netmod                                                        Q. Ma, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                     Q. Wu
Updates: 8040, 8526 (if approved)                                 Huawei
Intended status: Standards Track                         B. Lengyel, Ed.
Expires: 1 June 2026                                            Ericsson
                                                                   H. Li
                                                                     HPE
                                                        28 November 2025

              YANG Metadata Annotation for Immutable Flag
                  draft-ietf-netmod-immutable-flag-06

Abstract

   This document defines a way to formally document an existing
   behavior, implemented by servers in production, on the immutability
   of some system-provided nodes, using a YANG metadata annotation
   called "immutable" to flag which nodes are immutable.

   Clients may use "immutable" annotations provided by the server, to
   know beforehand why certain otherwise valid configuration requests
   will cause the server to return an error.

   The immutable flag is descriptive, documenting an existing behavior,
   not proscriptive, dictating server behaviors.

   This document updates RFC 8040 and RFC 8526.

Discussion Venues

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

   Discussion of this document takes place on the Network Modeling
   Working Group mailing list (netmod@ietf.org), which is archived at
   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/.

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/netmod-wg/immutable-flag.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Ma, et al.                 Expires 1 June 2026                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft               immutable flag                November 2025

   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 1 June 2026.

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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Updates to RFC 8040 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.2.  Updates to RFC 8526 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.3.  Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)  . . . . . .   5
   2.  Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  "Immutable" Metadata Annotation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  Definition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  "with-immutability" Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       4.2.1.  NETCONF Extensions to Support "with-immutability" . .   7
       4.2.2.  RESTCONF Extensions to Support "with-immutability"  .   8
   5.  Use of Immutable Flag for Different Statements  . . . . . . .   8
     5.1.  The "leaf" Statement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.2.  The "leaf-list" Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.3.  The "container" Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.4.  The "list" Statement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.5.  The "anydata" Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.6.  The "anyxml" Statement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  Immutability of Interior Nodes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  System Configuration Datastore Interactions . . . . . . . . .  10

Ma, et al.                 Expires 1 June 2026                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft               immutable flag                November 2025

   8.  NACM Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   9.  YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   11. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     11.1.  The "IETF XML" Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     11.2.  The "YANG Module Names" Registry . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     11.3.  RESTCONF Capability URN Registry . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Appendix A.  Detailed Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     A.1.  UC1 - Modeling of server capabilities . . . . . . . . . .  17
     A.2.  UC2 - Hardware based auto-configuration - Interface
           Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     A.3.  UC3 - Predefined Administrator Roles  . . . . . . . . . .  18
     A.4.  UC4 - Declaring immutable system configuration from the
           perspective of a logical network element (LNE)  . . . . .  18
   Appendix B.  Examples of Server's Immutable Behavior  . . . . . .  19
     B.1.  The Inheritance of Immutability . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     B.2.  Immutability of the list  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     B.3.  Immutability of the leaf-list . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   Appendix C.  Existing Implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23

1.  Introduction

   This document defines a YANG metadata annotation [RFC7952] to
   formally document an existing model handling behavior that has been
   used by multiple standard organizations and vendors.  It is the aim
   to create one single standard solution for documenting non-modifiable
   system data declared as configuration, instead of the multiple
   existing vendor and organization specific solutions.

   YANG [RFC7950] is a data modeling language used to model both state
   and configuration data, based on the "config" statement.  However,
   there exists some system configuration data that cannot be modified
   by the client (it is immutable), but still needs to be declared as
   "config true" to:

   *  allow configuration of data nodes under immutable lists or
      containers;

   *  place "when", "must" and "leafref" constraints between
      configuration and immutable nodes;

Ma, et al.                 Expires 1 June 2026                  [Page 3]
Internet-Draft               immutable flag                November 2025

   *  ensure the existence of specific list entries that are provided
      and needed by the system, while additional list entries can be
      created, modified or deleted.

   If the server always rejects a client's attempt to override some
   system-provided data because it internally thinks immutable, it
   should document it towards the clients in a machine-readable way
   rather than writing as plain text in the "description" statement.

   This document defines a way to formally document the existing
   behavior, implemented by servers in production, on the immutability
   of some system-provided nodes, using a YANG metadata annotation
   [RFC7952] called "immutable" to flag which nodes are immutable.  This
   document does not regulate server behaviors.  That said, it is
   expected that a server will return an error with an error-tag
   containing "invalid-value" when immutability is attempted to be
   violated.

   This document does not apply to the server not having any immutable
   system configuration.  While in some cases immutability may be
   needed, it also has disadvantages, therefore it SHOULD be avoided
   wherever possible.

   The following is a list of already implemented and potential use
   cases:

   *  UC1 Modeling of server capabilities

   *  UC2 Hardware based auto-configuration

   *  UC3 Predefined administrator roles

   *  UC4 Declaring immutable system configuration from the perspective
      of a logical network element (LNE)

   Appendix A describes the use cases in detail.

1.1.  Updates to RFC 8040

   This document updates Sections 4.8 and 9.1.1 of [RFC8040] to add an
   additional input parameter named "with-immutability", as specified in
   Section 4.2.2.

1.2.  Updates to RFC 8526

   This document updates Section 3.1.1 of [RFC8526] to add an additional
   input parameter named "with-immutability" for the <get-data>
   operation, as specified in Section 4.2.1.

Ma, et al.                 Expires 1 June 2026                  [Page 4]
Internet-Draft               immutable flag                November 2025

1.3.  Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)

   Note to the RFC Editor: This section is to be removed prior to
   publication.

   This document contains placeholder values that need to be replaced
   with finalized values at the time of publication.  This note
   summarizes all of the substitutions that are needed.  No other RFC
   Editor instructions are specified elsewhere in this document.

   Please apply the following replacements:

   *  XXXX --> the assigned RFC number for this draft

   *  YYYY --> the assigned RFC number for
      [I-D.ietf-netmod-system-config]

   *  2025-05-15 --> the actual date of the publication of this document

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.

   The document uses the following definition in [RFC6241]:

   *  configuration data

   The document uses the following definition in [RFC7950]:

   *  data node

   *  leaf

   *  leaf-list

   *  container

   *  list

   *  anydata

   *  anyxml

   *  interior node

Ma, et al.                 Expires 1 June 2026                  [Page 5]
Internet-Draft               immutable flag                November 2025

   *  data tree

   The document uses the following definition in [RFC8341]:

   *  access operation

   The document uses the following definition in
   [I-D.ietf-netmod-system-config]:

   *  system configuration

   This document defines the following term:

   immutable flag:  A read-only state value the server provides to
      describe immutability of the configuration, which is conveyed via
      a YANG metadata annotation called "immutable" with a boolean
      value.

3.  Applicability

   While immutable flag applies to all configuration nodes, its value
   "true" can only be used for system configuration.

   The immutable flag is only visible in read-only datastores (i.e.,
   <system> [I-D.ietf-netmod-system-config], <intended>, and
   <operational>) when a "with-immutability" parameter is carried
   (Section 4.2), however this only serves as descriptive information
   about the instance node itself, but has no effect on the handling of
   the read-only datastore.  If the immutable flag is requested to be
   returned for an invalid datastore, then the server MUST return an
   <rpc-error> element with an <error-tag> value of "invalid-value".

   An instance has the same immutability if it appears in different
   datastores, the immutability of configuration data is also protocol
   and user independent.  The immutability of any configuration data,
   and the value of any immutable configured data node, MUST only change
   via software upgrade, hardware resources change, or license change.

4.  "Immutable" Metadata Annotation

4.1.  Definition

   The immutable flag which is defined as the metadata annotation takes
   a boolean value, and it is returned as requested by the client using
   a "with-immutability" parameter (Section 4.2).  If the "immutable"
   metadata annotation for a configuration node is not specified, the
   default "immutable" value is the same as the value of its parent node
   in the data tree (Section 6).  The immutable metadata annotation

Ma, et al.                 Expires 1 June 2026                  [Page 6]
Internet-Draft               immutable flag                November 2025

   value for a top-level instance node is "false" if not specified.

   A node that is annotated as immutable cannot be changed via
   configuring a different value in read-write configuration datastores
   (e.g., <running>), nor is there any way to delete the node from the
   combined configuration in the intended datastore (as described in
   Section 4 of [I-D.ietf-netmod-system-config]).  The node MAY be
   explicitly configured by a client in <running> with the same value
   and that configuration in <running> may subsequently be removed, but
   neither of these edits will change the configuration in <intended>
   (if implemented) on the device.

   Note that "immutable" metadata annotations are used to annotate data
   node instances.  A list may have multiple instances in the data tree,
   servers may annotate some of the instances as immutable, while others
   as mutable.

   Servers MUST ignore any immutable annotations sent from the client.

4.2.  "with-immutability" Parameter

   This section specifies the NETCONF [RFC6241] [RFC8526] and RESTCONF
   [RFC8040] protocol extensions to support the "with-immutability"
   parameter.  The "immutable" metadata annotations are not returned in
   a response unless explicitly requested by the client using this
   parameter.

4.2.1.  NETCONF Extensions to Support "with-immutability"

   This doument updates [RFC8526] to augment the <get-data> operation
   with an additional parameter named "with-immutability".  If present,
   this parameter requests that the server includes the "immutable"
   metadata annotations in its response.

   Figure 1 provides the tree structure [RFC8340] of augmentations to
   NETCONF operations, as defined in the "ietf-immutable-annotation"
   module (Section 9).

   module: ietf-immutable-annotation
     augment /ncds:get-data/ncds:input:
       +---w with-immutability?   empty

               Figure 1: Augmentations to NETCONF Operations

Ma, et al.                 Expires 1 June 2026                  [Page 7]
Internet-Draft               immutable flag                November 2025

4.2.2.  RESTCONF Extensions to Support "with-immutability"

   This document extends Sections 4.8 and 9.1.1 of [RFC8040] to add a
   query parameter named "with-immutability" to the GET operation.  If
   present, this parameter requests that the server includes the
   "immutable" metadata annotations in its response.  This parameter is
   only allowed with no values carried.  If it has any unexpected value,
   then a "404 Bad Request" status-line is returned.

   To enable a RESTCONF client to discover if the "with-immutability"
   query parameter is supported by the server, the following capability
   URI is defined:

       urn:ietf:params:restconf:capability:with-immutability:1.0

5.  Use of Immutable Flag for Different Statements

   This section defines what the immutable flag means to the client for
   each instance of YANG data node statement.

5.1.  The "leaf" Statement

   When a leaf node instance is immutable, it cannot be configured with
   a different value in read-write configuration datastores (e.g.,
   <running>) or removed from <intended> (if implemented).  Though it
   can be created/deleted in read-write configuration datastores (see
   Sections 4.1 and 7).

5.2.  The "leaf-list" Statement

   When a leaf-list entry is immutable, it cannot be configured with a
   different value in read-write configuration datastore (e.g.,
   <running>) or removed from <intended> (if implemented).  Though it
   can be created/deleted in read-write configuration datastores (see
   Sections 4.1 and 7).

   The immutable annotation attached to the individual leaf-list entry
   provides immutability with respect to the entry itself.  As per the
   restrictions in [RFC7952], annotations cannot be attached to an
   entire leaf-list instance and only to individual leaf-list entries,
   which implies a leaf-list as a whole can only inherit immutability
   from a parent node (e.g., container).

   If a leaf-list as a whole is immutable, any leaf-list entries cannot
   be added, modified, or reordered (if it is ordered-by user).

   Refer to Appendix B.3 for an example of immutability of leaf-lists.

Ma, et al.                 Expires 1 June 2026                  [Page 8]
Internet-Draft               immutable flag                November 2025

5.3.  The "container" Statement

   When a container node instance is immutable, it cannot be removed
   from <intended> (if implemented).  Though it can be created/deleted
   in read-write configuration datastores (see Sections 4.1 and 7).

   Descendant nodes of the container recursively inherit the
   immutability of the container, unless the immutability is overridden
   by an "immutable" annotation on a descendant node.

   By default, as with all interior nodes, immutability is recursively
   applied to descendants (Section 6).

5.4.  The "list" Statement

   When a list entry is immutable, it cannot be removed from <intended>
   (if implemented).  Though it can be created/deleted in read-write
   configuration datastores (see Sections 4.1 and 7).

   Descendant nodes of the list entry recursively inherit the
   immutability of the list entry, unless the immutability is overridden
   by an "immutable" annotation on a descendant node.

   By default, as with all interior nodes, immutability is recursively
   applied to descendants (Section 6).

   The immutable annotation attached to the individual list entry
   provides immutability with respect to the entry itself.  As per the
   restrictions in [RFC7952], annotations cannot be attached to an
   entire list instance and only to individual list entries, which
   implies a list as a whole can only inherit immutability from a parent
   node (e.g., container).

   If a list as a whole is immutable, any list entries cannot be added,
   removed, or reordered (if it is ordered-by user).  Each list entry
   inherits the immutability of the list by default, unless the
   immutability is overridden by an "immutable" annotation on a list
   entry.

   Refer to Appendix B.2 for an example of immutability of lists.

5.5.  The "anydata" Statement

   When an "anydata" node instance is immutable, it cannot be removed
   from <intended> (if implemented).  Though it can be created/deleted
   in read-write configuration datastores (see Sections 4.1 and 7).

Ma, et al.                 Expires 1 June 2026                  [Page 9]
Internet-Draft               immutable flag                November 2025

   Additionally, as with all interior nodes, immutability is recursively
   applied to descendants (Section 6).

5.6.  The "anyxml" Statement

   When an "anyxml" node instance is immutable, it cannot be removed
   from <intended> (if implemented).  Though it can be created/deleted
   in read-write configuration datastores (see Sections 4.1 and 7).

   Additionally, as with all interior nodes, immutability is recursively
   applied to descendants (Section 6).

6.  Immutability of Interior Nodes

   Immutability is a conceptual operational state value that is
   recursively applied to descendants, which may reset the immutability
   state as needed, thereby affecting their descendants.  There is no
   limit to the number of times the immutability state may change in a
   data tree.

   If the "immutable" metadata annotation for returned child node is
   omitted, it has the same immutability as its parent node.  The
   immutability of top hierarchy of returned nodes is false by default.
   Servers may suppress the annotation if it is inherited from its
   parent node or uses the default value as the top-level node, but are
   not precluded from returning the annotation on every single element.

   Refer to Appendix B.1 for an example of how immutability is
   recursively inherited or explicitly reset by descendants.

7.  System Configuration Datastore Interactions

   Immutable configuration can only be created, updated and deleted by
   the server, and it is present in <system>, if implemented.  That
   said, the existence of immutable configuration is independent of
   whether <system> is implemented or not.  Not all system configuration
   data is immutable.  Immutable configuration does not appear in
   <running> unless it is explicitly configured.

   As specified in Section 4.1, a client MAY create/delete immutable
   nodes with same values as defined by server in read-write
   configuration datastore (e.g., <candidate>, <running>), which merely
   mean making immutable nodes visible/invisible in the datastore.

Ma, et al.                 Expires 1 June 2026                 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft               immutable flag                November 2025

8.  NACM Interactions

   The server rejects an operation request due to immutability when it
   tries to perform the operation on the request data.  It happens after
   any access control processing, if the Network Configuration Access
   Control Model (NACM) [RFC8341] is implemented on a server.  For
   example, if an operation requests to override an immutable
   configuration data, but the server checks the user is not authorized
   to perform the requested access operation on the request data, the
   request is rejected with an "access-denied" error.

9.  YANG Module

   This module imports definitions from [RFC6241] and [RFC8526].

   <CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-immutable-annotation@2025-11-28.yang"
   module ietf-immutable-annotation {
     yang-version 1.1;
     namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-immutable-annotation";
     prefix imma;

     import ietf-yang-metadata {
       prefix md;
     }
     import ietf-netconf-nmda {
       prefix ncds;
       reference
         "RFC 8526: NETCONF Extensions to Support the Network
          Management Datastore Architecture";
     }
     import ietf-system-datastore {
       prefix sysds;
       reference
         "RFC YYYY: System-defined Configuration";
     }
     import ietf-datastores {
       prefix ds;
       reference
         "RFC 8342: Network Management Datastore Architecture
                    (NMDA)";
     }

     organization
       "IETF Network Modeling (NETMOD) Working Group";
     contact
       "WG Web: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/netmod/>
        WG List: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
        Author: Qiufang Ma

Ma, et al.                 Expires 1 June 2026                 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft               immutable flag                November 2025

                <mailto:maqiufang1@huawei.com>
        Author: Qin Wu
                <mailto:bill.wu@huawei.com>
        Author: Balazs Lengyel
                <mailto:balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com>
        Author: Hongwei Li
                <mailto:flycoolman@gmail.com>";
     description
       "This module defines a metadata annotation called 'immutable'
        to allow the server to formally document existing behavior on
        the mutability of some system configuration. Clients may use
        'immutable' metadata annotation provided by the server to know
        beforehand why certain otherwise valid configuration requests
        will cause the server to return an error.

        Copyright (c) 2025 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 Revised
        BSD License set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's
        Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
        (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).

        This version of this YANG module is part of RFC HHHH
        (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcHHHH); see the RFC
        itself for full legal notices.

        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 (RFC 2119)
        (RFC 8174) when, and only when, they appear in all
        capitals, as shown here.";

     revision 2025-11-28 {
       description
         "Initial revision.";
       // RFC Ed.: replace XXXX and remove this comment
       reference
         "RFC XXXX: YANG Metadata Annotation for Immutable Flag";
     }
     md:annotation immutable {
       type boolean;
       description
         "The 'immutable' metadata annotation indicates the
          immutability of an instantiated data node. It takes as a

Ma, et al.                 Expires 1 June 2026                 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft               immutable flag                November 2025

          value 'true' or 'false'. An immutable node cannot be changed
          via configuring a different value in read-write configuration
          datastores (e.g., <running>), though it can be created/deleted
          in read-write configuration datastores. If not specified for
          a given configuration data node, the immutability is the
          same as the value of its parent node in the data tree. The
          default value of 'immutable' annotation for a top-level
          instance node is false if not specified.";
     }

     augment "/ncds:get-data/ncds:input" {
       description
         "Allows the server to include 'immutable' metadata
          annotations in its response to get-data operation.";
       leaf with-immutability {
         when
           "derived-from-or-self(../ncds:datastore,'sysds:system') "
         + "or derived-from-or-self(../ncds:datastore,'ds:intended') "
         + "or derived-from-or-self(../ncds:datastore,'ds:operational')";
         type empty;
         description
           "If this parameter is present, the server returns the
            'immutable' annotation for configuration that it
            internally thinks immutable.";
       }
     }
   }
   <CODE ENDS>

10.  Security Considerations

   This section is modeled after the template described in Section 3.7
   of [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis].

   The "ietf-immutable-annotation" YANG module defines a data model that
   is designed to be accessed via YANG-based management protocols, such
   as NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040].  These protocols have to
   use a secure transport layer (e.g., SSH [RFC4252], TLS [RFC8446], and
   QUIC [RFC9000]) and have to use mutual authentication.

   The Network Configuration Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC8341]
   provides the means to restrict access for particular NETCONF or
   RESTCONF users to a preconfigured subset of all available NETCONF or
   RESTCONF protocol operations and content.

   The YANG module specified in this document defines a metadata
   annotation, it also extends the RPC operations of the NETCONF
   protocol in [RFC6241] and [RFC8526].

Ma, et al.                 Expires 1 June 2026                 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft               immutable flag                November 2025

   The immutable metadata annotation exposes the immutability of
   configuration data, which may provide hints for attackers to find
   vulnerabilities in the network, e.g., to leverage the immutability of
   some configuration to better craft an attack.  Since immutable
   annotations are attached to the instances of configuration data
   nodes, it is only accessible to clients that have the permissions to
   read the annotated configuration nodes.

   The security considerations for the NETCONF protocol operations (see
   Section 9 of [RFC6241] and Section 6 of [RFC8526]) also apply to the
   operations extended in this document.

11.  IANA Considerations

11.1.  The "IETF XML" Registry

   This document registers one XML namespace URN in the 'IETF XML
   registry', following the format defined in [RFC3688].

           URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-immutable-annotation
           Registrant Contact: The IESG.
           XML: N/A, the requested URIs are XML namespaces.

11.2.  The "YANG Module Names" Registry

   This document registers one module name in the 'YANG Module Names'
   registry, defined in [RFC6020].

        name: ietf-immutable-annotation
        prefix: imma
        namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-immutable-annotation
        RFC: XXXX

11.3.  RESTCONF Capability URN Registry

   This document defines the following capability identifier URNs in the
   "RESTCONF Capability URNs" registry defined in [RFC8040]:

   Index
   Capability Identifier
   ---------------------

   :with-immutability
   urn:ietf:params:restconf:capability:with-immutability:1.0

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

Ma, et al.                 Expires 1 June 2026                 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft               immutable flag                November 2025

   [I-D.ietf-netmod-system-config]
              Ma, Q., Wu, Q., and C. Feng, "System-defined
              Configuration", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              ietf-netmod-system-config-14, 27 November 2025,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-
              system-config-14>.

   [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>.

   [RFC3688]  Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3688>.

   [RFC6020]  Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
              the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6020>.

   [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>.

   [RFC7950]  Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
              RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7950>.

   [RFC7952]  Lhotka, L., "Defining and Using Metadata with YANG",
              RFC 7952, DOI 10.17487/RFC7952, August 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7952>.

   [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>.

   [RFC8341]  Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration
              Access Control Model", STD 91, RFC 8341,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8341, March 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8341>.

Ma, et al.                 Expires 1 June 2026                 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft               immutable flag                November 2025

   [RFC8526]  Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K.,
              and R. Wilton, "NETCONF Extensions to Support the Network
              Management Datastore Architecture", RFC 8526,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8526, March 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8526>.

12.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis]
              Bierman, A., Boucadair, M., and Q. Wu, "Guidelines for
              Authors and Reviewers of Documents Containing YANG Data
              Models", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
              netmod-rfc8407bis-28, 5 June 2025,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-
              rfc8407bis-28>.

   [RFC4252]  Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, Ed., "The Secure Shell (SSH)
              Authentication Protocol", RFC 4252, DOI 10.17487/RFC4252,
              January 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4252>.

   [RFC8340]  Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams",
              BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8340>.

   [RFC8343]  Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
              Management", RFC 8343, DOI 10.17487/RFC8343, March 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8343>.

   [RFC8446]  Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
              Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8446>.

   [RFC8530]  Berger, L., Hopps, C., Lindem, A., Bogdanovic, D., and X.
              Liu, "YANG Model for Logical Network Elements", RFC 8530,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8530, March 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8530>.

   [RFC9000]  Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based
              Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9000>.

   [TR-531]   ONF, "UML to YANG Mapping Guidelines", February 2023,
              <https://wiki.opennetworking.org/download/
              attachments/376340494/Draft_TR-531_UML-YANG_Mapping_Gdls_v
              1.1.03.docx?version=5&modificationDate=1675432243513&api=v
              2>.

Ma, et al.                 Expires 1 June 2026                 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft               immutable flag                November 2025

   [TS28.623] 3GPP, "Telecommunication management; Generic Network
              Resource Model (NRM) Integration Reference Point (IRP);
              Solution Set (SS) definitions",
              <https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/
              archive/28_series/28.623/28623-i02.zip>.

   [TS32.156] 3GPP, "Telecommunication management; Fixed Mobile
              Convergence (FMC) Model repertoire",
              <https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/
              archive/32_series/32.156/32156-h10.zip>.

Appendix A.  Detailed Use Cases

A.1.  UC1 - Modeling of server capabilities

   System capabilities might be represented as immutable configuration.
   Configurable data nodes might need constraints specified as "when",
   "must" or "path" statements to ensure that configuration is set
   according to the system's capabilities.  For example,

   *  A timer can support the values 1,5,8 seconds.  This is defined in
      the leaf-list 'supported-timer-values'.

   *  When the configurable 'interface-timer' leaf is set, it should be
      ensured that one of the supported values is used.  The natural
      solution would be to make the 'interface-timer' a leaf-ref
      pointing at the 'supported-timer-values'.

   However, this is not possible as 'supported-timer-values' must be
   read-only thus config=false while 'interface-timer' must be writable
   thus config=true.  According to the rules of YANG it is not allowed
   to put a constraint between config true and false data nodes.

   The solution is that the supported-timer-values data node in the YANG
   Model shall be defined as "config true" and shall also be marked with
   the "immutable" annotation making it unchangeable.  After this the
   'interface-timer' shall be defined as a leaf-ref pointing at the
   'supported-timer-values'.

A.2.  UC2 - Hardware based auto-configuration - Interface Example

   [RFC8343] defines a YANG data model for the management of network
   interfaces.  When a system-controlled interface is physically
   present, the system creates an interface entry with valid name and
   type values in <system> (if exists, see
   [I-D.ietf-netmod-system-config]).

Ma, et al.                 Expires 1 June 2026                 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft               immutable flag                November 2025

   The system-generated type value is dependent on and represents the
   hardware present, and as a consequence cannot be changed by the
   client.  If a client tries to set the type of an interface to a value
   that can never be used by the system, the request will be rejected by
   the server.  The data is modeled as "config true" and thus should be
   annotated as immutable.

   Seemingly an alternative would be to model the list and these leaves
   as "config false", but that does not work because:

   *  The list cannot be marked as "config false", because it needs to
      contain configurable child nodes, e.g., ip-address or enabled;

   *  The key leaf (name) cannot be marked as "config false" as the list
      itself is config true;

   *  The type cannot be marked "config false", because we MAY need to
      reference the type to make different configuration nodes
      conditionally available.

A.3.  UC3 - Predefined Administrator Roles

   User and group management is fundamental for setting up access
   control rules (see Section 2.5 of [RFC8341]).

   A device may provide a predefined user account (e.g., a system
   administrator that is always available and has full privileges) for
   initial system set up and management of other users/groups.  It is
   possible that a new user/group can be defined granted particular
   privileges, but the predefined administrator account and its granted
   access are immutable.

A.4.  UC4 - Declaring immutable system configuration from the
      perspective of a logical network element (LNE)

   A logical network element (LNE), as described in [RFC8530], is an
   independently managed virtual network device made up of resources
   allocated to it from its host or parent network device.  The host
   device may allocate some resources to an LNE, which from an LNE's
   perspective is provided by the system and may not be modifiable.

   For example, a host may allocate an interface to an LNE with a valid
   MTU value as its management interface, so that the allocated
   interface should then be accessible as the LNE-specific instance of
   the interface model.  The assigned MTU value is system-created and
   immutable from the context of the LNE.

Ma, et al.                 Expires 1 June 2026                 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft               immutable flag                November 2025

Appendix B.  Examples of Server's Immutable Behavior

   This section provides some examples to illustrate the server's
   behavior with immutable flag.  These examples are not intended as
   recommendations for real-world deployments.  The following fictional
   module is used throughout this section:

Ma, et al.                 Expires 1 June 2026                 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft               immutable flag                November 2025

   module example-user-group {
     yang-version 1.1;
     namespace "urn:example:user-group";
     prefix "ex-urp";

     import iana-crypt-hash {
       prefix ianach;
     }

     container user-groups {
       list user-group {
         key "name";
         leaf name {
           type string;
         }
         leaf description {
           type string;
         }
         leaf access-right {
           type enumeration {
             enum admin;
             enum power;
             enum normal;
             enum guest;
           }
         }
         list user {
           key "user-name";
           leaf user-name {
             type string;
           }
           leaf password {
             type ianach:crypt-hash;
           }
           leaf full-name {
             type string;
           }
         }
         leaf-list tag {
           type string;
           ordered-by user;
         }
       }
     }
   }

Ma, et al.                 Expires 1 June 2026                 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft               immutable flag                November 2025

   Figure 2 shows an example of "user-groups" configuration in <system>
   a server might return.  XML snippets are used only for illustration
   purposes.

   =============== NOTE: '\' line wrapping per RFC 8792 ================

   <user-groups xmlns="urn:example:user-group"
     xmlns:imma="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-immutable-annotation"
     imma:immutable="false">
     <user-group imma:immutable="true">
       <name>administrator</name>
       <description imma:immutable="false">administrator group</\
                                                            description>
       <access-right>admin</access-right>
       <user>
         <user-name>ex-username-1</user-name>
         <password>$5$salt$42x6N3voGLL5rV7qU5qK6L8jF9eD2aB3c</password>
       </user>
       <user imma:immutable="false">
         <user-name>ex-username-2</user-name>
         <password>$1$/h1234q$abcdef1234567890abcdef</password>
       </user>
       <tag>system</tag>
       <tag>non-editable</tag>
     </user-group>
     <user-group imma:immutable="false">
       <name>power-users</name>
       <description>Power user group</description>
       <access-right>power</access-right>
       <user>
         <user-name>ex-username-3</user-name>
         <password>$1$/h4567q$abcdef2345678901abcdef</password>
       </user>
       <tag>system</tag>
       <tag>editable</tag>
     </user-group>
   </user-groups>

     Figure 2: An Example of System-defined 'user-groups' Configuration

B.1.  The Inheritance of Immutability

   In the example in Figure 2, there are two "user-group" list entries
   inside "user-groups" container node.  The "immutable" metadata
   attribute for "user-groups" container instance is "false", which is
   also its default value as the top-level element, and thus can be
   omitted.  The "administrator" list entry is immutable with the
   immutability of its descendant nodes "description" and "user" list

Ma, et al.                 Expires 1 June 2026                 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft               immutable flag                November 2025

   entry of "ex-username-2" being explicitly toggled.  Other descendant
   nodes inside "administrator" list entry inherit the immutability of
   the list entry thus are also immutable.

   The "immutable" metadata attribute for "power-users" list entry is
   "false", which is also the same value as its parent node (i.e., the
   "user-groups" container), and thus can be omitted.  Other descendant
   nodes inside "power-users" user-group inherit the immutability of the
   list entry thus are also mutable.

B.2.  Immutability of the list

   In the example in Figure 2, the "user-group" list as a whole inherits
   immutability from the container "user-groups", which is mutable.  One
   of the list entry named "administrator" is immutable, and the other
   entry named "power-user" is mutable.  The client is able to copy the
   entire "user-groups" container in <running>, add new user-group
   entries, modify the values of descendant nodes of "power-users" list
   entry, but the values of descendant nodes of "administrator" list
   entry cannot be overridden with different values expect for the
   "description" and "ex-username-2" user list entry nodes, which is
   explicitly reset to be mutable.  The client may also subsequently
   delete any copied "user-group" entries or the entire "user-groups"
   container, which will not prevent the deleted data being present in
   <intended> (if implemented) assuming it is still contained in
   <system>.

   The "user" list inside the "administrator" user-group list entry as a
   whole inherits immutability from the list entry, which is immutable.
   Thus the client cannot add new user entries inside "administrator"
   user-group.  As one of the user entry named "ex-username-1" is
   immutable through inheritance, and the other "ex-username-2" user
   entry is explicitly set to be mutable.  The client cannot modify the
   "password" parameter, or add a "full-name" value for user "ex-
   username-1".  but is allowed to update (e.g., modify the "password"
   value, or add a "full-name" value) the list entry for user "ex-
   username-2".  The client may copy or subsequently delete any of the
   two list entries in <running>, but there is no way to delete the
   nodes from <intended> (if implemented).

B.3.  Immutability of the leaf-list

   In the example in Figure 2, the user-ordered "tag" leaf-list node
   inside the "administrator" user-group entry as a whole inherits
   immutability from the list entry, which is immutable.  Thus the
   client cannot add, modify, or reorder entries, the client may copy or
   subsequently delete any of the two leaf-list entries in <running>,
   but there is no way to delete the nodes from <intended> if those

Ma, et al.                 Expires 1 June 2026                 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft               immutable flag                November 2025

   entries appear in <system>.

   The leaf-list node instance inside the "power-users" user-group entry
   as a whole inherits immutability from the list entry, which is
   mutable.  Thus the client can add or reorder entries, the client may
   copy or subsequently delete any of the two leaf-list entries in
   <running>, but there is no way to delete the nodes from <intended> if
   those entries appear in <system>.

Appendix C.  Existing Implementations

   Note to the RFC Editor: Please remove this section prior to
   publication.

   There are already a number of full or partial implementations of
   immutability:

   *  3GPP TS 32.156 [TS32.156] and 28.623 [TS28.623]: Requirements and
      a partial solution

   *  ITU-T using ONF TR-531 [TR-531] concept on information model level
      but no YANG representation.

   *  Ericsson: requirements and solution

   *  YumaPro: requirements and solution

   *  Nokia: partial requirements and solution

   *  Huawei: partial requirements and solution

   *  Cisco using the concept at least in some YANG modules

   *  Junos OS provides a hidden and immutable configuration group
      called junos-defaults

Acknowledgments

   Thanks to Kent Watsen, Jan Lindblad, Jason Sterne, Robert Wilton,
   Andy Bierman, Juergen Schoenwaelder, Reshad Rahman, Anthony Somerset,
   Lou Berger, Joe Clarke, and Scott Mansfield for reviewing, and
   providing important inputs to this document.

Authors' Addresses

   Qiufang Ma (editor)
   Huawei
   101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District

Ma, et al.                 Expires 1 June 2026                 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft               immutable flag                November 2025

   Nanjing, Jiangsu
   210012
   China
   Email: maqiufang1@huawei.com

   Qin Wu
   Huawei
   101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
   Nanjing, Jiangsu
   210012
   China
   Email: bill.wu@huawei.com

   Balazs Lengyel (editor)
   Ericsson
   Email: balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com

   Hongwei Li
   HPE
   Email: flycoolman@gmail.com

Ma, et al.                 Expires 1 June 2026                 [Page 24]