Internet Engineering Task Force M. Smith
Internet-Draft M. Dvorkin
Intended status: Informational Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: October 4, 2014 Y. Laribi
Citrix
V. Pandey
IBM
P. Garg
Microsoft Corporation
N. Weidenbacher
Sungard Availability Services
April 2, 2014
OpFlex Control Protocol
draft-smith-opflex-00
Abstract
The OpFlex architecture provides a distributed control system based
on a declarative policy information model. The policies are defined
at a logically centralized policy repository (PR) and enforced within
a set of distributed policy elements (PE). The PR communicates with
the subordinate PEs using the OpFlex Control protocol. This protocol
allows for bidirectional communication of policy, events, statistics,
and faults. This document defines the OpFlex Control Protocol.
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 October 4, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Smith, et al. Expires October 4, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft OpFlex Control Protocol April 2014
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. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. System Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Policy Repository . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1. Management Information Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1.1. Managed Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Endpoint Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Observer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Policy Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. OpFlex Control Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. JSON Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. RPC Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.1. Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.2. Policy Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.3. Policy Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2.4. Echo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2.5. Policy Trigger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2.6. Endpoint Declaration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2.7. Endpoint Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2.8. Endpoint Policy Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2.9. State Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Smith, et al. Expires October 4, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft OpFlex Control Protocol April 2014
1. Introduction
As software development processes merge with IT operations, there is
an increasing demand for automation and agility within the IT
infrastructure. Application deployment has been impeded due to the
existing IT infrastructure operational models. Management at scale
is a very difficult problem and existing imperative management models
typically falter when challenged with the heterogeneity of various
platforms, applications, and releases. In such environments,
declarative management models have shown to cope quite well. In
these systems, agents have autonomy of control and provide a
declaration of intent regarding behavior. Declarative policy is
rendered locally to provide desired system behavior. The OpFlex
architecture is founded in these concepts.
1.1. 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].
1.2. Terminology
AD: Administrative Domain. A logical instantiation of
the OpFlex system components controlled by a single
administrative policy.
EP: Endpoint. A device connected to the system.
EPR: Endpoint Registry. A logically centralized entity
containing the endpoint registrations within
associated administrative domain.
OB: Observer. A logically centralized entity that serves
as a repository for statistics, faults, and events.
PE: Policy Element. A function associated with entities
comprising the policy administrative domain that is
responsible for local rendering of policy.
PR: Policy Repository. A logically centralized entity
containing the definition of all policies governing
the behavior of the associated administrative domain.
OpFlex Device: Entity under the management of a Policy Element.
Smith, et al. Expires October 4, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft OpFlex Control Protocol April 2014
JSON: Javascript Object Notation [RFC4627]
XML: Extensible Markup Language [XML]
2. Scope
This document defines the OpFlex Control Protocol used between OpFlex
system components. It does not define the policy object model or the
policy object model schemas. A System Overview section is provided
for reference.
3. System Overview
OpFlex is a policy driven system used to control a large set of
physical and virtual devices. The OpFlex system architecture
consists of a number of logical components. These are the Policy
Repository (PR), Endpoint Registry (EPR), Observer, and the Policy
Elements (PE). These components and their interactions are described
in the following subsections.
3.1. Policy Repository
Within each administrative domain of the OpFlex system, there is a
single logical entity referred to as the Policy Repository (PR) that
serves as the single source of all policies. The PR handles policy
resolution requests from the Policy Elements within the same
administrative domain. An example scope of an administrative domain
would be a datacenter fabric. These policies are configured directly
by the user via a policy administration interface (API/UI/CLI/etc.)
or indirectly (implicitly through the application of higher order
policy constructs). These policies represent a declarative statement
of desired state. Policies are typically abstracted from the
underlying implementation.
3.1.1. Management Information Model
All of the physical and logical components that comprise the
administrative domain are represented in a hierarchical management
information model (MIM), also referred to as the management
information tree (MIT). The hierarchical structure starts at a root
node and all policies within the system can be reached via parent and
child containment relationships. Each node has a unique Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI) [RFC3986] that indicates its place in the
tree.
Smith, et al. Expires October 4, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft OpFlex Control Protocol April 2014
3.1.1.1. Managed Object
Each node in the tree represents a managed object (MO) or group of
objects and contains its administrative state and operational state.
An MO can represent a concrete object, such as a switch or adapter,
or a logical object, such as a policy or fault. An MO consists of
the following items:
Properties: A property is a named instance of policy data and
is interpreted by the Policy Element in local
rendering of the policy.
Child Relations: A containment relationship between MOs where the
children MOs are contained within the parent MO.
Parent Relation: The inverse of the children relationship. This
relation is implicit and is implied through the
hierarchical name of the MO name.
MO Relations: Relationships with other MOs in the system that are
not containment relationships. These relationships
can be unidirectional or bidirectional. The
relationships can also be 1:1, 1:n, or m:n.
Statistics: These are child MOs that track statistics relevant
to the parent MOs. These MOs are reported to the
Observer.
Faults: These are child MOs that track faults relevant to
the parent MOs. These MOs are reported to the
Observer.
Health: These are child MOs that track the overall health
relevant to the parent MOs. This is often
represented in the form of a health score. These
MOs are reported to the Observer.
MOs that contain statistic, fault, or health MOs are said to be
observable.
3.2. Endpoint Registry
The Endpoint Registry (EPR) is the component that stores the current
operational state of the endpoints (EP) within the system. PEs
register the EPs with the EPR upon EP attachment to the local device
where the PE is resident. Upon EP detachment, the registration will
be withdrawn. The EP registration information contains the scope of
the EP such as the Tenant or logical network as well as location
Smith, et al. Expires October 4, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft OpFlex Control Protocol April 2014
information such as the hypervisor where the EP resides. The EPR can
be used by PEs to query the current EPR registrations as well as
receive updates when the information changes.
3.3. Observer
The Observer serves as the monitoring subsystem that provides a
detailed view of the system operational state and performance. It
serves as a data repository for information related to trending,
forensics, and long-term visibility data such as statistics, events,
and faults. Statistical data is reported to the Observer at
expiration of reporting intervals and statistics will be rolled up
for longer-term trend analysis.
3.4. Policy Element
Policy elements (PEs) are logical functional abstractions of member
elements within the administrative domain. Policy elements reside on
physical or virtual devices that are subjected to policy control
under a given administrative domain. PEs receives policy triggers
through local triggers or triggers invoked by other PEs. Local
triggers involve local MO state transitions such as new control node
additions, removals, or other operational events. Policy triggers
invoked by other PEs are transmitted using the OpFlex Control
Protocol. Both types of policy triggers result in policy resolution.
Policies are resolved with the PR using the OpFlex protocol. This
protocol allows bidirectional communication, and allows the exchange
of policy information. Policies are represented as managed object
"sub-trees". Upon policy resolution, the PE renders the policy to
the configuration of the underlying subsystem, and continuously
performs health monitoring of the subsystem. PEs perform local
corrective actions as needed for the enforcement of policies in its
scope. Operational transitions can also cause new or additional/
incremental policy resolutions such as the attachment of new EPs to
the corresponding device.
4. OpFlex Control Protocol
The OpFlex Control Protocol is used by OpFlex system components to
communicate policy and operational data. The protocol uses JSON,
XML, or OpFlex-Binary-RPC as the wire encoding. This document
describes the JSON format and uses JSON-RPC version 1.0 [JSON-RPC].
The JSON-RPC transport SHOULD be over TCP. The description of the
encoding and transport of XML and OpFlex-Binary-RPC are left to later
revisions of this document.
Smith, et al. Expires October 4, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft OpFlex Control Protocol April 2014
4.1. JSON Usage
The descriptions below use the following shorthand notations for JSON
values. Terminology follows [RFC4627].
<string>:
A JSON string. Any Unicode string is allowed.
Implementations SHOULD disallow null bytes.
<integer>:
A JSON number with an integer value, within the range
-(2**63)...+(2**63)-1.
<json-value>:
Any JSON value.
<nonnull-json-value>:
Any JSON value except null.
<URI>:
A JSON string in the form of a Uniform Resource
Identifier[RFC3986].
<status>:
An enumeration specifying one of the following set of
strings: "created", "modified", or "deleted".
<role>:
An enumeration specifying one of the following set of
strings: "policy_element", "observer", "policy_repository",
or "endpoint_registry".
<mo>:
A JSON object with the following members:
"name": <URI>
"properties": [{"name":<string>, "data": <string>}*]
"children": [<mo>*]
"statistics": [<mo>*]
"from_relations": [<mo>*]
"to_relations": [<mo>*]
"faults": [<mo>*]
"health": [<mo>*]
All of the members of the JSON object are REQUIRED. However,
the corresponding value MAY consist of the empty set for all
members except for "name". It is REQUIRED that the "name" be
specified.
Smith, et al. Expires October 4, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft OpFlex Control Protocol April 2014
The "name" uniquely identifies the managed object within the
scope of the administrative domain and indicates its location
within the MIT.
The "properties" holds a set of named policy data.
The "children" identifies a set of MOs where each MO is
considered a child of this particular MO.
The "statistics" identifies a set of MOs containing statistic
data maintained by the policy rendered from this particular
MO.
The "from_relationships" identifies a set of relationship
MOs. Each relationship MO has a reference to the MOs that
have relationship to this particular MO.
The "to_relationships" identifies a set of relationship MOs.
Each relationship MO has a reference to the MOs that have
relationship from this particular MO.
The "faults" identifies a set of MOs containing fault
information maintained by the policy rendered from this
particular MO.
The "health" identifies a set of MOs containing health
metrics maintained by the policy rendered from this
particular MO.
In the case of MOs used as policies, there will be no
statistics, faults, or health.
4.2. RPC Methods
The following subsections describe the RPC methods that are
supported. As described in the JSON-RPC 1.0 specification, each
request comprises a string containing the name of the method, a
(possibly null) array of parameters to pass to the method, and a
request ID, which can be used to match the response to the request.
Each response comprises a result object (non-null in the event of a
successful invocation), an error object (non-null in the event of an
error), and the ID of the matching request. More details on each
method, its parameters, and its results are described below.
A Policy Element is configured with the connectivity information of
at least one peer OpFlex Control Protocol participant. The
connectivity information consists of the information necessary to
establish the initial connection such as the IP address and wire
Smith, et al. Expires October 4, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft OpFlex Control Protocol April 2014
encapsulation. A Policy Element MAY be configured with the
connectivity information for one or more of the OpFlex logical
components. A Policy Element MUST connect to each of the configured
OpFlex logical components.
4.2.1. Identity
This method identifies the participant to its peer in the protocol
exchange and MUST be sent as the first OpFlex protocol method. The
method indicates the transmitter's role and the administrative domain
to which it belongs. Upon receiving an Identity message, the
response will contain the configured connectivity information that
the participant is using to communicate with each of the OpFlex
components. If the response receiver is a Policy Element and is not
configured with connectivity information for certain OpFlex logical
components, it SHOULD use the peer's connectivity information to
establish communication with the OpFlex logical components that have
not been locally configured.
The Identity request contains the following members:
o "method": "send_identity"
o "params": [
"name": <string>
"domain": <string>
["my_role": <role>]+
]
o "id": <nonnull-json-value>
The "name" is an identifier of the OpFlex Control Protocol
participant that is unique within the administrative domain.
The "domain" is a globally unique identifier indicating the
administrative domain that this participant exists.
The "my_role" states the particular OpFlex component contained within
this participant. Since a participant may be capable of acting as
more than 1 type of component, there may be multiple "my_role"
parameters passed.
The response object contains the following members:
o "result": [
Smith, et al. Expires October 4, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft OpFlex Control Protocol April 2014
"name": <string>
[ "my_role": <role> ]+
"domain": <string>
[ {"role": <role>
"connectivity_info": <string>}* ]
]
o "error": null
o "id": same "id" as request
The "name" is the identifier of the OpFlex Control Protocol
participant sending the response.
The "my_role" states the OpFlex component roles contained within the
participant sending the response.
The "domain" is a globally unique identifier indicating the
administrative domain that the participant sending the response
exists.
The "role" and associated "connectivity_info" give the reachability
information (i.e. IP address or DNS name) and the role of the entity
that the participant is communicating using the OpFlex Control
Protocol. This information MAY be gleaned by a receiving participant
to resolve reachability for various OpFlex components.
In the event that the administrative domains do not match, an error
response of the following form:
o "result": null
o "error": "Domain mismatch"
o "id": same "id" as request
4.2.2. Policy Resolution
This method retrieves the policy associated with the given policy
name. The policy is returned as a set of managed objects. This
method is typically sent by the PE to the PR.
The request object contains the following members:
o "method": "resolve_policy"
o "params": [
Smith, et al. Expires October 4, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft OpFlex Control Protocol April 2014
"subject": <string>
"context": <string>
"policy_name": <string>
"on_behalf_of": <URI>
"data": <string>
]
o "id": <nonnull-json-value>
The "subject" provides the class of entity for which the policy is
being resolved. The applicable object classes are dependent on the
particular MIT.
The "context" is used to scope the policy resolution request. Common
examples would be scoping within a particular tenant name.
The "policy_name" is the name of the policy needs to be resolved.
The "on_behalf_of" indicates the MO that triggered this policy
resolution.
The "data" provides additional opaque data that may be used to assist
in the policy resolution.
Upon successful policy resolution, the response object contains the
following members:
o "result": [
"policy": <mo>+,
"prr": <integer>]
o "error": null
o "id": same "id" as request
The "policy" parameter contains the managed objects that represent
the resolved policy. These objects are used by the Policy Element to
render and apply the local policy. The application of the local
policy may cause the local PE to deliver policy triggers to other PEs
in the system.
The "prr" or Policy Refresh Rate provides the amount of time that a
PE should use the policy as provided in the request. The <integer>
indicates the time in seconds that the policy should be kept by the
PE. A PE SHOULD issue another policy resolution request before the
expiration of the prr timer if the PE still requires the policy. If
the PE is unable to subsequently resolve the policy after the prr
Smith, et al. Expires October 4, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft OpFlex Control Protocol April 2014
timer expires, the PE MAY continue to use the resolved policy. The
PE SHOULD raise an alarm if the policy cannot be resolved after
multiple attempts.
In the event that the policy named in the resolution request does not
exist, an error response of the following form:
o "result": null
o "error": "unknown policy name"
o "id": same "id" as request
4.2.3. Policy Update
This method is sent to Policy Elements when there has been a change
of policy definition for policies which the Policy Element has
requested resolution. Policy Updates will only be sent to Policy
Element for which the policy refresh rate timer has not expired.
The Policy Update contains the following members:
o "method": "update_policy"
o "params": [
"context": <named_tlv>
["subtree": <mo>+]+
"prr": <integer>
]
o "id": <nonnull-json-value>
The "context" is used to indicate the scope of the policy. This is
typically the same as the context in the original policy resolution
request but it may be different.
The "subtree" contains one or more subtrees of the MIT. Each subtree
is a collection of MOs that represent the changed policy.
The "prr" or Policy Refresh Rate provides the amount of time that a
PE should use the policy as provided in the request. The <integer>
indicates the time in seconds that the policy should be kept by the
PE. A PE SHOULD issue another policy resolution request before the
expiration of the prr timer if the PE still requires the policy. If
the PE is unable to subsequently resolve the policy after the prr
timer expires, the PE MAY continue to use the resolved policy. The
PE SHOULD raise an alarm if the policy cannot be resolved after
Smith, et al. Expires October 4, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft OpFlex Control Protocol April 2014
multiple attempts.
The response object contains the following members:
o "result": {}
o "error": null
o "id": same "id" as request
4.2.4. Echo
The "echo" method can be used by OpFlex Control Protocol peers to
verify the liveness of a connection. It MUST be implemented by all
participants. The members of the request are:
o "method": "echo"
o "params": JSON array with any contents
o "id": <nonnull-json-value>
The response object has the following members:
o "result": same as "params"
o "error": null
o "id": same "id" as request
4.2.5. Policy Trigger
A policy trigger is issued from one Policy Element to a peer Policy
Element in order to trigger a policy resolution on the peer. It is
typically done to indicate a attachment state change or a change in
the consumption of the peer resources. For example, a Policy Element
in a switch may cause a policy trigger in the upstream switch to
enable a particular VLAN on the peer's interface. It may also be
issued upon receiving a Policy Update or Policy Resolution response.
The Policy Trigger contains the following members:
o "method": "trigger_policy"
o "params": [
Smith, et al. Expires October 4, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft OpFlex Control Protocol April 2014
"policy_type": <string>
"context": <string>
"policy_name": <string>
"prr": <integer>
]
o "id": <nonnull-json-value>
The response object contains the following members:
o "result": {}
o "error": null
o "id": same "id" as request
4.2.6. Endpoint Declaration
This method is used to indicate the attachment and detachment of an
endpoint. It is sent from the Policy Element to the Endpoint
Registry.
The Endpoint Declaration contains the following members:
o "method": "endpoint_declaration"
o "params": [
"subject": <string>
"context": <string>
"policy_name": <string>
"location": <URI>
["identifier": <string>]+
["data": <string>]*
"status": <status>
"prr": <integer>
]
o "id": <nonnull-json-value>
The "subject" provides the class of entity for which the declaration
applies. This will typically be the class representing the endpoint.
The applicable object classes are dependent on the particular MIT.
The "context" is used to scope the endpoint declaration.
The "policy_name" is used to identify the policy that must be
resolved and applied when this endpoint attaches, detaches, or is
Smith, et al. Expires October 4, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft OpFlex Control Protocol April 2014
otherwise modified.
The "location" is used to identify the managed object indicating the
point where the endpoint connects to the system. An example would be
a managed object representing a certain physical port on a ethernet
switch.
The "identifier" is a label that is used in identifying the
particular instance of the endpoint. Some examples of an identifier
would be a MAC address, VLAN, and IP address.
The "data" are used along with the context, endpoint class, endpoint
MO, and the policy_name to select the policy that will be applied to
the particular endpoint. These are typically labels used in
identifying particular endpoint or endpoint location characteristics.
Some examples would include trusted, untrusted, production, test,
etc.
The "status" indicates whether this declaration is an endpoint
attachment, detachment, or modification.
The "prr" or Policy Refresh Rate provides provides the amount of time
that the endpoint declaration will remain valid. The <integer>
indicates the time in seconds that the endpoint declaration should be
kept by the EPR. A PE SHOULD issue another endpoint declaration
before the expiration of the prr timer if the endpoint is to continue
existing within the system.
The response object contains the following members:
o "result": {}
o "error": null
o "id": same "id" as request
4.2.7. Endpoint Request
This method queries the EPR for the registration of a particular EP.
The request is made using the identifiers of the endpoint. Since
multiple identifiers may be used to uniquely identify a particular
endpoint, there may be more than 1 endpoint returned in the reply if
the identifiers presented do not uniquely specify the endpoint.
The Endpoint Request contains the following members:
Smith, et al. Expires October 4, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft OpFlex Control Protocol April 2014
o "method": "endpoint_request"
o "params": [
"subject": <string>
"context": <string>
["identifier": <string>]+
]
o "id": <nonnull-json-value>
The "subject" provides the class of entity for which the request
applies. This will typically be the class representing the endpoint.
The applicable object classes are dependent on the particular MIT.
The "context" is used to scope the endpoint resolution.
The "identifier" is a label that is used in identifying the
particular instance of the endpoint. Some examples of an identifier
would be a MAC address, VLAN, and IP address.
The "prr" or Policy Refresh Rate provides provides the amount of time
that the endpoint information will remain valid. The <integer>
indicates the time in seconds that the endpoint information should be
kept by the PE. A PE SHOULD issue another endpoint request before
the expiration of the prr timer if the communication is still
required with the endpoint.
The response object contains the registrations of one or more
endpoints. Each endpoint contains the same information that was
present in the original registration. The following members are
present in the response:
o "result": {
[ endpoint :
{"subject": <string>
"context": <string>
"policy_name": <string>
"location": <URI>
["identifier": <string>]+
["data": <string>]*
"status": <status>
"prr": <integer>
} ]+
}
Smith, et al. Expires October 4, 2014 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft OpFlex Control Protocol April 2014
o "error": null
o "id": same "id" as request
The following error response object is returned if no endpoints match
the identifiers presented in the request:
o "result": {}
o "error": "No endpoints found."
o "id": same "id" as request
4.2.8. Endpoint Policy Update
This method is sent to Policy Elements by the EPR when there has been
a change relating to the EP Declaration for an Endpoint that the
Policy Element has requested. Policy Updates will only be sent to
Policy Elements for which the Policy Refresh Rate timer timer for the
Endpoint Request has not expired.
The Endpoint Policy Update contains the following members:
o "method": "endpoint_update_policy"
o "params": [
"subject": <string>
"context": <string>
"policy_name": <string>
"location": <URI>
["identifier": <string>]+
["data": <string>]*
"status": <status>
"ttl": <integer>
]
o "id": <nonnull-json-value>
All of the "params" contain identical information to the descriptions
given as part of the Endpoint Declaration.
The response object contains the following members:
o "result": {}
o "error": null
Smith, et al. Expires October 4, 2014 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft OpFlex Control Protocol April 2014
o "id": same "id" as request
4.2.9. State Report
This method is sent by the Policy Element to the Observer. It
provides fault, event, statistics, and health information in the form
of managed objects.
The State Report contains the following members:
o "method": "report_state"
o "params": [
"subject": <URI>
"context": <string>
"object": <mo>
["fault": <mo>]*
["event": <mo>]*
["statistics": <mo>]*
["health": <mo>]*
]
o "id": <nonnull-json-value>
The "subject" provides the class of entity for which the State Report
applies. The applicable object classes are dependent on the
particular MIT.
The "context" is used to scope the subject.
The "object" is the specific managed object that the faults, events,
statistics, and health reports in this method apply.
The "fault" is an optional field that contains one or more managed
objects representing faults.
The "events" is an optional field that contains one or more managed
objects representing events.
The "statistics" is an optional field that contains one or more
managed objects representing statistics.
The "health" is an optional field that contains one or more managed
objects representing health statistics applicable.
The response object contains the following members:
Smith, et al. Expires October 4, 2014 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft OpFlex Control Protocol April 2014
o "result": {}
o "error": null
o "id": same "id" as request
5. IANA Considerations
A TCP port will be requested from IANA for the OpFlex Control
Protocol.
6. Security Considerations
The OpFlex Control Protocol itself does not address authentication,
integrity, and privacy of the communication between the various
OpFlex components. In order to protect the communication, the OpFlex
Control Protocol SHOULD be secured using Transport Layer Security
(TLS) [RFC5246]. The distribution of credentials will vary depending
on the deployment. In some deployments, existing secure channels can
be used to distribute the credentials.
7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Vijay Chander, Mike Cohen, and Brad
McConnell for their comments and contributions.
8. Normative References
[JSON-RPC]
"JSON-RPC Specification, Version 1.0",
<http://json-rpc.org/wiki/specification>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, January 2005.
[RFC4627] Crockford, D., "The application/json Media Type for
JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)", RFC 4627, July 2006.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.
Smith, et al. Expires October 4, 2014 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft OpFlex Control Protocol April 2014
[XML] Bray, T., Jean Paoli, Sperberg-McQueen, C., and E. Maler,
Ed., "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Second
Edition)", October 2000, <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml>.
Authors' Addresses
Michael Smith
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, California 95134
USA
Email: michsmit@cisco.com
Mike Dvorkin
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, California 95134
USA
Email: midvorki@cisco.com
Youcef Laribi
Citrix
4988 Great America Parkway
Santa Clara, California 95054
USA
Email: Youcef.Laribi@citrix.com
Vijoy Pandey
IBM
4400 N First Street
San Jose, California 95134
USA
Email: vijoy.pandey@us.ibm.com
Smith, et al. Expires October 4, 2014 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft OpFlex Control Protocol April 2014
Pankaj Garg
Microsoft Corporation
1 Microsoft Way
Redmond, Washington 98052
USA
Email: pankajg@microsoft.com
Nik Weidenbacher
Sungard Availability Services
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
USA
Email: nik.weidenbacher@sungard.com
Smith, et al. Expires October 4, 2014 [Page 21]