[OSPF] FW: [netmod] Important: Guidelines for YANG module authors

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Fri, 09 June 2017 21:23 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ospf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93A7B1275AB; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 14:23:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.521
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id weCBtcJoo1li; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 14:23:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A96BD126CC4; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 14:23:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=13587; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1497043398; x=1498252998; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=I45WByO678r5IGf+LU4awYVoNbXhLP6ltJpQGqVv9F0=; b=LmRy+2dMEWGl7SI66tPh5e3N8LVB6/CoP0504AFnexuVD5JX8n/zTCIc Gl0OGMg3lfvCzbAoTUsGf2Y0tUyAoNepDbbKmMzw+gCs8MQjmBv54+S25 C83rE0EAQ+sKo7ZsrLBdARbAemu5SRRr50fsrqkaO/48iqQ18e+vwtNxd o=;
X-Files: ATT00001.txt : 130
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,319,1493683200"; d="txt'?scan'208,217";a="255863066"
Received: from alln-core-1.cisco.com ([]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 09 Jun 2017 21:23:17 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (xch-rtp-011.cisco.com []) by alln-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v59LNHpH014353 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 9 Jun 2017 21:23:17 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ( by XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 17:23:16 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 9 Jun 2017 17:23:16 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: OSPF WG List <ospf@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ospf-yang@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] Important: Guidelines for YANG module authors
Thread-Index: AQHS4ShARUb3FTRrqUGQXz9rb6v8EKIc5H+AgAAmYgA=
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 21:23:16 +0000
Message-ID: <D560896C.B27DE%acee@cisco.com>
References: <767b9462-80ad-2942-f67e-31789239b894@cisco.com> <CAG4d1re4XBZcTmigN68EODVZP6C44=t+WDnD8YSW1R=qbM+jzQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAG4d1re4XBZcTmigN68EODVZP6C44=t+WDnD8YSW1R=qbM+jzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_004_D560896CB27DEaceeciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ospf/xEqRz0KmOZt3PepEsOu6mh6Bnzk>
Subject: [OSPF] FW: [netmod] Important: Guidelines for YANG module authors
X-BeenThere: ospf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Official IETF OSPG WG Mailing List <ospf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ospf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf>, <mailto:ospf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2017 21:23:20 -0000

For the OSPF YANG model, we are planning to go directly to option 1. Please let the authors know if you see this as a problem.


From: rtgwg <rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com<mailto:akatlas@gmail.com>>
Date: Friday, June 9, 2017 at 11:05 AM
To: Routing WG <rtgwg@ietf.org<mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>>
Subject: Fwd: [netmod] Important: Guidelines for YANG module authors

At IETF 98 in RTGWG, I mentioned the need for clear guidelines to handle the changes coming for structuring YANG models.  This is the resulting guidance.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com<mailto:bclaise@cisco.com>>
Date: Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 9:56 AM
Subject: [netmod] Important: Guidelines for YANG module authors
To: NETMOD Working Group <netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>>

Dear all,

Now that the new NETMOD and NETCONF charters have been approved, it's time to think about the guidelines for YANG module authors.

The Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) addresses the so-called "OpState problem" that has been the subject of much discussion in the IETF. NMDA is still in development, and there will be a transition period before NMDA solutions are universally available.

The NETMOD Datastore Design Team and the Routing Yang Architecture Design Team have worked with Alia and Benoit to create initial guidelines for how the NMDA, as defined in draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores/>, impacts Yang models. The draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines/> individual draft was foundational in helping creating those guidelines.

If you have questions or concerns on how these guidelines should apply to work of interest, please contact your WG Chairs or ADs.

It is our strong recommendation, as ADs with agreement from the NETMOD WG Chairs, that models SHOULD move as quickly as possible to the NMDA. The specific approach to be taken for models being developed now and during the NMDA transition period should be based on both the expected usage and the maturity of the data model.

1. New models and models that are not concerned with the operational state of configuration information SHOULD immediately be structured to be NMDA-compatible.

2. Models that require immediate support for "in use" and "system created" information SHOULD be structured for NMDA. Then derived versions of these models SHOULD be created, either by hand or with suitable tools, that follow the current modeling strategies. In some cases, the non-NMDA model may be an existing model and not derived from the NMDA model. In all cases, the NMDA and non-NMDA modules SHOULD be published in the same document, with NMDA modules in the document main body and the non-NMDA modules in an Appendix. The use of the non-NMDA model will allow temporary bridging of the time period until NMDA implementations are available. The non-NMDA module names should include ’-state’ appended.

We would like to thank Kent Watsen, Lou Berger, Rob Wilton, Martin Bjorklund, Phil Shafer, Acee Lindem, Chris Hopps, Juergen Schoenwaelder, and all others who helped develop these guidelines.

Alia Atlas, Routing AD
Deborah Brungard, Routing AD
Alvaro Retana, Routing AD
Warren Kumari, Operations & Management AD
Benoit Claise, Operations & Management AD

netmod mailing list