Error List and Error Identities Registries for YANG-driven protocols

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 8 January 2027.¶

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2026 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 (https://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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

In order to have a canonical source for all errors and error identities for YANG-driven procotols such as NETCONF [RFC6241] and RESTCONF [RFC8040], two IANA registries are defined: YANG Protocol Error List and YANG Protocol Error Identities. These registries can be extended and updated as needed.¶

It is an advantage for protocol evolution to have canonical sources to extend, instead of a set of documents that need to be compiled and referenced.¶

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. IANA Considerations

error-tag:      in-use
error-type:     protocol, application
error-severity: error
error-info:     none
Description:    The request requires a resource that already is in
                use.

error-tag:      invalid-value
error-type:     protocol, application
error-severity: error
error-info:     none
Description:    The request specifies an unacceptable value for one
                or more parameters.

error-tag:      too-big
error-type:     transport, rpc, protocol, application
error-severity: error
error-info:     none
Description:    The request or response (that would be generated) is
                too large for the implementation to handle.

error-tag:      missing-attribute
error-type:     rpc, protocol, application
error-severity: error
error-info:     <bad-attribute> : name of the missing attribute
                <bad-element> : name of the element that is supposed
                  to contain the missing attribute
Description:    An expected attribute is missing.

error-tag:      bad-attribute
error-type:     rpc, protocol, application
error-severity: error
error-info:     <bad-attribute> : name of the attribute w/ bad value
                <bad-element> : name of the element that contains
                  the attribute with the bad value
Description:    An attribute value is not correct; e.g., wrong type,
                out of range, pattern mismatch.

dscp-unavailable
encoding-unsupported
filter-unsupported
insufficient-resources
replay-unsupported

filter-unsupported
insufficient-resources
no-such-subscription

no-such-subscription

datastore-not-subscribable
unchanging-selection

period-unsupported
update-too-big
synchronization-size

4. Normative References

[RFC2119]

Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/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/rfc/rfc5226>.

[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/rfc/rfc6241>.

[RFC8040]

Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8040>.

[RFC8174]

Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.

[RFC8639]

Voit, E., Clemm, A., Gonzalez Prieto, A., Nilsen-Nygaard, E., and A. Tripathy, "Subscription to YANG Notifications", RFC 8639, DOI 10.17487/RFC8639, September 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8639>.

[RFC8641]

Clemm, A. and E. Voit, "Subscription to YANG Notifications for Datastore Updates", RFC 8641, DOI 10.17487/RFC8641, September 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8641>.

Acknowledgments

TODO acknowledge.¶

Authors' Addresses