Internet-Draft VELOCE December 2024
Boucadair Expires 9 June 2025 [Page]
Workgroup:
Network Working Group
Internet-Draft:
draft-boucadair-veloce-yang-00
Published:
Intended Status:
Informational
Expires:
Author:
M. Boucadair
Orange

YANG deVELpment PrOCEss & maintenance (VELOCE)

Abstract

This document describes a YANG deVELpment PrOCEss & maintenance (VELOCE) that is more suitable for the development of YANG modules within the IETF.

Discussion Venues

This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/boucadair/draft-boucadair-veloce-yang.

Status of This Memo

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

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

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

This Internet-Draft will expire on 9 June 2025.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

RFCs are not be suited for documenting YANG modules. However, implementers/vendors are looking for reference models and sufficiently stable models to refer to. To that aim, this document proposes a new approach for documenting IETF-endorsed YANG modules.

Guidance for writing YANG modules are discussed in [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis]. All these guidelines apply expect those related to narrative text.

2. Conventions and Definitions

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

3. VELOCE Procedure

The following procedure is followed when a WG adopts (a document with) a YANG module:

4. Security Considerations

The same considerations discussed in Section 10 of [RFC8874] apply here.

5. IANA Considerations

This document has no IANA actions.

6. References

6.1. Normative References

[I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis]
Bierman, A., Boucadair, M., and Q. Wu, "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of Documents Containing YANG Data Models", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-21, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-21>.
[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
[RFC8874]
Thomson, M. and B. Stark, "Working Group GitHub Usage Guidance", RFC 8874, DOI 10.17487/RFC8874, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8874>.

6.2. Informative References

[RFC3688]
Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3688>.
[RFC6020]
Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020, DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6020>.

Acknowledgments

This draft is triggered by the discussion in NEMOPS IAB workshop.

Author's Address

Mohamed Boucadair
Orange