Network Working Group I. Bryskin
Internet-Draft Futurewei
Intended status: Informational V. Beeram
Expires: January 6, 2020 T. Saad
Juniper Networks
X. Liu
Volta Networks
Y. Lee
Huawei Technologies
A. Guo
Futurewei
July 5, 2019
Basic YANG Model for Steering Client Services To Server Tunnels
draft-bryskin-teas-service-tunnel-steering-model-03
Abstract
This document describes a YANG data model for managing pools of
transport tunnels and steering client services on them.
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 January 6, 2020.
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
Bryskin, et al. Expires January 6, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft YANG Model Steering Services to Tunnels July 2019
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
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Tree Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Prefixes in Data Node Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Explicit vs. Implicit Service2tunnel Mapping. Steering
Services to Transport Tunnel Pools . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. The purpose of the model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Model Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Tree Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. YANG Modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Introduction
Client layer services/signals are normally mapped onto carrying them
across the network transport tunnels via client/server layer
adaptation relationships. Such relationships are usually modeled as
multi-layer topologies, whereas tunnels set up in underlay (server)
topologies support links in respective overlay (client) topologies.
In this respect having a link in a client topology means that the
client layer traffic could be forwarded between link termination
points (LTPs) terminating the link on opposite sides by the
supporting tunnel(s) provisioned in the server layer topology.
This said there are numerous use cases in which describing the client
service to server tunnel bindings via the topology formalism is
impractical. Below are some examples of such use cases:
o Mapping client services onto tunnels within the same network
layer, for example, mapping L3 VPNs or MPLS-SR services onto IP
MPLS tunnels;
o Mapping client services onto tunnels provisioned in the highest
layer topology supported by the network. For example, mapping
Bryskin, et al. Expires January 6, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft YANG Model Steering Services to Tunnels July 2019
L2VPNs or E(V)PL services onto IP MPLS tunnels provisioned in an
IP network;
o Mapping client services to tunnels provisioned in separate network
layers at the network's access points. Consider, for example, an
OTN/ODUk network that is used to carry client signals of, say, 20
different types (e.g. Ethernet, SDH, FKON, etc.) entering and
exiting the network over client facing interfaces. Although it is
possible to describe such a network as a 21-layer TE topology with
the OTN/ODUk topology serving each of the 20 client layer
topologies [I-D.ietf-teas-yang-te-topo], such a description would
be verbose, cumbersome, difficult to expand to accommodate
additional client signals and unnecessary, because the client
layer topologies would have zero switching flexibility inside the
network (i.e. contain only unrelated links connecting access
points across respective layer networks), and all what is required
to know from the point of view of a management application is what
ODUk tunnels are established or required, which client signals the
tunnels could carry and at which network border nodes and how the
client signals could be bound (i.e. adopted) to the tunnels.
It is worth noting that such non-topological client-service-to-
server-tunnel mapping almost always happens on network border nodes.
However, there are also important use cases where such a mapping is
required in the middle of the network. One such use case is
controlling on IP/MPLS FRR PLRs which LSPs are mapped onto which
backup tunnels.
It is important to bear in mind that service2tunnel mappings could be
very complex: large number of instances of services of the same or
different types (possibly governed by different models) could be
mapped on the same set of tunnels, with the latter being set in
different network layers and of either TE or non-TE nature, P2P or
P2MP or MP2MP type. Furthermore, the mappings could be hierarchical:
tunnels carrying services could be clients of other tunnels.
Despite of the differences of transport tunnels and of services they
carry the srvice2tunnel mappings could be modeled in a simple uniform
way. Access to a data store of such mappings could be beneficial to
network management applications. It would be possible, for example,
to discover which services depend on which tunnels, which services
will be affected if a given tunnel goes out of service, how many more
services could be placed onto a given TE tunnel without the latter
violating its TE commitments (such as bandwidth and delay). It would
be also possible to demand in a single request moving numerous
(ranges of) service instances from one set of tunnels to another.
Bryskin, et al. Expires January 6, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft YANG Model Steering Services to Tunnels July 2019
This document defines a YANG data model for facilitating said
xervice2tunnel mappings.
The YANG model in this document conforms to the Network Management
Datastore Architecture (NMDA) [RFC8342].
1.1. Terminology
The keywords "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].
The following terms are defined in [RFC7950] and are not redefined
here:
o augment
o data model
o data node
1.2. Tree Diagrams
A simplified graphical representation of the data model is presented
in this document, by using the tree format defined in [RFC8340].
1.3. Prefixes in Data Node Names
In this document, names of data nodes, actions, and other data model
objects are often used without a prefix, as long as it is clear from
the context in which YANG module each name is defined. Otherwise,
names are prefixed using the standard prefix associated with the
corresponding YANG module, as shown in Table 1.
+----------+-----------------+-------------------------+
| Prefix | YANG module | Reference |
+----------+-----------------+-------------------------+
| inet | ietf-inet-types | [RFC6991] |
| te-types | ietf-te-types | [I-D.ietf-teas-yang-te] |
+----------+-----------------+-------------------------+
Table 1: Prefixes and Corresponding YANG Modules
Bryskin, et al. Expires January 6, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft YANG Model Steering Services to Tunnels July 2019
2. Explicit vs. Implicit Service2tunnel Mapping. Steering Services to
Transport Tunnel Pools
There are use cases in which client services require hard separation
of the transport carrying them from the transport carrying other
services. However, environment in which the services may share the
same transport tunnels is far more common. For this reason the model
defined in this document suggests replacing (or at least augmenting)
the explicit service2tunnel mapping configuration (in which the
tunnels are referred to by their IDs/names) with an implicit mapping.
Specifically, the model introduces the notion of tunnel pool. A
tunnel pool could be referred to by its network unique color and
requires a service2tunnel mapping configuration to specify the tunnel
pool color(s) instead of tunnel IDs/names. The model governs tunnel
pool data store independently from the services steered on the
tunnels. It is assumed (although not required) that the tunnels -
constituents/components of a tunnel pool - are of the same type,
provisioned using a common template. Importantly they could be
dynamically added to/removed from the pool without necessitating
service2tunnel mapping re-configuration. Such a service to tunnel
pool steering approach has the following advantages:
o Scalability and efficiency: pool component bandwidth utilization
could be monitored, tunnels could be added to/removed from the
pool if/when detected that current component bandwidth utilization
has crossed certain thresholds. This allows for a very efficient
network resource utilization and obviates the network management
application from a very difficult task of service to tunnel
mapping planning;
o Automation and elasticity: pool component attributes could be
modified - bandwidth auto-adjusted, protection added, delay
constrained, etc.. The tunnels could be completely or partially
replaced with tunnels of different types (e.g. TE vs. non-TE, P2P
vs. P2MP, etc.) or even provisioned in different network layers
(OTN/ODUk tunnels replacing IP TE tunnels). Importantly, all such
modifications do not require service2tunell mapping re-
configurations as long as the modified or new tunnels remain
within the same tunnel pool(s);
o Transparency: new service sites supported by additional PEs could
be added without service2tunnel mapping re-configuration.
3. The purpose of the model
The model is targeted to facilitate for network management
applications, such as service orchestrators, the control of pools of
transport tunnels and steering onto them client services
Bryskin, et al. Expires January 6, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft YANG Model Steering Services to Tunnels July 2019
independently of network technology/layer specifics of both the
services and the tunnels. The model could be applied to/implemented
on physical devices, such as IP routers, as well as on abstract
topology nodes. Furthermore, the model could be supported by a
network (domain) controller, such as ACTN PNC, to act as a proxy
server on behalf of any network element/node (physical or abstract)
under its control.
4. Model Design
The data store described/governed by the model is comprised of a
single top level list - TunnelPools. A TunnelPool, list element, is
a container describing a set of transport tunnels (presumably with
similar characteristics) identified by a network unique ID (color).
A given TunnelPool could be generic to the entire network or specific
to a particular netwrok slice or network abstract topology.
Furthermore, a TunnelPool may have no tunnels (i.e. may have empty
Tunnels list). Service steered onto such a TunnelPool will be
carried by best effort forwarding technique and flexibility available
in the slice/topology the TunnelPool is assigned to or generally in
the network
The TunnelPool container has the following fields:
o Color [uint32 list key];
o Slice/Abstract topology ID (if zero, the TunnelPool is generic to
the network).
o Tunnels list;
o Services list.
The Tunnels list describes the pool constituents - active transport
tunnels. The list members - Tunnel containers - include the
following information:
o tunnel type [e.g. P2P-TE, P2MP-TE, SR-TE, SR P2P, LDP P2P, LDP
MP2MP, GRE, PBB, etc]
o tunnel type specific tunnel ID [provided that a data store of the
tunnel type, e.g. TE tunnels, is supported, the tunnelID allows
for the management application to look up the tunnel in question
to obtain detailed information about the tunnel];
o tunnel encapsulation [e.g. MPLS label stack, Ethernet STAGs, GRE
header, PBB header, etc].
Bryskin, et al. Expires January 6, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft YANG Model Steering Services to Tunnels July 2019
The Services list describes services currently steered on the tunnel
pool. The list members - Service containers - have the following
attributes:
o service type [e.g. fixed/transparent, L3VPN, L2VPN, EVPN, ELINE,
EPL, EVPL, L1VPN, ACTN VN, etc.];
o service type specific service ID [provided that a data store of
the service type, e.g. L2VPN, is supported, the service ID allows
for the management application to look up the service in question
to obtain detailed information about the service];
o client ports (source/destination node LTPs over which the service
enters/exits the node/network, relevant only for fixed/transparent
services);
o service encapsulation [e.g. MPLS label stack, Ethernet CTAGs,
etc.] - for service multiplexing/de-multiplexing on/from a
statistically shared tunnel].
5. Tree Structure
Bryskin, et al. Expires January 6, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft YANG Model Steering Services to Tunnels July 2019
module: ietf-tunnel-steering
+--rw tunnel-pools
+--rw tunnel-pool* [color]
+--rw color uint32
+--rw description? string
+--rw te-topology-identifier
| +--rw provider-id? te-types:te-global-id
| +--rw client-id? te-types:te-global-id
| +--rw topology-id? te-types:te-topology-id
+--rw service* [service-type id]
| +--rw service-type identityref
| +--rw id string
| +--rw encapsulation
| | +--rw type? identityref
| | +--rw value? binary
| +--rw access-point* [node-address link-termination-point]
| +--rw node-address inet:ip-address
| +--rw link-termination-point string
| +--rw direction? enumeration
+--rw tunnel* [tunnel-type source destination tunnel-id]
+--rw tunnel-type identityref
+--rw source inet:ip-address
+--rw destination inet:ip-address
+--rw tunnel-id binary
+--rw encapsulation
+--rw type? identityref
+--rw value? binary
6. YANG Modules
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-tunnel-steering@2019-07-05.yang"
module ietf-tunnel-steering {
yang-version 1;
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tunnel-steering";
prefix "tnl-steer";
import ietf-inet-types {
prefix inet;
}
import ietf-te-types {
prefix "te-types";
}
Bryskin, et al. Expires January 6, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft YANG Model Steering Services to Tunnels July 2019
organization
"IETF Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling (TEAS)
Working Group";
contact
"WG Web: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/teas/>
WG List: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
Editors: Igor Bryskin
<mailto:Igor.Bryskin@huawei.com>
Editor: Vishnu Pavan Beeram
<mailto:vbeeram@juniper.net>
Editor: Tarek Saad
<mailto:tsaad@cisco.com>
Editor: Xufeng Liu
<mailto:xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>
Editor: Young Lee
<mailto:leeyoung@huawei.com> ";
description
"This data model is for steering client service to server
tunnels.
Copyright (c) 2018 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 Simplified BSD License set
forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).";
revision 2019-07-05 {
description "Initial revision";
reference "TBD";
}
/*
* Typedefs
*/
/*
* Identities
Bryskin, et al. Expires January 6, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft YANG Model Steering Services to Tunnels July 2019
*/
identity service-type {
description "Base identity for client service type.";
}
identity service-type-l3vpn {
base service-type;
description
"L3VPN service.";
}
identity service-type-l2vpn {
base service-type;
description
"L2VPN service.";
}
identity service-type-evpn {
base service-type;
description
"EVPN service.";
}
identity service-type-eline {
base service-type;
description
"ELINE service.";
}
identity service-type-epl {
base service-type;
description
"EPL service.";
}
identity service-type-evpl {
base service-type;
description
"EVPL service.";
}
identity service-type-l1vpn {
base service-type;
description
"L1VPN service.";
}
identity service-type-actn-vn {
base service-type;
description
"ACTN VN service.";
}
identity service-type-transparent {
base service-type;
description
"Transparent LAN service.";
Bryskin, et al. Expires January 6, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft YANG Model Steering Services to Tunnels July 2019
}
identity tunnel-type {
description "Base identity for tunnel type.";
}
identity tunnel-type-te-p2p {
base tunnel-type;
description
"TE point-to-point tunnel type.";
}
identity tunnel-type-te-p2mp {
base tunnel-type;
description
"TE point-to-multipoint tunnel type.";
reference "RFC4875";
}
identity tunnel-type-te-sr {
base tunnel-type;
description
"Segment Rouging TE tunnel type.";
}
identity tunnel-type-sr {
base tunnel-type;
description
"Segment Rouging tunnel type.";
}
identity tunnel-type-ldp-p2p {
base tunnel-type;
description
"LDP point-to-point tunnel type.";
}
identity tunnel-type-ldp-mp2mp {
base tunnel-type;
description
"Multicast LDP multipoint-to-multipoint tunnel type.";
}
identity tunnel-type-gre {
base tunnel-type;
description
"GRE tunnel type.";
}
identity tunnel-type-pbb {
base tunnel-type;
description
"PBB tunnel type.";
}
identity service-encapsulation-type {
Bryskin, et al. Expires January 6, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft YANG Model Steering Services to Tunnels July 2019
description "Base identity for tunnel encapsulation.";
}
identity service-encapsulation-type-mpls-label {
base service-encapsulation-type;
description
"Encapsulated by MPLS label stack, as an inner lable to
identify the customer service.";
}
identity service-encapsulation-type-ethernet-c-tag {
base service-encapsulation-type;
description
"Encapsulated by Ethernet C-TAG, to identify the customer
service.";
}
identity tunnel-encapsulation-type {
description "Base identity for tunnel encapsulation.";
}
identity tunnel-encapsulation-type-mpls-label {
base tunnel-encapsulation-type;
description
"Encapsulated by MPLS label stack, as an outer label to
be pushed into the tunnel.";
}
identity tunnel-encapsulation-type-ethernet-s-tag {
base tunnel-encapsulation-type;
description
"Encapsulated by Ethernet S-TAG.";
}
identity tunnel-encapsulation-type-pbb {
base tunnel-encapsulation-type;
description
"Encapsulated by PBB header.";
}
identity tunnel-encapsulation-type-gre {
base tunnel-encapsulation-type;
description
"Encapsulated by GRE header.";
}
/*
* Groupings
*/
/*
* Configuration data and operational state data nodes
*/
container tunnel-pools {
Bryskin, et al. Expires January 6, 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft YANG Model Steering Services to Tunnels July 2019
description
"A list of mappings that steer client services to transport
tunnel pools. The tunnel pools are managed independently from
the services steered on them.";
list tunnel-pool {
key "color";
description
"A set of transport tunnels (presumably with similar
characteristics) identified by a network unique ID, named
'color'.";
leaf color {
type uint32;
description
"Unique ID of a tunnel pool.";
}
leaf description {
type string;
description
"Client provided description of the tunnel pool.";
}
uses te-types:te-topology-identifier;
list service {
key "service-type id";
description
"A list of client services that are steered on this tunnel
pool.";
leaf service-type {
type identityref {
base service-type;
}
description
"Service type required by the client.";
}
leaf id {
type string;
description
"Unique ID of a client service for the specified
service type.";
}
container encapsulation {
description
"The encapsulation information used to identify the
customer service for multiplexing over shared tunnels.";
leaf type {
type identityref {
base service-encapsulation-type;
Bryskin, et al. Expires January 6, 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft YANG Model Steering Services to Tunnels July 2019
}
description
"The encapsulation type used to identify the customer
service for multiplexing over shared tunnels.";
}
leaf value {
type binary;
description
"The encapsulation value pushed to the tunnel to
identify this service.
If not specified, the system decides what
value to be used for multiplexing.";
}
}
list access-point {
key "node-address link-termination-point";
description
"A list of client ports (Link Termination Points) for the
service to enter or exist.";
leaf node-address {
type inet:ip-address;
description
"Node over which the service enters or exists.";
}
leaf link-termination-point {
type string;
description
"Client port (Link Termination Point) over which the
service enters or exits.";
}
leaf direction {
type enumeration {
enum "in" {
description "The service enters to the network.";
}
enum "out" {
description "The service exists from the network.";
}
enum "in-out" {
description
"The service enters to and exists from the
network.";
}
}
description
"Whether the service enters to or exits from the
network.";
}
Bryskin, et al. Expires January 6, 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft YANG Model Steering Services to Tunnels July 2019
}
}
list tunnel {
key "tunnel-type source destination tunnel-id";
description
"A list of tunnels in the tunnel pool.";
leaf tunnel-type {
type identityref {
base tunnel-type;
}
description
"Tunnel type based on constructing technologies and
multipoint types, including P2P-TE, P2MP-TE, SR-TE,
SR P2P, LDP P2P, LDP MP2MP, GRE, PBB, etc";
}
leaf source {
type inet:ip-address;
description
"For a p2p or p2mp tunnel, this is the source address;
for a mp2mp tunnel, this is the root address.";
reference "RFC3209, RFC4875, RFC6388, RFC7582.";
}
leaf destination {
type inet:ip-address;
description
"For a p2p tunnel, this is the tunnel endpoint address
extracted from SESSION object;
for a p2mp tunnel, this identifies the destination
group, or p2mp-id;
for a mp2mp tunnel identified by root and opaque-value,
this value is set to '0.0.0.0'.";
reference "RFC3209, RFC4875, RFC6388, RFC7582.";
}
leaf tunnel-id {
type binary;
description
"For a p2p or p2mp tunnel, this is the tunnel identifier
used in the SESSION that remains constant over the life
of the tunnel;
for a mp2mp tunnel, this is the opaque-value in the
FEC element.";
reference "RFC3209, RFC4875, RFC6388, RFC7582.";
}
container encapsulation {
description
"The encapsulation information used by the tunnel.";
leaf type {
Bryskin, et al. Expires January 6, 2020 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft YANG Model Steering Services to Tunnels July 2019
type identityref {
base service-encapsulation-type;
}
description
"The encapsulation type used by the tunnel.";
}
leaf value {
type binary;
description
"The encapsulation value pushed to the tunnel data to
identify the traffic in this tunnel.
If not specified, the system decides what
value to be used.";
}
}
}
}
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
7. IANA Considerations
RFC Ed.: In this section, replace all occurrences of 'XXXX' with the
actual RFC number (and remove this note).
This document registers the following namespace URIs in the IETF XML
registry [RFC3688]:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tunnel-steering
Registrant Contact: The IESG.
XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This document registers the following YANG modules in the YANG Module
Names registry [RFC7950]:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
name: ietf-tunnel-steering
namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tunnel-steering
prefix: tnl-steer
reference: RFC XXXX
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryskin, et al. Expires January 6, 2020 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft YANG Model Steering Services to Tunnels July 2019
8. Security Considerations
The YANG module specified in this document defines a schema for data
that is designed to be accessed via network management protocols such
as NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040]. 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 NETCONF access control model [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.
There are a number of data nodes defined in this YANG module that are
writable/creatable/deletable (i.e., config true, which is the
default). These data nodes may be considered sensitive or vulnerable
in some network environments. Write operations (e.g., edit-config)
to these data nodes without proper protection can have a negative
effect on network operations. These are the subtrees and data nodes
and their sensitivity/vulnerability:
/tunnel-pools/tunnel-pool
This subtree specifies a list of tunnel pools. Modifying the
configurations cause interruption to related services and tunnels.
Some of the readable data nodes in this YANG module may be considered
sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. It is thus
important to control read access (e.g., via get, get-config, or
notification) to these data nodes. These are the subtrees and data
nodes and their sensitivity/vulnerability:
/tunnel-pools/tunnel-pool
Unauthorized access to this subtree can disclose the information
of related services and tunnels.
9. References
9.1. 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/info/rfc2119>.
Bryskin, et al. Expires January 6, 2020 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft YANG Model Steering Services to Tunnels July 2019
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/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/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>.
[RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types",
RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6991>.
[RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.
[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.
[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/info/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/info/rfc8446>.
[I-D.ietf-teas-yang-te-topo]
Liu, X., Bryskin, I., Beeram, V., Saad, T., Shah, H., and
O. Dios, "YANG Data Model for Traffic Engineering (TE)
Topologies", draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-22 (work in
progress), June 2019.
[I-D.ietf-teas-yang-te]
Saad, T., Gandhi, R., Liu, X., Beeram, V., and I. Bryskin,
"A YANG Data Model for Traffic Engineering Tunnels and
Interfaces", draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-21 (work in
progress), April 2019.
Bryskin, et al. Expires January 6, 2020 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft YANG Model Steering Services to Tunnels July 2019
9.2. Informative References
[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>.
[RFC8342] Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K.,
and R. Wilton, "Network Management Datastore Architecture
(NMDA)", RFC 8342, DOI 10.17487/RFC8342, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8342>.
Authors' Addresses
Igor Bryskin
Futurewei
EMail: igor.bryskin@futurewei.com
Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Juniper Networks
EMail: vbeeram@juniper.net
Tarek Saad
Juniper Networks
EMail: tsaad@juniper.net
Xufeng Liu
Volta Networks
EMail: xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com
Young Lee
Huawei Technologies
EMail: leeyoung@huawei.com
Aihua Guo
Futurewei
EMail: aihuaguo@futurewei.com
Bryskin, et al. Expires January 6, 2020 [Page 19]