NETCONF over QUIC
draft-ietf-netconf-over-quic-07

Network Working Group                                             J. Dai
Internet-Draft                                            Fiberhome/CICT
Intended status: Standards Track                                   S. Yu
Expires: 22 July 2026                                                PCL
                                                                W. Cheng
                                                            China Mobile
                                                             M. Blanchet
                                                                Viagenie
                                                            P. Andersson
                                                           Ionio Systems
                                                         18 January 2026

                           NETCONF over QUIC
                    draft-ietf-netconf-over-quic-07

Abstract

   This document specifies how to use QUIC as a secure transport for
   exchanging Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) messages.
   NETCONF over QUIC allows to take advantage of QUIC streams, for
   example, to eliminate some TCP head-of-line blocking issues.  NETCONF
   over QUIC provides security properties similar to NETCONF over TLS.

   This document also defines a YANG module which augments the ietf-
   netconf-client and ietf-netconf-server YANG modules.

Editorial note (to be removed by the RFC Editor

   This draft 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.

   Artwork in this document contains shorthand references to drafts in
   progress.  Please apply the following replacements:

   *  AAAA --> the assigned RFC value for this draft

   *  BBBB --> the assigned RFC value for draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-
      client-server

   *  CCCC --> the assigned RFC value for draft-ietf-netconf-quic-
      client-server

Dai, et al.               Expires 22 July 2026                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft              NETCONF over QUIC               January 2026

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 22 July 2026.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2026 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
   2.  Terminology and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Connection Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Connection establishment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       3.1.1.  Early data  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Connection Termination  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.2.1.  QUIC Connection Termination Process . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.2.2.  Considerations for Connection Termination . . . . . .   5
   4.  Stream mapping and usage  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  Bidirectional Stream Between client and server  . . . . .   7
     4.2.  Unidirectional Stream from server to client . . . . . . .   7
     4.3.  Mapping of QUIC connection, QUIC stream, and NETCONF
           session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Call home considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.1.  protocol-layering perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

Dai, et al.               Expires 22 July 2026                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft              NETCONF over QUIC               January 2026

     5.2.  RFC8071 Call Home Specific Case . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Endpoint Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.1.  Server Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     6.2.  Client Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Framing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  Overview of YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     8.1.  The "netconf-client" augmentation . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     8.2.  The "netconf-server" augmentation . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   9.  YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   10. Error codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     10.1.  Transport Error Codes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     10.2.  Application Error Codes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   13. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   14. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     14.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     14.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

1.  Introduction

   The Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) [RFC6241] defines a
   mechanism through which the configuration of network devices can be
   installed, manipulated, and deleted.

   NETCONF can be conceptually partitioned into four layers: content,
   operation, message and security transport layers.

   The Secure Transport layer provides a communication path between the
   client and server.  NETCONF can be layered over any transport
   protocol that provides a set of basic requirements, such as:

   1.  NETCONF is connection-oriented, requiring a persistent connection
       between peers.  This connection MUST provide reliable and
       sequenced data delivery.  NETCONF connections are long-lived,
       persisting between protocol operations.

   2.  NETCONF connections MUST provide authentication, data integrity,
       confidentiality, and replay protection.  NETCONF depends on the
       transport protocol for this capability.

   The NETCONF protocol is not bound to any particular transport
   protocol, but allows a mapping to define how it can be implemented
   over any specific protocol.

Dai, et al.               Expires 22 July 2026                  [Page 3]
Internet-Draft              NETCONF over QUIC               January 2026

   However, because of the connection-oriented feature, almost all of
   the current secure transport protocols used by NETCONF are TCP based.
   As is well known, TCP has some shortcomings such as head-of-line
   blocking.

   QUIC ([RFC9000][RFC9001]) conforms to the above requirements,
   therefore is also an appropriate transport protocol for NETCONF.
   Moreover, QUIC provides the following additional benefits not present
   in the other NETCONF transports:

   *  Single connection can be long lived and support multiple NETCONF
      RPC calls and responses within the same connection, using streams.
      This is very useful for a network management control station who
      is regularly monitoring devices and therefore having a long lived
      connection requires way less resources on both peers.

   *  1 RTT initial handshake that includes TLS.

   *  Adaptable to more difficult environments such as those with long
      delays ([I-D.many-tiptop-usecase], [I-D.many-tiptop-quic-profile]
      .

   Therefore, QUIC is a proper transport protocol for the secure
   transport layer of NETCONF.  This document specifies how to use QUIC
   as the secure transport protocol for NETCONF.

2.  Terminology and Definitions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

3.  Connection Management

3.1.  Connection establishment

   QUIC connections are established as described in [RFC9000].  During
   connection establishment, support is indicated by selecting the ALPN
   token registered for NETCONF over QUIC (see Section 12) in the
   cryptographic handshake.

3.1.1.  Early data

   The QUIC protocol uses TLS 1.3 messages to secure the transport.
   This means that Early data (aka 0-RTT data) is supported.  [RFC9001]

Dai, et al.               Expires 22 July 2026                  [Page 4]
Internet-Draft              NETCONF over QUIC               January 2026

   Early data (aka 0-RTT data) is a mechanism defined in TLS 1.3
   [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis] that allows a client to send data ("early
   data") as part of the first flight of messages to a server.  Note
   that TLS 1.3 can be used without early data as per Appendix F.5 of
   [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis].  In fact, early data is permitted by TLS
   1.3 only when the client and server share a Pre-Shared Key (PSK),
   either obtained externally or via a previous handshake.  The client
   uses the PSK to authenticate the server and to encrypt the early
   data.

   As noted in Section 2.3 of [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis], the security
   properties for early data are weaker than those for subsequent TLS-
   protected data.  In particular, early data is not forward secret, and
   there is no protection against the replay of early data between
   connections.  Appendix E.5 of [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis] requires
   applications not use early data without a profile that defines its
   use.  This document specifies that NETCONF over QUIC implementations
   MUST NOT use early data.

3.2.  Connection Termination

3.2.1.  QUIC Connection Termination Process

   The typical QUIC connection termination process is described in
   [RFC9000]

3.2.2.  Considerations for Connection Termination

   When a NETCONF session is implemented based on a QUIC connection, the
   idle timeout should be set appropriately in order to keep the QUIC
   connection persistent even if the NETCONF session is idle.  In some
   cases, disabling it may be a possible option.

   When a NETCONF server receives a <close-session> request, it will
   gracefully close the NETCONF session.  The server SHOULD close the
   associated QUIC connection.

   When a NETCONF entity receives a <kill-session> request for an open
   session, it SHOULD close the associated QUIC connection.

   When a NETCONF entity is detecting the interruption of the QUIC
   connection, it SHOULD send a <close-session> request to the peer
   NETCONF entity.

   When a stateless reset event occurs, nothing needs to be done by
   either the client or the server.

Dai, et al.               Expires 22 July 2026                  [Page 5]
Internet-Draft              NETCONF over QUIC               January 2026

4.  Stream mapping and usage

   The NETCONF protocol layers specified in [RFC6241] are presented in
   Figure 1.

 Layer                 Example
        +-------------+      +-----------------+      +----------------+
    (4) |   Content   |      |  Configuration  |      |  Notification  |
        |             |      |      data       |      |      data      |
        +-------------+      +-----------------+      +----------------+
               |                       |                      |
        +-------------+      +-----------------+              |
    (3) | Operations  |      |  <edit-config>  |              |
        |             |      |                 |              |
        +-------------+      +-----------------+              |
               |                       |                      |
        +-------------+      +-----------------+      +----------------+
    (2) |  Messages   |      |     <rpc>,      |      | <notification> |
        |             |      |   <rpc-reply>   |      |                |
        +-------------+      +-----------------+      +----------------+
               |                       |                      |
        +-------------+      +-----------------------------------------+
    (1) |   Secure    |      |               SSH, TLS, ...             |
        |  Transport  |      |                                         |
        +-------------+      +-----------------------------------------+

                   Figure 1: NETCONF Protocol Layers

   Figure 1 shows that there are two kinds of main data flow exchanged
   between client and server:

   *  Configuration data from client to server.

   *  Notification data from server to client.

   The two kinds of data flow need to be mapped into QUIC streams.

   QUIC Streams provide a lightweight, ordered byte-stream abstraction
   to an application.  Streams can be unidirectional or bidirectional
   meanwhile streams can be initiated by either the client or the
   server.  Unidirectional streams carry data in one direction: from the
   initiator of the stream to its peer.  Bidirectional streams allow for
   data to be sent in both directions.

   QUIC uses Stream ID to identify the stream.  The least significant
   bit (0x1) of the stream ID identifies the initiator of the stream.
   The second least significant bit (0x2) of the stream ID distinguishes
   between bidirectional streams (with the bit set to 0) and

Dai, et al.               Expires 22 July 2026                  [Page 6]
Internet-Draft              NETCONF over QUIC               January 2026

   unidirectional streams.  There are four types of streams which are
   described in [RFC9000].  And Table 1 also describes the four types of
   streams

              +=========+==================================+
              | Acronym | Stream Type                      |
              +=========+==================================+
              | C-BD    | Client-Initiated, Bidirectional  |
              +---------+----------------------------------+
              | S-BD    | Server-Initiated, Bidirectional  |
              +---------+----------------------------------+
              | C-UN    | Client-Initiated, Unidirectional |
              +---------+----------------------------------+
              | S-UN    | Server-Initiated, Unidirectional |
              +---------+----------------------------------+

                      Table 1: Stream Acronym Types

4.1.  Bidirectional Stream Between client and server

   NETCONF protocol uses an RPC-based communication model.
   Configuration data from client to server is exchanged based on
   '<rpc>' (the client initiating) and '<rpc-reply>' (sent by the
   server) and so on.

   The messages used to exchange configuration data MUST be mapped into
   one bidirectional stream whose acronym is 'C-BD' according to
   Table 1.  Since RPC processing is serialized and ordered within a
   session ([RFC6241] section 4.5), a bidirectional stream MUST be used
   for each NETCONF session.

4.2.  Unidirectional Stream from server to client

   There are some notification data exchanged between the client and the
   server.  Notification is an server initiated message indicating that
   a certain event has been recognized by the server.

   Notification messages are initiated by the server and no reply is
   needed from the client.  So the messages used to exchange
   notification data MUST be mapped into one unidirectional stream whose
   acronym is 'S-UN' according to Table 1.

4.3.  Mapping of QUIC connection, QUIC stream, and NETCONF session

   The relationship among NETCONF sessions, QUIC streams and QUIC
   connections is illustrted as follows.

   *  One NETCONF session is allowed per QUIC connection.

Dai, et al.               Expires 22 July 2026                  [Page 7]
Internet-Draft              NETCONF over QUIC               January 2026

   *  The NETCONF sessions, except subscriptions, runs over a QUIC bidi-
      stream.

   *  NETCONF Notifications and Subscribed Notifications runs over one
      QUIC uni-stream per subscription.

   A subscription is initiated over the bidirectional stream by invoking
   either a "create-subscription" [RFC5277] or a "establish-
   subscription" [RFC8369] RPC.  The server then creates a
   unidirectional stream towards the client and starts sending
   notifications on it.

   Both the server and and client need to keep track of which
   subscription is linked to each stream, how this is implemented is out
   of scope for this document.

   When a subscription is terminated the server notifies the client if
   applicable for the subscription then tears down the unidirectional
   stream.

5.  Call home considerations

5.1.  protocol-layering perspective

   The following diagram illustrates call home from a protocol-layering
   perspective based on QUIC:

                  Server                              Client
                    |                                    |
                    |         1. QUIC                    |
                    |----------------------------------->|
                    |                                    |
                    |                                    |
                    |         2. NETCONF over QUIC       |
                    |<-----------------------------------|
                    |                                    |
                    |                                    |
                    |         3. NETCONF                 |
                    |<-----------------------------------|
                    |                                    |
                     Note: Arrows point from the "client" to
                     the "server" at each protocol layer.

             Figure 2: Call Home Sequence Diagram based on QUIC

   This diagram makes the following points:

Dai, et al.               Expires 22 July 2026                  [Page 8]
Internet-Draft              NETCONF over QUIC               January 2026

   *  The NETCONF server begins by initiating a QUIC connection to the
      NETCONF client.

   *  Using this QUIC connection, the NETCONF client initiates a NETCONF
      session to the NETCONF server.

5.2.  RFC8071 Call Home Specific Case

   In the case of [RFC8071] Call home feature, where the NETCONF server
   initiates the transport connection to the NETCONF client, Table 1
   will be used as follows: - the Client, referred in the Table, means
   the QUIC initiating party, therefore the NETCONF server and - the
   Server means the QUIC receiving party, therefore the NETCONF client.

6.  Endpoint Authentication

   Since QUIC uses TLS 1.3 this is used to verify server identity and
   client identity.

6.1.  Server Identity

   A server's identity MUST be verified according to Section 6 of
   [RFC7589].

6.2.  Client Identity

   A client's identity MUST be verified according to Section 7 of
   [RFC7589].

7.  Framing

   In order to mitigate delimiter injection attacks chunked framing as
   defined in [RFC6242] is required for NETCONF over QUIC.

   The <hello> message MUST be followed by the character sequence RFC
   5539 assumes that the end-of-message (EOM) sequence, ]]>]]>>.  Upon
   reception of the <hello> message, the receiving peer's QUIC layer
   conceptually passes the <hello> message to the Messages layer.  If
   the :base:1.1 capability is advertised by both peers, the chunked
   framing mechanism defined in Section 4.2 of [[RFC6242]] is used for
   the remainder of the NETCONF session.  Otherwise, the old end-of-
   message-based mechanism (see Section 4.3 of [[RFC6242]]) is used.

Dai, et al.               Expires 22 July 2026                  [Page 9]
Internet-Draft              NETCONF over QUIC               January 2026

8.  Overview of YANG Module

   This document defines one YANG module that augments the NETCONF YANG
   groupings [I-D.ietf-netconf-netconf-client-server] with the QUIC
   transport YANG groupings [I-D.ietf-netconf-quic-client-server].  This
   section presents an overview of the YANG Module.

8.1.  The "netconf-client" augmentation

   The following tree diagram [RFC8340] illustrates the augmentation of
   the QUIC client grouping into the NETCONF client container:

              INSERT_TEXT_FROM_FILE(refs/tree-ietf-netconf-quic-client-augment.txt)

                               Figure 3

   Comments:

   *  This augmentation to the "ncc:transport" container in "ietf-
      netconf-client.yang" adds a "quic" case with a "quic" container
      which uses the "quicc:quic-client" grouping.

   *  Note that the if-feature "quic-initiate" conditions if the "quic"
      container is available in the schema.

8.2.  The "netconf-server" augmentation

   The following tree diagram [RFC8340] illustrates the augmentation of
   the QUIC server grouping into the NETCONF server container:

              INSERT_TEXT_FROM_FILE(refs/tree-ietf-netconf-quic-server-augment.txt)

                               Figure 4

   Comments:

   *  This augmentation to the "ncs:transport" container in "ietf-
      netconf-server.yang" adds a "quic" case with a "quic" container
      which uses the "quics:quic-server" grouping.

   *  Note that the if-feature "quic-listen" conditions if the "quic"
      container is available in the schema.

9.  YANG Module

   This YANG module has normative references to
   [I-D.ietf-netconf-netconf-client-server] and
   [I-D.ietf-netconf-quic-client-server].

Dai, et al.               Expires 22 July 2026                 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft              NETCONF over QUIC               January 2026

   <CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-netconf-quic@YYYY-MM-DD.yang"

   INSERT_TEXT_FROM_FILE(ietf-netconf-quic@YYYY-MM-DD.yang)

                                  Figure 5

   <CODE ENDS>

10.  Error codes

10.1.  Transport Error Codes

   Error codes of secure transport layer are specified in [[RFC9000]].
   There are not new transport Error Codes defined for NETCONF over
   QUIC.

10.2.  Application Error Codes

   According to [[RFC9000]], management of application error codes is
   left to application protocols. and application error codes can be
   used by RESET_STREAM Frame and STOP_SENDING Frame.  Application error
   codes for NETCONF over QUIC are listed as follows:

   *  NO_NETCONF PROTOCOL ERROR (0x00): no NETCONF errors happens.

   *  NETCONF CLOSE SESSION_ERROR (0x01): The peer tries to close a
      session which is not initiated by it.

   *  NETCONF CLOSE STREAM ERROR (0x02): The peer tries to close a
      bidirectional stream when the NETCONF session is active.

11.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations described throughout [RFC8446] and
   [RFC6241] apply here as well.  This document requires verification of
   server identity and client identity according to [RFC7589].

   If invalid data or malformed messages are encountered, a robust
   implementation of this document MUST silently discard the message
   without further processing and then stop the NETCONF session.

12.  IANA Considerations

   This document creates a new registration for the identification of
   NETCONF over QUIC in the "Application Layer Protocol Negotiation
   (ALPN) Protocol IDs registry established in [RFC7301].

   The "noq" string identifies NETCONF over QUIC:

Dai, et al.               Expires 22 July 2026                 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft              NETCONF over QUIC               January 2026

   *  Protocol: NETCONF over QUIC

   *  Identification Sequence: 0x6e 0x6f 0x71 ("noq")

   *  Specification: This document

   This document also requests IANA to reserve a UDP port for 'NETCONF
   over QUIC':

   *  Service Name: netconf-quic

   *  Transport Protocol(s): UDP

   *  Assignee: IESG iesg@ietf.org

   *  Contact: IETF Chair chair@ietf.org

   *  Description: NETCONF protocol over QUIC transport

   *  Reference: RFC AAAA

   *  Port number: 831

   *  Assignment Notes: Port 831 is currently assigned to netconf-beep,
      but a de-assignment is requested in
      [I-D.ietf-netconf-port-numbers].

   *  Service Name: netconf-ch-quic

   *  Transport Protocol(s): UDP

   *  Assignee: IESG iesg@ietf.org

   *  Contact: IETF Chair chair@ietf.org

   *  Description: NETCONF Call Home (QUIC)

   *  Reference: RFC AAAA

   *  Port number: 4335

13.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to acknowledge the contributors Yang Kou,
   Xueshun Wang, Kent Watsen, Jeffrey Haas, Balázs Lengyel, Robert
   Wilton, Huaimo Chen, Lifen Zhou, Andy Bierman, Sean Turner, and Joe
   Clarke for their beneficial comments.

Dai, et al.               Expires 22 July 2026                 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft              NETCONF over QUIC               January 2026

   The authors would like to acknowledge the very useful feedback from
   an early implementor: Adolfo Ochagavia.

14.  References

14.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-netconf-netconf-client-server]
              Watsen, K., "A YANG Data Model for NETCONF Clients and
              Servers", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
              netconf-netconf-client-server-41, 4 December 2025,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-
              netconf-client-server-41>.

   [I-D.ietf-netconf-quic-client-server]
              Andersson, P., "YANG Groupings for QUIC clients and QUIC
              servers", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
              netconf-quic-client-server-03, 17 October 2025,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-
              quic-client-server-03>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC5277]  Chisholm, S. and H. Trevino, "NETCONF Event
              Notifications", RFC 5277, DOI 10.17487/RFC5277, July 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5277>.

   [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/info/rfc6241>.

   [RFC6242]  Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure
              Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC6242, June 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6242>.

   [RFC8071]  Watsen, K., "NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home",
              RFC 8071, DOI 10.17487/RFC8071, February 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8071>.

   [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/info/rfc8446>.

Dai, et al.               Expires 22 July 2026                 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft              NETCONF over QUIC               January 2026

   [RFC8369]  Kaplan, H., "Internationalizing IPv6 Using 128-Bit
              Unicode", RFC 8369, DOI 10.17487/RFC8369, April 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8369>.

   [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/info/rfc9000>.

   [RFC9001]  Thomson, M., Ed. and S. Turner, Ed., "Using TLS to Secure
              QUIC", RFC 9001, DOI 10.17487/RFC9001, May 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9001>.

14.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-netconf-port-numbers]
              Boucadair, M., "Updates to NETCONF Transport Port
              Numbers", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
              netconf-port-numbers-07, 16 September 2025,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-
              port-numbers-07>.

   [RFC7301]  Friedl, S., Popov, A., Langley, A., and E. Stephan,
              "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Application-Layer Protocol
              Negotiation Extension", RFC 7301, DOI 10.17487/RFC7301,
              July 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7301>.

   [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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7589>.

   [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/info/rfc8340>.

   [I-D.many-tiptop-usecase]
              Blanchet, M., Eddy, W., and M. Eubanks, "IP in Deep Space:
              Key Characteristics, Use Cases and Requirements", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-many-tiptop-usecase-03, 18
              June 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
              many-tiptop-usecase-03>.

Dai, et al.               Expires 22 July 2026                 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft              NETCONF over QUIC               January 2026

   [I-D.many-tiptop-quic-profile]
              Blanchet, M., "QUIC Profile for Deep Space", Work in
              Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-many-tiptop-quic-profile-
              01, 23 August 2025,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-many-tiptop-
              quic-profile-01>.

   [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis]
              Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
              Version 1.3", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              ietf-tls-rfc8446bis-14, 13 September 2025,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tls-
              rfc8446bis-14>.

Authors' Addresses

   Jinyou Dai
   Fiberhome Telecom LTD./CICT.
   Gaoxin 4th Road 6#
   Wuhan, Hubei 430079
   China
   Email: djy@fiberhome.com

   Shaohua Yu
   China PCL.
   China
   Email: yush@cae.cn

   Weiqiang Cheng
   China Mobile
   China
   Email: chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com

   Marc Blanchet
   Viagenie
   Canada
   Email: marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca

   Per Andersson
   Ionio Systems
   Sweden
   Email: per.ietf@ionio.se

Dai, et al.               Expires 22 July 2026                 [Page 15]