NETCONF Extension to support Trace Context propagation
draft-ietf-netconf-trace-ctx-extension-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 "Active".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Roque Gagliano , Kristian Larsson , Jan Lindblad | ||
| Last updated | 2024-08-14 (Latest revision 2024-07-08) | ||
| Replaces | draft-netconf-trace-ctx-extension | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
YANGDOCTORS Last Call review
(of
-02)
by Xufeng Liu
Ready w/issues
OPSDIR Last Call review
by Gyan Mishra
Not ready
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | In WG Last Call | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-netconf-trace-ctx-extension-01
Network Configuration R. Gagliano
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Obsoletes: draft-netconf-trace-ctx-extension-00 K. Larsson
(if approved) Deutsche Telekom AG
Intended status: Standards Track J. Lindblad
Expires: 9 January 2025 Cisco Systems
8 July 2024
NETCONF Extension to support Trace Context propagation
draft-ietf-netconf-trace-ctx-extension-01
Abstract
This document defines how to propagate trace context information
across the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF), that enables
distributed tracing scenarios. It is an adaption of the HTTP-based
W3C specification.
About This Document
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
The latest revision of this draft can be found at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-trace-ctx-
extension/. Status information for this document may be found at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-trace-ctx-
extension/.
Discussion of this document takes place on the Network Configuration
Working Group mailing list (mailto:netconf@ietf.org), which is
archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/.
Subscribe at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/netconf-wg/trace-ctx-extension.
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/.
Gagliano, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft nc_trace July 2024
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 9 January 2025.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Implementation example 1: OpenTelemetry . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2. Implementation example 2: YANG DataStore . . . . . . . . 6
1.3. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3.1. Provisioning root cause analysis . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3.2. System performance profiling . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3.3. Billing and auditing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.4. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2. NETCONF Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1. Error handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2. Trace Context extension versionning . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3. YANG Modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.1. YANG module for otlp-trace-context-error-info
structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2. YANG module for traceparent header version 1.0 . . . . . 14
3.3. YANG module for tracestate header version 1.0 . . . . . . 15
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Appendix A. Changes (to be deleted by RFC Editor) . . . . . . . 18
A.1. From version 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Gagliano, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft nc_trace July 2024
A.2. From version 03 to
draft-ietf-netconf-trace-ctx-extension-00 . . . . . . . . 19
A.3. From version 02 to 03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.4. From version 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A.5. From version 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix B. XML Attributes vs RPCs input augmentations discussion
(to be deleted by RFC Editor) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1. Introduction
Network automation and management systems commonly consist of
multiple sub-systems and together with the network devices they
manage, they effectively form a distributed system. Distributed
tracing is a methodology implemented by tracing tools to follow,
analyze and debug operations, such as configuration transactions,
across multiple distributed systems. An operation is uniquely
identified by a trace-id and through a trace context, carries some
metadata about the operation. Propagating this "trace context"
between systems enables forming a coherent view of the entire
operation as carried out by all involved systems.
The W3C has defined two HTTP headers for context propagation that are
useful in use case scenarios of distributed systems like the ones
defined in [RFC8309]. This document defines an extension to the
NETCONF protocol to add the same concepts and enable trace context
propagation over NETCONF.
It is worth noting that the trace context is not meant to have any
relationship with the data that is carried with a given operation
(including configurations, service identifiers or state information).
A trace context also differs from [I-D.ietf-netconf-transaction-id]
in several ways as the trace operation may involve any operation
(including for example validate, lock, unlock, etc.) Additionally, a
trace context scope may include the full application stack
(orchestrator, controller, devices, etc) rather than a single NETCONF
server, which is the scope for the transaction-id. The trace context
is also complemetary to [I-D.ietf-netconf-transaction-id] as a given
trace-id can be associated with the different transaction-ids as part
of the information exported to the collector.
The following enhancement of the reference SDN Architecture from
[RFC8309] shows the impact of distributed traces for a network
operator.
Gagliano, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft nc_trace July 2024
+------------------+ +-----------+
| Orchestrator | | |
| | ------------> | |
.------------------. | |
. : . | |
. : . | Collector |
+------------+ +------------+ +------------+ | (Metrics, |
| | | | | | | Events, |
| Controller | | Controller | | Controller | --> | Logs, |
| | | | | | | Traces) |
+------------+ +------------+ +------------+ | |
: . . : | |
: . . : | |
: . . : | |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ | |
| Network | | Network | | Network | | Network | | |
| Element | | Element | | Element | | Element | -> | |
+---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ +-----------+
Figure 1: A Sample SDN Architecture from RFC8309 augmented to
include the export of metrics, events, logs and traces from the
different components to a common collector.
The network automation, management and control architectures are
distributed in nature. In order to "manage the managers", operators
would like to use the same techniques as any other distributed
systems in their IT environment. Solutions for analysing Metrics,
Events, Logs and Traces (M.E.L.T) are key for the successful
monitoring and troubleshooting of such applications. Initiatives
such as the OpenTelemetry [OpenTelemetry] enable rich ecosystems of
tools that NETCONF-based applications would want to participate in.
With the implementation of this trace context propagation extension
to NETCONF, backend systems behind the M.E.L.T collector will be able
to correlate information from different systems but related to a
common context.
This document does not cover the somewhat related functionality
specified in [W3C-Baggage]. Mapping of the Baggage functionality
into YANG may be specified in a future document.
Gagliano, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft nc_trace July 2024
1.1. Implementation example 1: OpenTelemetry
We will describe an example to show the value of trace context
propagation in the NETCONF protocol. In the OTLP Sample Architecture
Figure 2 below, we show a deployment based on the RFC8309 sample
architecture Figure 1 above, with a single controller and two network
elements. In this example, the NETCONF protocol is running between
the Orchestrator and the Controller. NETCONF is also used between
the Controller and the Network Elements.
Let's assume an edit-config operation between the orchestrator and
the controller that results (either synchronously or asynchronously)
in corresponding edit-config operations from the Controller towards
the two network elements. All trace operations are related and will
create M.E.L.T data.
+------------------+ +-----------+
| Orchestrator | OTLP protocol | |
| | -------------------> | |
.------------------+ | |
. NETCONF | |
. edit-config (trace-id "1", parent-id "A") | Collector |
+------------+ | (Metrics, |
| | | Events, |
| Controller | ------------------------------------> | Logs, |
| | OTLP protocol | Traces) |
+------------+ | |
: . NETCONF | |
: . edit-config (trace-id "1", parent-id "B") | |
: . | |
+---------+ +---------+ | |
| Network | | Network | OTLP protocol | |
| Element | | Element | --------------------------> | |
+---------+ +---------+ +-----------+
Figure 2: An implementation example where the NETCONF protocol is
used between the Orchestrator and the Controller and also between
the Controller and the Network Elements. Every component exports
M.E.L.T information to the collector using the OTLP protocol.
Each of the components in this example (Orchestrator, Controller and
Network Elements) is exporting M.E.L.T information to the collector
using the OpenTelemetry Protocol (OTLP).
Gagliano, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft nc_trace July 2024
For every edit-config operation, the trace context is included. In
particular, the same trace-id "1" (simplified encoding for
documentation) is included in all related NETCONF messages, which
enables the collector and any backend application to correlate all
M.E.L.T messages related to this transaction in this distributed
stack.
Another interesting attribute is the parent-id. We can see in this
example that the parent-id between the orchestrator and the
controller ("A") is different from the one between the controller and
the network elements ("B"). This attribute will help the collector
and the backend applications to build a connectivity graph to
understand how M.E.L.T information exported from one component
relates to the information exported from a different component.
With this additional metadata exchanged between the components and
exposed to the M.E.L.T collector, there are important improvements to
the monitoring and troubleshooting operations for the full
application stack.
1.2. Implementation example 2: YANG DataStore
OpenTelemetry implements the "push" model for data streaming where
information is sent to the back-end as soon as produced and is not
required to be stored in the system. In certain cases, a "pull"
model may be envisioned, for example for performing forensic analysis
while not all OTLP traces are available in the back-end systems.
An implementation of a "pull" mechanism for M.E.L.T. information in
general and for traces in particular, could consist of storing traces
in a YANG datastore (particularly the operational datastore.)
Implementations should consider the use of circular buffers to avoid
resource exhaustion. External systems could access traces (and
particularly past traces) via NETCONF, RESTCONF, gNMI or other
polling mechanisms. Finally, storing traces in a YANG datastore
enables the use of YANG-Push [RFC8641] or gNMI Telemetry as
additional "push" mechanisms.
This document does not specify the YANG module in which traces could
be stored inside the different components. That said, storing the
context information described in this document as part of the
recorded traces would allow back-end systems to correlate the
information from different components as in the OpenTelemetry
implementation.
Gagliano, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft nc_trace July 2024
+------------------+ +-----------+
| Orchestrator | | |
| | NC/RC/gNMI or YP | |
| YANG DataStore | <-------------------> | |
.------------------+ pull or push | |
. NETCONF | |
. edit-config (trace-id "1", parent-id "A") | Collector |
+----------------+ | (Metrics, |
| | NC/RC/gNMI or YP | Events, |
| Controller | --------------------------------> | Logs, |
| YANG DataStore| pull or push | Traces) |
+----------------+ | |
: . NETCONF | |
: . edit-config (trace-id "1", parent-id "B") | |
: . | |
+---------+ +---------+ | |
| Network | | Network | NC/RC/gNMI or YP | |
| Element | | Element | --------------------------> | |
| YANG DS | | YANG DS | pull or push | |
+---------+ +---------+ +-----------+
Figure 3: An implementation example where the NETCONF protocol is
used between the Orchestrator and the Controller and also between
the Controller and the Network Elements. M.E.L.T. information is
stored in local YANG Datastores and accessed by the collector
using "pull" mechanisms using the NETCONF (NC), RESTCONF (RC) or
gNMI protocols. A "push" strategy is also possible via YANG-Push
or gNMI.
1.3. Use Cases
1.3.1. Provisioning root cause analysis
When a provisioning activity fails, errors are typically propagated
northbound, however this information may be difficult to troubleshoot
and typically, operators are required to navigate logs across all the
different components.
With the support for trace context propagation as described in this
document for NETCONF, the collector will be able to search every
trace, event, metric, or log in connection to that trace-id and
faciliate the performance of a root cause analysis due to a network
changes. The trace information could also be included as an optional
resource with the different NETCONF transaction ids described in
[I-D.ietf-netconf-transaction-id].
Gagliano, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft nc_trace July 2024
1.3.2. System performance profiling
When operating a distributed system such as the one shown in
Figure 2, operators are expected to benchmark Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs) for the most common tasks. For example, what is
the typical delay when provisioning a VPN service across different
controllers and devices.
Thanks to Application Performance Management (APM) systems, from
these KPIs, an operator can detect a normal and abnormal behaviour of
the distributed system. Also, an operator can better plan any
upgrades or enhancements in the platform.
With the support for context propagation as described in this
document for NETCONF, much richer system-wide KPIs can be defined and
used for troubleshooting as the metrics and traces propagated by the
different components share a common context. Troubleshooting for
abnormal behaviours can also be troubleshot from the system view down
to the individual element.
1.3.3. Billing and auditing
In certain circumstances, we could envision tracing infomration used
as additional inputs to billing systems. In particular, trace
context information could be used to validate that a certain
northbound order was carried out in southbound systems.
1.4. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT","SHOULD","SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
The XML prefixes used in this document are mapped as follows:
* xmlns:nc="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0",
* xmlns:w3ctc="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:w3ctc:1.0" and
* xmlns:ietf-netconf-otlp-context=
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:otlp-context"
Gagliano, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft nc_trace July 2024
2. NETCONF Extension
When performing NETCONF operations by sending NETCONF RPCs, a NETCONF
client MAY include trace context information in the form of XML
attributes. The [W3C-Trace-Context] defines two HTTP headers;
_traceparent_ and _tracestate_ for this purpose. NETCONF clients
that are taking advantage of this feature MUST add one
_w3ctc:traceparent_ attribute and MAY add one _w3ctc:tracestate_
attribute to the _nc:rpc_ tag.
A NETCONF server that receives a trace context attribute in the form
of a _w3ctc:traceparent_ attribute SHOULD apply the mutation rules
described in [W3C-Trace-Context]. A NETCONF server MAY add one
_w3ctc:traceparent_ attribute in the _nc:rpc-reply_ response to the
_nc:rpc_ tag above. NETCONF servers MAY also add one
_w3ctc:traceparent_ attribute in notification and update message
envelopes: _notif:notification_, _yp:push-update_ and _yp:push-
change-update_.
For example, a NETCONF client might send:
<rpc xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0" message-id="1"
xmlns:w3ctc="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:w3ctc:1.0"
w3ctc:traceparent=
"00-4bf92f3577b34da6a3ce929d0e0e4736-00f067aa0ba902b7-01">
<get-config/>
</rpc>
In all cases above where a client or server adds a
_w3ctc:traceparent_ attribute to a tag, that client or server MAY
also add one _w3ctc:tracestate_ attribute to the same tag.
The proper encoding and interpretation of the contents of the
_w3ctc:traceparent_ attribute is described in [W3C-Trace-Context]
section 3.2 except 3.2.1. The proper encoding and interpretation of
the contents in the _w3ctc:tracestate_ attribute is described in
[W3C-Trace-Context] section 3.3 except 3.3.1 and 3.3.1.1. A NETCONF
XML tag can only have zero or one _w3ctc:tracestate_ attributes, so
its content MUST always be encoded as a single string. The
_tracestate_ field value is a list of list-members separated by
commas (,). A list-member is a key/value pair separated by an equals
sign (=). Spaces and horizontal tabs surrounding list-members are
ignored. There is no limit to the number of list-members in a list.
For example, a NETCONF client might send:
Gagliano, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft nc_trace July 2024
<rpc xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0" message-id="1"
xmlns:w3ctc="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:w3ctc:1.0"
w3ctc:tracestate="rojo=00f067aa0ba902b7,congo=t61rcWkgMzE"
w3ctc:traceparent=
"00-4bf92f3577b34da6a3ce929d0e0e4736-00f067aa0ba902b7-01">
<get-config/>
</rpc>
As in all XML documents, the order between the attributes in an XML
tag has no significance. Clients and servers MUST be prepared to
handle the attributes no matter in which order they appear. The
_tracestate_ value MAY contain double quotes in its payload. If so,
they MUST be encoded according to XML rules, for example:
<rpc xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0" message-id="1"
xmlns:w3ctc="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:w3ctc:1.0"
w3ctc:traceparent=
"00-4bf92f3577b34da6a3ce929d0e0e4736-00f067aa0ba902b7-01"
w3ctc:tracestate=
"value-with-quotes="Quoted string",other-value=123">
<get-config/>
</rpc>
2.1. Error handling
The NETCONF server SHOULD follow the "Processing Model for Working
with Trace Context" as specified in [W3C-Trace-Context]. Based on
this processing model, it is NOT RECOMMENDED to reject an RPC because
of the trace context attribute values.
If the server still decides to reject the RPC because of the trace
context attribute values, the server MUST return a NETCONF rpc-error
with the following values:
error-tag: operation-failed
error-type: protocol
error-severity: error
Additionally, the error-info tag MUST contain a otlp-trace-context-
error-info structure with relevant details about the error. This
structure is defined in the module ietf-netconf-otlp-context.yang.
Example of a badly formated trace context extension:
Gagliano, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft nc_trace July 2024
<rpc xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0" message-id="1"
xmlns:w3ctc="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:w3ctc:1.0"
w3ctc:traceparent=
"Bad Format"
w3ctc:tracestate=
"value-with-quotes="Quoted string",other-value=123">
<get-config/>
</rpc>
This might give the following error response:
<rpc-reply xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"
xmlns:w3ctc="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:w3ctc:1.0"
xmlns:ietf-netconf-otlp-context=
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:otlp-context"
message-id="1">
<rpc-error>
<error-type>protocol</error-type>
<error-tag>operation-failed</error-tag>
<error-severity>error</error-severity>
<error-message>
OTLP traceparent attribute incorrectly formatted
</error-message>
<error-info>
<ietf-netconf-otlp-context:meta-name>
w3ctc:traceparent
</ietf-netconf-otlp-context:meta-name>
<ietf-netconf-otlp-context:meta-value>
Bad Format
</ietf-netconf-otlp-context:meta-value>
<ietf-netconf-otlp-context:error-type>
ietf-netconf-otlp-context:bad-format
</ietf-netconf-otlp-context:error-type>
</error-info>
</rpc-error>
</rpc-reply>
2.2. Trace Context extension versionning
This extension refers to the [W3C-Trace-Context] trace context
capability. The W3C _traceparent_ and _tracestate_ headers include
the notion of versions. It would be desirable for a NETCONF client
to be able to discover the one or multiple versions of these headers
supported by a server. We would like to achieve this goal avoiding
the definition of new NETCONF capabilities for each headers' version.
Gagliano, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft nc_trace July 2024
We define a pair YANG modules (ietf-netconf-otlp-context-traceparent-
version-1.0.yang and ietf-netconf-otlp-context-tracestate-version-
1.0.yang) that MUST be included in the YANG library per [RFC8525] of
the NETCONF server supporting the NETCONF Trace Context extension.
These capabilities that will refer to the headers' supported
versions. Future updates of this document could include additional
YANG modules for new headers' versions.
3. YANG Modules
3.1. YANG module for otlp-trace-context-error-info structure
<CODE BEGINS>
module ietf-netconf-otlp-context {
yang-version 1.1;
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:otlp-context";
prefix ietf-netconf-otlp-context;
import ietf-yang-structure-ext {
prefix sx;
reference "RFC8791: YANG Data Structure Extensions";
}
organization
"IETF NETCONF (Network Configuration) Working Group";
contact
"WG Web: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netconf/>
WG List: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>";
description
"When propagating tracing information across applications,
client and servers needs to share some specific contextual
information. This NETCONF extensions aligns the NETCONF
protocol to the W3C trace-context document:
https://www.w3.org/TR/2021/REC-trace-context-1-20211123
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
authors of the code. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject to
the license terms contained in, the Revised BSD License set
forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX
Gagliano, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft nc_trace July 2024
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcXXXX); see the RFC itself
for full legal notices
The key words 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', 'REQUIRED', 'SHALL', 'SHALL
NOT', 'SHOULD', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED', 'NOT RECOMMENDED',
'MAY', and 'OPTIONAL' in this document are to be interpreted as
described in BCP 14 (RFC 2119) (RFC 8174) when, and only when,
they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
";
revision 2023-07-01 {
description
"Initial revision";
reference
"RFC XXXX";
}
identity meta-error {
description "Base identity for otlp attribute errors.";
}
identity missing {
base meta-error;
description "Indicates an attribute or header that is required
(in the current situation) is missing.";
}
identity bad-format {
base meta-error;
description "Indicates an attribute or header value where the
value is incorrectly formatted.";
}
identity processing-error {
base meta-error;
description "Indicates that the server encountered a processing
error while processing the attribute or header value.";
}
typedef meta-error-type {
type identityref {
base meta-error;
}
description "Error type";
}
sx:structure otlp-trace-context-error-info {
container otlp-trace-context-error-info {
description
"This error is returned by a NETCONF or RESTCONF server
Gagliano, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft nc_trace July 2024
when a client sends a NETCONF RPC with additonal
attributes or RESTCONF RPC with additional headers
for trace context processing, and there is an error
related to them. The server has aborted the RPC.";
leaf meta-name {
type string;
description
"The name of the problematic or missing meta information.
In NETCONF, the qualified XML attribute name.
In RESTCONF, the HTTP header name.
If a client sent a NETCONF RPC with the attribute
w3ctc:traceparent='incorrect-format'
this leaf would have the value 'w3ctc:traceparent'";
}
leaf meta-value {
type string;
description
"The value of the problematic meta information received
by the server.
If a client sent a NETCONF RPC with the attribute
w3ctc:traceparent='incorrect-format'
this leaf would have the value 'incorrect-format'.";
}
leaf error-type {
type meta-error-type;
description
"Indicates the type of OTLP meta information problem
detected by the server.
If a client sent an RPC annotated with the attribute
w3ctc:traceparent='incorrect-format'
this leaf might have the value
'ietf-netconf-otlp-context:bad-format'.";
}
}
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
3.2. YANG module for traceparent header version 1.0
<CODE BEGINS>
module ietf-netconf-otlp-context-traceparent-version-1.0 {
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:traceparent:1.0";
prefix ietf-netconf-otlpparent-1.0;
}
<CODE ENDS>
Gagliano, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft nc_trace July 2024
3.3. YANG module for tracestate header version 1.0
<CODE BEGINS>
module ietf-netconf-otlp-context-tracestate-version-1.0 {
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:tracestate:1.0";
prefix ietf-netconf-otlpstate-1.0;
}
<CODE ENDS>
4. Security Considerations
The YANG modules specified in this document are used to flag
capabilities define and define an error information structure that is
designed to be accessed via network management protocols such as
NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040].
As such, these YANG modules do not contain any configuration data,
state data or RPC definitions, which makes their security
implications very limited. The additional attributes specified in
this document (but not in YANG modules, since YANG cannot be used to
specify attributes) are worth mentioning, however.
The _traceparent_ and _tracestate_ attributes make it easier to track
the flow of requests and their downstream effect on other systems.
This is indeed the whole point with these attributes. This knowledge
could also be of use to bad actors that are working to build a map of
the managed network.
The lowest NETCONF layer is the secure transport layer, and the
mandatory-to-implement secure transport is Secure Shell (SSH)
[RFC6242]. The lowest RESTCONF layer is HTTPS, and the mandatory-to-
implement secure transport is TLS [RFC8446].
The Network Configuration Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC8341]
provides the means to restrict access for particular NETCONF or
RESTCONF users to a preconfigured subset of all available NETCONF or
RESTCONF protocol operations and content.
5. IANA Considerations
This document registers the following capability identifier URN in
the 'Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) Capability URNs'
registry:
urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:w3ctc:1.0
Gagliano, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft nc_trace July 2024
This document registers one XML namespace URN in the 'IETF XML
registry', following the format defined in [RFC3688]
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3688).
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:w3ctc:1.0
Registrant Contact: The IETF IESG.
XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.
This document registers three module names in the 'YANG Module Names'
registry, defined in RFC 6020:
name: ietf-netconf-otlp-context-traceparent-version-1.0
prefix: ietf-netconf-otlpparent-1.0
namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:traceparent:1.0
RFC: XXXX
and
name: ietf-netconf-otlp-context-tracestate-version-1.0
prefix: ietf-netconf-otlpstate-1.0
namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:tracestate:1.0
RFC: XXXX
and
name: ietf-netconf-otlp-context
prefix: ietf-netconf-otlp-context
namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:otlp-context
RFC: XXXX
Gagliano, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft nc_trace July 2024
6. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the valuable implementation
feedback from Christian Rennerskog and Per Andersson. Many thanks to
Raul Rivas Felix, Alexander Stoklasa, Luca Relandini and Erwin
Vrolijk for their help with the demos regarding integrations. The
help and support from Jean Quilbeuf and Benoît Claise has also been
invaluable to this work.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3688>.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6241>.
[RFC6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure
Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC6242, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6242>.
[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8040>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
[RFC8341] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration
Access Control Model", STD 91, RFC 8341,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8341, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8341>.
[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8446>.
Gagliano, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft nc_trace July 2024
[RFC8525] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Watsen, K.,
and R. Wilton, "YANG Library", RFC 8525,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8525, March 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8525>.
[W3C-Trace-Context]
"W3C Recommendation on Trace Context", 23 November 2021,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2021/REC-trace-context-
1-20211123/>.
7.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-netconf-transaction-id]
Lindblad, J., "Transaction ID Mechanism for NETCONF", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-netconf-
transaction-id-05, 20 June 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-
transaction-id-05>.
[OpenTelemetry]
"OpenTelemetry Cloud Native Computing Foundation project",
29 August 2022, <https://opentelemetry.io>.
[RFC8309] Wu, Q., Liu, W., and A. Farrel, "Service Models
Explained", RFC 8309, DOI 10.17487/RFC8309, January 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8309>.
[RFC8641] Clemm, A. and E. Voit, "Subscription to YANG Notifications
for Datastore Updates", RFC 8641, DOI 10.17487/RFC8641,
September 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8641>.
[W3C-Baggage]
"W3C Propagation format for distributed context Baggage",
23 November 2021,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/baggage/#examples-of-http-headers>.
Appendix A. Changes (to be deleted by RFC Editor)
A.1. From version 00 to 01
* Added Security considerations
* Added Acknowledgements
* Added several Normative references
* Updated link to latest document on github
Gagliano, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft nc_trace July 2024
* Firmed up error handling and YANG-library to MUST-requirements
A.2. From version 03 to draft-ietf-netconf-trace-ctx-extension-00
* Adopted by NETCONF WG
* Moved repository to NETCONF WG
* Changed build system to use martinthomson's excellent framework
* Ran make fix-lint to remove white space at EOL etc.
* Added this change note. No other content changes.
A.3. From version 02 to 03
* Changed IANA section to IESG per IANA email
* Created sx:structure and improved error example
* Added ietf-netconf-otlp-context.yang for the sx:structure
* Created a dedicated section for the YANG modules
A.4. From version 01 to 02
* Added Error Handling intial section
* Added how to manage versioning by defining YANG modules for each
traceparent and trastate versions as defined by W3C.
* Added 'YANG Module Names' to IANA Considerations
A.5. From version 00 to 01
* Added new section: Implementation example 2: YANG DataStore
* Added new use case: Billing and auditing
* Added in introduction and in "Provisioning root cause analysis"
the idea that the different transaction-ids defined in
[I-D.ietf-netconf-transaction-id] could be added as part of the
tracing information to be exported to the collectors, showing how
the two documents are complementary.
Gagliano, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft nc_trace July 2024
Appendix B. XML Attributes vs RPCs input augmentations discussion (to
be deleted by RFC Editor)
There are arguments that can be raised regarding using XML Attribute
or to augment NETCONF RPCs.
We studied Pros/Cons of each option and decided to propose XML
attributes:
XML Attributes Pro:
* Literal alignment with W3C specification
* Same encoding for RESTCONF and NETCONF enabling code reuse
* One specification for all current and future rpcs
XML Attributes Cons:
* No YANG modeling, multiple values represented as a single string
* Dependency on W3C for any extension or changes in the future as
encoding will be dictated by string encoding
RPCs Input Augmentations Pro:
* YANG model of every leaf
* Re-use of YANG toolkits
* Simple updates by augmentations on existing YANG module
* Possibility to express deviations in case of partial support
RPCs Input Augmentations Cons:
* Need to augment every rpc, including future rpcs would need to
consider these augmentations, which is harder to maintain
* There is no literal alignment with W3C standard. However, as
mentioned before most of the time there will be modifications to
the content
* Would need updated RFP for each change at W3C, which will make
adoption of new features slower
Authors' Addresses
Gagliano, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft nc_trace July 2024
Roque Gagliano
Cisco Systems
Avenue des Uttins 5
CH-1180 Rolle
Switzerland
Email: rogaglia@cisco.com
Kristian Larsson
Deutsche Telekom AG
Email: kll@dev.terastrm.net
Jan Lindblad
Cisco Systems
Email: jlindbla@cisco.com
Gagliano, et al. Expires 9 January 2025 [Page 21]