idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-netmod-yang-usage-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a License Notice according IETF Trust Provisions of 28 Dec 2009, Section 6.b.i or Provisions of 12 Sep 2009 Section 6.b -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? (You're using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b License Notice from 12 Feb 2009 rather than one of the newer Notices. See https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/.) Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == Using lowercase 'not' together with uppercase 'MUST', 'SHALL', 'SHOULD', or 'RECOMMENDED' is not an accepted usage according to RFC 2119. Please use uppercase 'NOT' together with RFC 2119 keywords (if that is what you mean). Found 'MUST not' in this paragraph: Once a module name is published, it MUST not be reused, even if the RFC containing the module is reclassified to 'Historic' status. -- The document date (May 18, 2009) is 5457 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '42' on line 405 == Missing Reference: 'TBD' is mentioned on line 684, but not defined ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4741 (Obsoleted by RFC 6241) == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of draft-ietf-netmod-yang-05 == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of draft-ietf-netmod-yang-types-03 Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Internet Engineering Task Force A. Bierman 3 Internet-Draft Netconf Central 4 Intended status: Informational May 18, 2009 5 Expires: November 19, 2009 7 Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of YANG Data Model Documents 8 draft-ietf-netmod-yang-usage-00 10 Status of this Memo 12 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the 13 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 15 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 16 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 17 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 18 Drafts. 20 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 21 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 22 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 23 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 25 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 26 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 28 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 31 This Internet-Draft will expire on November 19, 2009. 33 Copyright Notice 35 Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 36 document authors. All rights reserved. 38 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 39 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of 40 publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). 41 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 42 and restrictions with respect to this document. 44 Abstract 46 This memo provides guidelines for authors and reviewers of standards 47 track specifications containing YANG data model modules. Applicable 48 portions may be used as a basis for reviews of other YANG data model 49 documents. Recommendations and procedures are defined, which are 50 intended to increase interoperability and usability of NETCONF 51 implementations which utilize YANG data model modules. 53 Table of Contents 55 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 56 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 57 2.1. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 58 2.2. NETCONF Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 59 2.3. YANG Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 2.4. Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 3. General Documentation Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 62 3.1. YANG Data Model Boilerplate Section . . . . . . . . . . . 7 63 3.2. Narrative Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 64 3.3. Definitions Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 65 3.4. Security Considerations Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 66 3.5. IANA Considerations Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 67 3.5.1. Documents that Create a New Name Space . . . . . . . . 8 68 3.5.2. Documents that Extend an Existing Name Space . . . . . 8 69 3.6. Reference Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 70 3.7. Copyright Notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 71 3.8. Intellectual Property Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 72 4. YANG Usage Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 73 4.1. Module Naming Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 74 4.2. Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 75 4.3. Defaults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 76 4.4. Conditional Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 77 4.5. Module Life-cycle Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 78 4.6. Header Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 79 4.7. Data Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 80 4.8. Reusable Type Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 81 4.9. Object Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 82 4.10. RPC Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 83 4.11. Notification Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 84 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 85 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 86 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 87 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 88 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 89 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 90 Appendix A. Module Review Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 91 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 93 1. Introduction 95 The standardization of network configuration interfaces for use with 96 the NETCONF [RFC4741] protocol requires a modular set of data models, 97 which can be reused and extended over time. 99 This document defines a set of usage guidelines for standards track 100 documents containing YANG [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang] data models. It is 101 similar to the MIB usage guidelines specification [RFC4181] in intent 102 and structure. 104 Many YANG constructs are defined as optional to use, such as the 105 description clause. However, in order to maximize interoperability 106 of NETCONF implementations utilizing YANG data models, it is 107 desirable to define a set of usage guidelines which may require a 108 higher level of compliance than the minimum level defined in the YANG 109 specification. 111 The NETCONF stack can be conceptually partitioned into four layers. 113 Layer Example 114 +-------------+ +--------------------+ +-------------------+ 115 (4) | Content | | Configuration data | | Notification data | 116 +-------------+ +--------------------+ +-------------------+ 117 | | | 118 +-------------+ +-----------------+ +---------------+ 119 (3) | Operations | | | | | 120 +-------------+ +-----------------+ +---------------+ 121 | | | 122 +-------------+ +--------------------+ +----------------+ 123 (2) | RPC | | , | | | 124 +-------------+ +--------------------+ +----------------+ 125 | | | 126 +-------------+ +-----------------------------+ 127 (1) | Transport | | BEEP, SSH, SSL, console | 128 | Protocol | | | 129 +-------------+ +-----------------------------+ 131 Figure 1 133 This document defines usage guidelines related to the NETCONF 134 operations layer (3), and NETCONF content layer (4). 136 2. Terminology 138 2.1. Requirements Notation 140 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 141 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 142 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 144 2.2. NETCONF Terms 146 The following terms are defined in [RFC4741] and are not redefined 147 here: 149 o agent 151 o application 153 o capabilities 155 o manager 157 o operation 159 o RPC 161 2.3. YANG Terms 163 The following terms are defined in [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang] and are not 164 redefined here: 166 o data node 168 o module 170 o submodule 172 o namespace 174 o version 176 2.4. Terms 178 The following terms are used throughout this document: 180 o module: Generic term for a YANG data model module or submodule. 181 When describing properties which are specific to submodules, the 182 term 'YANG submodule', or simply 'submodule' is used instead. 184 o Published Document: A stable release of a module, usually 185 contained in an RFC. 187 o Unpublished Document: An unstable release of a module, usually 188 contained in an Internet Draft. 190 3. General Documentation Guidelines 192 YANG data model modules under review are likely to be contained in 193 Internet Drafts. All guidelines for Internet Draft authors MUST be 194 followed. These guidelines are available online at: 196 http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc-editor/instructions2authors.txt 198 The following sections MUST be present in an Internet Draft 199 containing a module: 201 o YANG data model boilerplate section 203 o Narrative sections 205 o Definitions section 207 o Security Considerations section 209 o IANA Considerations section 211 o References section 213 3.1. YANG Data Model Boilerplate Section 215 This section MUST contain a verbatim copy of the latest approved 216 Internet-Standard Management Framework boilerplate, which is 217 available on-line at [ed: URL TBD]. 219 3.2. Narrative Sections 221 The narrative part MUST include an overview section that describes 222 the scope and field of application of the module(s) defined by the 223 specification and that specifies the relationship (if any) of these 224 modules to other standards, particularly to standards containing 225 other module modules. The narrative part SHOULD include one or more 226 sections to briefly describe the structure of the modules defined in 227 the specification. 229 If the module(s) defined by the specification import definitions from 230 other modules (except for those defined in the YANG 231 [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang] or YANG Types [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-types] 232 documents) or are always implemented in conjunction with other 233 modules, then those facts MUST be noted in the overview section, as 234 MUST any special interpretations of objects in other modules. 236 3.3. Definitions Section 238 This section contains the module(s) defined by the specification. 239 These modules MUST be written in YANG [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang]. 241 See Section 4 for guidelines on YANG usage. 243 3.4. Security Considerations Section 245 Each specification that defines one or more modules MUST contain a 246 section that discusses security considerations relevant to those 247 modules. This section MUST be patterned after the latest approved 248 template (available at [ed: URL TBD]). 250 In particular, writable module objects that could be especially 251 disruptive if abused MUST be explicitly listed by name and the 252 associated security risks MUST be spelled out; similarly, readable 253 module objects that contain especially sensitive information or that 254 raise significant privacy concerns MUST be explicitly listed by name 255 and the reasons for the sensitivity/privacy concerns MUST be 256 explained. 258 3.5. IANA Considerations Section 260 In order to comply with IESG policy as set forth in 261 http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html, every Internet-Draft that is 262 submitted to the IESG for publication MUST contain an IANA 263 Considerations section. The requirements for this section vary 264 depending what actions are required of the IANA. 266 3.5.1. Documents that Create a New Name Space 268 If an Internet-Draft defines a new name space that is to be 269 administered by the IANA, then the document MUST include an IANA 270 Considerations section, specifies how the name space is to be 271 administered. 273 Specifically, if any YANG module namespace statement value contained 274 in the document is not already registered with IANA, then a new YANG 275 Namespace registry entry must be requested from the IANA [ed: 276 procedure TBD]. 278 3.5.2. Documents that Extend an Existing Name Space 280 If an Internet-Draft defines any extensions to a YANG Namespace 281 already administered by the IANA, then the document MUST include an 282 IANA Considerations section, specifies how the name space extension 283 is to be administered. 285 Specifically, if any YANG submodule belongs-to value contained in the 286 document is associated with a module that contains a namespace 287 statement value equal to a YANG Namespace already administered by the 288 IANA, then a new YANG Module registry entry and YANG Namespace Update 289 Procedure must be requested from the IANA [ed: procedure TBD]. 291 3.6. Reference Sections 293 [ed: 2223bis text TBD] 295 For every import or include statement which appears in a module 296 contained in the specification, which identifies a module in a 297 separate document, a corresponding normative reference to that 298 document MUST appear in the Normative References section. The 299 reference MUST correspond to the specific module version actually 300 used within the specification. 302 For every reference statement which appears in a module contained in 303 the specification, which identifies a separate document, a 304 corresponding normative reference to that document SHOULD appear in 305 the Normative References section. The reference SHOULD correspond to 306 the specific document version actually used within the specification. 308 3.7. Copyright Notices 310 The proper copyright notices MUST be present in the module 311 description statement. [ed.: See RFC 4181, 3.7. Exact text for 312 insertion is TBD.] 314 3.8. Intellectual Property Section 316 The proper IPR statements MUST be present in the document, according 317 to the most current Internet Draft boilerplate. [ed.: actual IETF IPR 318 text reference TBD] 320 4. YANG Usage Guidelines 322 In general, modules in IETF standards-track specifications MUST 323 comply with all syntactic and semantic requirements of YANG. 324 [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang]. The guidelines in this section are intended 325 to supplement the YANG specification, which is intended to define a 326 minimum set of conformance requirements. 328 In order to promote interoperability and establish a set of practices 329 based on previous experience, the following sections establish usage 330 guidelines for specific YANG constructs. 332 Only guidelines which clarify or restrict the minimum conformance 333 requirements are included here. 335 4.1. Module Naming Conventions 337 Modules contained in standards track documents SHOULD be named with 338 the prefix 'ietf-'. Other types of modules MUST NOT use the 'ietf-' 339 prefix string. 341 A distinctive word or acronym (e.g., protocol name or working group 342 acronym) SHOULD be used in the module name. If new definitions are 343 being defined to extend one or more existing modules, then the same 344 word or acronym should be reused, instead of creating a new one. 346 All published module names MUST be unique. 348 Once a module name is published, it MUST not be reused, even if the 349 RFC containing the module is reclassified to 'Historic' status. 351 4.2. Identifiers 353 Identifiers for modules, submodules, typedefs, groupings, data 354 objects, rpcs, and notifications MUST be between 1 and 64 characters 355 in length. 357 4.3. Defaults 359 In general, it is suggested that sub-statements containing default 360 values SHOULD NOT be present. For example, 'status current;', 361 'config true;', 'mandatory false;', and 'max-elements unbounded;' are 362 common defaults which would make the module difficult to read if used 363 everywhere they are allowed. 365 Instead, it is suggested that common statements SHOULD only be used 366 when being set to a value other than the default value. 368 4.4. Conditional Statements 370 A module may be conceptually partitioned in several ways, using the 371 'if-feature' and/or 'when' statements. In addition, NETCONF 372 capabilities are designed to identify optional functionality. 374 Data model designers need to carefully consider all modularity 375 aspects, including the use of YANG conditional statements. 377 Objects SHOULD NOT directly reference NETCONF capabilities, in order 378 to specify optional behavior. Instead, a 'feature' statement SHOULD 379 be defined to represent the NETCONF capability, and the 'if-feature' 380 statement SHOULD be used within the object definition. 382 If the condition associated with the desired semantics is not 383 dependent on any particular instance value within the database, then 384 an 'if-feature' statement SHOULD be used instead of a 'when' 385 statement. 387 All 'must' and 'when' statements MUST contain valid XPath. If any 388 name tests are present, they MUST contain valid module prefixes 389 and/or data node names. 391 The 'attribute' and 'namespace' axis SHOULD NOT be used because the 392 associated XML node types are not supported in YANG, and may not be 393 supported consistently across NETCONF agent implementations. 395 The 'position' and 'last' functions SHOULD NOT be used. Also, the 396 'preceding', 'preceding-sibling', 'following', and 'following- 397 sibling' axis SHOULD NOT be used. These constructs rely on XML 398 document order within a NETCONF agent configuration database, which 399 may not be supported consistently or produce reliable results across 400 implementations. Predicate expressions based on static node 401 properties (e.g., name, value, ancestors, descendants) SHOULD be used 402 instead. 404 Implicit 'position' function calls within predicates SHOULD NOT be 405 used. (e.g., //chapter[42]). 407 Data nodes which use the 'int64' and 'uint64' built-in type SHOULD 408 NOT be used within relational expressions. There are boundary 409 conditions in which the translation from the YANG 64-bit type to an 410 XPath number can cause incorrect results. 412 Data modelers need to be careful not to confuse the YANG value space 413 and the XPath value space. The data types are not the same in both, 414 and conversion between YANG and XPath data types SHOULD be considered 415 carefully. 417 Explicit XPath data type conversions MAY be used (e.g., 'string', 418 'boolean', or 'number' functions), instead of implicit XPath data 419 type conversions. 421 4.5. Module Life-cycle Management 423 The status statement SHOULD NOT be present if its value is 'current'. 424 It MUST be present if its value is 'deprecated' or 'obsolete'. 426 The module or submodule name MUST NOT be changed, once the document 427 containing the module or submodule is published. 429 The module namespace URI value SHOULD NOT be changed, once the 430 document containing the module is published. 432 The revision-date sub-statement (within the imports statement) SHOULD 433 be present. It MUST be present (in all published modules) if any 434 groupings are used from the external module. 436 The revision-date sub-statement (within the include statement) MAY be 437 present. It SHOULD be present (in all published modules) if any 438 groupings are used from the external sub-module. 440 4.6. Header Contents 442 o The namespace MUST be a globally unique URI, as defined in 443 [RFC3986]. This value is usually assigned by the IANA. 445 o Until a URI is assigned by the IANA, a temporary namespace URI MAY 446 be selected which is not likely to collide with other YANG 447 namespaces, such as the filename of the Internet Draft containing 448 the module. This value MUST be a valid URI (e.g., 449 'file:///draft-ietf-foo-bar-00'). 451 o The organization statement MUST be present. 453 o The contact statement MUST be present. 455 o The description statement MUST be present. 457 o If the module represents a model defined in one or more external 458 documents, then a reference statement MUST be present. 460 o A revision statement MUST be present for each published version of 461 the module. 463 o Each new revision MUST include a revision date which is higher 464 than any other revision date in the module. 466 o It is acceptable to reuse the same revision statement within 467 unpublished versions (i.e., Internet Drafts), but the revision 468 date MUST be updated to a higher value each time the Internet 469 Draft is re-published. 471 4.7. Data Types 473 o Selection of an appropriate data type (i.e., built-in type, 474 existing derived type, or new derived type) is very subjective and 475 therefore few requirements can be specified on that subject. 477 o Data model designers SHOULD use the most appropriate built-in data 478 type for the particular application. 480 o If extensibility of enumerated values is required, then the 481 identityref data type SHOULD be used instead of an enumeration or 482 other built-in type. 484 o For string data types, if a machine-readable pattern can be 485 defined for the desired semantics, then one or more pattern 486 statements SHOULD be present. 488 o For string data types, if the length of the string is not required 489 to be unbounded in all implementations, then a length statement 490 SHOULD be present. [ed: should the 'resource-denied' error be 491 mentioned here?] 493 o For numeric data types, if the values allowed by the intended 494 semantics are different than those allowed by the unbounded 495 intrinsic data type (e.g., int32), then a range statement SHOULD 496 be present. 498 o The signed numeric data types (i.e., 'int8', 'int16', 'int32', and 499 'int64') SHOULD NOT be used unless negative values are allowed for 500 the desired semantics. 502 o For enumeration or bits data types, the semantics for each enum or 503 bit SHOULD be documented. A separate description statement 504 (within each enum or bit statement) SHOULD be present. 506 4.8. Reusable Type Definitions 508 o If an appropriate derived type exists in any standard module, such 509 as [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-types], then it SHOULD be used instead of 510 defining a new derived type. 512 o If an appropriate units identifier can be associated with the 513 desired semantics, then a units statement SHOULD be present. 515 o If an appropriate default value can be associated with the desired 516 semantics, then a default statement SHOULD be present. 518 o If a significant number of derived types are defined, and it is 519 anticipated that these data types will be reused by multiple 520 modules, then these derived types SHOULD be contained in a 521 separate module or submodule, to allow easier reuse without 522 unnecessary coupling. 524 o The description statement MUST be present. 526 o If the type definition semantics are defined in an external 527 document, then the reference statement SHOULD be present. 529 4.9. Object Definitions 531 o The description statement MUST be present in the following body 532 statements: 534 * extension 536 * feature 538 * identity 540 * typedef 542 * grouping 544 * augment 546 * rpc 548 * notification 550 o The description statement MUST be present in the following data 551 definition constructs: 553 * container 555 * leaf 557 * leaf-list 559 * list 561 * choice 562 * anyxml 564 o If the object semantics are defined in an external document, then 565 a reference statement SHOULD be present. 567 o The 'anyxml' construct MUST NOT be used within configuration data. 569 o If there are referential integrity constraints associated with the 570 desired semantics that can be represented with XPath, then one or 571 more must statements SHOULD be present. 573 o For list and leaf-list objects, if the number of possible 574 instances is not required to be unbounded for all implementations, 575 then the max-elements statement SHOULD be present. 577 o If any must or when statements are used within the object 578 definition, then the object description statement SHOULD describe 579 the purpose of each one. 581 4.10. RPC Definitions 583 o The description statement MUST be present. 585 o If the RPC method semantics are defined in an external document, 586 then a reference statement SHOULD be present. 588 o If the RPC method impacts system behavior in some way, it SHOULD 589 be mentioned in the description statement. 591 o If the RPC method is potentially harmful to system behavior in 592 some way, it MUST be mentioned in the Security Considerations 593 section of the document. 595 4.11. Notification Definitions 597 o The description statement MUST be present. 599 o If the notification semantics are defined in an external document, 600 then a reference statement SHOULD be present. 602 5. IANA Considerations 604 There are no actions requested of IANA at this time. 606 6. Security Considerations 608 This document defines documentation guidelines for NETCONF content 609 defined with the YANG data modeling language. It does not introduce 610 any new or increased security risks into the management system. [ed: 611 RFC 4181 style security section TBD] 613 7. Acknowledgments 615 The structure and contents of this document are adapted from 616 Guidelines for MIB Documents [RFC4181], by C. M. Heard. 618 8. References 620 8.1. Normative References 622 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 623 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 625 [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform 626 Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, 627 RFC 3986, January 2005. 629 [RFC4741] Enns, R., "NETCONF Configuration Protocol", RFC 4741, 630 December 2006. 632 [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang] 633 Bjorklund, M., "YANG - A data modeling language for 634 NETCONF", draft-ietf-netmod-yang-05 (work in progress), 635 April 2009. 637 [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-types] 638 Schoenwaelder, J., "Common YANG Data Types", 639 draft-ietf-netmod-yang-types-03 (work in progress), 640 May 2009. 642 8.2. Informative References 644 [RFC4181] Heard, C., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of MIB 645 Documents", BCP 111, RFC 4181, September 2005. 647 Appendix A. Module Review Checklist 649 This section is adapted from RFC 4181. 651 The purpose of a YANG module review is to review the YANG module both 652 for technical correctness and for adherence to IETF documentation 653 requirements. The following checklist may be helpful when reviewing 654 a draft document: 656 1. I-D Boilerplate -- verify that the draft contains the required 657 Internet-Draft boilerplate (see 658 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt), including the 659 appropriate statement to permit publication as an RFC, and that 660 I-D boilerplate does not contain references or section numbers. 662 2. Abstract -- verify that the abstract does not contain 663 references, that it does not have a section number, and that its 664 content follows the guidelines in 665 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt. 667 3. YANG Module Boilerplate -- verify that the draft contains the 668 latest approved SNMP Network Management Framework boilerplate 669 from the OPS area web site 670 (http://www.ops.ietf.org/mib-boilerplate.html). [ed: real URL 671 TBD] 673 4. Security Considerations Section -- verify that the draft uses 674 the latest approved template from the OPS area web site 675 (http://www.ops.ietf.org/mib-security.html) and that the 676 guidelines therein have been followed. 678 5. IANA Considerations Section -- this section must always be 679 present. If the draft requires no action from the IANA, ensure 680 that this is explicitly noted. If the draft requires URI values 681 to be assigned, ensure that the IANA Considerations section 682 contains the information specified in [TBD] of these guidelines. 683 If the draft contains the initial version of an IANA-maintained 684 module, verify that the [TBD] invocation contains maintenance 685 instructions that comply with the requirements in RFC 2434. In 686 the latter case, the IANA Considerations section that will 687 appear in the RFC MUST contain a pointer to the actual IANA- 688 maintained module. 690 6. References -- verify that the references are properly divided 691 between normative and informative references, that RFC 2119 is 692 included as a normative reference if the terminology defined 693 therein is used in the document, that all references required by 694 the boilerplate are present, that all YANG modules containing 695 imported items are cited as normative references, and that all 696 citations point to the most current RFCs unless there is a valid 697 reason to do otherwise (for example, it is OK to include an 698 informative reference to a previous version of a specification 699 to help explain a feature included for backward compatibility). 701 7. Copyright Notices -- verify that the draft contains an 702 abbreviated copyright notice in the description statement of 703 each YANG module or sub-module, and that it contains the full 704 copyright notice and disclaimer specified in Sections 5.4 and 705 5.5 of RFC 3978 at the end of the document. Make sure that the 706 correct year is used in all copyright dates. 708 8. IPR Notice -- if the draft does not contains a verbatim copy of 709 the IPR notice specified in Section 5 of RFC 3979, recommend 710 that the IPR notice be included. 712 9. Other Issues -- check for any issues mentioned in 713 http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html that are not covered 714 elsewhere. 716 10. Technical Content -- review the actual technical content for 717 compliance with the guidelines in this document. The use of a 718 YANG module compiler is recommended when checking for syntax 719 errors; see [YANG tool URL TBD] for more information. Checking 720 for correct syntax, however, is only part of the job. It is 721 just as important to actually read the YANG module document from 722 the point of view of a potential implementor. It is 723 particularly important to check that description statements are 724 sufficiently clear and unambiguous to allow interoperable 725 implementations to be created. 727 Author's Address 729 Andy Bierman 730 Netconf Central 731 Simi Valley, CA 732 USA 734 Email: andy@netconfcentral.com