Defining and Using Metadata with YANG
RFC 7952
| Document | Type |
RFC
- Proposed Standard
(August 2016)
Updates RFC 6110
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Ladislav Lhotka | ||
| Last updated | 2016-08-31 | ||
| Replaces | draft-lhotka-netmod-yang-metadata | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Yang Validation | ☯ 0 errors, 0 warnings | ||
| Reviews |
GENART Last Call review
(of
-04)
Ready with Nits
|
||
| Additional resources |
Yang catalog entry for ietf-yang-metadata@2016-03-21.yang
Yang impact analysis for draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata Mailing list discussion |
||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Kent Watsen | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2016-02-23 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 7952 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Benoît Claise | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
| IANA action state | RFC-Ed-Ack |
RFC 7952
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Lhotka
Request for Comments: 7952 CZ.NIC
Updates: 6110 August 2016
Category: Standards Track
ISSN: 2070-1721
Defining and Using Metadata with YANG
Abstract
This document defines a YANG extension 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 is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7952.
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 Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 7952 YANG Metadata August 2016
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Terms Defined in Other Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3. Namespaces and Prefixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4. Definitions of New Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Defining Annotations in YANG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1. Example Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Using Annotations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. The Encoding of Annotations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. XML Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. JSON Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2.1. Metadata Object and Annotations . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2.2. Adding Annotations to anydata, container, and list
Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2.3. Adding Annotations to anyxml and leaf Instances . . . 12
5.2.4. Adding Annotations to leaf-list Entries . . . . . . . 13
6. Representing Annotations in DSDL Schemas . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Metadata YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Lhotka Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 7952 YANG Metadata August 2016
1. Introduction
There is a need to be able to annotate instances of YANG [RFC7950]
data nodes with metadata. Typical use cases are as follows:
o Complementing regular data model information with
instance-specific metadata, comments, etc.
o Providing information about the rendering of data 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 Network Configuration
Protocol (NETCONF) (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 decentralized
manner so as to allow for defining new annotations without
running the risk of collisions with annotations defined and used
by others.
2. The 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 [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 to define metadata
annotations. For this purpose, the YANG extension "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.
Lhotka Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 7952 YANG Metadata August 2016
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)
straightforward and consistent with the encoding of YANG data node
instances.
o Annotations defined in IETF Standards 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 The 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 Section 6.3.1 in
[RFC7950]), 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.
Lhotka Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 7952 YANG Metadata August 2016
2. Terminology
2.1. Key Words
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 [RFC7950]:
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
Lhotka Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 7952 YANG Metadata August 2016
o leaf-list
o list
o module
o Remote Procedure Call (RPC) input and output
The following terms are defined in [XML-INFOSET]:
o attribute
o document
o element
The following terms are defined in [XML-NAMES]:
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
Lhotka Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 7952 YANG Metadata August 2016
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.
+--------+------------------------------------------------+
| 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.
Lhotka Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 7952 YANG Metadata August 2016
3. Defining Annotations in YANG
Metadata annotations are defined by the YANG extension
"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 [RFC7950] where each statement is
described.
+--------------+---------------------+-------------+
| substatement | section in RFC 7950 | 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 [RFC7950] for details.
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 it is used for YANG
data nodes.
A YANG module containing one or more "md:annotation" 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.
Lhotka Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 7952 YANG Metadata August 2016
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 the 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.
Depending on its semantics, an annotation may have an effect only in
certain data trees and/or on instances of specific types of data
nodes.
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.
Lhotka Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 7952 YANG Metadata August 2016
o The client explicitly asks the server, e.g., via a parameter of a
protocol operation request, to include 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 [RFC7951].
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
be used in the qualified name of the attribute.
o The attribute value SHALL be encoded in the same way as the value
of a YANG leaf instance having the same type; see Section 9 of
[RFC7950].
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>
Lhotka Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 7952 YANG Metadata August 2016
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 [RFC7951]
does not change.
2. Namespaces of metadata annotations are encoded in the same way as
namespaces of YANG data node instances; see [RFC7951].
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 depend 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 Section 14 of [RFC7950]:
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 Section 4 in [RFC7951]), for annotations the explicit
namespace identifier (module name) must always be present.
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 Section 6 of [RFC7951].
Lhotka Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 7952 YANG Metadata August 2016
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 Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 7952 YANG Metadata August 2016
Examples:
o "flag" is a leaf node of the "boolean" type defined in module
"foo", and we assume that 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 the 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
entries 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 Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 7952 YANG Metadata August 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
Section 6 in [RFC6110]), is modified as follows:
1. If the data model contains at least one "md:annotation"
statement, then a RELAX NG [ISO.19757-2] 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 [ISO.19757-2] 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 Section 10 of
[RFC6110].
Lhotka Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 7952 YANG Metadata August 2016
For example, the named pattern (item 1), when constructed only for
the "last-modified" annotation, will have the following definition:
<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 [ISO.19757-2],
Schematron [ISO.19757-3], and Document Semantics Renaming Language
(DSRL) [ISO.19757-8] schemas, is unaffected by the inclusion of
"md:annotation".
Lhotka Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 7952 YANG Metadata August 2016
7. Metadata YANG Module
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-yang-metadata@2016-08-05.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
"WG Web: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/netmod/>
WG List: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
WG Chair: Lou Berger
<mailto:lberger@labn.net>
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 7952
(http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7952); see the RFC itself
for full legal notices.";
Lhotka Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 7952 YANG Metadata August 2016
revision 2016-08-05 {
description
"Initial revision.";
reference
"RFC 7952: 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' (Section 14 in RFC 7950).
The argument of the 'md:annotation' statement defines the name
of the annotation. Syntactically, it is a YANG identifier as
defined in Section 6.2 of RFC 7950.
An annotation defined with this 'extension' statement inherits
the namespace and other context from the YANG module in which
it is defined.
The data type of the annotation value is specified in the same
way as for a leaf data node using the 'type' statement.
The 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 a NETCONF <hello>
message or in the YANG library (RFC 7950). The annotation can
then be attached to any instance of a data node defined in any
YANG module that is advertised by the server.
XML encoding and JSON encoding of annotations are defined in
RFC 7952.";
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
Lhotka Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 7952 YANG Metadata August 2016
8. IANA Considerations
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 7952
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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.
Lhotka Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 7952 YANG Metadata August 2016
10. References
10.1. 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,
<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>.
[RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.
[RFC7951] Lhotka, L., "JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG",
RFC 7951, DOI 10.17487/RFC7951, August 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7951>.
[XML-INFOSET]
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>.
Lhotka Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 7952 YANG Metadata August 2016
[XML-NAMES]
Bray, T., Hollander, D., Layman, A., Tobin, R., and H.
Thompson, "Namespaces in XML 1.0 (Third Edition)", World
Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-xml-names-20091208,
December 2009,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-xml-names-20091208>.
10.2. Informative References
[ISO.19757-1]
International Organization for Standardization,
"Information Technology - Document Schema Definition
Languages (DSDL) - Part 1: Overview", ISO/IEC 19757-1,
September 2008.
[ISO.19757-2]
International Organization for Standardization,
"Information technology -- Document Schema Definition
Language (DSDL) -- Part 2: Regular-grammar-based
validation -- RELAX NG", ISO/IEC 19757-2:2008, December
2008.
[ISO.19757-3]
International Organization for Standardization,
"Information technology -- Document Schema Definition
Languages (DSDL) -- Part 3: Rule-based validation --
Schematron", ISO/IEC 19757-3:2016, January 2016.
[ISO.19757-8]
International Organization for Standardization,
"Information Technology - Document Schema Definition
Languages (DSDL) - Part 8: Document Semantics Renaming
Language - DSRL", ISO/IEC 19757-8:2008(E), December 2008.
[RESTCONF] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", Work in Progress,
draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-16, August 2016.
[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>.
Lhotka Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 7952 YANG Metadata August 2016
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank Andy Bierman, Martin Bjorklund, Benoit
Claise, Juergen Schoenwaelder, and Kent Watsen for their helpful
comments and suggestions.
Author's Address
Ladislav Lhotka
CZ.NIC
Email: lhotka@nic.cz
Lhotka Standards Track [Page 21]