I2RS protocol strawman
draft-hares-i2rs-protocol-strawman-01
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Susan Hares , Andy Bierman , Amit Dass | ||
| Last updated | 2016-03-21 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-hares-i2rs-protocol-strawman-01
I2RS working group S. Hares
Internet-Draft Huawei
Intended status: Standards Track A. Beirman
Expires: September 22, 2016 YumaWorks
A. Dass
Ericsson
March 21, 2016
I2RS protocol strawman
draft-hares-i2rs-protocol-strawman-01.txt
Abstract
This document provides a strawman proposal for the I2RS protocol
covering the ephemeral data store and data flow requirements not
covered by I2RS publication/subscription service or traceability. It
also proposes additions to YANG for the ephemeral data store and for
additional data flow requirements. It proposes additions to the
NETCONF and RESTCONF for these additions. Future versions of this
document will propose changes to support the I2RS protocol security
requirements.
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 http://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 September 22, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman March 2016
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Ephemeral Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Data Flow Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Definitions Related to Ephemeral Configuration . . . . . . . 5
3. Definition of ephemeral datastore for NETCONF/RESTCONF . . . 6
4. Error handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Error handling: I2RS Normal handling . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Error Handling: Multiple I2RS Clients Write Same Node . . 10
4.3. Error handling: Basic Impact on functions . . . . . . . . 10
4.3.1. Initial Support of Parital Writes . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3.2. Future Scope of multiple message writes . . . . . . . 10
4.3.3. Grouping and Error handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4. Error Handling: Different levels of Validation (Debate
topic) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4.1. Validation during security outage . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.4.2. Solution ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.4.3. Impact on NETCONF/RESTCONF functions . . . . . . . . 13
5. transport protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.1. Secure Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.2. Insecure Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Yang Library Use by Ephemeral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Simple Thermostat Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.1. Yang changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.2. RESTCONF sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.3. NETCONF messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8. NETCONF protocol extensions for the ephemeral datastore . . . 21
8.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8.2. Dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8.3. Capability identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8.4. New Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8.4.1. Bulk-Write . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8.5. Modification to existing operations . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8.5.1. <get-config> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8.5.2. <edit-config> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8.5.3. <copy-config> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8.5.4. <delete-config> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8.5.5. <lock> and <unlock> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8.5.6. <get> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8.5.7. <close-session> and <kill-session> . . . . . . . . . 25
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman March 2016
8.6. Interactions with Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8.6.1. writable-running and candidate datastore . . . . . . 25
8.6.2. confirmed commmit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
8.6.3. rollback-on-error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
8.6.4. validate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
8.6.5. Distinct Startup Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
8.6.6. URL capability and XPATH capability . . . . . . . . . 27
9. RESTCONF protocol extensions for the ephemeral datastore . . 27
9.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
9.2. Dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
9.3. Capability identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
9.4. New Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
9.5. modification to data resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9.6. Modification to existing operations . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9.6.1. OPTIONS changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9.6.2. HEAD changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9.6.3. GET changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9.6.4. POST changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9.6.5. PUT changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9.6.6. PATCH changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9.6.7. DELETE changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9.6.8. Query Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9.7. Interactions with Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9.8. Interactions with Error Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
13. Major Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
14.1. Normative References: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
1. Introduction
This documents is a strawman for I2RS higher level protocol. The
I2RS protocol is a higher level protocol comprised of a set existing
protocols which have been extended to work together to support a new
interface to the routing system. Some people are suggesting only two
protocols should be defined: NETCONF [RFC6241], and RESTCONF
[I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf]. Others are suggesting we should include
other data protocols.
This draft is input to a NETCONF review and design team. Many items
have been settled on. Some items are in debate and those titles of
those sections are marked.
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman March 2016
This strawman proposal for the I2RS protocol covers the ephemeral
data store and data flow requirements not covered by I2RS
publication/subscription service or traceability. It also proposes
additions to YANG for the ephemeral data store and for these
additional data flow requirements. It also proposes extensions to
NETCONF and RESTCONF to support ephemeral state and I2RS.
draft-hares-i2rs-protocol-strawman-examples (pending) provides
examples of this strawman protocol use for I2RS. This draft uses a
simple thermostat model to illustrate commands.
1.1. Ephemeral Changes
This document proposes additions to support ephemeral state in the
datastores supported by NETCONF and RESTCONF, and in the YANG modules
that define these data stores. The requirements for the I2RS
ephemeral state are covered in [I-D.ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state]
This draft provides suggests the following additions to support the
I2RS ephemeral state:
o Yang ephemeral statement,
o NETCONF ([RFC6241]) protocol extensions for the ephemeral data
store,
o RESTCONF ([I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf]) protocol extensions for the
ephemeral data store
1.2. Data Flow Changes
This document proposes additions to support data flows from different
data models for large data flows, traffic monitoring, actions and OAM
interaction, and flows during outages or attacks. The requirements
for these changes are define in [I-D.hares-i2rs-dataflow-req].
Most large data flows will be handled utilizing the publication/
subscription service define in the I2RS publication/subscription
service requirements specified in
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements]. Extensions to NETCONF to
support a push publication/subscription service have been defined in
[I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push]. This document does not propose a pull
publication/subscription (pull pub-sub) service for the first set of
component protocols for the I2RS higher level protocol. If
deployments require the pull pub-sub service, then an expansion of
the push service can provide one mechanism.
This document does provide support for the I2RS protocol to:
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman March 2016
Support large data transfers in a data agnostic format (DF-REQ-02)
supporting transfers of data in any format (E.g. XML, JSON, MTL,
protobuf, ASCII) over any transport (DF-REQ-03).
Support the use of IPFIX as a component protocol to send traffic
monitoring data or any type of large data flow from I2RS agent to
I2RS client (DF-REQ-04),
Support exporting traffic statistics for filter-based policy usage
(BGP-FS, I2RS FB-FIB, policy routing), IPPM, SFLOW and other
traffic statistics using either yang models or IPFIX template
formats over any data encapsulation format over any transport (DF-
REQ-05).
2. Definitions Related to Ephemeral Configuration
Currently the configuration systems managed by NETCONF ([RFC6241]) or
RESTCONF ([I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf]) have three types of
configuration: candidate, running, and startup running under the
config=true flag.
o The candidate receives configuration changes from NETCONF/
RESTCONF.
o The running configuration is the configuration currently operating
on a devices
o The start-up configuration is the configuration that survives a
reboot.
The config=false flag has operational data which exists alongside the
config=true data. However, at this point there is no datastored
defined for configuration false.
........... ........... ...........
:Candidate : --> : running : --> :start-up :
........... ........... ...........
config true
---------------------------------------------
config false
Figure 1
The [I-D.ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs] defines new terms to clarify how
this works. In reality, the running configuration becomes the
intended configuration that is intended to be loaded into a device.
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman March 2016
The loading of the update into the system can be either asynchronous
or synchronous. In the asynchronous case, the NETCONF server
responds to the client after the intended has been updated, but the
applied configuration is only updated later when the configuration
change has full impacted all components on the device. The
synchronous configuration operation occurs when both the intent
configuration has been updated and the actual configuration has been
loaded after resolving the necessary things to load in a box.
This document will use the terms defined in
[I-D.ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs].
........... ........... ...........
:Candidate : --> : running : --> :start-up :
........... ......||... ...........
||
=======||========
| Intended |
| configuration |
======||=========
config true ||
----------------------||-------------------
config false ||
+----------------||------+
| operational || |
| state || |
| =========||== |
| | Applied | |
| | config | |
| ============= |
| _____________ |
| | derived | |
| | state | |
| |___________| |
+------------------------+
Figure 2
3. Definition of ephemeral datastore for NETCONF/RESTCONF
This section describes the properties of the ephemeral datastore.
The ephemeral datastore is not unique to I2RS. This approach to the
ephemeral datastore is a panes-of-glass model. This definition of
I2RS does not support caching in the I2RS Agents. Future I2RS work
may reconsidered supporting caching.
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman March 2016
............ ............... ...........
:Candidate :-->: running :-->:start-up :
............ ..|............ ...........
:ephemeral : |
|
|
===========|====================
| Intended Ephemeral |==[I2RS Agent]
| configuration Intended | asynchronous/
| Configuration| synchronous write
|===========||==================
||
config true ||
-------------------||----------------------
config false ||
||
+-------------||--------------------+
| operational || |
| state || |
| ======||=================== |
| | Applied Configuration | |
| |(from normal + ephemeral)| |
| | | |
| ========================== |
| _________________________ |
| | derived state | |
| |from normal + ephemeral)| |
| | RIB and protocols | |
| |________________________| |
+-----------------------------------+
Figure 3
The ephemeral data store has the following qualities:
1. Ephemeral state is not unique to I2RS work.
2. The ephemeral datastore is never locked.
3. The ephemeral datastore is really a portion of the intended
configuration that does not persist over a reboot.
* Since Ephemeral is just about data not presisting over a
reboot, then in theory any node or group of nodes in a YANG
data model could be ephemeral. The YANG data module must
indicate what portion of the data model (if any) is ephemeral.
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman March 2016
* A YANG data module could be all ephemeral (e.g.
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model]) with no directly associated
configuration models,
* A YANG model could be all ephemeral but associated with a
configuration model (E.g. [I-D.hares-i2rs-bgp-dm],
* or a single data node or data tree could be made ephemeral.
4. The applied configuration is the result of the the intent
configuration (normal and ephemeral). Similarly, the derived
data is a result of the applied configuration.
5. Ephemeral portions (node, tree, or data model) need to be
signalled in the conformance portions of the NETCONF and RESTCONF
work. Conformance is signalled in the following ways:
* The conformance portion of NETCONF ([RFC6241]) is currently
signalled in the <hello>.
* Yang 1.1 and RESTCONF uses the module library
([I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-library])
* NETCONF may use the module library in the future.
* The ephemeral status in a module will be listed as "all, none
or partial". Optionally the module may provide a list of
nodes.
6. The ephemeral data store is treated as one pane of glass that an
I2RS client(s) may read/write which has the following
implications:
* The ephemeral datastore overlays the configuration datastore
at the intended configuration. By overlays, the I2RS write
overwrites a previous configuration value, but if a local
configuration value changes after that over-write the default
is to have the local-config win. [aka Last Write wins.]
+ An example may help to illustrate this default rule. Say a
configuration specifies a local route of 128.2/16 with a
nexthop of 192.5.10.1. Afterwards an ephemeral route is
added for 128.2/16 with nexthop of 192.5.10.2. This
ephemeral route would replace the first route. If the
configuration changes the underlying route (128.2/16 with
nexthop of 192.5.10.1) and the default rule of local
configuration is in effect, the local configuration value
(128.2/16 with nexthop of 192.5.10.1) would take effect.
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman March 2016
This follows the normal netconf concept that Last
configured wins. The I2RS agent would notify the I2RS
Client that the ephemeral route (128.2/16 with nexthop of
192.5.10.2) had been overwritten by the local
configuration.
* The default of local can be changed by operator-applied policy
to allow ephemeral to always win or local configuration to
always win, but the status of the operator applied policy must
be queryable in the I2RS agent (if that scope) or in the I2RS
ephemeral data model. I2RS clients are required to understand
and handle if the an I2RS agent supports something different
than the default (aka Last write wins).
4. Error handling
This section will go over I2RS normal error handling, error handling
when multiple I2RS clients write to the same node, and suggested
alterations to the validation process for nodes.
Editor's note: The requirement for alterations to validation needs to
be confirmed.
4.1. Error handling: I2RS Normal handling
Normal error handling of I2RS Agent for an I2RS client's information
examines the following:
o message syntax validation,
o syntax validation for nodes of data model,
o removes referential requirements for leafref checking, MUST
clauses, and instance indentifier,
o grouping of data within a data model or across data models to
accomplish tasks,
o permission to write nodes of data model,
o grouping,
o priority to write nodes of data model being higher than existing
priority
The full error handling status includes all checks included for any
normal YANG data module used by NETCONF/RESTCONF. This includes
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman March 2016
referential checks for leafref checks, MUST clauses, and instance
identifiers.
If the I2RS protocol allows agents to set permissible range of error
handling for writes on a data model (none, I2RS normal, full), then
those stating this requirement want to be able to change this with
operator-applied settings (e.g. always request full validation).
4.2. Error Handling: Multiple I2RS Clients Write Same Node
Multiple I2RS clients writing to the same variable is considered an
"error condition" in the I2RS architecture
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture], but the I2RS Agent must handle this
error condition. Upon multiple I2RS clients writing, the ephemeral
data store allows for priority pre-emption of the write operation.
Priority pre-emption means each I2RS client of the ephemeral I2RS
agent (netconf server) is associated with a priority. Priority pre-
emption occurs when a I2RS client with a higher priority writes a
node which has been written by an I2RS client (with the lower
priority). At this point, the I2RS agent (netconf server) allows the
write and provides a notification indication to the notification
publication/subscription service.
4.3. Error handling: Basic Impact on functions
4.3.1. Initial Support of Parital Writes
The initial releases of I2RS will only require "all-or-nothing" in
the I2RS Agent.
4.3.1.1. NETCONF Support of Partial Writes
NETCONF does not support a mandated sequencing of edit functions or
write functions. Without this mandated sequences, NETCONF cannot
support partial edits.
4.3.1.2. RESTCONF Support of Partial Writes
RESTCONF has a complete set of operations per message. The RESTCONF
patch can support write functions per messages.
4.3.2. Future Scope of multiple message writes
Error handling on writes of the ephemeral datastore is different for
nodes that are grouped versus orthogonal. Group nodes may need to be
all changed or all removed (all-or-nothing). In contrast, writing
orthogonal data nodes in the same data module or between data models
need to be added or deleted in sync.
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman March 2016
The [I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture] specifies three types of error
handling for a partial write operation: "all-or-nothing", "stop-on-
error", or "continue-on-error". Partial write operations of "stop-
on-error" or "continue-on-error" are allowed only for data writes
which are not a part of a grouping within a data model. The
definition of the I2RS error conditions are:
o stop-on-error - means that the configuration process stops when a
write to the configuration detects an error due to write conflict.
o continue-on-error - means the configuration process continues when
a write to the configuration detects an error due to write
process, and error reports are transmitted back to the client
writing the error.
o all-or-nothing - means that all of the configuration process is
correctly applied or no configuration process is applied.
(Inherent in all-or-nothing is the concept of checking all changes
before applying.)
4.3.3. Grouping and Error handling
Yang 1.0 and Yang 1.1 provide the ability to group data in groupings,
leafref lists, lists, and containers. Grouping of data within a
model links to data that is logically associated with one another.
Data models may logical group data across models. One example of
such an association is the association of a static route with an
interface. The concepts of groupings apply to both ephemeral and
non-ephemeral nodes within a data model.
4.4. Error Handling: Different levels of Validation (Debate topic)
The requirement for Ephemeral nodes level of validation/error
handling in the I2RS protocol have been suggested to have three types
of validation based on an operator-applied policy for I2RS protocol.
o syntax validation only,
o Ephemeral data store allows for reduced error handling that
removes the requirements for referential checks [I2RS normal error
handling]
o ephemeral data store handling that uses normal NETCONF/RESTCONF
error handling with syntax and referential [full],
Editor's note: Andy Bierman believes that only full-validation will
work. Kent Watsen suggested the "no-referential checks". Jan Medved
suggested the "syntax only checks". Three excellent engineers who
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman March 2016
are implementing I2RS suggested these three features. The editor
needs aid to discuss the details of this requirement and proposal.
The first step is to see if we can confirm the requirement. After
we've confirmed the requirement, the second step is to have a
detailed discussion about the pro/cons of this validation. We expect
to do this at IETF95.
4.4.1. Validation during security outage
[I-D.hares-i2rs-dataflow-req] indicates that higher levels of
validity need to occur during security attacks. Network security
controllers communicate with routing devices with network security
functions such as basic firewalls in order change firewall settings
during attacks. The I2NSF WG is defining communication bewteen the
network security controllers and the NSF/vNSF functions in the
routers and other network devices. [I-D.hares-i2nsf-mgtflow-reqs]
describes the challenges to management information flow between NSF
controllers and NSF/vNSF devices operating correctly or effective
during DDoS or network security attacks.
Higher referential checks may be useful during these periods of
security attacks (DDoS or others).
4.4.2. Solution ideas
This section is written to provide ideas for that discussion.
If the I2RS protocol is required to have three levels of error
handling (syntax only, no-referential, full), the following are ideas
for solutions:
1. only allow full validation,
2. allow a particular set of validation (syntax checks, no-
referential, all-checks) per deployments of an I2RS Agent
(operator-applied selection of error checking on the whole
system),
3. Restrict the use of the "syntax only to operator-applied error
checking" (argument: if the operator wants to shoot himself in
the foot, fine). Note any module, submodule, or node that has
this feature.
4. Restrict the the use of "no-referential checking to I2RS
independent protocol modules, and provide error resports of
referential checks,
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman March 2016
4.4.3. Impact on NETCONF/RESTCONF functions
This section describes the ephemeral data stores handling for each of
the functions.
4.4.3.1. Syntax validation
Syntax validation of the message should be done according to the
NETCONF or RESTCONF protocol features. New features for ephemeral
datastore should provide the error handling with the feature.
Message syntax validation can be for read, write, or rpc functions.
Syntax validation of the data model included in the ephemeral data
store should be done by I2RS Agent.
4.4.3.2. Referential validation
The ephemeral data store normal processing does not do the following
referencial checks: leafref, MUST, instance identifier. The removal
of these validations allows for intelligent I2RS clients to rapidly
read or write data, and handle error conditions at a higher level.
4.4.3.3. Grouping and Error handling
Yang 1.0 and Yang 1.1 provide the ability to group data in groupings,
leafref lists, lists, and containers. Adding the ephemeral data
store will add these rules to references between data stores:
1. Ephemeral node can refer to config nodes, or derived state nodes
(e.g. LSP),
2. config nodes cannot refer to ephemeral intended configuration
nodes, and
3. derived state nodes can refer to ephemeral configuration or
configuratino nodes.
4. derived state nodes are "non-persistent" and may disappear if a
protocol event occurs
5. ephemeral datastore nodes are "non-presistent" and will disappear
upon a reboot of the software/hardware.
Referential checks require the above rules. Not doing referential
checks could cause one or more broken references to exist in the
ephemeral data base. An ephemeral data bases with broken references
may crash, given faulty information, or perform wrong protocol
actions.
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman March 2016
4.4.3.4. Priority preemption
I2RS protocol uses priority to resolve two I2RS clients having
permissions to write the same pieces of data in an I2RS agent
(NETCONF server). If two (or more) I2RS clients attempt to write the
same data, the the one with the highest priority is enable to write
the data. In the case of two clients with the sample priority
attempting to write data, the the first one to request write wins.
Each client has a unique priority. Client identities and priorities
are assigned outside of I2RS by exterior mechanisms such as AAA or
adminstrative interfaces. A valid I2RS client must have both an
identity and a priority.
A client-id and priority must be saved per node.
A sample container for I2RS client information is shown below.
container i2rs-clients {
leaf max-clients {
config false;
mandatory true;
type uint32 {
range "1 .. max";
}
}
list i2rs-client {
key name;
unique priority;
leaf name { ... }
leaf priority { ... }
}
}
Figure 4
4.4.3.4.1. Andy Bierman Priority Comment
(Andy)This priority is not required to be densely numbered. Whether
there are 1 pane per client or 1 pane per priority or 1 giant blob
full of everything, the code will be the same. The goal of "unique
priority" is to require that only priority be saved in the meta-data
for the ephemeral datastore. Without that, client-id and priority
must be saved (per data node).
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman March 2016
5. transport protocol
5.1. Secure Protocols
NETCONF's XML-based protocol ([RFC6241]) can operate over the
following secure and encrypted transport layer protocols:
SSH as defined in [RFC6242],
TLS with X.509 authentication [RFC7589]
RESTCONF's XML-based or JSON [RFC7158] data encodings of Yang
functions are passed over HTTOS with (GET, POST, PUT, PATCH, DELETE,
OPTIONS, and HEAD).
5.2. Insecure Protocol
The ephemeral database may support insecure protocols for information
which is ephemeral state which does not engage in configuration. The
insecure protocol must be defined in conjunction with a data model or
a subdata model.
[RFC6536] has two extensions for security. Two extensions supporting
ephemeral and insecure might look like:
extenson ephemeral {
description "if present in a data definition statement
then the object is considered OK for editing as ephemeral data."
}
extension non-secure-ok {
description "if present in data definition statement
then the object is considered OK for non-secure transport."}
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman March 2016
T declare a local config and ephemeral edit:
leaf both {
i2rs:ephemeral;
type string;
config true;
// Yang allows leafref/XPATH to point at config=true only
}
To declare an object ephemeral edit only
leaf eph {
i2rs:ephemeral;
type string;
config false;
}
To declare a non-secure leaf
leaf in-octets {
i2rs:nonsecure-ok;
type yang:counter64;
config false;
}
6. Yang Library Use by Ephemeral
The data modules supporting the ephemeral datastore can use the Yang
module library to describe their datastore. Figure 5 shows the
module library data structure as found
[I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-library].
The I2RS modules will provide features for I2RS ephemeral state and
protocol of:
o protocol version support - "version 1",
o ephemeral model scope - ephemeral modules, mixed config module
(ephemeral and config), mixed derived state (ephemeral and
config).
o multiple message support - "all or nothing",
o pane of glass support - "single only".
o protocol supported - "NETCONF", "RESTCONF", "NETCONF pub-sub
push",
o encoding support - XML or JSON
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman March 2016
o transports protocol supported: "TCP", "SSH", "TLS", non-secure,
and othrs.
o configuration for non-secure transport (An example is
* i2rs:nonsecure-ok;
)
+--ro modules
+--ro module*[name revision]
+--ro name yang: yang-identifier
+--ro revision union;
+--ro schema? inet:uri
+--ro namespace inet:uri
+--ro feature* yang:yang-identifier
+--ro deviation* [name revision]
| +-- ro name yang:yang-identifier
| +-- ro revision union
+--ro conformance enumeration
+--ro submodules
+--ro submodule*[name revision]
+--ro name yang:yang-identifier
+--ro revision union
+--ro schema? inet:uri
Figure 5
Editor's Note: One feature under debate is data modules providing
different levels of check on rpc or writes.
ephemeral checking - syntax only, no-referential, and full
checking.
7. Simple Thermostat Model
In this discussion of ephemeral configuration, this draft utilizes a
simple thermostat model with the YANG configuration found in figure
6.
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman March 2016
module thermostat {
..
leaf desired-temp {
type int32;
units "degrees Celsius";
description "The desired temperature";
}
leaf actual-temp {
type int32;
config false;
units "degrees Celsius";
description "The measured temperature
(operational state).";
}
}
Figure 6 - Simple thermostat YANG Model
Figure 6 shows two I2RS clients talking to this model: scheduler and
hold-temp. Scheduler has a schedule set of temperatures to put in
the thermostat. Hold-temp holds the temperature at the same value.
The hold-temp I2RS client has a higher priority than the scheduler
client.
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman March 2016
........... ................... ...........
:Candidate :---:running config :--: start-up :
: : :desired-temp (cfg): : :
........... .................. ...........
|
|
|
|
| =============
| |I2rs Client|
| /|scheduler |
| | ============
.........|.......... |
Intended . '''''''V''''''' . | ==============
Config . 'desired-temp'' | |I2RS Client |
. '''''''''^''''''<---+ | hold temp |
. 'ephemeral-temp'<========| |
...........|.......
config true |
------------------------|-------------
config false | (config down,
V status of config up)
=============
| Actual |============ I2RS clients
| config |
=============
______________
| actual temp |========== I2RS Clients
| (op-state) |
----------------
Figure 6 - Two I2RS clients
7.1. Yang changes
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman March 2016
module thermostat {
..
leaf desired-temp {
type int32;
units "degrees Celsius";
ephemeral true;
description "The desired temperature";
}
leaf actual-temp {
type int32;
config false;
units "degrees Celsius";
description "The measured temperature";
}
}
Figure 7 - Simple Thermostat Yang with ephemeral
7.2. RESTCONF sequence
Figure 7 shows the thermostat model has ephemeral variable desired-
temp in the running configuration and the ephemeral data store. The
RESTCONF way of addressing is below:
RESTCONF running data store
PUT /restconf/data/thermostat:desired-temp
{"desired-temp":18}
RESTCONF ephemeral datastore
PUT /restconf/data/thermostat:desired-temp?datastore=ephemeral
{"desired-temp":19 }
Figure 8 - RESTCONF setting of ephemeral state
7.3. NETCONF messages
The NETCONF way of transmitting this data would be
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman March 2016
<rpc-message-id=101
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:base:1.0">
<edit-config>
<target>
<ephemeral >
true
</ephemeral >
</target>
<config>
<top xmlsns="http:://example.com/schema/1.0/thermostat/config>
<desired-temp> 18 </desired-temp>
</top>
</config>
</edit-config>
</rpc>
Note: config=TRUE; datastore = ephemeral
ephemeral-validation=full-check;
figure 8 NETCONF setting of desired-temp
8. NETCONF protocol extensions for the ephemeral datastore
capability-name: ephemeral-datastore
8.1. Overview
This capability defines the NETCONF protocol extensions for the
ephemeral state. The ephemeral state has the following features:
o the ephemeral datastore is a datastore that holds configuration
information (Config=true) that is intended to not survive a
reboot.
o The ephemeral capbility is signalled as a capability for a node, a
sub-module, or a module either in the conformance portion of
NETCONF (<hello>) or via netconf yang module library
([I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-library]) used by Yang 1.1 and RESTCONF.
o ephemeral data will be noted by an "ephemeral statement at the
node or module "
o The ephemeral datastore is never locked.
o The ephemeral data store is one pane of glass that overrides the
intended config which is normally the running datastore, but can
be designated as the candidate config.
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman March 2016
o Ephemeral data nodes can occur as part of protocol or protocol
independent modules. However, ephemeral data nodes cannot have
non-ephemeral data nodes within the subtree. Ephemeral sub-
modules cannot have non-ephemeral data nodes wihin the module.
Ephemeral modules cannot have non-ephemeral sub-modules or nodes
within the module.
o ephemeral writes have two checks: error validation and priority
premption between two I2RS client writes to the same data.
o ephemeral error checking has the following three levels
* syntax only - message and data module syntax,
* reduced error checking that remove the requirement for leafref
checking, MUST clauses, and instance identifier validation.
The default is reduced error checking.
o The write operation with a priority pre-emption by a higher
priority client of the lower priority clients write where the
overwrite triggers a notification by the I2RS agent to the lower
priority client.
8.2. Dependencies
The following are the dependencies for ephemeral support:
The Yang data modules must be flag with the ephemeral data store
at the node, sub-module and model.
(under debate) Yang data models must specify ephemeral validation
if the models desire validation other reduced error checking.
The Yang modules must support the notification of write-conflicts.
8.3. Capability identifier
The ephemeral-datastore capability is identified by the following
capability string: (capability uri)
8.4. New Operations
8.4.1. Bulk-Write
Bulk Write allows for large scale writes with error handling that is
specified as syntax or reduced or full. Alternatively, the data
modules can utilize an RPC to do bulk reads/writes. The bulk write
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman March 2016
will be first check for other I2RS clients having a higher priority
write value for any of the values.
Editor: Do we need something beyond rpc for bulk data writes?
8.5. Modification to existing operations
The capability for :ephemeral-datastore modifies the target for
existing operations.
8.5.1. <get-config>
The :ephemeral-datastore capability modifies the <edit-config> to
accept the <ephemeral> as a target for source, and allows the filters
focused on a particular module, submodule, or node.
The positive and negative responses remain the same.
Example - retrieve users subtree from
ephemeral database
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<get-config>
<source>
<emphemeral-datastore/>
</source>
<filter type="subtree">
<top xmlns="http://example.com/schema/1.0/thermostat/config">
<desired-temp>
</top>
</filter>
</get-config>
</rpc>
8.5.2. <edit-config>
The :ephemeral-datastore capability modifies the <edit-config> to
accept the <ephemeral> as a target for source with filters. The
operations of merge, replace, create, delete, and remove are
available, but each of these operations is modified by the priority
write as follows:
<merge> parameter is replaced by <merge-priority> The current data
is modified by the new data in a merge fashion only if existing
data either does not exist, or is owned by a lower priority
client. If any data is replaced, this event is passed to the
notification function within the pub/sub and traceability.
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman March 2016
<replace> is replaced by <replace-priority> for ephemeral
datastore which replaces data if the existing data is owned by a
lower priority client. If data any data is replaced, this event
is passed to the notification function within pub/sub and
traceability for notification to the previous client. The success
or failure of the event is passed to traceabilty.
<create> - the creation of the data node works as in [RFC6241]
except that the success or failure is passed to pub/sub and
traceability functions.
<deletion> - the deletion of the data node works as in [RFC6241]
except event that the success or the error event is passed to the
notiication services in the pub/sub and traceability functions.
<remove> - the remove of the data node works as in [RFC6241]
except that all results are forwarded to traceabilty.
The existing parameters are modified as follows:
<target> - add a target of :emphemeral-datastore
<default-operation> -allows only <merge-priority> or <replace-
priority>
<error-option> - the I2RS agent agent supports only the a"all-or-
nothing" equivalent to a "rollback-on-error" function.
positive response - the <ok> is sent for a positive response
within an <rpc-reply>.
negative response - the <rpc-error> is sent for a negative
response within an <rpc-reply>. Note a negative respones may
evoke a publication of an event.
8.5.3. <copy-config>
Copy config allows for the complete replacement of all the ephemeral
nodes within a target. The alternation is that source is the
:ephemeral datastore with the filtering to match the datastore. The
following existing parameters are modified as follows:
<target> - add a target of :emphemeral-datastore
<error-option> - the I2RS agent agent supports only the a"all-or-
nothing" equivalent to a "rollback-on-error" function.
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman March 2016
positive response - the <ok> is sent for a positive response
within an <rpc-reply>.
negative response - the <rpc-error> is sent for a negative
response within an <rpc-reply>.
8.5.4. <delete-config>
The delete will delete all ephemeral nodes out of a datastore. The
target parameter must be changed to allow :ephemeral-datastore. and
filters.
8.5.5. <lock> and <unlock>
Lock and unlock are not supported with a target of :ephemeral-
datastore.
8.5.6. <get>
The <get> is altered to allow a target of :ephemeral-datastore and
with the filters.
8.5.7. <close-session> and <kill-session>
The close session is modified to take a target of :ephemeral-
datastore, Since no locks are set, none should be released.
The kill session is modified to take a target of "ephemeral-
datastore. Since no locks are set, none should be released.
8.6. Interactions with Capabilities
[RFC6241] defines NETCONF capabilities for writeable-running
datastore, candidate config data store, confirmed commit, rollback-
on-error, validate, distinct start-up, URL capability, and XPATH
capability. I2RS ephemeral state does not impact the writeable-
running data store or the candiate config datastore.
8.6.1. writable-running and candidate datastore
The writeable-running and the candidate datastore cannot be used in
conjunction with the ephemeral data store. Ephemeral database
overlays an intended configuration, and does not impact the writable-
running or candidate data store.
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman March 2016
8.6.2. confirmed commmit
Confirmed commit capability is not supported for the ephemeral
datastore.
8.6.3. rollback-on-error
The rollback-on-error when included with ephemeral state allows the
error handling to be "all-or-nothing" (roll-back-on-error).
8.6.4. validate
Editorial: Andy Bierman feels that any validation except full is
going to leave the ephemeral datastore unusable. Kent Watsen
suggested a "no-referential" validation as the default for I2RS
protocol. Jan Medved indicated that many of the ODL Route updates
are validated on the I2RS client extensively, so that the update can
occur quickly with a "syntax only". Three operations people have
indicated 3 different implementations. This needs to be discussed at
IETF.
The text below is only a command that would provide a key word to
allow three different types of validation. The command gives form to
the requirements and comments from others, but it may also be broken.
The <validate> key word is expanded to support the following:
source: ephemeral-datastore
validate: (syntax, no-referential, full) with the following
definitions:
* syntax - validates only the message syntax and the data base
syntax.
* no-referentail - skips referential test (leafref, MUST clauses,
and instance identifiers).
* full - all normal netconf/restconf module error chcking
8.6.5. Distinct Startup Capability
This NETCONF capability appears to operate to load write-able running
config, running-config, or candidate datastore. The ephemeral state
does not change the environment based on this command.
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman March 2016
8.6.6. URL capability and XPATH capability
The URL capabilities specify a <url> in the <source> and <target>.
The initial suggestion to allow both of these features to work with
ephemeral datastore.
9. RESTCONF protocol extensions for the ephemeral datastore
capability-name: ephemeral-datastore
9.1. Overview
This capability defines the RESTCONF protocol extensions for the
ephemeral state. The ephemeral state has the features described in
the previous section on NETCONF.
9.2. Dependencies
The ephemeral capabilities have the following dependencies:
Yang data nodes, sub-modules, or modules must be flaged with the
config datastore flag;
The Yang modules must support the notification of write-conflicts.
The I2RS Yang modules must support the following:
the yang-patch features as specified in
[I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-patch].
The yang module library feature
[I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-library],
the equivalent of the netconf pub/subscription push service
found in [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push]
9.3. Capability identifier
The ephemeral-datastore capability is identified by the following
capability string: (capability uri)
9.4. New Operations
none
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman March 2016
9.5. modification to data resources
RESTCONF must be able to support the ephemeral datstore as a context
with its rules as part of the "{+restconf}/data" subtree. The "edit
collision" features in RESTCONF must be able to provide notification
to I2RS read functions or to rpc functions. The "timestamp" with a
last modified features must support the traceability function.
The "Entity Tag" could support saving a client-priority tuple as a
opaque string, but it is important that that additions be made to
restore client-priority so it can be compared with strimgs can be
done to determine the comparison of two I2RS client-priorities.
9.6. Modification to existing operations
The current operations in RESTCONF are: OPTIONS, HEAD, GET, POST,
PUT, PATCH, and DELETE. This section describes the modification to
these exiting operations.
9.6.1. OPTIONS changes
The options methods should be augmented by the
[I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-library] information that will provide an
indication of what ephemeral state exists in a data modules, or a
data modules sub-modules or nodes.
9.6.2. HEAD changes
The HEAD in retrieving the headers of a resources. It would be
useful to changes these headers to indicate the datastore a node or
submodule or module is in (ephemeral or normal), and allow filtering
on ephemeral nodes or trees, submodules or module.
9.6.3. GET changes
GET must be able to read from the URL and a context
("?context=ephemeral"). Similarly, it is important the Get be able
to determine if the context=ephemeral.
9.6.4. POST changes
POST must simply be able to create resources in ephemeral datastores
("context=ephemeral") and invoke operations defined in ephemeral data
models.
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman March 2016
9.6.5. PUT changes
PUT must be able to reference an ephemeral module, sub-module, and
nodes ("?context=ephemeral").
9.6.6. PATCH changes
Plain PATCH must be able to update or create child resources in an
ephemeral context ("?context=ephemeral") The PATCH for the ephemeral
state must be change to provide a merge or update of the original
data only if the client's using the patch has a higher priority than
an existing datastore's client, or if PATCH requests to create a new
node, sub-module or module in the datastore.
9.6.7. DELETE changes
The phrase "?context=ephemeral" following an element will specify the
ephemeral data store when deleting an entry.
9.6.8. Query Parameters
The query parameters (content, depth, fields, insert, point, start-
time, stop-time, and with-defaults (report-all, trim, explicit,
report-all-tagged) must support ephemeral context
("?context=ephemeral") described above.
9.7. Interactions with Notifications
The ephemeral database must support the ability to publish
notifications as events and the I2RS clients being able to receiving
notifications as Event stream. The event error stream processing
should support the publication/subscription mechanisms for ephemeral
state defined in [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push].
9.8. Interactions with Error Reporting
The ephemeral database must support in RESTCONF must also support
passing error information regarding ephemeral data access over to
RESTCONF equivalent of the and traceability client.
10. IANA Considerations
This is a protocol strawman - nothing is going to IANA.
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman March 2016
11. Security Considerations
The security requirements for the I2RS protocol are covered in
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements]. The security
environment the I2RS protocol is covered in
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-security-environment-reqs]. Any person implementing
or deploying the I2RS protocol should consider both security
requirements.
12. Acknowledgements
This document is an attempt to distill lengthy conversations on the
I2RS proto design team from August
Here's the list of the I2RS protocol design team members
o Alia Atlas
o Ignas Bagdonas
o Andy Bierman
o Alex Clemm
o Eric Voit
o Kent Watsen
o Jeff Haas
o Keyur Patel
o Hariharan Ananthakrishnan
o Dean Bogdanavich
o Anu Nair
o Juergen Schoenwaelder
o Kent Watsen
13. Major Contributors
o Andy Bierman (Yuman Networks) - andy@yumaworks.com
o Kent Watson (Juniper) (kwatsent@juniper.net)
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman March 2016
14. References
14.1. Normative References:
[I-D.hares-i2rs-dataflow-req]
Hares, S., "I2RS Data Flow Requirements", draft-hares-
i2rs-dataflow-req-02 (work in progress), March 2016.
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture]
Atlas, A., Halpern, J., Hares, S., Ward, D., and T.
Nadeau, "An Architecture for the Interface to the Routing
System", draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-13 (work in
progress), February 2016.
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state]
Haas, J. and S. Hares, "I2RS Ephemeral State
Requirements", draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-04 (work in
progress), March 2016.
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements]
Hares, S., Migault, D., and J. Halpern, "I2RS Security
Related Requirements", draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-
requirements-03 (work in progress), March 2016.
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements]
Voit, E., Clemm, A., and A. Prieto, "Requirements for
Subscription to YANG Datastores", draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-
requirements-05 (work in progress), February 2016.
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model]
Wang, L., Ananthakrishnan, H., Chen, M.,
amit.dass@ericsson.com, a., Kini, S., and N. Bahadur, "A
YANG Data Model for Routing Information Base (RIB)",
draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-05 (work in progress),
March 2016.
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model]
Bahadur, N., Kini, S., and J. Medved, "Routing Information
Base Info Model", draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-08 (work
in progress), October 2015.
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-security-environment-reqs]
Migault, D., Halpern, J., and S. Hares, "I2RS Environment
Security Requirements", draft-ietf-i2rs-security-
environment-reqs-00 (work in progress), October 2015.
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman March 2016
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-traceability]
Clarke, J., Salgueiro, G., and C. Pignataro, "Interface to
the Routing System (I2RS) Traceability: Framework and
Information Model", draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability-07 (work
in progress), February 2016.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf]
Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-10 (work in
progress), March 2016.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-library]
Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "YANG Module
Library", draft-ietf-netconf-yang-library-04 (work in
progress), February 2016.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-patch]
Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "YANG Patch
Media Type", draft-ietf-netconf-yang-patch-08 (work in
progress), March 2016.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push]
Clemm, A., Prieto, A., Voit, E., Tripathy, A., and E.
Einar, "Subscribing to YANG datastore push updates",
draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push-01 (work in progress),
February 2016.
[I-D.ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs]
Watsen, K. and T. Nadeau, "Terminology and Requirements
for Enhanced Handling of Operational State", draft-ietf-
netmod-opstate-reqs-04 (work in progress), January 2016.
[I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-metadata]
Lhotka, L., "Defining and Using Metadata with YANG",
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-06 (work in progress),
March 2016.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
[RFC7158] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", RFC 7158, DOI 10.17487/RFC7158, March
2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7158>.
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman March 2016
[RFC7589] Badra, M., Luchuk, A., and J. Schoenwaelder, "Using the
NETCONF Protocol over Transport Layer Security (TLS) with
Mutual X.509 Authentication", RFC 7589,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7589, June 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7589>.
14.2. Informative References
[I-D.hares-i2nsf-mgtflow-reqs]
Hares, S., "I2NSF Data Flow Requirements", draft-hares-
i2nsf-mgtflow-reqs-00 (work in progress), March 2016.
[I-D.hares-i2rs-bgp-dm]
Wang, L., Hares, S., and S. Zhuang, "An I2RS BGP Data
Modell", draft-hares-i2rs-bgp-dm-00 (work in progress),
October 2014.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.
[RFC6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure
Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC6242, June 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6242>.
[RFC6536] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration
Protocol (NETCONF) Access Control Model", RFC 6536,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6536, March 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6536>.
Authors' Addresses
Susan Hares
Huawei
Saline
US
Email: shares@ndzh.com
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman March 2016
Andy Bierman
YumaWorks
Email: andy@yumaworks.com
Amit Daas
Ericsson
Email: amit.dass@ericsson.com
Hares, et al. Expires September 22, 2016 [Page 34]