration data. + + 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. - o For list and leaf-list objects, if the number of possible - instances is not required to be unbounded for all implementations, - then the max-elements statement SHOULD be present. + For list and leaf-list objects, if the number of possible instances + is not required to be unbounded for all implementations, then the + max-elements statement SHOULD be present. - o If any must or when statements are used within the object - definition, then the object description statement SHOULD describe - the purpose of each one. + If any must or when statements are used within the object definition, + then the object description statement SHOULD describe the purpose of + each one. -4.10. RPC Definitions +4.12. RPC Definitions - o The description statement MUST be present. + The description statement MUST be present. - o If the RPC method semantics are defined in an external document, - then a reference statement SHOULD be present. + If the RPC method semantics are defined in an external document, then + a reference statement SHOULD be present. - o If the RPC method impacts system behavior in some way, it SHOULD - be mentioned in the description statement. + If the RPC method impacts system behavior in some way, it SHOULD be + mentioned in the description statement. - o If the RPC method is potentially harmful to system behavior in - some way, it MUST be mentioned in the Security Considerations - section of the document. + If the RPC method is potentially harmful to system behavior in some + way, it MUST be mentioned in the Security Considerations section of + the document. -4.11. Notification Definitions +4.13. Notification Definitions - o The description statement MUST be present. + The description statement MUST be present. - o If the notification semantics are defined in an external document, + 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 of IANA at this time. 6. Security Considerations This document defines documentation guidelines for NETCONF content defined with the YANG data modeling language. It does not introduce @@ -624,22 +724,22 @@ [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-05 (work in progress), - April 2009. + NETCONF", draft-ietf-netmod-yang-07 (work in progress), + July 2009. [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-types] Schoenwaelder, J., "Common YANG Data Types", draft-ietf-netmod-yang-types-03 (work in progress), May 2009. 8.2. Informative References [RFC4181] Heard, C., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of MIB Documents", BCP 111, RFC 4181, September 2005. @@ -717,18 +817,159 @@ compliance with the guidelines in this document. The use of a YANG module compiler is recommended when checking for syntax errors; see [YANG tool URL TBD] for more information. 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 + +== begin "ietf-template.yang" + +module ietf-template { + + // replace this string with a unique namespace URN value + namespace + "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-template:DRAFT-01"; + + // 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; } + + organization + "Internet Engineering Task Force"; + + // update this contact statement with your info + contact + "WG Web: + WG List: + + WG Chair: your-WG-chair + + + Editor: your-name + "; + + // 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) 2009 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, are permitted provided that the + following conditions are met: + + - Redistributions of source code must retain the above + copyright notice, this list of conditions and the + following disclaimer. + + - Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above + copyright notice, this list of conditions and the + following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other + materials provided with the distribution. + + - Neither the name of Internet Society, IETF or IETF + Trust, nor the names of specific contributors, may be + used to endorse or promote products derived from this + software without specific prior written permission. + + THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND + CONTRIBUTORS 'AS IS' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED + WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED + WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR + PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT + OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, + INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES + (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE + GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR + BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF + LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT + (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT + OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE + POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. + + 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-01.txt + + // replace YYYY-MM-DD with a real date (year-month-day) + // here is an example revision date: 2009-08-12 + revision YYYY-MM-DD { + 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 + +} + +== end "ietf-template.yang" + + Figure 2 + +Appendix C. Change Log + +C.1. 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 Netconf Central Simi Valley, CA USA Email: andy@netconfcentral.com