netconf T. Goddard
Internet-Draft Wind River Systems
Expires: April 15, 2004 October 16, 2003
NETCONF Over SOAP
draft-ietf-netconf-soap-00
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://
www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 15, 2004.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
The configuration protocol NETCONF is applicable to a wide range of
devices in a variety of environments. The emergence of Web Services
gives one such environment, and is presently characterized by the use
of SOAP over HTTP. NETCONF finds many benefits in this environment:
from the use of existing standards, to ease of software development,
to integration with deployed systems. Herein, we describe a SOAP
over HTTP binding that, when used with multiple persistent HTTP
connections, yields an application protocol sufficient for NETCONF.
Goddard Expires April 15, 2004 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Over SOAP October 2003
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. SOAP Background for NETCONF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1 Use and Storage of WSDL and XSD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 SOAP over HTTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3 HTTP Drawbacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4 Important HTTP 1.1 Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. A SOAP Web Service for NETCONF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1 Fundamental Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2 Mapping NETCONF Channels to HTTP Connections . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.1 Asynchronous Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3 NETCONF Sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4 Capabilities Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.5 A NETCONF/SOAP example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.6 Managing Multiple Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1 Integrity, Privacy, and Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2 Vulnerabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3 Environmental Specifics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A. WSDL Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A.1 NETCONF SOAP Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A.2 Sample Service Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 18
Goddard Expires April 15, 2004 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Over SOAP October 2003
1. Introduction
Given the use of XML [1] and the remote procedure call
characteristics, it is natural to consider a binding of the NETCONF
[13] operations to a SOAP [2] application protocol. This document
proposes a binding of this form.
Note that a SOAP binding for NETCONF is not necessarily intended only
for managing individual devices. For instance, a server providing a
SOAP interface can act as a proxy for multiple devices, possibly
connecting to those devices over BEEP [16] or serial lines. In this
case it is important to define a data model that appropriately
aggregates the devices.
In general, SOAP over HTTP is a natural application protocol for
NETCONF (essentially because both emphasize remote procedure calls)
but there are three areas that require care: the <rpc-progress>
operation, the mechanism for aborting operations, and the
notification channel. The reason for this is that all of these
functions are asynchronous (from the point of view of the manager)
and HTTP is inherently synchronous and client-driven.
Four basic topics are presented: SOAP specifics of interest to
NETCONF, specifics on implementing NETCONF as a SOAP-based web
service, security considerations, and an appendix with functional
WSDL. In some sense, the most important part of the document is the
brief WSDL document presented in the Appendix. With the right tools,
the WSDL combined with the base NETCONF XML Schemas provide machine
readable descriptions sufficient for the development of software
applications using NETCONF.
Goddard Expires April 15, 2004 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Over SOAP October 2003
2. SOAP Background for NETCONF
Why introduce SOAP as yet another wrapper around what is already a
remote procedure call message? There are, in fact, both technical
and practical reasons. The technical reasons are perhaps less
compelling, but let's examine them first.
SOAP is fundamentally an XML messaging scheme (which is capable of
supporting remote procedure call) and it defines a simple message
format composed of a "header" and a "body" contained within an
"envelope". The "header" contains meta-information relating to the
message, and can be used to indicate such things as store-and-forward
behaviour or transactional characteristics. In addition, SOAP
specifies an optional encoding for the "body" of the message.
However, this encoding is not applicable to NETCONF as one of the
goals is to have highly readable XML, and SOAP-encoding is optimized
instead for ease of automated deserialization. These benefits of the
SOAP message structure are basic, but worthwhile due to the fact that
they are already standardized.
It is the practical reasons that make SOAP over HTTP an interesting
choice for device management. It is not difficult to invent a
mechanism for exchanging XML messages over TCP, but what is difficult
is getting that mechanism supported in a wide variety of tools and
operating systems and having that mechanism understood by a great
many developers. SOAP over HTTP (with WSDL) is seeing good success
at this, and this means that a device management protocol making use
of these technologies has advantages in being implemented and
adopted. Admittedly, there are interoperability problems with SOAP
and WSDL, but such problems have wide attention and can be expected
to be resolved.
2.1 Use and Storage of WSDL and XSD
One of the advantages of using machine readable formats such as Web
Services Description Language (WSDL) [3] and XML Schemas [4] is that
they can be used automatically in the software development process.
With appropriate tools, WSDL and XSD can be used to generate classes
that act as remote interfaces or application specific data
structures. Other uses, such as document generation and service
location, are also common. A great innovation found with many
XML-based definition languages is the use of hyperlinks for referring
to documents containing supporting definitions. For instance, in
WSDL, the import statement
<import namespace="http://iana.org/netconf/1.0/base"
location="http://iana.org/netconf/1.0/base.xsd"/>
Goddard Expires April 15, 2004 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Over SOAP October 2003
imports the definitions of XML types and elements from the base
NETCONF schema. Ideally, the file containing that schema is hosted
on a web server under the authority of the standards body that
defined the schema. In this way, dependent standards can be built up
over time and all are accessible to automated software tools that
ensure adherence to the standards. Thus, it will gradually become as
important for iana.org to host documents like
http://iana.org/netconf/1.0/base/base.xsd
as the IETF now hosts documents such as
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt
2.2 SOAP over HTTP
While it is true that SOAP focuses on messages and can be bound to
different underlying protocols such as HTTP, SMTP, or BEEP, most
existing SOAP implementations support only HTTP or HTTP/TLS. For
this discussion we will assume SOAP over HTTP or HTTP/TLS unless
otherwise specified. (This also includes applications of IPSec to
SOAP over HTTP.)
Note that there are a number of advantages to considering SOAP over
protocols other than HTTP, as HTTP assigns its very distinct client
and server roles by connection initiation. This causes difficulties
in supporting asynchronous notification (possibly relieved by
replacing SOAP/HTTP with SOAP/BEEP). However, it is also the case
that the full potential of HTTP is not currently used by SOAP. For
instance, multiple SOAP replies to a single request could be
contained in a multipart MIME [6] response. This would be a similar
strategy to the use of multipart/related with SOAP attachments [14].
2.3 HTTP Drawbacks
HTTP is not the ideal transport for messaging, but it is adequate for
the most basic interpretation of "remote procedure call". HTTP is
based on a communication pattern whereby the client (which initiates
the TCP connection) makes a "request" to the server. The server
returns a "response" and this process is continued (possibly over a
persistent connection, as described below). This matches the basic
idea of a remote procedure call where the caller invokes a procedure
on a remote server and waits for the return value.
Potential criticisms of HTTP could include the following:
o server-initiated data flow is awkward
Goddard Expires April 15, 2004 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Over SOAP October 2003
o headers are verbose and text-based
o idle connections may be closed by intermediate proxies
o data encapsulation must adhere to MIME
o bulk transfer relies on stream-based ordering
In many ways these criticisms are directed at particular compromises
in the design of HTTP. As such, they are important to consider, but
it is not clear that they result in fatal drawbacks for a device
management protocol.
2.4 Important HTTP 1.1 Features
HTTP 1.1 [7] includes two important features that provide for
relatively efficient transport of SOAP messages. These features are
"persistent connections" and "chunked transfer-coding".
Persistent connections allow a single TCP connection to be used
across multiple HTTP requests. This permits multiple SOAP request/
response message pairs to be exchanged without the overhead of
creating a new TCP connection for each request. Given that a single
stream is used for both requests and responses, it is clear that some
form of framing is necessary. For messages whose length is known in
advance, this is handled by the HTTP header "Content-length". For
messages of dynamic length, "Chunking" is required.
HTTP "Chunking" or "chunked transfer-coding" allows the sender to
send an indefinite amount of binary data. This is accomplished by
informing the receiver of the size of each "chunk" (substring of the
data) before the chunk is transmitted. The last chunk is indicated
by a chunk of zero length. Chunking can be effectively used to
transfer a large XML document where the document is generated on-line
from a non-XML form in memory.
In terms of application to SOAP message exchanges, persistent
connections are clearly important for performance reasons, and are
particularly important when it is the persistence of authenticated
connections that is at stake. When one considers that messages of
dynamic length are the rule rather than the exception for SOAP
messages, it is also clear that Chunking is very useful. In some
cases it is possible to buffer a SOAP response and determine its
length before sending, but the storage requirements for this are
prohibitive for many devices. Together, these two features provide a
good foundation for device management using SOAP over HTTP.
Goddard Expires April 15, 2004 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Over SOAP October 2003
3. A SOAP Web Service for NETCONF
3.1 Fundamental Use Case
The fundamental use case for NETCONF over SOAP (NETCONF/SOAP) over
HTTP is that of a management console ("manager" role) managing one or
more devices running NETCONF agents ("agent" role). The manager
initiates one or more HTTP connections to the agent and drives the
NETCONF sessions through repeated SOAP messages over HTTP requests.
When the manager closes all HTTP connections associated with a
session, the NETCONF session is also closed.
3.2 Mapping NETCONF Channels to HTTP Connections
While the transport of SOAP over BEEP [17] has been specified, the
purpose of this discussion is to describe how to map the channel
semantics and performance characteristics already assumed by NETCONF
onto (possibly persistent) SOAP over HTTP connections. This
configuration is chosen because it is the one that benefits most from
existing SOAP tools and implementations. It is true that BEEP has
many advantages over HTTP for the transport of SOAP messages, but the
fact remains that HTTP is currently more widely deployed than BEEP.
At some point in the future, NETCONF/SOAP over BEEP may also be of
interest. At that time it can be easily dealt with as many of the
issues already discussed in this document are pertinent. There would
simply be a few enhancements regarding asynchronous notification.
NETCONF employs potentially three channels per session: the
management channel, the operation channel, and the notification
channel. In the SOAP over HTTP binding, each of these channels can
be mapped to an individual HTTP connection (although the notification
channel may be a BEEP channel in a separate TCP connection). Thus,
SOAP messages on one connection (corresponding to the management
channel) must be able to refer to SOAP messages on another connection
(corresponding to the operation channel) as the "session" is
potentially spread across multiple TCP connections. For instance, it
may be necessary to abort a time-extended SOAP request on the
"operation" HTTP connection by sending an "<rpc-abort>" message on
the "management" HTTP connection.
Distinct "operation" and "management" HTTP connections are not
defined; the agent may limit the number of HTTP connections in the
same session, and each is capable those "management" and "operation"
procedure calls supported by NETCONF over SOAP.
3.2.1 Asynchronous Functionality
NETCONF uses two types of asynchronous functionality, and the mapping
Goddard Expires April 15, 2004 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Over SOAP October 2003
of these onto SOAP over HTTP is somewhat problematic. The two
asynchronous functions are <rpc-progress> and notifications on the
notification channel, and these are not supported in the SOAP over
HTTP application protocol. Instead, the client can periodically poll
the appropriate elements of via <get-state> (on a secondary HTTP
connection) to obtain progress information or notification log
entries.
Additionally, the notification mechanism for NETCONF is specified in
an existing standard for reliable syslog [12] and it is suggested
that the same mechanism be used with the SOAP binding (it is simply
external). If notifications via SOAP over HTTP are desired, it is
probably most effective if an HTTP connection is established from the
agent to the management console. Such a connection could be
established in response to the manager connecting to the device.
More sophisticated functionality, such as multiple SOAP replies to a
single request, would require enhancements to the SOAP over HTTP
specification.
3.3 NETCONF Sessions
NETCONF sessions are persistent for both performance and semantic
reasons. NETCONF session state contains the following:
1. Authentication Information
2. Capability Information
3. Locks
4. Pending Operations
5. Operation Sequence Numbers
Authentication must be maintained throughout a session due to the
fact that it is expensive to establish. Capability Information is
maintained so that appropriate operations can be applied during a
session. Locks are released upon termination of a session as this
makes the protocol more robust. Pending operations come and go from
existence during the normal course of RPC operations. Operation
sequence numbers provide the small but necessary state information to
refer to operations during the session.
Since it is generally not possible to support a full NETCONF session
with a single HTTP connection, it is necessary to identify the
NETCONF session in a way that can span multiple HTTP connections.
This can be performed with the HTTP request URI, as in the following
POST request with the target session "sid-123":
Goddard Expires April 15, 2004 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Over SOAP October 2003
POST /netconf/sid-123 HTTP/1.0
Content-Type: text/xml; charset=utf-8
Content-Length: 470
Note that the session identifier must either be known by the manager
(in order to attach to an existing session) or be communicated from
the agent to the manager prior to the exchange of any significant
NETCONF messages. For this, it is recommended that the session
identifier be determined via <get-state>. An empty session identifier
may be used in the case where only an operations channel is required
(in this case the agent assigns a new session to that HTTP
connection).
Thus, in the case of SOAP over HTTP, a NETCONF "session" is a
collection of HTTP connections with common authenticated users and a
common session identifier as indicated in the HTTP reqest URI header.
To support automated cleanup, a NETCONF over SOAP session is closed
when all connections associated with that session are closed.
3.4 Capabilities Exchange
Capabilities exchange, if defined through a NETCONF RPC operation,
can easily be accommodated in the SOAP binding.
3.5 A NETCONF/SOAP example
Since the proposed WSDL (in Appendix A.1) uses document/literal
encoding, the use of a SOAP header and body has little impact on the
representation of a NETCONF operation. This example shows HTTP/1.0
for simplicity.
POST /netconf HTTP/1.0
Content-Type: text/xml; charset=utf-8
Accept: application/soap+xml, text/*
Cache-Control: no-cache
Pragma: no-cache
Content-Length: 470
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<soapenv:Envelope
xmlns:soapenv="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/">
<soapenv:Body>
<rpc id="101" xmlns="http://ietf.org/netconf/1.0/base">
<get-config>
<source>
<running/>
</source>
<config xmlns="http://example.com/schema/1.2/config">
Goddard Expires April 15, 2004 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Over SOAP October 2003
<users/>
</config>
<format>xml</format>
</get-config>
</rpc>
</soapenv:Body>
</soapenv:Envelope>
The HTTP/1.0 response is also straightforward:
HTTP/1.0 200 OK
Content-Type: text/xml; charset=utf-8
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<soapenv:Envelope
xmlns:soapenv="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/">
<soapenv:Body>
<rpc-reply id="101" xmlns="http://ietf.org/netconf/1.0/base">
<config xmlns="http://example.com/schema/1.2/config">
<users>
<user>
<name>root</name>
<type>superuser</type>
</user>
<user>
<name>fred</name>
<type>admin</type>
</user>
<user>
<name>barney</name>
<type>admin</type>
</user>
</users>
</config>
</rpc-reply>
</soapenv:Body>
</soapenv:Envelope>
3.6 Managing Multiple Devices
When a server is acting as a proxy for multiple devices, the URL for
the HTTP POST can be used to indicate which device is the target. It
may also be desirable to use the HTTP POST URL as a means for
selecting from multiple virtual devices on a single device.
Goddard Expires April 15, 2004 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Over SOAP October 2003
4. Security Considerations
NETCONF is used to access and modify configuration information, so
the ability to access this protocol should be limited to users and
systems that are authorized to view or modify the agent's
configuration data.
Because configuration information is sent in both directions, it is
not sufficient for just the client or user to be authenticated with
the server. The identity of the server should also be authenticated
with the client.
Configuration data may include sensitive information, such as user
names or security keys. So, NETCONF should only be used over
communications channels that provide strong encryption for data
privacy.
If the NETCONF server provides remote access through insecure
protocols, such as HTTP, care should be taken to prevent execution of
the NETCONF program when strong user authentication or data privacy
is not available.
4.1 Integrity, Privacy, and Authentication
The NETCONF SOAP binding relies on an underlying secure transport for
integrity and privacy. Such transports are expected to include TLS
[10] and IPSec. There are a number of options for authentication
(some of which are deployment-specific):
o within the transport (such as with TLS client certificates)
o within HTTP (such as Digest Access Authentication [8])
o within SOAP (such as a digital signature in the header [15])
HTTP and SOAP level authentication can be integrated with RADIUS [11]
to support remote authentication databases.
4.2 Vulnerabilities
The above protocols may have various vulnerabilities, and these may
be inherited by NETCONF/SOAP.
NETCONF itself may have vulnerabilities due to the fact that an
authorization model is not currently specified.
It is important that device capabilities and authorization remain
Goddard Expires April 15, 2004 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Over SOAP October 2003
constant for the duration of any outstanding NETCONF session. In the
case of NETCONF/SOAP, this constancy must be given particular
attention as a session may span multiple HTTP connections.
4.3 Environmental Specifics
Some deployments of NETCONF/SOAP may choose to use HTTP without
encryption. This presents vulnerabilities but may be selected for
deployments involving closed networks or debugging scenarios.
A device managed by NETCONF may interact (over protocols other than
NETCONF) with devices managed by other protocols, all of differing
security. Each point of entry brings with it a potential
vulnerability.
Goddard Expires April 15, 2004 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Over SOAP October 2003
Normative References
[1] Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C. and E. Maler,
"Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Second Edition)", W3C
REC REC-xml-20001006, October 2000, <http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/
REC-xml-20001006>.
[2] Box, D., Ehnebuske, D., Kakivaya, G., Layman, A., Mendelsohn,
N., Nielsen, H., Thatte, S. and D. Winer, "Simple Object Access
Protocol (SOAP) 1.1", W3C Note NOTE-SOAP-20000508, May 2000,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-SOAP-20000508>.
[3] Christensen, E., Curbera, F., Meredith, G. and S. Weerawarana,
"Web Services Description Language (WSDL) 1.1", W3C Note
NOTE-wsdl-20010315, March 2001, <http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/
NOTE-wsdl-20010315>.
[4] Thompson, H., Beech, D., Maloney, M. and N. Mendelsohn, "XML
Schema Part 1: Structures", W3C Recommendation
REC-xmlschema-1-20010502, May 2001, <http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/
REC-xmlschema-1-20010502/>.
[5] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies",
RFC 2045, November 1996, <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2045.txt>.
[6] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046, November
1996, <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2046.txt>.
[7] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter, L.,
Leach, P. and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol --
HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999, <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/
rfc2616.txt>.
[8] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Leach, P.,
Luotonen, A., Sink, E. and L. Stewart, "An Extension to HTTP:
Digest Access Authentication", RFC 2069, January 1997, <http://
www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2069.txt>.
[9] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997, <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/
rfc2119.txt>.
[10] Dierks, T., Allen, C., Treese, W., Karlton, P., Freier, A. and
P. Kocher, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0", RFC 2246, January
1999, <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2246.txt>.
Goddard Expires April 15, 2004 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Over SOAP October 2003
[11] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A. and W. Simpson, "Remote
Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 2865, June
2000, <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2865.txt>.
[12] Rose, M. and D. New, "Reliable Delivery for syslog", RFC 3195,
November 2001, <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3195.txt>.
Goddard Expires April 15, 2004 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Over SOAP October 2003
Informative References
[13] Enns, R., "NETCONF Configuration Protocol",
draft-ietf-netconf-prot-00 (work in progress), Aug 2003,
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
draft-ietf-netconf-prot-00.txt>.
[14] Barton, J., Nielsen, H. and S. Thatte, "SOAP Messages with
Attachments", W3C Note NOTE-SOAP-attachments-20001211, Dec
2000, <http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/
NOTE-SOAP-attachments-20001211>.
[15] Brown, A., Fox, B., Hada, S., LaMacchia, B. and H. Maruyama,
"SOAP Security Extensions: Digital Signature", W3C Note
NOTE-SOAP-dsig-20010206, Feb 2001, <http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/
NOTE-SOAP-dsig-20010206/>.
[16] Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core", RFC
3080, March 2001, <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3080.txt>.
[17] O'Tuathail, E. and M. Rose, "Using the Simple Object Access
Protocol (SOAP) in Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol (BEEP)",
RFC 3288, June 2002, <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3288.txt>.
Author's Address
Ted Goddard
Wind River Systems
#180, 6815-8th Street NE
Calgary, AB T2E 7H7
Canada
Phone: (403) 730-7590
EMail: ted.goddard@windriver.com
URI: http://www.windriver.com
Goddard Expires April 15, 2004 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Over SOAP October 2003
Appendix A. WSDL Definitions
A.1 NETCONF SOAP Binding
The following WSDL document assumes a hypothetical location for the
NETCONF schema.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<definitions
xmlns="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/"
xmlns:SOAP="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/"
xmlns:tns="http://ietf.org/netconf/1.0/soap"
xmlns:xb="http://ietf.org/netconf/1.0/base"
targetNamespace="http://ietf.org/netconf/1.0/soap"
name="http://ietf.org/netconf/1.0/soap">
<import namespace="http://ietf.org/netconf/1.0/base"
location="base.xsd"/>
<message name="rpcRequest">
<part name="in" element="xb:rpc"/>
</message>
<message name="rpcResponse">
<part name="out" element="xb:rpc-reply"/>
</message>
<portType name="rpcPortType">
<operation name="rpc">
<input message="tns:rpcRequest"/>
<output message="tns:rpcResponse"/>
</operation>
</portType>
<binding name="rpcBinding" type="tns:rpcPortType">
<SOAP:binding style="document"
transport="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/http"/>
<operation name="rpc">
<SOAP:operation/>
<input>
<SOAP:body use="literal"
namespace="http://ietf.org/netconf/1.0/base"/>
</input>
<output>
<SOAP:body use="literal"
namespace="http://ietf.org/netconf/1.0/base"/>
</output>
</operation>
</binding>
Goddard Expires April 15, 2004 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Over SOAP October 2003
</definitions>
A.2 Sample Service Definition
The following WSDL document assumes a hypothetical location for the
NETCONF/SOAP WSDL definitions. A typical deployment of a device
manageable via NETCONF/SOAP would provide a service definition
similar to the following to identify the address of the device.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<definitions
xmlns="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/"
xmlns:SOAP="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/"
xmlns:xs="http://ietf.org/netconf/1.0/soap"
targetNamespace="urn:myNetconfService"
name="myNetconfService.wsdl">
<import namespace="http://ietf.org/netconf/1.0/soap"
location="soap.wsdl"/>
<service name="netconf">
<port name="rpcPort" binding="xs:rpcBinding">
<SOAP:address location="http://localhost:8080/netconf"/>
</port>
</service>
</definitions>
Goddard Expires April 15, 2004 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Over SOAP October 2003
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
Goddard Expires April 15, 2004 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Over SOAP October 2003
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Goddard Expires April 15, 2004 [Page 19]
