RESTCONF Extensions to Support the Network Management Datastore Architecture
draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf-05

[Ballot comment]
Please apply the changes resulting from the Gen-ART review: either removing or clarifying the text about 'ds-ephemeral', adding clarifying text about GET, and adding the missing ')' in Section 5.

[Ballot comment]
The RFC 8040 security considerations are probably adequate for the new datastores.

I noticed the same issue with "identity" that Adam did, though my tentative conclusion
was that these are the more generic "identifier".

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to everyone who worked on this mechanism.

I agree with Alexey's general point that implementors could benefit from
guidance regarding the "with-defaults" values, as the current mechanism
requires a potentially cumbersome process of probing for support of
desired functionality.

Beyond that, I have only a handful of minor comments.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§3.1:

>  The  path component is encoded as an "identity" according
>  to the JSON encoding rules for identities, defined in Section 4 of
>  [RFC7951].

I don't find anything in section 4 of RFC 7951 that indicates encoding for an
"identity." Should this text say "identityref" instead? And if that's the
intention, it seems that pointing to section 6.8 would be more direct than
pointing to section 4.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§5:

>  This documents extends the RESTCONF protocol by introducing new
>  datastore resources.  The lowest RESTCONF layer is HTTPS, and the
>  mandatory-to-implement secure transport is TLS [RFC5246].

Unless this mechanism relies on some behavior that is different between TLS 1.2
and TLS 1.3, please update this reference to RFC 8446.

Nit: "This document extends..."
                  ^

>  The security constraints for the base RESTCONF protocol (see
>  Section 12 of [RFC8040] apply to the new RESTCONF datastore resources
>  defined in this document.

Nit: Missing a closing parenthesis.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to everyone who worked on this mechanism.

I agree with Alexey's general point that implementors could benefit from
guidance regarding the "with-defaults" values, as the current mechanism
requires a potentially cumbersome process of probing for support of
desired functionality.

Beyond that, I have only a couple of editorial comments.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§3.1:

>  The  path component is encoded as an "identity" according
>  to the JSON encoding rules for identities, defined in Section 4 of
>  [RFC7951].

I don't find anything in section 4 of RFC 7951 that indicates encoding for an
"identity." Should this text say "identityref" instead? And if that's the
intention, it seems that pointing to section 6.8 would be more direct than
pointing to section 4.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§5:

>  This documents extends the RESTCONF protocol by introducing new
>  datastore resources.  The lowest RESTCONF layer is HTTPS, and the
>  mandatory-to-implement secure transport is TLS [RFC5246].

Unless this mechanism relies on some behavior that is different between TLS 1.2
and TLS 1.3, please update this reference to RFC 8446.

Nit: "This document extends..."
                  ^

>  The security constraints for the base RESTCONF protocol (see
>  Section 12 of [RFC8040] apply to the new RESTCONF datastore resources
>  defined in this document.

Nit: Missing a closing parenthesis.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to everyone who worked on this mechanism.

I agree with Alexey's general point that implementors could benefit from
guidance regarding the "with-defaults" values, as the current mechanism
requires a potentially cumbersome process of probing for support of
desired functionality.

Beyond that, I have only a couple of editorial comments.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§3.1:

>  The  path component is encoded as an "identity" according
>  to the JSON encoding rules for identities, defined in Section 4 of
>  [RFC7951].

I don't find anything in section 4 of RFC 7951 that indicates encoding for an
"identity." Should this text say "identityref" instead? And if that's the
intention, it seems that pointing to section 6.8 would be more direct than
pointing to section 4.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§5:

>  This documents extends the RESTCONF protocol by introducing new
>  datastore resources.  The lowest RESTCONF layer is HTTPS, and the
>  mandatory-to-implement secure transport is TLS [RFC5246].

Unless this mechanism relies on some behavior that is different between TLS 1.2
and TLS 1.3, please update this reference to RFC 8446.

Nit: "This document extends..."

>  The security constraints for the base RESTCONF protocol (see
>  Section 12 of [RFC8040] apply to the new RESTCONF datastore resources
>  defined in this document.^

Nit: Missing a closing parenthesis.

[Ballot comment]
In Section 3.2.1:

  Servers are not required to support all values in the "with-defaults"
  query parameter on the operational state datastore.  If a request is
  made using a value that is not supported, then the error handling
  behavior is as described in ([RFC8040], Section 4.8.9).

This seems to be pointless, considering that the server already advertises support for the "with-defaults" capability. Can you maybe elaborate on which values are hard to implement (and thus likely not to be implemented)?

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf-04. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) Capability URNs registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/netconf-capability-urns/

two, new capability URNs are to be registered as follows:

Capability: :with-origin
Capability Identifier: urn:ietf:params:restconf:capability:with-origin:1.0
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Capability: :with-operational-defaults
Capability Identifier: urn:ietf:params:restconf:capability:with-operational-defaults:1.0
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

The IANA Services Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-07-09):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: ibagdona@gmail.com, Mahesh Jethanandani , draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf@ietf.org, netconf@ietf.org, mjethanandani@gmail.com, netconf-chairs@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (RESTCONF Extensions to Support the Network Management Datastore Architecture) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Network Configuration WG (netconf)
to consider the following document: - 'RESTCONF Extensions to Support the
Network Management Datastore
  Architecture'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2018-07-09. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document extends the RESTCONF protocol defined in RFC 8040 in
  order to support the Network Management Datastore Architecture
  defined in RFC 8342.

  This document updates RFC 8040 by introducing new datastore
  resources, adding a new query parameter, and requiring the usage of
  I-D.ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis by RESTCONF servers implementing the
  Network Management Datastore Architecture.

  RFC Ed.: Please replace "I-D.ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis" above with its
  final RFC assignment and remove this note.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

This RFC is a Proposed Standard. It is updating an existing Proposed Standard RFC, RFC 8040, and indicates it so on the title page.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

This document extends the RESTCONF protocol defined in RFC 8040 in order to support the Network Management Datastore Architecture defined in RFC 8342.

Working Group Summary:

The addition by NMDA of the operational datastore as a new datastore, was probably the most controversial piece of the RFC. RESTCONF has never dealt with an operational datastore, and interaction with the new datastore, both by non-NMDA and NMDA servers, and the implications thereof, generated the most amount of discussion in the WG, and the resulting updates.

But this RFC remained in the shadows of draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf. Most of the discussions happened in the context of the NETCONF draft, with this draft only referred to as changes specifically impacted RESTCONF. As a result, the draft got lesser but sufficient attention.

Document Quality:

[Some context to why NMDA came about. Non-NMDA implementation of NETCONF and RESTCONF, do not reflect the operational state of a configuration that had been applied. That issue was raised by Google. But rather than working with the WG, and possibly implementing it, it decided to define and implement its own protocol.]

There has been at least one person who has come out on the mailing list stating that they have implemented the updates for NMDA or are planning to. Those that have already implemented the non-NMDA version of RESTCONF are probably waiting to see adoption and requests for NMDA supported datastore.

Andy Bierman, one of the original authors of RESTCONF, provided the most amount of review, participated in the discussion that ensued, and as a result caused the updates on the document.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Mahesh Jethanandani is the Document Shepherd, and the Responsible Area Director is Ignas Bagdonas.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The Document Shepherd reviewed the document and provided comments on the draft, which the authors addressed in their latest update.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

The Document Shepherd does not have any concerns about the depth or breath of the document.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

No, the document does not need review from a particular or from a broader perspective.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

The Document Shepherd does not have any specific concerns or issues with the document.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes, each author has confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR related to the document.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

No IPR disclosures have been filed against this document.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

There is a consensus amongst a small group of individuals, with a few other individuals providing comments and reviews. The rest of the WG has been largely silent, which has been the case with the WG for this document.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

Nobody has threatened or appealed or otherwise indicated extreme discontent. Where there was a disagreement, as it related to 'with-default' behavior, the WG discussed and came up with language that was added to the draft.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

The Document Shepherd ran idnits on the document, which revealed some issues, but they are not issues with the document as much as they are with the tool. See comments embedded with [ds]

Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC8040, but the
    abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should.

[ds] The abstract does mention that this document updates RFC8040.

  -- The abstract seems to indicate that this document updates 2, but the
    header doesn't have an 'Updates:' line to match this.

[ds] First of the document only updates one RFC, RFC8040, not two. And it mentions that in the header.

  -- The abstract seems to indicate that this document updates RFC8342, but
    the header doesn't have an 'Updates:' line to match this.

[ds] The document does not update RFC8342. Clearly, this is a tools issue.


  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even
    if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords.

    (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the
    ID-Checklist requires).

[ds] The Document Shepherd believes that the tool is confused about the new text provided by RFC8174.

  -- The document date (April 20, 2018) is 5 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?

[ds] This is not an issue.

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative
    references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

    No issues found here.

    Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 4 comments (--).


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document does not require any formal reviews.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes, all references within the document have been identified as normative references. There are no informative references.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

There are no normative references that are not ready or in an unclear state.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

There are no downward normative references in the document.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

The publication of this document updates RFC8040, which is mentioned in the title of the document, and is listed in the Abstract and Introduction of the document.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

The document requests two capability identifier URNs to be added to the "RESTCONF Capability URNs" defined in RFC8040. The new capability identifiers have been clearly documented.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

There are no new IANA registries requested by this document.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

The document has no YANG model or XML examples that needed reviews or automated checks. It defines the path for the new datastores identified by NMDA, and those look correct.