|
Hi Reshad, Thank you for the example. I modified the XML example as you suggested. The JSON example looks ok to me. Also fixed the nit to reference RFC 6991. New generated txt file attached, please let me know if you see more issues. Thanks, Yingzhen From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@xxxxxxxxx> Hi Yingzhen, Yes I believe this part is broken, since you have multiple edit-id elements for 1 edit element, below is the YANG snippet from RFC8072. list edit { key edit-id; ordered-by user; <snip> leaf edit-id { type string; description "Arbitrary string index for the edit. Error messages returned by the server that pertain to a specific edit will be identified by this value."; } If you take a look at A.1.1 of RFC8072, there is an example with multiple edit elements. Regards, Reshad. From: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Hi Reshad, Thank you for your review. About the example, in RFC 8072, in the list “edit”, each edit is identified by “edit-id”. So the example looks like: <edit> <edit-id>1</edit-id> ….. <edit-id>2</edit-id> …. </edit> Do you mean this part is broken? Thanks, Yingzhen From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@xxxxxxxxx> Hi Alex, Thank you for addressing my comments.
I checked rev-06, and I believe the XML and JSON output in the example is broken: there is a single “edit” element with multiple “edit-id” elements. I believe there should be multiple “edit” elements. The only “nit” is that leaf-xpath-filter references 6021 instead of 6991 (as you correctly pointed out in your response). leaf xpath-filter { if-feature nc:xpath; type yang:xpath1.0; description "This parameter contains an XPath _expression_ identifying the portions of the target datastore to retrieve."; reference "RFC 6021: Common YANG Data Types"; } > Issues > 1. YANG model P8, for “leaf xpath-filter”, add reference to RFC6021. There should also be a normative reference to RFC6021 (as per RFC8407) <ALEX> Thanks. Adding reference to 6991 (as 6021 is obsoleted). </ALEX> Regards, Reshad. From: Alexander L Clemm <ludwig@xxxxxxxxx> Thank you! I just uploaded rev -06. --- Alex On 9/18/2020 12:47 PM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) wrote:
|
Network Working Group A. Clemm
Internet-Draft Y. Qu
Intended status: Standards Track Futurewei
Expires: March 22, 2021 J. Tantsura
Apstra
A. Bierman
YumaWorks
September 18, 2020
Comparison of NMDA datastores
draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-07
Abstract
This document defines an RPC operation to compare management
datastores that comply with the NMDA architecture.
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 March 22, 2021.
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
Clemm, et al. Expires March 22, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft September 2020
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Definitions and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Data Model Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. YANG Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Possible Future Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.1. Updates to the IETF XML Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.2. Updates to the YANG Module Names Registry . . . . . . . . 15
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction
The revised Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)
[RFC8342] introduces a set of new datastores that each hold YANG-
defined data [RFC7950] and represent a different "viewpoint" on the
data that is maintained by a server. New YANG datastores that are
introduced include <intended>, which contains validated configuration
data that a client application intends to be in effect, and
<operational>, which contains at least conceptually operational state
data (such as statistics) as well as configuration data that is
actually in effect.
NMDA introduces in effect a concept of "lifecycle" for management
data, allowing to clearly distinguish between data that is part of a
configuration that was supplied by a user, configuration data that
has actually been successfully applied and that is part of the
operational state, and overall operational state that includes both
applied configuration data as well as status and statistics.
As a result, data from the same management model can be reflected in
multiple datastores. Clients need to specify the target datastore to
be specific about which viewpoint of the data they want to access.
This way, an application can differentiate whether they are (for
example) interested in the configuration that has been applied and is
Clemm, et al. Expires March 22, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft September 2020
actually in effect, or in the configuration that was supplied by a
client and that is supposed to be in effect.
Due to the fact that data can propagate from one datastore to
another, it is possibly for differences between datastores to occur.
Some of this is entirely expected, as there may be a time lag between
when a configuration is given to the device and reflected in
<intended>, until when it actually takes effect and is reflected in
<operational>. However, there may be cases when a configuration item
that was to be applied may not actually take effect at all or needs
an unusually long time to do so. This can be the case due to certain
conditions not being met, resource dependencies not being resolved,
or even implementation errors in corner conditions.
When configuration that is in effect is different from configuration
that was applied, many issues can result. It becomes more difficult
to operate the network properly due to limited visibility of actual
status which makes it more difficult to analyze and understand what
is going on in the network. Services may be negatively affected (for
example, breaking a service instance resulting in service is not
properly delivered to a customer) and network resources be
misallocated.
Applications can potentially analyze any differences between two
datastores by retrieving the contents from both datastores and
comparing them. However, in many cases this will be at the same time
costly and extremely wasteful.
This document introduces a YANG data model which defines RPCs,
intended to be used in conjunction with NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF
[RFC8040], that allow a client to request a server to compare two
NMDA datastores and report any differences.
2. Key Words
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Definitions and Acronyms
NMDA: Network Management Datastore Architecture
RPC: Remote Procedure Call
Clemm, et al. Expires March 22, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft September 2020
4. Data Model Overview
At the core of the solution is a new management operation, <compare>,
that allows to compare two datastores for the same data. The
operation checks whether there are any differences in values or in
data nodes that are contained in either datastore, and returns any
differences as output. The output is returned in the format
specified in YANG-Patch [RFC8072].
The YANG data model defines the <compare> operation as a new RPC.
The operation takes the following input parameters:
o source: The source identifies the datastore that will serve as
reference for the comparison, for example <intended>.
o target: The target identifies the datastore to compare against the
source.
o filter-spec: This is a choice between different filter constructs
to identify the portions of the datastore to be retrieved. It
acts as a node selector that specifies which data nodes are within
the scope of the comparison and which nodes are outside the scope.
This allows a comparison operation to be applied only to a
specific portion of the datastore that is of interest, such as a
particular subtree. (The filter dow not contain expressions that
would match values data nodes, as this is not required by most use
cases and would complicate the scheme, from implementation to
dealing with race conditions.)
o all: When set, this parameter indicates that all differences
should be included, including differences pertaining to schema
nodes that exist in only one of the datastores. When this
parameter is not included, a prefiltering step is automatically
applied to exclude data from the comparison that does not pertain
to both datastores: if the same schema node is not present in both
datastores, then all instances of that schema node and all its
descendants are excluded from the comparison. This allows client
applications to focus on the differences that constitute true
mismatches of instance data without needing to specify more
complex filter constructs.
o exclude-origin: When set, this parameter indicates that origin
metadata should not not be included as part of RPC output. When
this parameter is omitted, origin metadata in comparisons that
involve <operational> is by default included.
The operation provides the following output parameter:
Clemm, et al. Expires March 22, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft September 2020
o differences: This parameter contains the list of differences.
Those differences are encoded per YANG-Patch data model defined in
RFC8072. When a datastore node in the source of the comparison is
not present in the target of the comparison, this can be indicated
either as a "delete" or as a "remove" in the patch as there is no
differentiation between those operations for the purposes of the
comparison. The YANG-Patch data model is augmented to indicate
the value of source datastore nodes in addition to the patch
itself that would need to be applied to the source to produce the
target. When the target datastore is <operational>, "origin"
metadata is included as part of the patch. Including origin
metadata can help in some cases explain the cause of a difference,
for example when a data node is part of <intended> but the origin
of the same data node in <operational> is reported as "system".
The data model is defined in the ietf-nmda-compare YANG module. Its
structure is shown in the following figure. The notation syntax
follows [RFC8340].
Clemm, et al. Expires March 22, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft September 2020
module: ietf-nmda-compare
rpcs:
+---x compare
+---w input
| +---w source identityref
| +---w target identityref
| +---w all? empty
| +---w exclude-origin? empty
| +---w (filter-spec)?
| +--:(subtree-filter)
| | +---w subtree-filter?
| +--:(xpath-filter)
| +---w xpath-filter? yang:xpath1.0 {nc:xpath}?
+--ro output
+--ro (compare-response)?
+--:(no-matches)
| +--ro no-matches? empty
+--:(differences)
+--ro differences
+--ro yang-patch
+--ro patch-id string
+--ro comment? string
+--ro edit* [edit-id]
+--ro edit-id string
+--ro operation enumeration
+--ro target target-resource-offset
+--ro point? target-resource-offset
+--ro where? enumeration
+--ro value?
+--ro source-value?
Structure of ietf-nmda-compare
5. YANG Data Model
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-nmda-compare@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
module ietf-nmda-compare {
yang-version 1.1;
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-nmda-compare";
prefix cmp;
import ietf-yang-types {
prefix yang;
reference "RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types";
}
import ietf-datastores {
Clemm, et al. Expires March 22, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft September 2020
prefix ds;
reference "RFC 8342: Network Management Datastore
Architecture (NMDA)";
}
import ietf-yang-patch {
prefix ypatch;
reference "RFC 8072: YANG Patch Media Type";
}
import ietf-netconf {
prefix nc;
reference "RFC6241: Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)";
}
organization "IETF";
contact
"WG Web: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netconf/>
WG List: <mailto:netconf@xxxxxxxx>
Author: Alexander Clemm
<mailto:ludwig@xxxxxxxxx>
Author: Yingzhen Qu
<mailto:yqu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Author: Jeff Tantsura
<mailto:jefftant.ietf@xxxxxxxxx>
Author: Andy Bierman
<mailto:andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>";
description
"The YANG data model defines a new operation, <compare>, that
can be used to compare NMDA datastores.
The key words 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', 'REQUIRED', 'SHALL', 'SHALL
NOT', 'SHOULD', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED', 'NOT RECOMMENDED',
'MAY', and 'OPTIONAL' in this document are to be interpreted as
described in BCP 14 (RFC 2119) (RFC 8174) when, and only when,
they appear in all capitals, as shown here.
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
authors 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
Clemm, et al. Expires March 22, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft September 2020
(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 2020-09-18 {
description
"Initial revision";
reference
"RFC XXXX: Comparison of NMDA datastores";
}
/* RPC */
rpc compare {
description
"NMDA compare operation.";
input {
leaf source {
type identityref {
base ds:datastore;
}
mandatory true;
description
"The source datastore to be compared.";
}
leaf target {
type identityref {
base ds:datastore;
}
mandatory true;
description
"The target datastore to be compared.";
}
leaf all {
type empty;
description
"When this leaf is provided, all data nodes are compared,
whether their schema node pertains to both datastores or
not. When this leaf is omitted, a prefiltering step is
automatically applied that excludes data nodes from the
comparison that can occur in only one datastore but not
the other. Specifically, if one of the datastores
(source or target) contains only configuration data and
the other datastore is <operational>, data nodes for
which config is false are excluded from the comparison.";
}
leaf exclude-origin {
type empty;
Clemm, et al. Expires March 22, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft September 2020
description
"When this leaf is provided, origin metadata is not
included as part of RPC output. When this leaf is
omitted, origin metadata in comparisons that involve
<operational> is by default included.";
}
choice filter-spec {
description
"Identifies the portions of the datastores to be
compared.";
anydata subtree-filter {
description
"This parameter identifies the portions of the
target datastore to retrieve.";
reference "RFC 6241, Section 6.";
}
leaf xpath-filter {
if-feature nc:xpath;
type yang:xpath1.0;
description
"This parameter contains an XPath expression
identifying the portions of the target
datastore to retrieve.";
reference "RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types";
}
}
}
output {
choice compare-response {
description
"Comparison results.";
leaf no-matches {
type empty;
description
"This leaf indicates that the filter did not match
anything and nothing was compared.";
}
container differences {
description
"The list of differences, encoded per RFC8072 with an
augmentation to include source values where applicable.
When a datastore node in the source is not present in
the target, this can be indicated either as a 'delete'
or as a 'remove' as there is no difference between
them for the purposes of the comparison.";
uses ypatch:yang-patch {
augment "yang-patch/edit" {
description
Clemm, et al. Expires March 22, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft September 2020
"Provide the value of the source of the patch,
respectively of the comparison, in addition to
the target value, where applicable.";
anydata source-value {
when "../operation = 'delete'"
+ "or ../operation = 'merge'"
+ "or ../operation = 'move'"
+ "or ../operation = 'replace'"
+ "or ../operation = 'remove'";
description
"The anydata 'value' is only used for 'delete',
'move', 'merge', 'replace', and 'remove'
operations.";
}
reference "RFC 8072: YANG Patch Media Type";
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
6. Example
The following example compares the difference between <operational>
and <intended> for a subtree under "interfaces". The subtree
contains a subset of objects that are defined in a YANG data model
for the management of interfaces defined in [RFC8343]. The excerpt
of the data model whose instantiation is basis of the comparison is
as follows:
Clemm, et al. Expires March 22, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft September 2020
container interfaces {
description
"Interface parameters.";
list interface {
key "name";
leaf name {
type string;
description
"The name of the interface".
}
leaf description {
type string;
description
"A textual description of the interface.";
}
leaf enabled {
type boolean;
default "true";
description
"This leaf contains the configured, desired state of the
interface.";"
}
}
}
The contents of <intended> and <operational> datastores:
//INTENDED
<interfaces xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-interfaces">
<interface>
<name>eth0</name>
<enabled>false</enabled>
<description>ip interface</description>
</interface>
</interfaces>
//OPERATIONAL
<interfaces
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-interfaces"
xmlns:or="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-origin">
<interface or:origin="or:learned">
<name>eth0</name>
<enabled>true</enabled>
</interface>
</interfaces>
Clemm, et al. Expires March 22, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft September 2020
<operational> does not contain object "description" that is contained
in <intended>. Another object, "enabled", has differences in values,
being "true" in <operational> and "false" in <intended>. A third
object, "name", is the same in both cases. The origin of the objects
in <operational> is "learned", which may help explain the
discrepancies.
RPC request to compare <operational> (source of the comparison) with
<intended>(target of the comparison):
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<compare xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-nmda-compare"
xmlns:ds="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-datastores">
<source>ds:operational</source>
<target>ds:intended</target>
<xpath-filter
xmlns:if="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-interfaces">
/if:interfaces
</xpath-filter>
</compare>
</rpc>
RPC reply, when a difference is detected:
Clemm, et al. Expires March 22, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft September 2020
<rpc-reply
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"
message-id="101">
<differences
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-nmda-compare"
xmlns:or="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-origin">
<yang-patch>
<patch-id>interface status</patch-id>
<comment>
diff between operational (source) and intended (target)
</comment>
<edit>
<edit-id>1</edit-id>
<operation>replace</operation>
<target>/ietf-interfaces:interface=eth0/enabled</target>
<value>
<if:enabled>false<if:enabled>
</value>
<source-value>
<if:enabled or:origin="or:learned">true</if:enabled>
</source-value>
</edit>
<edit>
<edit-id>2</edit-id>
<operation>create</operation>
<target>/ietf-interfaces:interface=eth0/description</target>
<value>
<if:description>ip interface<description>
</value>
</edit>
</yang-patch>
</differences>
</rpc-reply>
The same request in RESTCONF (using JSON format):
POST /restconf/operations/ietf-nmda-compare:compare HTTP/1.1
Host: example.com
Content-Type: application/yang-data+json
Accept: application/yang-d
{ "ietf-nmda-compare:input" {
"source" : "ietf-datastores:operational"
"target" : "ietf-datastores:intended"
"xpath-filter" : \
"/ietf-interfaces:interfaces"
}
}
Clemm, et al. Expires March 22, 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft September 2020
The same response in RESTCONF (using JSON format):
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2019 20:56:30 GMT
Server: example-server
Content-Type: application/yang-d
{ "ietf-nmda-compare:output" : {
"differences" : {
"ietf-yang-patch:yang-patch" : {
"patch-id" : "interface status",
"comment" : "diff between intended (source) and operational",
"edit" : [
{
"edit-id" : "1",
"operation" : "replace",
"target" : "/ietf-interfaces:interface=eth0/enabled",
"value" : {
"ietf-interfaces:interface/enabled" : "false"
},
"source-value" : {
"ietf-interfaces:interface/enabled" : "true",
"@ietf-interfaces:interface/enabled" : {
"ietf-origin:origin" : "ietf-origin:learned"
}
}
"edit-id" : "2",
"operation" : "create",
"target" : "/ietf-interfaces:interface=eth0/description",
"value" : {
"ietf-interface:interface/description" : "ip interface"
}
}
]
}
}
}
}
7. Performance Considerations
The compare operation can be computationally expensive. While
responsible client applications are expected to use the operation
responsibly and sparingly only when warranted, implementations need
to be aware of the fact that excessive invocation of this operation
will burden system resources and need to ensure that system
performance will not be adversely impacted. One possibility for an
implementation to mitigate against such a possibility is to limit the
number of requests that is served to a client, or to any number of
Clemm, et al. Expires March 22, 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft September 2020
clients, in any one time interval, rejecting requests made at a
higher frequency than the implementation can reasonably sustain.
8. Possible Future Extensions
It is conceivable to extend the compare operation with a number of
possible additional features in the future.
Specifically, it is possible to define an extension with an optional
feature for dampening. This will allow clients to specify a minimum
time period for which a difference must persist for it to be
reported. This will enable clients to distinguish between
differences that are only fleeting from ones that are not and that
may represent a real operational issue and inconsistency within the
device.
For this purpose, an additional input parameter can be added to
specify the dampening period. Only differences that pertain for at
least the dampening time are reported. A value of 0 or omission of
the parameter indicates no dampening. Reporting of differences MAY
correspondingly be delayed by the dampening period from the time the
request is received.
To implement this feature, a server implementation might run a
comparison when the RPC is first invoked and temporarily store the
result. Subsequently, it could wait until after the end of the
dampening period to check whether the same differences are still
observed. The differences that still persist are then returned.
9. IANA Considerations
9.1. Updates to the IETF XML Registry
This document registers one URI in the IETF XML registry [RFC3688].
Following the format in [RFC3688], the following registration is
requested:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-nmda-compare
Registrant Contact: The IESG.
XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.
9.2. Updates to the YANG Module Names Registry
This document registers a YANG module in the YANG Module Names
registry [RFC7950]. Following the format in [RFC7950], the following
registration is requested:
Clemm, et al. Expires March 22, 2021 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft September 2020
name: ietf-nmda-compare
namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-nmda-compare
prefix: cmp
reference: RFC XXXX
10. Security Considerations
The YANG module specified in this document defines a schema for data
that is designed to be accessed via network management protocols such
as NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040]. The lowest NETCONF layer
is the secure transport layer, and the mandatory-to-implement secure
transport is Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC6242]. The lowest RESTCONF layer
is HTTPS, and the mandatory-to-implement secure transport is TLS
[RFC8446].
The NETCONF access control model [RFC8341] provides the means to
restrict access for particular NETCONF or RESTCONF users to a
preconfigured subset of all available NETCONF or RESTCONF protocol
operations and content.
The RPC operation defined in this YANG module, "compare", may be
considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. It
is thus important to control access to this operation. This is the
sensitivity/vulnerability of RPC operation "compare":
Comparing datastores for differences requires a certain amount of
processing resources at the server. An attacker could attempt to
attack a server by making a high volume of comparison requests.
Server implementations can guard against such scenarios in several
ways. For one, they can implement the NETCONF access control model
in order to require proper authorization for requests to be made.
Second, server implementations can limit the number of requests that
they serve to a client in any one time interval, rejecting requests
made at a higher frequency than the implementation can reasonably
sustain.
11. Acknowledgments
We thank Rob Wilton, Martin Bjorklund, Mahesh Jethanandani, Lou
Berger, Kent Watsen, Phil Shafer, Ladislav Lhotka, Tim Carey, and
Reshad Rahman for valuable feedback and suggestions.
Clemm, et al. Expires March 22, 2021 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft September 2020
12. References
12.1. 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>.
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
[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>.
[RFC6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure
Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC6242, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6242>.
[RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types",
RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6991>.
[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>.
[RFC8072] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "YANG Patch
Media Type", RFC 8072, DOI 10.17487/RFC8072, February
2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8072>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8340] Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams",
BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8340>.
Clemm, et al. Expires March 22, 2021 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft September 2020
[RFC8341] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration
Access Control Model", STD 91, RFC 8341,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8341, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8341>.
[RFC8342] Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K.,
and R. Wilton, "Network Management Datastore Architecture
(NMDA)", RFC 8342, DOI 10.17487/RFC8342, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8342>.
[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
12.2. Informative References
[RFC8343] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
Management", RFC 8343, DOI 10.17487/RFC8343, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8343>.
Authors' Addresses
Alexander Clemm
Futurewei
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95050
USA
Email: ludwig@xxxxxxxxx
Yingzhen Qu
Futurewei
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95050
USA
Email: yqu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jeff Tantsura
Apstra
Email: jefftant.ietf@xxxxxxxxx
Clemm, et al. Expires March 22, 2021 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft September 2020
Andy Bierman
YumaWorks
Email: andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Clemm, et al. Expires March 22, 2021 [Page 19]
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
