NETMOD Working Group                                       M. Richardson
Internet-Draft                                  Sandelman Software Works
Intended status: Standards Track                           31 March 2025
Expires: 2 October 2025


                   Extending YANG modules at runtime
              draft-richardson-netmod-atrest-extensions-01

Abstract

   This document describes a mechanism of signaling extensions to YANG
   modules that can be used when YANG is not used in an online fashion.

About This Document

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   Status information for this document may be found at
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-richardson-netmod-atrest-
   extensions/.

   Discussion of this document takes place on the cbor Working Group
   mailing list (mailto:cbor@ietf.org), which is archived at
   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cbor/.  Subscribe at
   https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor/.

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/mcr/yang-extensions-at-reset.

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 2 October 2025.





Richardson               Expires 2 October 2025                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft               yang-extensions                  March 2025


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2025 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Motivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   8.  Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Appendix A.  Appendix A: Example module and extension . . . . . .   5
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5

1.  Introduction

   In the process of revising [RFC8366] to accomodate needed extensions
   an effort was initially made to do this using augment (cite) and
   later augment-structure.  [RFC8366] is a digitally signed voucher
   format used in onboarding of new devices.  It is a file format that
   may be transmitted over CoAP, HTTP or via USB key, but it does not
   use RESTCONF.  The contents of the file are not subject to
   negotiation as might be done with [RFC8528].

   Rather than have each topic document define the relevant extensions
   needed, it turned out to be necessary to collect all the extensions
   necessary into a single revision to the YANG module, which is being
   produced as [I-D.ietf-anima-rfc8366bis].





Richardson               Expires 2 October 2025                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft               yang-extensions                  March 2025


   [RFC8520] is like [RFC8366]: it is a file format.  When [RFC8520] was
   defined, it anticipated that there would be future extensions, and
   defined a YANG leaf called "extensions" which is a list of subsequent
   YANG modules which are included.  This is being used to define, for
   instance, [I-D.ietf-opsawg-ol].

   When YANG is serialized to XML or JSON, the keys used in the
   attribute map are strings, and so it seems relatively straightforward
   for a human programmer to understand how to insert these new keys
   into the same attribute map.  YANG however, is intended to be machine
   parseable, and [RFC9254] provides a way to serialize YANG to CBOR.
   While strings can be used if necessary, the preferred method is via
   YANG-SID values, allocated for instance, via [RFC9595].  It is not
   obvious how an extension mechanism as described by [RFC8520] can be
   efficiently encoded to CBOR, nor how YANG tooling should react to
   these ad-hoc extensions.

   This document makes the [RFC8520] extension mechanism a generic
   mechanism that can be used by any YANG module, and explains how to
   efficiently encode this to CBOR using YANG-SID.

2.  Terminology

   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.

2.1.  Motivation

   XXX - Do we need more details about the motivation?

3.  Protocol

3.1.  Extensions

   A YANG module that expects to have extensions establishes an
   attribute called "extensions" This attribute value is a list of
   extensions that are included in this object.

   This set of available values is established as an IANA registry by
   the document defining this module.

   (XXX- this assumes per-module extensions, vs a global set of
   extensions that could be used by many modules)





Richardson               Expires 2 October 2025                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft               yang-extensions                  March 2025


   Extension documents are presented as new YANG modules.  They are
   _not_ defined using augment against the original module.

   When encoding YANG as CBOR, in order to encode the additional
   attributes defined by that extension, a new sub-map is created.  The
   key for this sub-map, in the parent map, consists of the YANG module
   SID, encoded using the CBOR Tag 47, the tag for an absolute SID.
   Within the sub-map, the normal delta-encoding is used, using the SID
   values allocated for that module.

   When encoding YANG as JSON, a sub-map is also used.  The key for the
   sub-map is the YANG module name for the extension.  Within the sub-
   map, normal JSON encoding rules are used.  (This is in contrast to
   example in [RFC8520] in which a colon-joined key is used, and no sub-
   map is used)

4.  Privacy Considerations

   YYY

5.  Security Considerations

   ZZZ

6.  IANA Considerations

7.  Acknowledgements

   Hello.

8.  Changelog

9.  References

9.1.  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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [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/info/rfc8174>.







Richardson               Expires 2 October 2025                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft               yang-extensions                  March 2025


   [RFC9254]  Veillette, M., Ed., Petrov, I., Ed., Pelov, A., Bormann,
              C., and M. Richardson, "Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG
              in the Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)",
              RFC 9254, DOI 10.17487/RFC9254, July 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9254>.

   [RFC9595]  Veillette, M., Ed., Pelov, A., Ed., Petrov, I., Ed.,
              Bormann, C., and M. Richardson, "YANG Schema Item
              iDentifier (YANG SID)", RFC 9595, DOI 10.17487/RFC9595,
              July 2024, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9595>.

9.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-anima-rfc8366bis]
              Watsen, K., Richardson, M., Pritikin, M., Eckert, T. T.,
              and Q. Ma, "A Voucher Artifact for Bootstrapping
              Protocols", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
              anima-rfc8366bis-13, 18 February 2025,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-anima-
              rfc8366bis-13>.

   [I-D.ietf-opsawg-ol]
              Lear, E. and C. Bormann, "Ownership and licensing
              statements in YANG", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-ietf-opsawg-ol-07, 21 October 2024,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-
              ol-07>.

   [RFC8366]  Watsen, K., Richardson, M., Pritikin, M., and T. Eckert,
              "A Voucher Artifact for Bootstrapping Protocols",
              RFC 8366, DOI 10.17487/RFC8366, May 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8366>.

   [RFC8520]  Lear, E., Droms, R., and D. Romascanu, "Manufacturer Usage
              Description Specification", RFC 8520,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8520, March 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8520>.

   [RFC8528]  Bjorklund, M. and L. Lhotka, "YANG Schema Mount",
              RFC 8528, DOI 10.17487/RFC8528, March 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8528>.

Appendix A.  Appendix A: Example module and extension

   TODO.

Author's Address




Richardson               Expires 2 October 2025                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft               yang-extensions                  March 2025


   Michael Richardson
   Sandelman Software Works
   Email: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
















































Richardson               Expires 2 October 2025                 [Page 6]