NETCONF E. Voit
Internet-Draft A. Tripathy
Intended status: Standards Track E. Nilsen-Nygaard
Expires: February 5, 2018 Cisco Systems
A. Clemm
Huawei
A. Gonzalez Prieto
VMWare
A. Bierman
YumaWorks
August 4, 2017
Restconf and HTTP Transport for Event Notifications
draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif-03
Abstract
This document defines Restconf, HTTP2, and HTTP1.1 bindings for the
transport of Subscription requests and corresponding push updates.
Being subscribed may be either publisher defined event streams or
nodes/subtrees of YANG Datastores.
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 February 5, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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
Voit, et al. Expires February 5, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Restconf-Notif August 2017
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Dynamic YANG Subscription with RESTCONF control . . . . . 3
3.2. Subscription Multiplexing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Encoded Subscription and Notification Message Examples . . . 7
4.1. Restconf Subscription and Events over HTTP1.1 . . . . . . 7
4.2. Event Notification over HTTP2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix A. End-to-End Deployment Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.1. Call Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A.2. TLS Heartbeat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix B. RESTCONF over GRPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix C. Changes between revisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction
Mechanisms to support Event subscription and push are defined in
[sn]. Enhancements to [sn] which enable YANG Datastore subscription
and push are defined in [yang-push]. This document provides a
transport specification for these protocols over Restconf and HTTP.
Driving these requirements is [RFC7923].
The streaming of notifications encapsulating the resulting
information push can be done with either HTTP1.1 and HTTP2. When
using HTTP2 [RFC7540] benefits which can be realized include:
o Elimination of head-of-line blocking
o Weighting and proportional dequeuing of Events from different
subscriptions
o Explicit precedence in subscriptions so that events from one
subscription must be sent before another dequeues
Voit, et al. Expires February 5, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Restconf-Notif August 2017
2. 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].
The following terms use the defintions from [sn]: configured
subscription, dynamic subscription, event notification, publisher,
receiver, subscriber, and subscription.
3. Solution
Subscribing to event streams is defined in [sn], YANG Datastore
subscription is defined in [yang-push]. This section specifies
transport mechanisms applicable to both.
3.1. Dynamic YANG Subscription with RESTCONF control
Dynamic Subscriptions for both [sn] and its [yang-push] augmentations
are configured and managed via signaling messages transported over
[RFC8040]. These interactions will be accomplished via a Restconf
POST into RPCs located on the Publisher. HTTP responses codes will
indicate the results of the interaction with the Publisher. An HTTP
status code of 200 is the proper response to a successful <establish-
subscription> RPC call. The successful <establish-subscription> will
result in a HTTP message with returned subscription URI on a
logically separate mechanism than was used for the original Restconf
POST. This mechanism is via a parallel TCP connection in the case of
HTTP 1.x, or in the case of HTTP2 via a separate HTTP stream within
the HTTP connection. When a being returned by the Publisher, failure
will be indicated by error codes transported in payload.
Once established, the resulting stream of notification messages are
then delivered via SSE for HTTP1.1 and via HTTP Data for HTTP2.
3.1.1. Call Flow for HTTP2
Requests to [sn] or [yang-push] augmented RPCs are sent on one or
more HTTP2 streams indicated by (a) in Figure 2. Notification
messages related to a single subscription are pushed on a unique
logical channel (b). In the case below, a newly established
subscription has its associated messages pushed over HTTP2 stream
(7).
Voit, et al. Expires February 5, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Restconf-Notif August 2017
+------------+ +------------+
| Subscriber | | Publisher |
|HTTP2 Stream| |HTTP2 Stream|
| (a) (b) | | (a) (b) |
+------------+ +------------+
| Restconf POST (RPC:establish-subscription) |
|--------------------------------------------->|
| HTTP 200 OK (URI)|
|<---------------------------------------------|
| (7)HTTP POST (URI) (7)
| |--------------------------------------------->|
| | HTTP 200 OK|
| |<---------------------------------------------|
| | HTTP Data (event-notif)|
| |<---------------------------------------------|
| Restconf POST (RPC:modify-subscription) | |
|--------------------------------------------->| |
| | HTTP 200 OK| |
|<---------------------------------------------| |
| | HTTP Data (subscription-modified)|
| |<---------------------------------------------|
| | HTTP Data (event-notif)|
| |<---------------------------------------------|
| Restconf POST (RPC:delete-subscription) | |
|--------------------------------------------->| |
| | HTTP 200 OK| |
|<---------------------------------------------| |
| | HTTP Headers (end of stream)|
| (/7)<-----------------------------------------(/7)
|
Figure 1: Dynamic with HTTP2
3.1.2. Call flow for HTTP1.1
Requests to [yang-push] RPCs are sent on the TCP connection indicated
by (a). Notification messages are pushed on a separate connection
(b). This connection (b) will be used for all notification messages
across all subscriptions.
Voit, et al. Expires February 5, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Restconf-Notif August 2017
+--------------+ +--------------+
| Subscriber | | Publisher |
|TCP connection| |TCP connection|
| (a) (b) | | (a) (b) |
+--------------+ +--------------+
| Restconf POST (RPC:establish-subscription) |
|--------------------------------------------->|
| HTTP 200 OK (URI)|
|<---------------------------------------------|
| |HTTP GET (URI) |
| |--------------------------------------------->|
| | HTTP 200 OK|
| |<---------------------------------------------|
| | SSE (event-notif)|
| |<---------------------------------------------|
| Restconf POST (RPC:modify-subscription) | |
|--------------------------------------------->| |
| | HTTP 200 OK| |
|<---------------------------------------------| |
| | SSE (subscription-modified)|
| |<---------------------------------------------|
| | SSE (event-notif)|
| |<---------------------------------------------|
| Restconf POST (RPC:delete-subscription) | |
|--------------------------------------------->| |
| | HTTP 200 OK| |
|<---------------------------------------------| |
| | |
| |
Figure 2: Dynamic with HTTP1.1
3.1.3. Configured Subscription over HTTP2
With a Configured Subscription, all information needed to establish a
secure relationship with that Receiver is available on the Publisher.
With this information, the Publisher will establish a secure
transport connection with the Receiver and then begin pushing
notification messages to the Receiver. Since Restconf might not
exist on the Receiver, it is not desirable to require that subscribed
content be pushed with any dependency on Restconf. Nor is there
value which Restconf provides on top of HTTP. Therefore in place of
Restconf, a TLS secured HTTP2 Client connection must be established
with an HTTP2 Server located on the Receiver. Notification messages
will then be sent as part of an extended HTTP POST to the Receiver.
POST messages will be addressed to HTTP augmentation code on the
Receiver capable of accepting and responding to state change
Voit, et al. Expires February 5, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Restconf-Notif August 2017
notifications and subscribed content notification messages. The
first POST message must be a subscription-started notification.
Notifications which include any subscribed content must not be sent
until the receipt of an HTTP 200 OK for this initial notification.
The 200 OK will indicate that the Receiver is ready for the delivery
of subscribed content. At this point a Subscription must be
allocated its own HTTP2 stream. Figure 4 depicts this message flow.
+------------+ +------------+
| Receiver | | Publisher |
|HTTP2 Stream| |HTTP2 Stream|
| (a) (b) | | (a) (b) |
+------------+ +------------+
| HTTP Post Headers, Data (sub-start, SubID)|
|<---------------------------------------------|
| HTTP 200 OK |
|--------------------------------------------->|
| | HTTP Post Headers, Data (event-notif)|
| |<---------------------------------------------|
| | HTTP Data (event-notif)|
| |<---------------------------------------------|
| | HTTP Data (sub-terminate)|
| |<---------------------------------------------|
| |HTTP 200 OK |
| |--------------------------------------------->|
Figure 3: Configured over HTTP2
As the HTTP2 transport is available to the Receiver, the Publisher
should:
o take any subscription-priority and copy it into the HTTP2 stream
priority, and
o take a subscription-dependency if it has been provided and map the
HTTP2 stream for the parent subscription into the HTTP2 stream
dependency.
3.2. Subscription Multiplexing
It is possible that updates across subscriptions might be delivered
in a different sequence than the encapsulated records were generated.
Reasons for this might include (but are not limited to):
o generation of event records on different line cards
o replay of pushed information, and
Voit, et al. Expires February 5, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Restconf-Notif August 2017
o temporary loss of transport connectivity, with update buffering
and different dequeuing priorities per Subscription
o population, marshalling and bundling across independent
Subscription Updates, and
Therefore each notification message will include a timestamp to
provide a Receiver with its best information indicating when a
particular record was generated. Use of this timestamp can give an
indication of the state of objects at a Publisher. This is
especially important when state-entangled information is received
across different subscriptions. Note that use of notification
message timestamps may not indicate a the exact time of occurrence.
So when state-entangled updates have inconsistent object values and
temporally close timestamps, a Receiver might consider performing a
GET to validate the current state of a Publisher.
4. Encoded Subscription and Notification Message Examples
4.1. Restconf Subscription and Events over HTTP1.1
Subscribers can dynamically learn whether a RESTCONF server supports
various types of Event or Yang datastore subscription capabilities.
This is done by issuing an HTTP request OPTIONS, HEAD, or GET on the
stream. Some examples building upon the Call flow for HTTP1.1 from
Section 3.2.2 are:
GET /restconf/data/ietf-restconf-monitoring:restconf-state/
streams/stream=yang-push HTTP/1.1
Host: example.com
Accept: application/yang.data+xml
If the server supports it, it may respond
Voit, et al. Expires February 5, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Restconf-Notif August 2017
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/yang.api+xml
<stream xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-restconf-monitoring">
<name>yang-push</name>
<description>Yang push stream</description>
<access>
<encoding>xml</encoding>
<location>https://example.com/streams/yang-push-xml
</location>
</access>
<access>
<encoding>json</encoding>
<location>https://example.com/streams/yang-push-json
</location>
</access>
</stream>
If the server does not support any form of subscription, it may
respond
HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2012 11:10:30 GMT
Server: example-server
Subscribers can determine the URL to receive updates by sending an
HTTP GET as a request for the "location" leaf with the stream list
entry. The stream to use for may be selected from the Event Stream
list provided in the capabilities exchange. Note that different
encodings are supporting using different Event Stream locations. For
example, the Subscriber might send the following request:
GET /restconf/data/ietf-restconf-monitoring:restconf-state/
streams/stream=yang-push/access=xml/location HTTP/1.1
Host: example.com
Accept: application/yang.data+xml
The Publisher might send the following response:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: application/yang.api+xml
<location
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-restconf-monitoring">
https://example.com/streams/yang-push-xml
</location>
To subscribe and start receiving updates, the subscriber can then
send an HTTP GET request for the URL returned by the Publisher in the
request above. The accept header must be "text/event-stream". The
Voit, et al. Expires February 5, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Restconf-Notif August 2017
Publisher uses the Server Sent Events [W3C-20150203] transport
strategy to push filtered events from the event stream.
The Publisher MUST support individual parameters within the POST
request body for all the parameters of a subscription. The only
exception is the encoding, which is embedded in the URI. An example
of this is:
// subtree filter = /foo
// periodic updates, every 5 seconds
POST /restconf/operations/ietf-event-notifications:
establish-subscription HTTP/1.1
Host: example.com
Content-Type: application/yang-data+json
{
"ietf-event-notifications:input" : {
"stream": "push-data"
"period" : 5,
"xpath-filter" : "/ex:foo[starts-with('bar'.'some']"
}
}
Should the publisher not support the requested subscription, it may
reply:
Voit, et al. Expires February 5, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Restconf-Notif August 2017
HTTP/1.1 501 Not Implemented
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:11:00 GMT
Server: example-server
Content-Type: application/yang.errors+xml
<errors xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-restconf">
<error>
<error-type>application</error-type>
<error-tag>operation-not-supported</error-tag>
<error-severity>error</error-severity>
<error-message>Xpath filters not supported</error-message>
<error-info>
<supported-subscription xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:
netconf:datastore-push:1.0">
<subtree-filter/>
</supported-subscription>
</error-info>
</error>
</errors>
with an equivalent JSON encoding representation of:
HTTP/1.1 501 Not Implemented
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:11:00 GMT
Server: example-server
Content-Type: application/yang.errors+json
{
"ietf-restconf:errors": {
"error": {
"error-type": "protocol",
"error-tag": "operation-not-supported",
"error-message": "Xpath filters not supported."
"error-info": {
"datastore-push:supported-subscription": {
"subtree-filter": [null]
}
}
}
}
}
The following is an example of a pushed content for the Subscription
above. It contains a subtree with root foo that contains a leaf
called bar:
Voit, et al. Expires February 5, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Restconf-Notif August 2017
XML encoding representation:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<notification xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-restconf">
<subscription-id xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:restconf:
datastore-push:1.0">
my-sub
</subscription-id>
<eventTime>2015-03-09T19:14:56.233Z</eventTime>
<datastore-contents xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:restconf:
datastore-push:1.0">
<foo xmlns="http://example.com/yang-push/1.0">
<bar>some_string</bar>
</foo>
</datastore-contents>
</notification>
Or with the equivalent YANG over JSON encoding representation as
defined in [RFC7951]:
{
"ietf-restconf:notification": {
"datastore-push:subscription-id": "my-sub",
"eventTime": "2015-03-09T19:14:56.233Z",
"datastore-push:datastore-contents": {
"example-mod:foo": { "bar": "some_string" }
}
}
}
To modify a Subscription, the subscriber issues another POST request
on the provided URI using the same subscription-id as in the original
request. For example, to modify the update period to 10 seconds, the
subscriber may send:
POST /restconf/operations/ietf-event-notifications:
modify-subscription HTTP/1.1
Host: example.com
Content-Type: application/yang-data+json
{
"ietf-event-notifications:input" : {
"subscription-id": 100,
"period" : 10
}
}
Voit, et al. Expires February 5, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Restconf-Notif August 2017
To delete a Subscription, the Subscriber issues a DELETE request on
the provided URI using the same subscription-id as in the original
request
4.2. Event Notification over HTTP2
The basic encoding will look as below. It will consists of a JSON
representation wrapped in an HTTP2 header.
HyperText Transfer Protocol 2
Stream: HEADERS, Stream ID: 5
Header: :method: POST
Stream: HEADERS, Stream ID: 5
{
"ietf-yangpush:notification": {
"datastore-push:subscription-id": "my-sub",
"eventTime": "2015-03-09T19:14:56.233Z",
"datastore-push:datastore-contents": {
"foo": { "bar": "some_string" }
}
}
}
5. Security Considerations
Subscriptions could be used to intentionally or accidentally overload
the resources of a Publisher. For this reason, it is important that
the Publisher has the ability to prioritize the establishment and
push of notification messages where there is the potential for
resource exhaust. In addition, a server needs to be able to suspend
existing Subscriptions when needed. When this occurs, the
subscription status must be updated accordingly and the Receivers
notified.
A Subscription could be used to attempt retrieve information for
which a Receiver has no authorized access. Therefore it is important
that data pushed via a Subscription is authorized equivalently with
regular data retrieval operations. Data being pushed to a Receiver
needs therefore to be filtered accordingly, just like if the data
were being retrieved on-demand. The Netconf Authorization Control
Model [RFC6536] applies even though the transport is not NETCONF.
One or more Publishers of Configured Subscriptions could be used to
overwhelm a Receiver which doesn't even support Subscriptions. There
are two protections here. First, notification messages for
Configured Subscriptions MUST only be transmittable over encrypted
transports. Clients which do not want pushed content need only
Voit, et al. Expires February 5, 2018 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Restconf-Notif August 2017
terminate or refuse any transport sessions from the Publisher.
Second, the HTTP transport augmentation on the Receiver must send an
HTTP 200 OK to a subscription started notification before the
Publisher starts streaming any subscribed content.
One or more Publishers could overwhelm a Receiver which is unable to
control or handle the volume of Event Notifications received. In
deployments where this might be a concern, HTTP2 transport such as
HTTP2) should be selected.
6. Acknowledgments
We wish to acknowledge the helpful contributions, comments, and
suggestions that were received from: Susan Hares, Tim Jenkins, Balazs
Lengyel, Kent Watsen, Michael Scharf, and Guangying Zheng.
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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC6520] Seggelmann, R., Tuexen, M., and M. Williams, "Transport
Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS) Heartbeat Extension", RFC 6520,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6520, February 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6520>.
[RFC6536] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration
Protocol (NETCONF) Access Control Model", RFC 6536,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6536, March 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6536>.
[RFC7540] Belshe, M., Peon, R., and M. Thomson, Ed., "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)", RFC 7540,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7540, May 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7540>.
[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.
Voit, et al. Expires February 5, 2018 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Restconf-Notif August 2017
[sn] Voit, E., Clemm, A., Gonzalez Prieto, A., Prasad Tripathy,
A., and E. Nilsen-Nygaard, "Subscribing to Event
Notifications", February 2017,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-
subscribed-notifications/>.
7.2. Informative References
[GRPC] "RPC framework that runs over HTTP2", August 2017,
<https://grpc.io/>.
[RFC7923] Voit, E., Clemm, A., and A. Gonzalez Prieto, "Requirements
for Subscription to YANG Datastores", RFC 7923,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7923, June 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7923>.
[RFC7951] Lhotka, L., "JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG",
RFC 7951, DOI 10.17487/RFC7951, August 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7951>.
[RFC8071] Watsen, K., "NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home",
RFC 8071, DOI 10.17487/RFC8071, February 2017,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8071>.
[W3C-20150203]
"Server-Sent Events, World Wide Web Consortium CR CR-
eventsource-20121211", February 2015,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2015/REC-eventsource-20150203/>.
[yang-push]
Clemm, A., Voit, E., Gonzalez Prieto, A., Prasad Tripathy,
A., Nilsen-Nygaard, E., Bierman, A., and B. Lengyel,
"Subscribing to YANG datastore push updates", March 2017,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-yang-
push/>.
Appendix A. End-to-End Deployment Guidance
Several technologies are expected to be seen within a deployment to
achieve security and ease-of-use requirements. These are not
necessary for an implementation of this specification, but will be
useful to consider when considering the operational context.
A.1. Call Home
Implementations should include the ability to transparently
incorporate 'call home' [RFC8071] so that secure TLS connections can
originate from the desired device.
Voit, et al. Expires February 5, 2018 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Restconf-Notif August 2017
A.2. TLS Heartbeat
HTTP sessions might not quickly allow a Subscriber to recognize when
the communication path has been lost from the Publisher. To
recognize this, it is possible for a Receiver to establish a TLS
heartbeat [RFC6520]. In the case where a TLS heartbeat is included,
it should be sent just from Receiver to Publisher. Loss of the
heartbeat should result in any Subscription related TCP sessions
between those endpoints being torn down. The subscription can then
attempt to re-establish.
Appendix B. RESTCONF over GRPC
An initial goal for this document was to support [GRPC] transport
seamlessly without any mapping or extra layering. However there is
an incompatibility of RESTCONF and GRPC. RESTCONF uses HTTP GET, and
GRPC uses HTTP2's POST rather than GET. As GET is used across
RESTCONF for things like capabilities exchange, a seamless mapping
depends on specification changes outside the scope of this document.
If/when GRPC supports GET, or RESTCONF is updated to support POST,
this should be revisited. It is hoped that the resulting fix will be
transparent to this document.
Appendix C. Changes between revisions
(To be removed by RFC editor prior to publication)
v01 - v03
o Terminoology aligned with draft-voit-netconf-notification-
messages.
o Tweaks to wording/capitalization/format.
v01 - v02
o Removed sections now redundant with [sn] and [yang-push] such as:
mechanisms for subscription maintenance, terminology definitions,
stream discovery.
o 3rd party subscriptions are out-of-scope.
o SSE only used with Restconf and HTTP1.1 Dynamic Subscriptions
o Timeframes for event tagging are self-defined.
o Clean-up of wording, references to terminology, section numbers.
Voit, et al. Expires February 5, 2018 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Restconf-Notif August 2017
v00 - v01
o Removed the ability for more than one subscription to go to a
single HTTP2 stream.
o Updated call flows. Extensively.
o SSE only used with Restconf and HTTP1.1 Dynamic Subscriptions
o HTTP is not used to determine that a Receiver has gone silent and
is not Receiving Event Notifications
o Many clean-ups of wording and terminology
Authors' Addresses
Eric Voit
Cisco Systems
Email: evoit@cisco.com
Ambika Prasad Tripathy
Cisco Systems
Email: ambtripa@cisco.com
Einar Nilsen-Nygaard
Cisco Systems
Email: einarnn@cisco.com
Alexander Clemm
Huawei
Email: ludwig@clemm.org
Alberto Gonzalez Prieto
VMWare
Email: agonzalezpri@vmware.com
Voit, et al. Expires February 5, 2018 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Restconf-Notif August 2017
Andy Bierman
YumaWorks
Email: andy@yumaworks.com
Voit, et al. Expires February 5, 2018 [Page 17]
