NETCONF Working Group K. Watsen
Internet-Draft Juniper Networks
Intended status: Standards Track September 22, 2015
Expires: March 25, 2016
NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home
draft-ietf-netconf-call-home-11
Abstract
This RFC presents NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home, which
enable a NETCONF or RESTCONF server to initiate a secure connection
to a NETCONF or RESTCONF client respectively.
Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)
This draft contains many placeholder values that need to be replaced
with finalized values at the time of publication. This note
summarizes all of the substitutions that are needed. Please note
that no other RFC Editor instructions are specified anywhere else in
this document.
Artwork in this document contains placeholder references for this
draft. Please apply the following replacement:
o "XXXX" --> the assigned RFC value for this draft
This document contains references to another draft in progress, both
in the Normative References section, as well as in body text
throughout. Please update the following reference to reflect its
final RFC assignment:
o draft-ietf-netconf-restconf
Artwork in this document contains placeholder values for ports
pending IANA assignment from "draft-ietf-netconf-call-home". Please
apply the following replacements:
o "PORT-X" --> the assigned port value for "netconf-ch-ssh"
o "PORT-Y" --> the assigned port value for "netconf-ch-tls"
o "PORT-Z" --> the assigned port value for "restconf-ch-tls"
The following two Appendix sections are to be removed prior to
publication:
Watsen Expires March 25, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home September 2015
o Appendix A. Change Log
o Appendix B. Open Issues
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 http://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 March 25, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Requirements Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Applicability Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.4. Relation to RFC 4253 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.5. The NETCONF/RESTCONF Convention . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. The NETCONF or RESTCONF Client . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Protocol Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. Configuration Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. The NETCONF or RESTCONF Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Watsen Expires March 25, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home September 2015
3.1. Protocol Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Configuration Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A.1. 00 to 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A.2. 01 to 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A.3. 02 to 03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A.4. 03 to 04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A.5. 04 to 05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A.6. 05 to 06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
A.7. 06 to 07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
A.8. 07 to 08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
A.9. 08 to 09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
A.10. 09 to 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
A.11. 10 to 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix B. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
This RFC presents NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home, which
enable a NETCONF or RESTCONF server to initiate a secure connection
to a NETCONF or RESTCONF client respectively.
NETCONF Call Home supports both of the secure transports used by the
NETCONF protocol [RFC6241], SSH and TLS. The NETCONF protocol's
binding to SSH is defined in [RFC6242]. The NETCONF protocol's
binding to TLS is defined in [RFC7589].
RESTCONF Call Home only supports TLS, the same as the RESTCONF
protocol [draft-ietf-netconf-restconf]. The RESTCONF protocol's
binding to TLS is defined in [draft-ietf-netconf-restconf].
The SSH protocol is defined in [RFC4253]. The TLS protocol is
defined in [RFC5246]. Both the SSH and TLS protocols are layered on
top of the TCP protocol, which is defined in [RFC793].
Both NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home preserve all but one of
the client/server roles in their respective protocol stacks, as
compared to client-initiated NETCONF and RESTCONF connections. The
one and only role reversal that occurs is at the TCP layer; that is,
which peer is the TCP-client and which is the TCP-server.
Watsen Expires March 25, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home September 2015
For example, a network element is traditionally the TCP-server.
However, when calling home, the network element becomes the TCP-
client. The network element's secure transport layer roles (SSH-
server, TLS-server) and its application layer roles (NETCONF-server,
RESTCONF-server) both remain the same.
Having consistency in both the secure transport layer (SSH, TLS) and
application layer (NETCONF, RESTCONF) roles conveniently enables
deployed network management infrastructure to support call home also.
For instance, existing certificate chains and user authentication
mechanisms are unaffected by call home.
1.1. Motivation
Call home is generally useful for both the initial deployment and on-
going management of networking elements. Here are some scenarios
enabled by call home:
o The network element may proactively call home after being powered
on for the first time in order to register itself with its
management system.
o The network element may access the network in a way that
dynamically assigns it an IP address, but does not register its
assigned IP address to a mapping service (e.g., dynamic DNS).
o The network element may be deployed behind a firewall that
implements network address translation (NAT) for all internal
network IP addresses.
o The network element may be deployed behind a firewall that doesn't
allow any management access to the internal network.
o The network element may be configured in "stealth mode" and thus
doesn't have any open ports for the management system to connect
to.
o The operator may prefer to have network elements initiate
management connections, believing it is easier to secure one open
port in the data center than to have an open port on each network
element in the network.
1.2. Requirements Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Watsen Expires March 25, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home September 2015
1.3. Applicability Statement
The techniques described in this document are suitable for network
management scenarios such as the ones described in Section 1.1.
However, these techniques are only defined for NETCONF Call Home and
RESTCONF Call Home, as described in this document.
The reason for this restriction is that different protocols have
different security assumptions. The NETCONF and RESTCONF protocols
require clients and servers to verify the identity of the other
party. This requirement is specified for the NETCONF protocol in
Section 2.2 of [RFC6241], and is specified for the RESTCONF protocol
in Sections 2.4 and 2.5 of [draft-ietf-netconf-restconf]).
This contrasts with the base SSH and TLS protocols, which do not
require programmatic verification of the other party (section 9.3.4
of [RFC4251], section 4 of [RFC4252], and section 7.3 of [RFC5246]).
In such circumstances, allowing the SSH/TLS server to contact the
SSH/TLS client would open new vulnerabilities. Any use of call home
with SSH/TLS for purposes other than NETCONF or RESTCONF will need a
thorough, contextual security analysis.
1.4. Relation to RFC 4253
This document uses the SSH Transport Layer Protocol [RFC4253] with
the exception that the statement "The client initiates the
connection" made in Section 4 (Connection Setup) does not apply.
Assuming the reference to client means "SSH client" and the reference
to connection means "TCP connection", this statement doesn't hold
true in call home, where the network element is the SSH server and
yet still initiates the TCP connection. Security implications
related to this change are discussed in Security Considerations
(Section 4).
1.5. The NETCONF/RESTCONF Convention
Throughout the remainder of this document, the term "NETCONF/
RESTCONF" is used as an abbreviation in place of the text "the
NETCONF or the RESTCONF". The NETCONF/RESTCONF abbreviation is not
intended to require or to imply that a client or server must
implement both the NETCONF standard and the RESTCONF standard.
2. The NETCONF or RESTCONF Client
The term "NETCONF/RESTCONF client" can refer to the [RFC6241],
Section 1.1 "client".
Watsen Expires March 25, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home September 2015
2.1. Protocol Operation
C1 The NETCONF/RESTCONF client listens for TCP connection requests
from NETCONF/RESTCONF servers. The client SHOULD listen for
connections on the IANA-assigned ports defined in section
Section 5, but MAY be configured to use a non-standard port.
C2 The NETCONF/RESTCONF client accepts an incoming TCP connection
request and a TCP connection is established.
C3 Using this TCP connection, the NETCONF/RESTCONF client MUST
immediately start either the SSH-client [RFC4253] or the TLS-
client [RFC5246] protocol. For example, assuming the use of the
IANA-assigned ports, the SSH-client protocol is started when the
connection is accepted on port PORT-X and the TLS-client protocol
is started when the connection is accepted on either port PORT-Y
or PORT-Z.
C4 If using TLS, the NETCONF/RESTCONF client MUST advertise
"peer_allowed_to_send", as defined by [RFC6520]. This is
required so NETCONF/RESTCONF servers can depend on it being there
for call home connections, when keep-alives are needed the most.
C5 As part of establishing an SSH or TLS connection, the NETCONF/
RESTCONF client MUST validate the server's presented host key or
certificate. This validation MAY be accomplished by certificate
path validation or by comparing the host key or certificate to a
previously trusted or "pinned" value.
C6 If certificate path validation is used, the NETCONF/RESTCONF
client MUST ensure that the certificate has a valid chain of
trust to a preconfigured trust anchor and that the certificate
encodes an "identifier" [RFC6125] that the client had awareness
of prior to the connection attempt. How identifiers are encoded
in certificates MAY be determined by a policy associated with the
certificate's trust anchor. For instance, a given trust anchor
may be known to only sign IDevID certificates [Std-802.1AR-2009]
having a unique identifier (e.g., serial number) in the X.509
certificate's "CommonName" field.
C7 After the server's host key or certificate is validated, the SSH
or TLS protocol proceeds as normal to establish a SSH or TLS
connection.
C8 Once the SSH or TLS connection is established, the NETCONF/
RESTCONF client MUST immediately start using either the NETCONF-
client [RFC6241] or RESTCONF-client [draft-ietf-netconf-restconf]
protocol. Assuming the use of the IANA-assigned ports, the
Watsen Expires March 25, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home September 2015
NETCONF-client protocol is started when the connection is
accepted on either port PORT-X or PORT-Y and the RESTCONF-client
protocol is started when the connection is accepted on port PORT-
Z.
2.2. Configuration Data Model
How a NETCONF or RESTCONF client is configured is outside the scope
of this document. This includes configuration that might be used to
enable listening for call home connections, configuring trust
anchors, or configuring identifiers for expected connections.
3. The NETCONF or RESTCONF Server
The term "NETCONF/RESTCONF server" can refer to the [RFC6241],
Section 1.1 "server".
3.1. Protocol Operation
S1 The NETCONF/RESTCONF server initiates a TCP connection request to
the NETCONF/RESTCONF client. The server SHOULD connect to one of
the IANA-assigned ports defined in section Section 5, but MAY be
configured to use a non-standard port. Using the IANA-assigned
ports, the server connects to port PORT-X for NETCONF over SSH,
port PORT-Y for NETCONF over TLS, and port PORT-Z for RESTCONF
over TLS.
S2 The TCP connection request is accepted and a TCP connection is
established.
S3 Using this TCP connection, the NETCONF/RESTCONF server MUST
immediately start using either the SSH-server [RFC4253] or the
TLS-server [RFC5246] protocol, depending on how it is configured.
For example, assuming the use of the IANA-assigned ports, the
SSH-server protocol is used after connecting to the remote port
PORT-X and the TLS-server protocol is used after connecting to
one of the remote ports PORT-Y or PORT-Z.
S4 As part of establishing the SSH or TLS connection, the NETCONF/
RESTCONF server will send its host key or certificate to the
client. If a certificate is sent, the server MUST also send all
intermediate certificates leading up to the certificate's trust
anchor. How to send a list of certificates is defined for SSH in
[RFC6187] Section 2.1, and for TLS in [RFC5246] Section 7.4.2.
S5 In most cases, establishing the SSH or TLS connection also
entails server authentication of client credentials; only with
RESTCONF do some client authentication schemes occur after the
Watsen Expires March 25, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home September 2015
secure transport connection (TLS) has been established. If
client authentication is required, and the client is unable to
successfully authenticate itself to the server in an amount of
time defined by local policy, the server MUST close the
connection.
S6 Once the SSH or TLS connection is established, the NETCONF/
RESTCONF server MUST immediately start using either the NETCONF-
server [RFC6241] or RESTCONF-server [draft-ietf-netconf-restconf]
protocol, depending on how it is configured. Assuming the use of
the IANA-assigned ports, the NETCONF-server protocol is used
after connecting to remote port PORT-X or PORT-Y, and the
RESTCONF-server protocol is used after connecting to remote port
PORT-Z.
S7 If a persistent connection is desired, the NETCONF/RESTCONF
server, as the connection initiator, SHOULD actively test the
aliveness of the connection using a keep-alive mechanism. For
TLS based connections, the NETCONF/RESTCONF server SHOULD send
HeartbeatRequest messages, as defined by [RFC6520]. For SSH
based connections, per section 4 of [RFC4254], the NETCONF/
RESTCONF server SHOULD send a SSH_MSG_GLOBAL_REQUEST message with
the purposely nonexistent "request name" value
"keepalive@ietf.org" and the "want reply" value set to '1'.
3.2. Configuration Data Model
How a NETCONF or RESTCONF server is configured is outside the scope
of this document. This includes configuration that might be used to
specify hostnames, IP addresses, ports, algorithms, or other relevant
parameters. That said, a YANG [RFC6020] model for configuring
NETCONF and RESTCONF servers, including call home, is provided in
[draft-ietf-netconf-server-model].
4. Security Considerations
The security considerations described in [RFC6242] and [RFC7589], and
by extension [RFC4253], [RFC5246], and [draft-ietf-netconf-restconf]
apply here as well.
This RFC deviates from standard SSH and TLS usage by having the SSH/
TLS server initiate the underlying TCP connection. This reversal is
incongruous with [RFC4253], which says "the client initiates the
connection" and also [RFC6125], which says "the client MUST construct
a list of acceptable reference identifiers, and MUST do so
independently of the identifiers presented by the service." To
account for these variances, this RFC requires that the NETCONF/
RESTCONF client validate the SSH host key or certificate via
Watsen Expires March 25, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home September 2015
certificate path validation to a preconfigured trust anchor or by
comparing the host key or certificate to a previously trusted or
"pinned" value. Furthermore, if certificate path validation is used,
this RFC requires that the client be able to match a presented
identifier encoded in the certificate with an identifier the client
was preconfigured to expect.
An attacker could launch a denial of service (DoS) attack on the
NETCONF/RESTCONF client by having it perform computationally
expensive operations, before deducing that the attacker doesn't
posses a valid key. This is no different than any secured service
and all common precautions apply (e.g., blacklisting the source
address after a set number of unsuccessful login attempts).
5. IANA Considerations
This RFC requests that IANA assigns three TCP port numbers in the
"Registered Port Numbers" range with the service names "netconf-ch-
ssh", "netconf-ch-tls", and "restconf-ch-tls". These ports will be
the default ports for NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home
protocols. Below is the registration template following the rules in
[RFC6335].
Service Name: netconf-ch-ssh
Transport Protocol(s): TCP
Assignee: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Contact: IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
Description: NETCONF Call Home (SSH)
Reference: RFC XXXX
Port Number: PORT-X
Service Name: netconf-ch-tls
Transport Protocol(s): TCP
Assignee: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Contact: IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
Description: NETCONF Call Home (TLS)
Reference: RFC XXXX
Port Number: PORT-Y
Service Name: restconf-ch-tls
Transport Protocol(s): TCP
Assignee: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Contact: IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
Description: RESTCONF Call Home (TLS)
Reference: RFC XXXX
Port Number: PORT-Z
Watsen Expires March 25, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home September 2015
6. Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the following for lively discussions
on list and in the halls (ordered by last name): Andy Bierman, Martin
Bjorklund, Mehmet Ersue, Wes Hardaker, Stephen Hanna, David
Harrington, Jeffrey Hutzelman, Radek Krejci, Alan Luchuk, Mouse, Russ
Mundy, Tom Petch, Juergen Schoenwaelder, Peter Saint-Andre, Joe
Touch, Hannes Tschofenig, Sean Turner, and Bert Wijnen.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4251] Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, "The Secure Shell (SSH)
Protocol Architecture", RFC 4251, January 2006.
[RFC4252] Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, "The Secure Shell (SSH)
Authentication Protocol", RFC 4252, January 2006.
[RFC4253] Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, "The Secure Shell (SSH)
Transport Layer Protocol", RFC 4253, January 2006.
[RFC4254] Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, "The Secure Shell (SSH)
Connection Protocol", RFC 4254, January 2006.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.
[RFC6125] Saint-Andre, P. and J. Hodges, "Representation and
Verification of Domain-Based Application Service Identity
within Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509
(PKIX) Certificates in the Context of Transport Layer
Security (TLS)", RFC 6125, March 2011.
[RFC6187] Igoe, K. and D. Stebila, "X.509v3 Certificates for Secure
Shell Authentication", RFC 6187, March 2011.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., and A.
Bierman, "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC
6241, June 2011.
[RFC6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure
Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, June 2011.
Watsen Expires March 25, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home September 2015
[RFC6335] 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, August 2011.
[RFC6520] Seggelmann, R., Tuexen, M., and M. Williams, "Transport
Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS) Heartbeat Extension", RFC 6520, February 2012.
[RFC7589] Badra, M., Luchuk, A., and J. Schoenwaelder, "Using the
NETCONF Protocol over Transport Layer Security (TLS) with
Mutual X.509 Authentication", RFC 7589, June 2015.
[RFC793] Postel, J., "TRANSMISSION CONTROL PROTOCOL", STD 7,
September 1981, <https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc793.txt>.
[draft-ietf-netconf-restconf]
Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", draft-ieft-netconf-restconf-04 (work in
progress), 2014, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-
netconf-restconf>.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the
Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
October 2010.
[Std-802.1AR-2009]
IEEE SA-Standards Board, "IEEE Standard for Local and
metropolitan area networks - Secure Device Identity",
December 2009, <http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/
standard/802.1AR-2009.html>.
[draft-ietf-netconf-server-model]
Watsen, K. and J. Schoenwaelder, "NETCONF Server
Configuration Model", 2014, <http://tools.ietf.org/html/
draft-ietf-netconf-server-model>.
Watsen Expires March 25, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home September 2015
Appendix A. Change Log
A.1. 00 to 01
o The term "TCP connection" is now used throughout.
o The terms "network element" and "management system" are now only
used in the Motivation section.
o Restructured doc a little to create an Introduction section.
o Fixed reference in Applicability Statement so it would work
equally well for SSH and TLS.
o Fixed reported odd wording and three references.
A.2. 01 to 02
o Added call home support for the RESTCONF protocol.
o Fixed paragraph 3 of Security Considerations to equally apply to
the TLS protocol.
A.3. 02 to 03
o Tried to improve readability (issue #6)
o Removed "FIXME" in section 1.3 (issue #7)
o Added RFC Editor notes (issue #8)
o Removed "TCP session" term (issue #9)
o Improved language for usage of IANA-assigned ports (issue #10)
A.4. 03 to 04
o Replaced "verify credentials" with "verify identity" (issue #11)
A.5. 04 to 05
o Applied many suggestions from WGLC
o Removed essay like "Server Identification and Verification"
section
o Added text about keep-alives
Watsen Expires March 25, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home September 2015
o Added Configuration Data Model section for client protocol
o Improved Security Considerations section
A.6. 05 to 06
o Addressed comments raised by Alan Luchuk.
A.7. 06 to 07
o replaced "reference identifier" with "identifier"
o added reference to RFC6125
o moved reference to 6020 to Informative section
A.8. 07 to 08
o Added text regarding client authentication
o Now says client-initiated (not standard) NETCONF/RESTCONF
connections
o Now says server must send all (not any) intermediate certificates
o Improved wording based on suggestions from Jonathan and Tom
A.9. 08 to 09
o Added dynamic DNS as an example for an IP mapping service
o Replaced draft-ietf-netconf-rfc5539bis with RFC7589
o Recharacterized this draft's relationship to RFC4253
A.10. 09 to 10
o Updates from AD review
A.11. 10 to 11
o Fixed typo introduced in -10
Appendix B. Open Issues
All issues with this draft are tracked using GitHub issues. Please
see: https://github.com/netconf-wg/call-home/issues to see currently
opened issues.
Watsen Expires March 25, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home September 2015
Author's Address
Kent Watsen
Juniper Networks
EMail: kwatsen@juniper.net
Watsen Expires March 25, 2016 [Page 14]