Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata
NETMOD Working Group L. Lhotka
Internet-Draft CZ.NIC
Updates: 6110 (if approved) March 21, 2016
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: September 22, 2016
Defining and Using Metadata with YANG
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-07
Abstract
This document defines a YANG extension statement that allows for
defining metadata annotations in YANG modules. The document also
specifies XML and JSON encoding of annotations and other rules for
annotating instances of YANG data nodes.
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 http://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 September 22, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Lhotka Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft YANG Metadata March 2016
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Keywords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Terms Defined in Other Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. Namespaces and Prefixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4. Definitions of New Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Defining Annotations in YANG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Example Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Using Annotations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. The Encoding of Annotations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. XML Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. JSON Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2.1. Metadata Object and Annotations . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2.2. Adding Annotations to Anydata, Container and List
Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2.3. Adding Annotations to Anyxml and Leaf Instances . . . 11
5.2.4. Adding Annotations to Leaf-list Entries . . . . . . . 12
6. Representing Annotations in DSDL Schemas . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Metadata YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.1. Changes Between Revisions -06 and -07 . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.2. Changes Between Revisions -05 and -06 . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.3. Changes Between Revisions -04 and -05 . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.4. Changes Between Revisions -03 and -04 . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.5. Changes Between Revisions -02 and -03 . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.6. Changes Between Revisions -01 and -02 . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.7. Changes Between Revisions -00 and -01 . . . . . . . . . . 20
A.8. Changes Between draft-lhotka-netmod-yang-metadata-01 and
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-00 . . . . . . . . . . . 20
A.9. Changes Between draft-lhotka-netmod-yang-metadata-00 and
-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1. Introduction
There is a need to be able to annotate instances of
YANG [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis] data nodes with metadata. Typical
use cases are:
Lhotka Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft YANG Metadata March 2016
o Complementing regular data model information with instance-
specific metadata, comments etc.
o Providing information about data rendering in user interfaces.
o Deactivating a subtree in a configuration datastore while keeping
the data in place.
o Network management protocols often use metadata annotations for
various purposes in both operation requests and responses. For
example, the <edit-config> operation in the NETCONF protocol (see
section 7.2 of [RFC6241]) uses annotations in the form of XML
attributes for identifying the location in a configuration
datastore and the type of the operation.
However, metadata annotations could potentially lead to
interoperability problems if they are used in an ad hoc fashion by
different parties and/or without proper documentation. A sound
metadata framework for YANG should therefore satisfy these
requirements:
1. The set of annotations must be extensible in a decentralised
manner so as to allow for defining new annotations without
running into the risk of collisions with annotations defined and
used by others.
2. Syntax and semantics of annotations must be documented and the
documentation must be easily accessible.
3. Clients of network management protocols such as NETCONF [RFC6241]
or RESTCONF [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf] must be able to discover
all annotations supported by a given server and identify each of
them correctly.
4. Annotations sent by a server should not break clients that don't
support them.
This document proposes a systematic way for defining metadata
annotations. For this purpose, YANG extension statement "annotation"
is defined in the module "ietf-yang-metadata" (Section 7). Other
YANG modules importing this module can use the "annotation" statement
for defining one or more annotations.
The benefits of defining the metadata annotations in a YANG module
are the following:
o Each annotation is bound to a YANG module name and namespace URI.
This makes its encoding in instance documents (both XML and JSON)
Lhotka Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft YANG Metadata March 2016
straightforward and consistent with the encoding of YANG data node
instances.
o Annotations defined in IETF standard-track documents are
indirectly registered through IANA in the "YANG Module Names"
registry [RFC6020].
o Annotations are included in the data model. YANG compilers and
tools supporting a certain annotation can thus take them into
account and modify their behavior accordingly.
o Semantics of an annotation are defined in the "description" and
"reference" statements.
o An annotation can be declared as conditional by using the "if-
feature" statement.
o The type of each annotation is explicitly specified; any YANG
built-in or derived type that is available for leaf or leaf-list
data nodes may be specified for annotations as well.
In the XML encoding, XML attributes are a natural instrument for
attaching annotations to data node instances. This document
deliberately adopts some restrictions in order to remain compatible
with the XML encoding of YANG data node instances and limitations of
XML attributes. Specifically,
o annotations can only be scalar values;
o annotations cannot be attached to a whole list or leaf-list
instance, only to individual list or leaf-list entries.
Due to the rules for YANG extensions (see sec. 6.3.1 in
[I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis]), annotation definitions posit
relatively weak conformance requirements. The alternative of
introducing a new built-in YANG statement for defining annotations
was considered, but it was seen as a major change to the language
that is inappropriate for YANG 1.1, which was chartered as a
maintenance revision. After evaluating real-life usage of metadata
annotations, it is conceivable that such a new built-in statement
might be added in a future revision of YANG.
2. Terminology
Lhotka Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft YANG Metadata March 2016
2.1. Keywords
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].
2.2. Terms Defined in Other Documents
The following terms are defined in [RFC6241]:
o capability,
o client,
o datastore,
o message,
o protocol operation,
o server.
The following terms are defined in [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis]:
o action,
o anydata,
o anyxml,
o built-in type,
o container,
o data model,
o data node,
o data tree,
o derived type,
o extension,
o leaf,
o leaf-list,
Lhotka Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft YANG Metadata March 2016
o list,
o module,
o RPC input and output.
The following terms are defined in [W3C.REC-xml-infoset-20040204]:
o attribute,
o document,
o element.
The following terms are defined in [W3C.REC-xml-names11-20060816]:
o local name,
o namespace name,
o prefix,
o qualified name.
The following terms are defined in [RFC7159]:
o array,
o member,
o object,
o primitive type.
2.3. Namespaces and Prefixes
In the following text, XML element names and YANG extension
statements are always written with explicit namespace prefixes that
are assumed to be bound to URI references as shown in Table 1.
Lhotka Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft YANG Metadata March 2016
+--------+------------------------------------------------+
| Prefix | URI Reference |
+--------+------------------------------------------------+
| elm | http://example.org/example-last-modified |
| md | urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-yang-metadata |
| rng | http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0 |
+--------+------------------------------------------------+
Table 1: Used namespace prefixes and corresponding URI references
2.4. Definitions of New Terms
o annotation: a single item of metadata that is attached to YANG
data node instances.
o metadata: additional information that complements a data tree.
o metadata object: an object in JSON encoding that contains all
annotations attached to a given data node instance.
3. Defining Annotations in YANG
Metadata annotations are defined by YANG extension statement
"md:annotation". This YANG language extension is defined in the
module "ietf-yang-metadata" (Section 7).
Substatements of "md:annotation" are shown in Table 2. They are all
core YANG statements, and the numbers in the second column refer to
the corresponding section in [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis] where each
statement is described.
+--------------+---------------------+-------------+
| substatement | RFC 6020bis section | cardinality |
+--------------+---------------------+-------------+
| description | 7.21.3 | 0..1 |
| if-feature | 7.20.2 | 0..n |
| reference | 7.21.4 | 0..1 |
| status | 7.21.2 | 0..1 |
| type | 7.6.3 | 1 |
| units | 7.3.3 | 0..1 |
+--------------+---------------------+-------------+
Table 2: Substatements of "md:annotation".
An annotation carries a single value. The type substatement, which
MUST be present, takes as an argument the name of an existing built-
in or derived type, and the value of the annotation MUST match this
type. See Section 7.4 of [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis] for details.
Lhotka Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft YANG Metadata March 2016
An annotation can be made conditional by using one or more "if-
feature" statements; the annotation is then supported only by servers
that advertise the corresponding feature.
The semantics and usage rules for an annotation SHOULD be fully
specified in "description", "reference" and "units" statements.
An annotation MUST NOT change the data tree semantics defined by
YANG. For example, it is illegal to define and use an annotation
that allows for overriding uniqueness of leaf-list entries.
The "status" statement can be used exactly as for YANG data nodes.
A YANG module containing one or more "md:annotation" extension
statements SHOULD NOT be used for defining data nodes or groupings.
Also, derived types, identities and features SHOULD NOT be defined in
such a module unless they are used by the definitions of annotations
in that module.
3.1. Example Definition
The following module defines the "last-modified" annotation:
module example-last-modified {
namespace "http://example.org/example-last-modified";
prefix "elm";
import ietf-yang-types {
prefix "yang";
}
import ietf-yang-metadata {
prefix "md";
}
md:annotation last-modified {
type yang:date-and-time;
description
"This annotation contains date and time when the
annotated instance was last modified (or created).";
}
}
4. Using Annotations
By advertising a YANG module in which a metadata annotation is
defined using the "md:annotation" statement, a server indicates that
it is prepared to handle that annotation according to the
annotation's definition. That is, an annotation advertised by the
server may be attached to an instance of a data node defined in any
YANG module that is implemented by the server.
Lhotka Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft YANG Metadata March 2016
Depending on its semantics, an annotation may have an effect only in
certain data trees and/or on instances of specific data nodes types.
A client MUST NOT add a specific annotation to data node instances if
the server didn't advertise it.
Due care has to be exercised when introducing annotations in network
management systems in order to avoid interoperability problems and
software failures caused by a client that does not understand the
annotations' semantics. Generally, it is safe for a server to use
annotations in the following cases:
o An annotation is an integral part of a built-in or negotiated
protocol capability.
o An annotation contains auxiliary information that is not critical
for protocol operation.
o The client explicitly asks the server, e.g., via a parameter of a
protocol operation request, for including an annotation in the
response.
5. The Encoding of Annotations
XML attributes are a natural choice for encoding metadata in XML
instance documents. For JSON [RFC7159], there is no generally
established method for encoding metadata. This document thus
introduces a special encoding method that is consistent with the JSON
encoding of YANG data node instances as defined
in [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-json].
5.1. XML Encoding
Metadata annotations are added to XML-encoded instances of YANG data
nodes as XML attributes according to these rules:
o The local name of the attribute SHALL be the same as the name of
the annotation specified in the argument of the corresponding
"md:annotation" statement.
o The namespace of the attribute SHALL be identified by the URI that
appears as the argument of the "namespace" statement in the YANG
module where the annotation is defined. It is RECOMMENDED that
the prefix specified by the "prefix" statement in the same module
is used in the qualified name of the attribute.
Lhotka Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft YANG Metadata March 2016
o The attribute value SHALL be encoded in the same way as the value
of a YANG leaf instance having the same type,
see [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis], sec. 9.
For example, the "last-modified" annotation defined in Section 3.1
may be encoded as follows:
<foo xmlns:elm="http://example.org/example-last-modified"
elm:last-modified="2015-09-16T10:27:35+02:00">
...
</foo>
5.2. JSON Encoding
The JSON metadata encoding defined in this section has the following
properties:
1. The encoding of YANG data node instances as defined in
[I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-json] does not change.
2. Namespaces of metadata annotations are encoded in the same way as
namespaces of YANG data node instances, see
[I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-json].
5.2.1. Metadata Object and Annotations
All metadata annotations assigned to a YANG data node instance are
encoded as members (name/value pairs) of a single JSON object,
henceforth denoted as the metadata object. The placement and name of
this object depends on the type of the data node as specified in the
following subsections.
The name of a metadata annotation (as a member of the metadata
object) has the following ABNF syntax [RFC5234], where the production
for "identifier" is defined in sec. 13 of
[I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis]
annotation-name = identifier ":" identifier
where the left identifier is the name of the YANG module in which the
annotation is defined, and the identifier on the right is the name of
the annotation specified in the argument of the corresponding
"md:annotation" statement.
Note that unlike member names of YANG data node instances in JSON
encoding (see sec. 4 in [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-json]), for annotations
the explicit namespace identifier (module name) must always be
present.
Lhotka Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft YANG Metadata March 2016
The value of a metadata annotation SHALL be encoded in exactly the
same way as the value of a YANG leaf node having the same type as the
annotation, see [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-json], sec. 6.
5.2.2. Adding Annotations to Anydata, Container and List Entries
For a data node instance that is encoded as a JSON object (i.e., a
container, list entry, or anydata node), the metadata object is added
as a new member of that object with the name "@".
Examples:
o "cask" is a container or anydata node:
"cask": {
"@": {
"example-last-modified:last-modified":
"2015-09-16T10:27:35+02:00"
},
...
}
o "seq" is a list whose key is "name", annotation "last-modified" is
added only to the first entry:
"seq": [
{
"@": {
"example-last-modified:last-modified":
"2015-09-16T10:27:35+02:00"
},
"name": "one",
...
},
{
"name": "two",
...
}
]
5.2.3. Adding Annotations to Anyxml and Leaf Instances
For an anyxml or leaf instance, the metadata object is added as a
sibling name/value pair whose name is the symbol "@" concatenated
with the name of the leaf or anyxml member that is being annotated.
The namespace part (module name) is included if and only if it is in
the name of the annotated member.
Lhotka Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft YANG Metadata March 2016
Examples:
o "flag" is a leaf node of the "boolean" type defined in module
"foo", and we assume the namespace name has to be expressed in its
JSON encoding:
"foo:flag": true,
"@foo:flag": {
"example-last-modified:last-modified":
"2015-09-16T10:27:35+02:00"
}
o "stuff" is an anyxml node:
"stuff": [1, null, "three"],
"@stuff": {
"example-last-modified:last-modified":
"2015-09-16T10:27:35+02:00"
}
5.2.4. Adding Annotations to Leaf-list Entries
For a leaf-list entry, which is represented as a JSON array with
values of a primitive type, annotations may be assigned to one or
more entries by adding a name/array pair as a sibling of the leaf-
list entry, where the name is symbol "@" concatenated with the name
of the leaf-list that is being annotated, and the value is a JSON
array whose i-th element is the metadata object with annotations
assigned to the i-th entry of the leaf-list entry, or null if the
i-th entry has no annotations.
Trailing null values in that array, i.e., those following the last
non-null metadata object, MAY be omitted.
For example, in the following leaf-list instance with four entries,
the "last-modified" annotation is added to the second and third entry
in the following way:
"bibliomod:folio": [6, 3, 7, 8],
"@bibliomod:folio": [
null,
{ "example-last-modified:last-modified":
"2015-06-18T17:01:14+02:00"
},
{ "example-last-modified:last-modified":
"2015-09-16T10:27:35+02:00"
}
]
Lhotka Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft YANG Metadata March 2016
6. Representing Annotations in DSDL Schemas
[RFC6110] defines the standard mapping of YANG data models to
Document Schema Definition Languages (DSDL) [ISO.19757-1]. This
section specifies the mapping for the extension statement
"md:annotation" (Section 7), which enables validation of XML instance
documents containing metadata annotations.
The first step of the DSDL mapping procedure, i.e., the
transformation of the YANG data model to the hybrid schema (see
sec. 6 in [RFC6110]), is modified as follows:
1. If the data model contains at least one "md:annotation"
statement, then a RELAX NG named pattern definition MUST be added
as a child of the root <rng:grammar> element in the hybrid
schema. It is RECOMMENDED to use the name "__yang_metadata__"
for this named pattern.
2. A reference to the named pattern described in item 1 MUST be
included as a child of every <rng:element> pattern that
corresponds to an anydata, container, leaf, leaf-list or list
data node.
3. Every metadata annotation definition in the form
md:annotation ARGUMENT {
...
}
is mapped to the following RELAX NG pattern:
<rng:optional>
<rng:attribute name="PREFIX:ARGUMENT">
...
</rng:attribute>
</rng:optional>
where PREFIX is the prefix bound to the namespace URI of the YANG
module that contains the "md:annotation" statement. The above
pattern SHALL be inserted as a child of the named pattern
described in item 1.
4. Substatements of "md:annotation" SHALL be mapped to children of
the "rng:attribute" pattern exactly as described in sec. 10 of
[RFC6110].
For example, the named pattern (item 1), when constructed only for
the "last-modified" annotation, will have the following definition:
Lhotka Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft YANG Metadata March 2016
<rng:define name="__yang_metadata__">
<rng:optional>
<rng:attribute name="elm:last-modified">
<rng:ref name="ietf-yang-types__date-and-time"/>
</rng:attribute>
</rng:optional>
</rng:define>
Every "rng:element" pattern that corresponds to an anydata,
container, leaf, list or leaf-list data node will then contain a
reference to the above named pattern, for example
<rng:element name="foo:bar">
<rng:ref name="__yang_metadata__"/>
...
</rng:element>
Note that it is not necessary to use such a reference for
"rng:element" patterns corresponding to anyxml data nodes because
they already permit any XML attributes to be attached to their
instances.
The second step of the DSDL mapping procedure, i.e., the
transformation of the hybrid schema to RELAX NG, Schematron and DSRL
schemas, is unaffected by the inclusion of "md:annotation".
7. Metadata YANG Module
RFC Editor: In this section, replace all occurrences of 'XXXX' with
the actual RFC number and all occurrences of the revision date below
with the date of RFC publication (and remove this note).
RFC Editor: Also please replace all occurrences of 'RFC 6020bis' with
the actual RFC number that will be assigned to
[I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis].
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-yang-metadata@2016-03-21.yang"
module ietf-yang-metadata {
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-yang-metadata";
prefix "md";
organization
"IETF NETMOD (NETCONF Data Modeling Language) Working Group";
contact
Lhotka Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft YANG Metadata March 2016
"WG Web: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netmod/>
WG List: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
WG Chair: Lou Berger
<mailto:lberger@labn.net>
WG Chair: Juergen Schoenwaelder
<mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
WG Chair: Kent Watsen
<mailto:kwatsen@juniper.net>
Editor: Ladislav Lhotka
<mailto:lhotka@nic.cz>";
description
"This YANG module defines an extension statement that allows for
defining metadata annotations.
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
authors of the code. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject to
the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License set
forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfcXXXX); see the RFC itself for
full legal notices.";
revision 2016-03-21 {
description
"Initial revision.";
reference
"RFC XXXX: Defining and Using Metadata with YANG";
}
extension annotation {
argument name;
description
"This extension allows for defining metadata annotations in
YANG modules. The 'md:annotation' statement can appear only at
the top level of a YANG module or submodule, i.e. it becomes a
new alternative in the ABNF production rule for 'body-stmts'
(sec. 14 in RFC 6020bis).
Lhotka Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft YANG Metadata March 2016
The argument of the 'md:annotation' statement defines the name
of the annotation. Syntactically it is a YANG identifier as
defined in RFC 6020bis, sec. 6.2.
An annotation defined with this extension statement inherits
the namespace and other context from the YANG module in which
it is defined.
Data type of the annotation value is specified in the same way
as for a leaf data node using the 'type' statement.
Semantics of the annotation and other documentation can be
specified using the following standard YANG substatements (all
are optional): 'description', 'if-feature', 'reference',
'status', and 'units'.
A server announces support for a particular annotation by
including the module in which the annotation is defined among
the advertised YANG modules (e.g., in NETCONF hello message or
yang-library). The annotation then can be attached to any
instance of data node defined in any YANG module that is
advertised by the server.
XML and JSON encoding of annotations is defined in
RFC XXXX.";
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
8. IANA Considerations
RFC Editor: In this section, replace all occurrences of 'XXXX' with
the actual RFC number and all occurrences of the revision date below
with the date of RFC publication (and remove this note).
This document registers a URI in the "IETF XML registry" [RFC3688].
Following the format in RFC 3688, the following registration has been
made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-yang-metadata
Registrant Contact: The NETMOD WG of the IETF.
XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Lhotka Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft YANG Metadata March 2016
This document registers a YANG module in the "YANG Module Names"
registry [RFC6020].
---------------------------------------------------------------------
name: ietf-yang-metadata
namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-yang-metadata
prefix: md
reference: RFC XXXX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Security Considerations
This document introduces a mechanism for defining metadata
annotations in YANG modules and attaching them to instances of YANG
data nodes. By itself, this mechanism represents no security threat.
Security implications of a particular annotation defined using this
mechanism MUST be duly considered and documented in the the
annotation's definition.
An annotation SHOULD be subject to the same or stricter access
control rules as the data node instance to which the annotation is
attached. It is RECOMMENDED that security-sensitive or privacy-
sensitive data be modeled as regular YANG data nodes rather than
annotations.
10. Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank Andy Bierman, Martin Bjorklund, Benoit
Claise, Juergen Schoenwaelder, and Kent Watsen for their helpful
comments and suggestions.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis]
Bjorklund, M., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-11 (work in progress),
February 2016.
[I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-json]
Lhotka, L., "JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG",
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-json-09 (work in progress), March
2016.
Lhotka Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft YANG Metadata March 2016
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.
[RFC6110] Lhotka, L., Ed., "Mapping YANG to Document Schema
Definition Languages and Validating NETCONF Content",
RFC 6110, DOI 10.17487/RFC6110, February 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6110>.
[RFC7159] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", RFC 7159, DOI 10.17487/RFC7159, March
2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7159>.
[W3C.REC-xml-infoset-20040204]
Cowan, J. and R. Tobin, "XML Information Set (Second
Edition)", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-
xml-infoset-20040204, February 2004,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-infoset-20040204>.
[W3C.REC-xml-names11-20060816]
Bray, T., Hollander, D., Layman, A., and R. Tobin,
"Namespaces in XML 1.1 (Second Edition)", World Wide Web
Consortium Recommendation REC-xml-names11-20060816, August
2006,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-names11-20060816>.
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf]
Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-10 (work in
progress), March 2016.
Lhotka Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft YANG Metadata March 2016
[ISO.19757-1]
International Organization for Standardization, "Document
Schema Definition Languages (DSDL) - Part 1: Overview",
ISO/IEC 19757-1, November 2004.
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
Appendix A. Change Log
RFC Editor: Remove this section upon publication as an RFC.
A.1. Changes Between Revisions -06 and -07
o Added sentence in Sec. 9 (Stephen Farrell's suggestion).
A.2. Changes Between Revisions -05 and -06
o Added explanation of why a YANG extension is used rather than a
built-in statement.
A.3. Changes Between Revisions -04 and -05
o Clarification regarding the type of an annotation.
A.4. Changes Between Revisions -03 and -04
o Added explanation of what "top level of a module" means.
A.5. Changes Between Revisions -02 and -03
o Section 4 was considerably simplified, also because member names
starting with "@" are now permitted by
[I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-json].
A.6. Changes Between Revisions -01 and -02
o The "type" statement became mandatory.
o Terminology section was extended.
o The annotation "inactive" defined in the example module was
replaced with "last-modified" that is supposedly less
controversial.
Lhotka Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft YANG Metadata March 2016
o Introduction now states limitation due to XML attribute
properties.
o A recommendation was added to define annotations in a module by
themselves.
o Section "Using Annotations" was added.
o An example for "anyxml" was added.
o RFC 6241 was moved to informative references.
A.7. Changes Between Revisions -00 and -01
o Define JSON encoding for annotations attached to 'anydata' nodes.
A.8. Changes Between draft-lhotka-netmod-yang-metadata-01 and draft-
ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-00
o References to RFC 6020 were changed to the 6020bis I-D.
o Text about RFC 2119 key words was added to "ietf-yang-metadata"
module description.
A.9. Changes Between draft-lhotka-netmod-yang-metadata-00 and -01
o Encoding of annotations for anyxml nodes was changed to be the
same as for leafs. This was necessary because anyxml value now
needn't be an object.
o It is stated that "md:annotation" statement defines only the
syntax of an annotation.
o Allowed "if-feature" as a substatement of "md:annotation".
Author's Address
Ladislav Lhotka
CZ.NIC
Email: lhotka@nic.cz
Lhotka Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 20]
