NETCONF G. Zheng
Internet-Draft T. Zhou
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei
Expires: 6 May 2021 T. Graf
Swisscom
P. Francois
INSA-Lyon
P. Lucente
NTT
2 November 2020
UDP-based Transport for Configured Subscriptions
draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif-01
Abstract
This document describes an UDP-based notification mechanism to
collect data from networking devices. A shim header is proposed to
facilitate the streaming of data directly from line cards to a
collector. The objective is to rely on a lightweight approach to
allow for higher frequency and better transit performance compared to
already established notification mechanisms.
Requirements Language
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].
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 6 May 2021.
Zheng, et al. Expires 6 May 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft unyte-udp-notif November 2020
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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 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. Configured Subscription to UDP-Notif . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. UDP-Based Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Design Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Format of the UDP-Notif Message Header . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3.1. Segmentation Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4. Data Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Congestion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Message Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. A YANG Data Model for Management of UDP-Notif . . . . . . . . 9
6. YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
Sub-Notif [RFC8639] defines a mechanism that lets a collector
subscribe to the publication of YANG-defined data maintained in a
YANG [RFC7950] datastore. The mechanism separates the management and
control of subscriptions from the transport used to deliver the data.
Three transport mechanisms, namely NETCONF transport [RFC8640],
RESTCONF transport [RFC8650], and HTTPS transport
[I-D.ietf-netconf-https-notif] have been defined so far for such
notification messages.
Zheng, et al. Expires 6 May 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft unyte-udp-notif November 2020
While powerful in their features and general in their architecture,
the currently available transport mechanisms need to be complemented
to support data publications at high velocity from devices that
feature a distributed architecture. The currently available
transports are based on TCP and lack the efficiency needed to
continuously send notifications at high velocity.
This document specifies a transport option for Sub-Notif that
leverages UDP. Specifically, it facilitates the distributed data
collection mechanism described in
[I-D.ietf-netconf-distributed-notif]. In the case of data
originating from multiple line cards, centralized designs require
data to be internally forwarded from those line cards to the push
server, presumably on a route processor, which then combines the
individual data items into a single consolidated stream. The
centralized data collection mechanism can result in a performance
bottleneck, especially when large amounts of data are involved.
What is needed is the support for a mechanism that allows for
directly pushing multiple substreams, e.g. one from each line card,
without passing them through an additional processing stage for
internal consolidation. The proposed UDP-based transport allows for
such a distributed data collection approach.
* Firstly, a UDP approach reduces the burden of maintaining a large
amount of active TCP connections at the collector, notably in
cases where it collects data from the line cards of a large amount
of networking devices.
* Secondly, as no connection state needs to be maintained, UDP
encapsulation can be easily implemented by the hardware of the
publication streamer, which will further improve performance.
* Ultimately, such advantages allow for a larger data analysis
feature set, as more voluminous, finer grained data sets can be
streamed to the collector.
The transport described in this document can be used for transmitting
notification messages over both IPv4 and IPv6.
This document describes the notification mechanism. It is intended
to be used in conjunction with [RFC8639], extended by
[I-D.ietf-netconf-distributed-notif].
Section 2 describes the control of the proposed transport mechanism.
Section 3 details the notification mechanism and message format.
Section 4.1 discusses congestion control. Section 4 covers the
applicability of the proposed mechanism.
Zheng, et al. Expires 6 May 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft unyte-udp-notif November 2020
2. Configured Subscription to UDP-Notif
This section describes how the proposed mechanism can be controlled
using subscription channels based on NETCONF or RESTCONF.
Following the usual approach of Sub-Notif, configured subscriptions
contain the location information of all the receivers, including the
IP address and the port number, so that the publisher can actively
send UDP-Notif messages to the corresponding receivers.
Note that receivers MAY NOT be already up and running when the
configuration of the subscription takes effect on the monitored
device. The first message MUST be a separate subscription-started
notification to indicate the Receiver that the stream has started
flowing. Then, the notifications can be sent immediately without
delay. All the subscription state notifications, as defined in
[RFC8639], MUST be encapsulated in separate notification messages.
3. UDP-Based Transport
In this section, we specify the UDP-Notif Transport behaviour.
Section 3.1 describes the general design of the solution.
Section 3.2 specifies the UDP-Notif message format. Section 3.3
describes a generic optional sub TLV format. Section 3.3.1 uses such
options to provide a segmentation solution for large UDP-Notif
message payloads. Section 3.4 describes the encoding of the message
payload.
3.1. Design Overview
As specified in Sub-Notif, the telemetry data is encapsulated in the
NETCONF/RESTCONF notification message, which is then encapsulated and
carried using transport protocols such as TLS or HTTP2. Figure 1
illustrates the the structure of an UDP-Notif message.
* The Message Header contains information that facilitate the
message transmission before deserializing the notification
message.
* Notification Message is the encoded content that the publication
stream transports. The common encoding methods include, CBOR
[RFC7049], JSON, and XML.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-notification-messages] describes the structure
of the Notification Message for single notifications and bundled
notifications.
Zheng, et al. Expires 6 May 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft unyte-udp-notif November 2020
+-------+ +--------------+ +--------------+
| UDP | | Message | | Notification |
| | | Header | | Message |
+-------+ +--------------+ +--------------+
Figure 1: UDP-Notif Message Overview
3.2. Format of the UDP-Notif Message Header
The UDP-Notif Message Header contains information that facilitate the
message transmission before deserializing the notification message.
The data format is shown in Figure 2.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-----+-+-------+---------------+-------------------------------+
| Ver |S| ET | Header Len | Message Length |
+-----+-+-------+---------------+-------------------------------+
| Observation-Domain-ID |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Message-ID |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
~ Options ~
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 2: UDP-Notif Message Header Format
The Message Header contains the following field:
* Ver represents the PDU (Protocol Data Unit) encoding version. The
initial version value is 0.
* S represents the space of encoding type specified in the ET field.
When S is unset, ET represents the standard encoding types as
defined in this document. When S is set, ET represents a private
space to be freely used for non standard encodings.
* ET is a 4 bit identifier to indicate the encoding type used for
the Notification Message. 16 types of encoding can be expressed.
When the S bit is unset, the following values apply:
- 0: CBOR;
- 1: JSON;
- 2: XML;
Zheng, et al. Expires 6 May 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft unyte-udp-notif November 2020
- others are reserved.
* Header Len is the length of the message header in octets,
including both the fixed header and the options.
* Message Length is the total length of the message within one UDP
datagram, measured in octets, including the message header.
* Observation-Domain-ID is a 32-bit identifier of the Observation
Domain that led to the production of the notification message, as
defined in [I-D.ietf-netconf-notification-messages]. This allows
disambiguation of an information source, such as the
identification of different line cards sending the notification
messages. The source IP address of the UDP datagrams SHOULD NOT
be interpreted as the identifier for the host that originated the
UDP-Notif message. Indeed, the streamer sending the UDP-Notif
message could be a relay for the actual source of data carried
within UDP-Notif messages.
* The Message ID is generated continuously by the sender of UDP-
Notif messages. Different subscribers share the same Message ID
sequence.
* Options is a variable-length field in the TLV format. When the
Header Length is larger than 12 octets, which is the length of the
fixed header, Options TLVs follow directly after the fixed message
header (i.e., Message ID). The details of the options are
described in the following section.
3.3. Options
All the options are defined with the following format, illustrated in
Figure 3.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+--------------------------------
| Type | Length | Variable-length data
+---------------+---------------+--------------------------------
Figure 3: Generic Option Format
* Type: 1 octet describing the option type;
* Length: 1 octet representing the total number of octets in the
TLV, including the Type and Length fields;
Zheng, et al. Expires 6 May 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft unyte-udp-notif November 2020
* Variable-length data: 0 or more octets of TLV Value.
3.3.1. Segmentation Option
The UDP payload length is limited to 65535. Application level
headers will make the actual payload shorter. Even though binary
encodings such as CBOR may not require more space than what is left,
more voluminous encodings such as JSON and XML may suffer from this
size limitation. Although IPv4 and IPv6 senders can fragment
outgoing packets exceeding their Maximum Transmission Unit(MTU),
fragmented IP packets may not be desired for operational and
performance reasons.
Consequently, implementations of the mechanism SHOULD provide a
configurable max-segment-size option to control the maximum size of a
payload.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+-----------------------------+-+
| Type | Length | Segment Number |L|
+---------------+---------------+-----------------------------+-+
Figure 4: Segmentation Option Format
The Segmentation Option is to be included when the message content is
segmented into multiple pieces. Different segments of one message
share the same Message ID. An illustration is provided in Figure 4.
The fields of this TLV are:
* Type: Generic option field which indicates a Segmentation Option.
The Type value is to be asigned.
* Length: Generic option field which indicates the length of this
option. It is a fixed value of 4 octets for the Segmentation
Option.
* Segment Number: 15-bit value indicating the sequence number of the
current segment. The first segment of a segmented message has a
Segment Number value of 0.
* L: is a flag to indicate whether the current segment is the last
one of the message. When 0 is set, the current segment is not the
last one. When 1 is set, the current segment is the last one,
meaning that the total number of segments used to transport this
message is the value of the current Segment Number + 1.
Zheng, et al. Expires 6 May 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft unyte-udp-notif November 2020
An implementation of this specification MUST NOT rely on IP
fragmentation by default to carry large messages. An implementation
of this specification MUST either restrict the size of individual
messages carried over this protocol, or support the segmentation
option.
3.4. Data Encoding
UDP-Notif message data can be encoded in CBOR, XML or JSON format.
It is conceivable that additional encodings may be supported in the
future. This can be accomplished by augmenting the subscription data
model with additional identity statements used to refer to requested
encodings.
Implementation MAY support multiple encoding methods per
subscription. When bundled notifications are supported between the
publisher and the receiver, only subscribed notifications with the
same encoding can be bundled in a given message.
4. Applicability
In this section, we provide an applicability statement for the
proposed mechanism, following the recommendations of [RFC8085].
The proposed mechanism falls in the category of UDP applications
"designed for use within the network of a single network operator or
on networks of an adjacent set of cooperating network operators, to
be deployed in controlled environments". Implementations of the
proposed mechanism should thus follow the recommendations in place
for such specific applications. In the following, we discuss
recommendations on congestion control, message size guildelines,
reliability considerations.
4.1. Congestion Control
The proposed application falls into the category of applications
performing transfer of large amounts of data. It is expected that
the operator using the solution configures QoS on its related flows.
As per [RFC8085], such applications MAY choose not to implement any
form of congestion control, but follow the following principles.
It is NOT RECOMMENDED to use the proposed mechanism over congestion-
sensitive network paths. The only environments where UDP-Notif is
expected to be used are managed networks. The deployments require
that the network path has been explicitly provisioned to handle the
traffic through traffic engineering mechanisms, such as rate limiting
or capacity reservations.
Zheng, et al. Expires 6 May 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft unyte-udp-notif November 2020
Implementation of the proposal SHOULD NOT push unlimited amounts of
traffic by default, and SHOULD require the users to explicitely
configure such a mode of operation.
Burst mitigation through packet pacing is RECOMMENDED. Disabling
burst mitigation SHOULD require the users to explicitely configure
such a mode of operation.
Applications SHOULD monitor packet losses and provide means to the
user for retrieving information on such losses. The UDP-Notif
Message ID can be used to deduce congestion based on packet loss
detection. Hence the collector can notify the device to use a lower
streaming rate. The interaction to control the streaming rate on the
device is out of the scope of this document.
4.2. Message Size
[RFC8085] recommends not to rely on IP fragmentation for messages
whose size result in IP packets exceeding the MTU along the path.
The segmentation option of the current specification permits to
perform segmentation of the UDP Notif message content so as to not
have to rely on IP fragmentation. Implementation of the current
specification SHOULD allow for the configuration of the MTU.
4.3. Reliability
The target application for UDP-Notif is the collection of data-plane
information. The lack of reliability of the data streaming mechanism
is thus considered acceptable as the mechanism is to be used in
controlled environments, mitigating the risk of information loss,
while allowing for publication of very large amounts of data.
Moreover, in this context, sporadic events when incomplete data
collection is provided is not critical for the proper management of
the network, as information collected for the devices through the
means of the proposed mechanism is to be often refreshed.
A collector implementation for this protocol SHOULD deal with
potential loss of packets carrying a part of segmented payload, by
discarding packets that were actually received, but cannot be re-
assembled as a complete message within a given amount of time. This
time SHOULD be configurable.
5. A YANG Data Model for Management of UDP-Notif
The YANG model defined in Section 9 has two leafs augmented into one
place of Sub-Notif [RFC8639], plus one identity.
Zheng, et al. Expires 6 May 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft unyte-udp-notif November 2020
module: ietf-udp-subscribed-notifications
augment /sn:subscriptions/sn:subscription/sn:receivers/sn:receiver:
+--rw address inet:ip-address
+--rw port inet:port-number
+--rw enable-fragment? boolean
+--rw max-fragment-size? uint32
6. YANG Module
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-udp-notif@2020-04-27.yang"
module ietf-udp-notif {
yang-version 1.1;
namespace
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-udp-notif";
prefix un;
import ietf-subscribed-notifications {
prefix sn;
reference
"RFC 8639: Subscription to YANG Notifications";
}
import ietf-inet-types {
prefix inet;
reference
"RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types";
}
organization "IETF NETCONF (Network Configuration) Working Group";
contact
"WG Web: <http:/tools.ietf.org/wg/netconf/>
WG List: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
Authors: Guangying Zheng
<mailto:zhengguangying@huawei.com>
Tianran Zhou
<mailto:zhoutianran@huawei.com>
Thomas Graf
<mailto:thomas.graf@swisscom.com>
Pierre Francois
<mailto:pierre.francois@insa-lyon.fr>
Paolo Lucente
<mailto:paolo@ntt.net>";
description
"Defines UDP-Notif as a supported transport for subscribed
event notifications.
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as authors
Zheng, et al. Expires 6 May 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft unyte-udp-notif November 2020
of the code. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject to the license
terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License set forth in Section
4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX; see the RFC
itself for full legal notices.";
revision 2020-04-27 {
description
"Initial version";
reference
"RFC XXXX: UDP-based Notifications for Streaming Telemetry";
}
identity udp-notif {
base sn:transport;
description
"UDP-Notif is used as transport for notification messages
and state change notifications.";
}
identity encode-cbor {
base sn:encoding;
description
"Encode data using CBOR as described in RFC 7049.";
reference
"RFC 7049: Concise Binary Object Representation";
}
grouping target-receiver {
description
"Provides a reusable description of a UDP-Notif target receiver.";
leaf address {
type inet:ip-address;
mandatory true;
description
"IP address of target UDP-Notif receiver, which can be an
IPv4 address or an IPV6 address.";
}
leaf port {
type inet:port-number;
mandatory true;
description
Zheng, et al. Expires 6 May 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft unyte-udp-notif November 2020
"Port number of target UDP-Notif receiver, if not specified,
the system should use default port number.";
}
leaf enable-fragment {
type boolean;
default false;
description
"The switch for the fragment feature. When disabled, the
publisher will not allow fragment for a very large data";
}
leaf max-fragment-size {
when "../enable-fragment = true";
type uint32;
description "UDP-Notif provides a configurable max-fragment-size
to control the size of each message.";
}
}
augment "/sn:subscriptions/sn:subscription/sn:receivers/sn:receiver" {
description
"This augmentation allows UDP-Notif specific parameters to be
exposed for a subscription.";
uses target-receiver;
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
7. IANA Considerations
This RFC requests that IANA assigns one UDP port number in the
"Registered Port Numbers" range with the service name "udp-notif".
This port will be the default port for the UDP-based notification
Streaming Telemetry (UDP-Notif) for NETCONF and RESTCONF. Below is
the registration template following the rules of [RFC6335].
Service Name: udp-notif
Transport Protocol(s): UDP
Assignee: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Contact: IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
Description: UDP-based Publication Streaming Telemetry
Reference: RFC XXXX
Zheng, et al. Expires 6 May 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft unyte-udp-notif November 2020
Port Number: PORT-X
IANA is requested to assign a new URI from the IETF XML Registry
[RFC3688]. The following URI is suggested:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-udp-notif
Registrant Contact: The IESG.
XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.
This document also requests a new YANG module name in the YANG Module
Names registry [RFC7950] with the following suggestion:
name: ietf-udp-notif
namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-udp-notif
prefix: un
reference: RFC XXXX
8. Security Considerations
TBD
9. Acknowledgements
The authors of this documents would like to thank Alexander Clemm,
Eric Voit, Huiyang Yang, Kent Watsen, Mahesh Jethanandani, Stephane
Frenot, Timothy Carey, Tim Jenkins, and Yunan Gu for their
constructive suggestions for improving this document.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2914] Floyd, S., "Congestion Control Principles", BCP 41,
RFC 2914, DOI 10.17487/RFC2914, September 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2914>.
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
Zheng, et al. Expires 6 May 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft unyte-udp-notif November 2020
[RFC4347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security", RFC 4347, DOI 10.17487/RFC4347, April 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4347>.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
[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, DOI 10.17487/RFC6335, August 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6335>.
[RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347,
January 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>.
[RFC7049] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, DOI 10.17487/RFC7049,
October 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7049>.
[RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.
[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.
[RFC8085] Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage
Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085,
March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8085>.
Zheng, et al. Expires 6 May 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft unyte-udp-notif November 2020
[RFC8639] Voit, E., Clemm, A., Gonzalez Prieto, A., Nilsen-Nygaard,
E., and A. Tripathy, "Subscription to YANG Notifications",
RFC 8639, DOI 10.17487/RFC8639, September 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8639>.
[RFC8640] Voit, E., Clemm, A., Gonzalez Prieto, A., Nilsen-Nygaard,
E., and A. Tripathy, "Dynamic Subscription to YANG Events
and Datastores over NETCONF", RFC 8640,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8640, September 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8640>.
[RFC8650] Voit, E., Rahman, R., Nilsen-Nygaard, E., Clemm, A., and
A. Bierman, "Dynamic Subscription to YANG Events and
Datastores over RESTCONF", RFC 8650, DOI 10.17487/RFC8650,
November 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8650>.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-netconf-distributed-notif]
Zhou, T., Zheng, G., Voit, E., Graf, T., and P. Francois,
"Subscription to Distributed Notifications", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-netconf-distributed-
notif-01, June 2020, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-
ietf-netconf-distributed-notif-01>.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-https-notif]
Jethanandani, M. and K. Watsen, "An HTTPS-based Transport
for Configured Subscriptions", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-netconf-https-notif-04, 27 July 2020,
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-netconf-
https-notif-04.txt>.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-notification-messages]
Voit, E., Jenkins, T., Birkholz, H., Bierman, A., and A.
Clemm, "Notification Message Headers and Bundles", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-netconf-notification-
messages-08, 17 November 2019, <http://www.ietf.org/
internet-drafts/draft-ietf-netconf-notification-messages-
08.txt>.
Authors' Addresses
Zheng, et al. Expires 6 May 2021 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft unyte-udp-notif November 2020
Guangying Zheng
Huawei
101 Yu-Hua-Tai Software Road
Nanjing
Jiangsu,
China
Email: zhengguangying@huawei.com
Tianran Zhou
Huawei
156 Beiqing Rd., Haidian District
Beijing
China
Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com
Thomas Graf
Swisscom
Binzring 17
CH- Zuerich 8045
Switzerland
Email: thomas.graf@swisscom.com
Pierre Francois
INSA-Lyon
Lyon
France
Email: pierre.francois@insa-lyon.fr
Paolo Lucente
NTT
Siriusdreef 70-72
Hoofddorp, WT 2132
Netherlands
Email: paolo@ntt.net
Zheng, et al. Expires 6 May 2021 [Page 16]