|Internet-Draft||NSF-Facing Interface YANG Data Model||March 2022|
|Kim, et al.||Expires 21 September 2022||[Page]|
- I2NSF Working Group
- Intended Status:
- Standards Track
I2NSF Network Security Function-Facing Interface YANG Data Model
This document defines a YANG data model for configuring security policy rules on Network Security Functions (NSF) in the Interface to Network Security Functions (I2NSF) framework. The YANG data model in this document corresponds to the data model in Capability data model in the I2NSF framework [I-D.ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model].¶
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 21 September 2022.¶
Copyright (c) 2022 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.¶
This document defines a YANG [RFC6020][RFC7950] data model for security policy rule configuration of Network Security Functions (NSF). The YANG data model in this document is based on the data model described in [I-D.ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model] for the NSF-Facing Interface in the Interface to Network Security Functions (I2NSF) architecture [RFC8329]. The YANG data model in this document focuses on security policy configuration for the NSFs discussed in [I-D.ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model], i.e., generic NSF (operate on packet header for layer 2, layer3, and layer 4) and advanced NSF (Intrusion Prevention System, URL-Filtering, anti-DDoS, Antivirus, and VoIP/VoCN Filter). Note: VoIP is an abbreviation for Voice over Internet Protocol and VoCN is an abbreviation for Voice over Cellular Network, such as Voice over LTE or 5G.¶
The "ietf-i2nsf-policy-rule-for-nsf" YANG module defined in this document provides the configuration of the following features.¶
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.¶
This document follows the guidelines of [RFC8407], uses the common YANG types defined in [RFC6991], and adopts the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) [RFC8342]. The meaning of the symbols in tree diagrams is defined in [RFC8340].¶
This section shows a YANG tree diagram for a general I2NSF security policy rule for generic network security functions.¶
A security policy is used by one virtual instance of an NSF/device as a set of security rules to protect assets from major risk factors that threaten the system. There can be multiple security policies in a single NSF to provide the necessary protection. The security policy includes its name, language tag, priority usage, resolution strategy, default action, and rules.¶
The language field indicates the language tag that is used for the natural language text that is included in all of the 'description' attributes. The language field is encoded following the rules in Section 2.1 of [RFC5646]. The default language tag is "en-US".¶
A resolution strategy is used to decide how to resolve conflicts that occur between the actions of the same or different policy rules that are matched and contained in a particular NSF. The resolution strategy is defined as First Matching Rule (FMR), Last Matching Rule (LMR), Prioritized Matching Rule (PMR) with Errors (PMRE), and Prioritized Matching Rule with No Errors (PMRN). The resolution strategy can be extended according to specific vendor action features. The resolution strategy is described in detail in [I-D.ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model].¶
A default action is used to execute I2NSF policy rule when no rule matches a packet. The default action can be pass, drop, reject, rate-limit, or mirror actions. The default action can be extended according to specific vendor action features. The default action is described in detail in [I-D.ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model].¶
The rules include rule name, rule description, rule priority, rule enable, event, condition, and action.¶
This section shows a YANG tree diagram for an event clause for a general I2NSF security policy rule for generic network security functions.¶
An event clause is any important occurrence at a specific time of a change in the system being managed, and/or in the environment of the system being managed. An event clause is used to trigger the evaluation of the condition clause of the I2NSF Policy Rule. The event clause is defined as a system event, system alarm [I-D.ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model], and time. The event clause can be extended according to specific vendor event features. The event clause is described in detail in [I-D.ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model].¶
This section shows a YANG tree diagram for a condition clause for a general I2NSF security policy rule for generic network security functions.¶
A condition clause is defined as a set of attributes, features, and/or values that are to be compared with a set of known attributes, features, and/or values in order to determine whether the set of actions in that (imperative) I2NSF policy rule can be executed or not. A condition clause works with 'AND' logic, where all fields set in the condition MUST match the packet or flow for the condition to be evaluated as 'TRUE'. A condition clause is classified as a condition of generic network security functions, advanced network security functions, or context. A condition clause of generic network security functions is defined as IPv4 condition, IPv6 condition, TCP condition, UDP condition, SCTP condition, DCCP condition, or ICMP (ICMPv4 and ICMPv6) condition.¶
Note that the data model in this document does not focus on only IP addresses, but focuses on all the fields of IPv4 and IPv6 headers. The IPv4 and IPv6 headers have similarity with some different fields. In this case, it is better to handle separately the IPv4 and IPv6 headers such that the different fields can be used to handle IPv4 and IPv6 packets. Also, note that the YANG data model in this document is based on the YANG Data Model for Network Access Control Lists (ACLs) [RFC8519] that does not support IPv6 extension headers including various options, the support of IPv6 extension headers is left as future work.¶
The data model provides transport layer condition for TCP, UDP, SCTP, and DCCP. With ICMPv4 and ICMPv6 are included as a choice for layer 4 as the header fields in ICMP are above the network layer. Note that QUIC protocol [RFC9000] is excluded in the data model as it is not considered in the initial I2NSF documents [RFC8329]. The QUIC traffic should not be treated as UDP traffic and will be considered in the future I2NSF documents.¶
A condition clause of advanced network security functions is defined as url category condition, voice condition, DDoS condition, or payload condition. A condition clause of context is defined as application condition, target condition, users condition, and geography condition.¶
Note that this document deals only with conditions of several advanced network security functions such as url filter (i.e., web filter), VoIP/VoCN security, and DDoS-attack mitigator. A condition clause of other advanced network security functions such as Intrusion Prevention System (IPS) and Data Loss Prevention (DLP) can be defined as an extension in future. A condition clause can be extended according to specific vendor condition features. A condition clause is described in detail in [I-D.ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model].¶
This section shows a YANG tree diagram for an action clause for a general I2NSF security policy rule for generic network security functions.¶
An action is used to control and monitor aspects of flow-based NSFs when the policy rule event and condition clauses are satisfied. NSFs provide security services by executing various actions. The action clause is defined as ingress action, egress action, or log action for packet action, flow action, and advanced action for additional inspection. The packet action is an action for an individual packet such as an IP datagram as a stateless process that uses the packet's header and payload. The flow action is an action of a traffic flow such as the packets of a TCP session (e.g., an HTTP/HTTPS session) as a stateful process that uses the traffic flow information such as 5-tuple information, packet counts, and byte counts. The advanced action is an action for an advanced security service (e.g., url filter, DDoS-attack mitigator, and VoIP/VoCN filter) for either a packet or a traffic flow according to the intention of such an advanced security service. The action clause can be extended according to specific vendor action features. The action clause is described in detail in [I-D.ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model].¶
Note that an empty event clause means that the event boolean will always evaluate to true and starts the evaluation of the condition clause, while an empty condition clause means that the condition boolean will always evaluate to false.¶
The main objective of this data model is to provide both an information model and the corresponding YANG data model of I2NSF NSF-Facing Interface. This interface can be used to deliver control and management messages between Security Controller and NSFs for the I2NSF low-level security policies.¶
This data model is designed to support the I2NSF framework that can be extended according to the security needs. In other words, the model design is independent of the content and meaning of specific policies as well as the implementation approach.¶
With the YANG data model of I2NSF NSF-Facing Interface, this document suggests use cases for security policy rules such as time-based firewall, web filter, VoIP/VoCN security service, and DDoS-attack mitigation in Section 5.¶
This section describes a YANG module of NSF-Facing Interface. This document provides identities in the data model for the configuration of an NSF. The identity has the same concept with the corresponding identity in [I-D.ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm]. This YANG module imports from [RFC6991] and [RFC8519]. It makes references to [RFC0768] [RFC0791] [RFC0792] [RFC0854] [RFC0959] [RFC1939] [RFC2132] [RFC2595] [RFC3261] [RFC3986] [RFC4250] [RFC4340] [RFC4443] [RFC4732] [RFC4987] [RFC5321] [RFC5595] [RFC5646] [RFC6335] [RFC8075] [RFC8200] [RFC8329] [RFC8335] [RFC9051] [IEEE-802.3] [ISO-3166] [I-D.ietf-httpbis-http2bis] [I-D.ietf-httpbis-messaging] [I-D.ietf-httpbis-semantics] [I-D.ietf-netmod-geo-location]. [I-D.ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model] [I-D.ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model] [I-D.ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis] [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-bis]¶
This section shows XML configuration examples of low-level security policy rules that are delivered from the Security Controller to NSFs over the NSF-Facing Interface. For security requirements, we assume that the NSFs (i.e., General firewall, Time-based firewall, URL filter, VoIP/VoCN filter, and HTTP and HTTPS flood mitigation) described in Appendix A of [I-D.ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model] are registered with the I2NSF framework. With the registered NSFs, we show configuration examples for security policy rules of network security functions according to the following three security requirements: (i) Block Social Networking Service (SNS) access during business hours, (ii) Block malicious VoIP/VoCN packets coming to the company, and (iii) Mitigate HTTP and HTTPS flood attacks on company web server.¶
5.1. Example Security Requirement 1: Block Social Networking Service (SNS) Access during Business Hours
This section shows a configuration example for blocking SNS access during business hours in IPv4 networks or IPv6 networks.¶
Figure 6 and Figure 7 show the configuration XML documents for a time-based firewall for IPv4 and IPv6, respectively. Figure 8 shows the configuration XML document for a web filter. The two NSFs combined to block SNS access during business hours in IPv4 networks (or IPv6 networks). For the security requirement, two NSFs (i.e., a time-based firewall and a web filter) were used because one NSF cannot meet the security requirement. The instances of XML documents for the time-based firewall and the web filter are as follows: Note that a detailed data model for the configuration of the advanced network security function (i.e., web filter) can be defined as an extension in future.¶
Time-based Firewall is as follows:¶
- The name of the security policy is sns_access.¶
- The name of the rule is block_sns_access_during_operation_time_for_ipv4 and block_sns_access_during_operation_time_for_ipv6.¶
- The rule is started from 2021-03-11 at 9 a.m. to 2021-12-31 at 6 p.m.¶
- The rule is operated weekly every weekday (i.e., Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday) during the business hours (i.e., from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.).¶
- The rule inspects a source IPv4 address (i.e., 192.0.2.0/24). For the case of IPv6 networks, the rule inspects a source IPv6 address (i.e., from 2001:db8:1::/60).¶
- If the outgoing packets match the rules above, the time-based firewall sends the packets to url filtering for additional inspection because the time-based firewall can not inspect contents of the packets for the SNS URL.¶
Web Filter is as follows:¶
This section shows a configuration example for blocking malicious VoIP/VoCN packets coming to a company.¶
Figure 9 and Figure 10 show the configuration XML documents for general firewall and VoIP/VoCN filter to block malicious VoIP/VoCN packets coming to a company. For the security requirement, two NSFs (i.e., a general firewall and a VoIP/VoCN filter) were used because one NSF can not meet the security requirement. The instances of XML documents for the general firewall and the VoIP/VoCN filter are as follows: Note that a detailed data model for the configuration of the advanced network security function (i.e., VoIP/VoCN filter) can be described as an extension in future.¶
General Firewall is as follows:¶
- The name of the security policy is voip_vocn_inspection.¶
- The name of the rule is block_malicious_voice_id.¶
- The rule inspects a destination IPv4 address (i.e., from 192.0.2.0/24).¶
- The rule inspects a port number (i.e., 5060 and 5061) to inspect VoIP/VoCN packet.¶
- If the incoming packets match the rules above, the general firewall sends the packets to VoIP/VoCN filter for additional inspection because the general firewall can not inspect contents of the VoIP/VoCN packets.¶
VoIP/VoCN Filter is as follows:¶
- The name of the security policy is malicious_voice_id.¶
- The name of the rule is block_malicious_voice_id.¶
- The rule inspects the voice ID of the VoIP/VoCN packets to block the malicious VoIP/VoCN packets (i.e., firstname.lastname@example.org and email@example.com).¶
- If the incoming packets match the rules above, the packets are blocked.¶
This section shows a configuration example for mitigating HTTP and HTTPS flood attacks on a company web server.¶
Figure 11 and Figure 12 show the configuration XML documents for general firewall and HTTP and HTTPS flood attack mitigation to mitigate HTTP and HTTPS flood attacks on a company web server. For the security requirement, two NSFs (i.e., a general firewall and a HTTP and HTTPS flood attack mitigation) were used because one NSF can not meet the security requirement. The instances of XML documents for the general firewall and HTTP and HTTPS flood attack mitigation are as follows: Note that a detailed data model for the configuration of the advanced network security function (i.e., HTTP and HTTPS flood attack mitigation) can be defined as an extension in future.¶
General Firewall is as follows:¶
- The name of the security policy is flood_attack_mitigation.¶
- The name of the rule is mitigate_http_and_https_flood_attack.¶
- The rule inspects a destination IPv4 address (i.e., 192.0.2.0/24) to inspect the access packets coming into the company web server.¶
- The rule inspects a port number (i.e., 80 and 443) to inspect HTTP and HTTPS packet.¶
- If the packets match the rules above, the general firewall sends the packets to anti-DDoS for additional inspection because the general firewall can not control the amount of packets for HTTP and HTTPS packets.¶
Anti DDoS for HTTP and HTTPS Flood Attack Mitigation is as follows:¶
- The name of the security policy is flood_attack_mitigation.¶
- The name of the rule is mitigate_http_and_https_flood_attack.¶
- The rule controls the HTTTP and HTTPS packets according to the amount of incoming packets (1000 packets per second).¶
- If the incoming packets match the rules above, the packets are blocked.¶
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2nsf-policy-rule-for-nsf Registrant Contact: The IESG. XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.¶
name: ietf-i2nsf-policy-rule-for-nsf namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2nsf-policy-rule-for-nsf prefix: nsfintf reference: RFC XXXX¶
The YANG module specified in this document defines a data schema designed to be accessed through network management protocols such as NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040]. The lowest NETCONF layer is the secure transport layer, and the required secure transport is Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC6242]. The lowest RESTCONF layer is HTTPS, and the required secure transport is TLS [RFC8446].¶
The NETCONF access control model [RFC8341] provides a means of restricting access to specific 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:¶
- ietf-i2nsf-policy-rule-for-nsf: Writing to almost any element of this YANG module would directly impact on the configuration of NSFs, e.g., completely turning off security monitoring and mitigation capabilities; altering the scope of this monitoring and mitigation; creating an overwhelming logging volume to overwhelm downstream analytics or storage capacity; creating logging patterns which are confusing; or rendering useless trained statistics or artificial intelligence models.¶
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:¶
- ietf-i2nsf-policy-rule-for-nsf: The attacker may gather the security policy information of any target NSFs and misuse the security policy information for subsequent attacks.¶
Policy rules identifying the specified users and user groups can be specified with "rules/condition/context/users". As with other data in this YANG module, this user information is provided by the Security Controller to the NSFs and is protected via the transport and access control mechanisms described above.¶
This document is a product by the I2NSF Working Group (WG) including WG Chairs (i.e., Linda Dunbar and Yoav Nir) and Diego Lopez. This document took advantage of the review and comments from the following people: Roman Danyliw, Acee Lindem, Dan Romascanu (GenART), Yoshifumi Nishida (TSVART), Kyle Rose (SecDir), Joe Clarke (OpsDir), and Tom Petch. The authors sincerely appreciate their sincere efforts and kind help.¶
This work was supported by Institute of Information & Communications Technology Planning & Evaluation (IITP) grant funded by the Korea MSIT (Ministry of Science and ICT) (R-20160222-002755, Cloud based Security Intelligence Technology Development for the Customized Security Service Provisioning). This work was supported in part by the IITP (2020-0-00395, Standard Development of Blockchain based Network Management Automation Technology).¶
The following are co-authors of this document:¶
Patrick Lingga - Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University, 2066 Seobu-ro Jangan-gu, Suwon, Gyeonggi-do 16419, Republic of Korea, EMail: firstname.lastname@example.org¶
Hyoungshick Kim - Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University, 2066 Seobu-ro Jangan-gu, Suwon, Gyeonggi-do 16419, Republic of Korea, EMail: email@example.com¶
Daeyoung Hyun - Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University, 2066 Seobu-ro Jangan-gu, Suwon, Gyeonggi-do 16419, Republic of Korea, EMail: firstname.lastname@example.org¶
Dongjin Hong - Department of Electronic, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University, 2066 Seobu-ro Jangan-gu, Suwon, Gyeonggi-do 16419, Republic of Korea, EMail: email@example.com¶
Liang Xia - Huawei, 101 Software Avenue, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012, China, EMail: Frank.Xialiang@huawei.com¶
Tae-Jin Ahn - Korea Telecom, 70 Yuseong-Ro, Yuseong-Gu, Daejeon, 305-811, Republic of Korea, EMail: firstname.lastname@example.org¶
Se-Hui Lee - Korea Telecom, 70 Yuseong-Ro, Yuseong-Gu, Daejeon, 305-811, Republic of Korea, EMail: email@example.com¶
- Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>.
- Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.
- Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5, RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792>.
- Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Telnet Protocol Specification", STD 8, RFC 854, DOI 10.17487/RFC0854, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc854>.
- Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "File Transfer Protocol", STD 9, RFC 959, DOI 10.17487/RFC0959, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc959>.
- Myers, J. and M. Rose, "Post Office Protocol - Version 3", STD 53, RFC 1939, DOI 10.17487/RFC1939, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1939>.
- Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
- Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor Extensions", RFC 2132, DOI 10.17487/RFC2132, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2132>.
- Newman, C., "Using TLS with IMAP, POP3 and ACAP", RFC 2595, DOI 10.17487/RFC2595, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2595>.
- Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.
- Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
- Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
- Lehtinen, S. and C. Lonvick, Ed., "The Secure Shell (SSH) Protocol Assigned Numbers", RFC 4250, DOI 10.17487/RFC4250, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4250>.
- Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340, DOI 10.17487/RFC4340, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4340>.
- Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89, RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.
- Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 5321, DOI 10.17487/RFC5321, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5321>.
- Fairhurst, G., "The Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) Service Codes", RFC 5595, DOI 10.17487/RFC5595, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5595>.
- Phillips, A., Ed. and M. Davis, Ed., "Tags for Identifying Languages", BCP 47, RFC 5646, DOI 10.17487/RFC5646, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5646>.
- Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020, DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.
- Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
- Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC6242, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6242>.
- Cotton, M., Eggert, L., Touch, J., Westerlund, M., and S. Cheshire, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", BCP 165, RFC 6335, DOI 10.17487/RFC6335, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6335>.
- Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types", RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6991>.
- Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language", RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.
- Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.
- Castellani, A., Loreto, S., Rahman, A., Fossati, T., and E. Dijk, "Guidelines for Mapping Implementations: HTTP to the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 8075, DOI 10.17487/RFC8075, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8075>.
- Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
- Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
- Lopez, D., Lopez, E., Dunbar, L., Strassner, J., and R. Kumar, "Framework for Interface to Network Security Functions", RFC 8329, DOI 10.17487/RFC8329, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8329>.
- Bonica, R., Thomas, R., Linkova, J., Lenart, C., and M. Boucadair, "PROBE: A Utility for Probing Interfaces", RFC 8335, DOI 10.17487/RFC8335, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8335>.
- Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams", BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8340>.
- Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration Access Control Model", STD 91, RFC 8341, DOI 10.17487/RFC8341, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8341>.
- Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K., and R. Wilton, "Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)", RFC 8342, DOI 10.17487/RFC8342, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8342>.
- Bierman, A., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of Documents Containing YANG Data Models", BCP 216, RFC 8407, DOI 10.17487/RFC8407, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8407>.
- Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
- Jethanandani, M., Agarwal, S., Huang, L., and D. Blair, "YANG Data Model for Network Access Control Lists (ACLs)", RFC 8519, DOI 10.17487/RFC8519, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8519>.
- Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Watsen, K., and R. Wilton, "YANG Library", RFC 8525, DOI 10.17487/RFC8525, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8525>.
- Melnikov, A., Ed. and B. Leiba, Ed., "Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) - Version 4rev2", RFC 9051, DOI 10.17487/RFC9051, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9051>.
- Thomson, M. and C. Benfield, "HTTP/2", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-httpbis-http2bis-07, , <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2bis-07.txt>.
- Fielding, R. T., Nottingham, M., and J. Reschke, "HTTP/1.1", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-httpbis-messaging-19, , <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-httpbis-messaging-19.txt>.
- Fielding, R. T., Nottingham, M., and J. Reschke, "HTTP Semantics", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-19, , <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-19.txt>.
- Hares, S., Jeong, J. (., Kim, J. (., Moskowitz, R., and Q. Lin, "I2NSF Capability YANG Data Model", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-26, , <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-26.txt>.
- Jeong, J. (., Lingga, P., Hares, S., Xia, L. (., and H. Birkholz, "I2NSF NSF Monitoring Interface YANG Data Model", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-15, , <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-15.txt>.
- Eddy, W. M., "Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Specification", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-28, , <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-28.txt>.
- Stewart, R. R., Tüxen, M., and K. E. E. Nielsen, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-bis-19, , <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-tsvwg-rfc4960-bis-19.txt>.
- Handley, M., Ed., Rescorla, E., Ed., and IAB, "Internet Denial-of-Service Considerations", RFC 4732, DOI 10.17487/RFC4732, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4732>.
- Eddy, W., "TCP SYN Flooding Attacks and Common Mitigations", RFC 4987, DOI 10.17487/RFC4987, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4987>.
- Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000, DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9000>.
- Jeong, J. (., Chung, C., Ahn, T., Kumar, R., and S. Hares, "I2NSF Consumer-Facing Interface YANG Data Model", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-16, , <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-16.txt>.
- Hopps, C., "A YANG Grouping for Geographic Locations", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-11, , <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-11.txt>.
- "Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions", ISO 3166, , <https://www.iso.org/iso-3166-country-codes.html>.
- Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "IEEE Standard for Ethernet", , <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8457469/>.