Notification Message Headers and Bundles
draft-ietf-netconf-notification-messages-08
|
| Document |
Type |
|
Active Internet-Draft (netconf WG)
|
|
Last updated |
|
2019-11-17
|
|
Replaces |
|
draft-voit-netconf-notification-messages
|
|
Stream |
|
IETF
|
|
Intended RFC status |
|
(None)
|
|
Formats |
|
plain text
xml
pdf
htmlized
bibtex
|
|
Yang Validation |
|
☯
0 errors, 2 warnings.
draft-ietf-netconf-notification-messages-08.txt:
xym 0.4:
Extracting 'ietf-notification-messages@2019-10-10.yang'
Removed 4 empty lines
ietf-notification-messages@2019-10-10.yang:
pyang 2.1.1: pyang --verbose --ietf -p {libs} {model}:
# read ietf-notification-messages@2019-10-10.yang (CL)
# read /a/www/ietf-datatracker/6.116.0/env/share/yang/modules/ietf/ietf-yang-types.yang
# read /a/www/ietf-ftp/yang/draftmod/ietf-yang-types@2019-11-04.yang
# read /a/www/ietf-ftp/yang/draftmod/ietf-yang-structure-ext@2019-03-07.yang
ietf-notification-messages@2019-10-10.yang:32: warning: RFC 8407: 3.1: The IETF Trust Copyright statement seems to be missing (see pyang --ietf-help for details).
ietf-notification-messages@2019-10-10.yang:145: warning: the module seems to use RFC 2119 keywords, but the required text from RFC 8174 is not found (see pyang --ietf-help for details).
yanglint 0.14.80: yanglint --verbose -p {rfclib} -p {draftlib} -p {tmplib} {model} -i:
No validation errors
|
|
Additional URLs |
|
|
| Stream |
WG state
|
|
WG Document
|
|
Document shepherd |
|
No shepherd assigned
|
| IESG |
IESG state |
|
I-D Exists
|
|
Consensus Boilerplate |
|
Unknown
|
|
Telechat date |
|
|
|
Responsible AD |
|
(None)
|
|
Send notices to |
|
(None)
|
NETCONF E. Voit
Internet-Draft T. Jenkins
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems
Expires: May 18, 2020 H. Birkholz
Fraunhofer SIT
A. Bierman
YumaWorks
A. Clemm
Futurewei
November 15, 2019
Notification Message Headers and Bundles
draft-ietf-netconf-notification-messages-08
Abstract
This document defines a new notification message format. Included
are:
o a new notification mechanism and encoding to replace the one way
operation of RFC-5277
o a set of common, transport agnostic message header objects.
o how to bundle multiple event records into a single notification
message.
o how to ensure these new capabilities are only used with capable
receivers.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 18, 2020.
Voit, et al. Expires May 18, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Notifications November 2019
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Header Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Encapsulation of Header Objects in Messages . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. One Notification per Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Many Notifications per Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Configuration of Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Discovering Receiver Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Backwards Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix A. Changes between revisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix B. Issues being worked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Appendix C. Subscription Specific Headers . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Appendix D. Implications to Existing RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . 22
D.1. Implications to RFC-7950 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
D.2. Implications to RFC-8040 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1. Introduction
Mechanisms to support subscription to event notifications have been
defined in [RFC8639] and [RFC8641]. Work on those documents has
shown that notifications described in [RFC7950] section 7.16 could
benefit from transport independent headers. With such headers,
communicating the following information to receiving applications can
be done without explicit linkage to an underlying transport protocol:
Voit, et al. Expires May 18, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Notifications November 2019
Show full document text