[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits] [IPR]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06

Network Working Group                                           A. Clemm
Internet-Draft                                                    Huawei
Intended status: Experimental                                    E. Voit
Expires: October 1, 2017                                       J. Medved
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                          March 30, 2017


        Mounting YANG-Defined Information from Remote Datastores
                    draft-clemm-netmod-mount-06.txt

Abstract

   This document introduces capabilities that allow YANG datastores to
   reference and incorporate information from remote datastores.  This
   is accomplished by extending YANG with the ability to define mount
   points that reference data nodes in another YANG subtree, by
   subsequently allowing those data nodes to be accessed by client
   applications as if part of an alternative data hierarchy, and by
   providing the necessary means to manage and administer those mount
   points.  Two flavors are defined: Alias-Mount allows to mount local
   subtrees, while Peer-Mount allows subtrees to reside on and be
   authoritatively owned by a remote server.  YANG-Mount facilitates the
   development of applications that need to access data that transcends
   individual network devices while improving network-wide object
   consistency, or that require an aliasing capability to be able to
   create overlay structures for YANG data.

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 1, 2017.







Clemm, et al.            Expires October 1, 2017                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                 YANG-Mount                     March 2017


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   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.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   2.  Definitions and Acronyms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   3.  Example scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.1.  Network controller view . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.2.  Consistent network configuration  . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   4.  Operating on mounted data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.1.  General principles  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.2.  Data retrieval  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.3.  Other operations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.4.  Other considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   5.  Data model structure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     5.1.  YANG mountpoint extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     5.2.  YANG structure diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     5.3.  Mountpoint management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     5.4.  Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     5.5.  Other considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       5.5.1.  Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18



Clemm, et al.            Expires October 1, 2017                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                 YANG-Mount                     March 2017


       5.5.2.  Datastore qualification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       5.5.3.  Mount cascades  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       5.5.4.  Implementation considerations . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       5.5.5.  Modeling best practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   6.  Datastore mountpoint YANG module  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   9.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   Appendix A.  Example  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34

1.  Introduction

1.1.  Overview

   This document introduces a new capability that allows YANG datastores
   [RFC7950] to incorporate and reference information from other YANG
   subtrees.  The capability allows a client application to retrieve and
   have visibility of that YANG data as part of an alternative
   structure.  This is provided by introducing a mountpoint concept.
   This concept allows to declare a YANG data node in a primary
   datastore to serve as a "mount point" under which a subtree with YANG
   data can be mounted.  This way, data nodes from another subtree can
   be inserted into an alternative data hierarchy, arranged below local
   data nodes.  To the user, this provides visibility to data from other
   subtrees, rendered in a way that makes it appear largely as if it
   were an integral part of the datastore.  This enables users to
   retrieve local "native" as well as mounted data in integrated
   fashion, using e.g.  Netconf [RFC6241] or Restconf [RFC8040] data
   retrieval primitives.  The concept is reminiscent of concepts in a
   Network File System that allows to mount remote folders and make them
   appear as if they were contained in the local file system of the
   user's machine.

   Two variants of YANG-Mount are introduced, which build on one
   another:

   o  Alias-Mount allows mountpoints to reference a local YANG subtree
      residing on the same server.  It provides effectively an aliasing
      capability, allowing for an alternative hierarchy and path for the
      same YANG data.

   o  Peer-Mount allows mountpoints to reference a remote YANG subtree,
      residing on a different server.  It can be thought of as an
      extension to Alias-Mount, in which a remote server can be
      specified.  Peer-Mount allows a server to effectively provide a
      federated datastore, including YANG data from across the network.




Clemm, et al.            Expires October 1, 2017                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                 YANG-Mount                     March 2017


   In each case, mounted data is authoritatively owned by the server
   that it is a part of.  Validation of integrity constraints apply to
   the authoritative copy; mounting merely provides a different view of
   the same data.  It does not impose additional constraints on that
   same data; however, mounted data may be referred to from other data
   nodes.  The mountpoint concept applies in principle to operations
   beyond data retrieval, i.e. to configuration, RPCs, and
   notifications.  However, support for such operations involves
   additional considerations, for example if support for configuration
   transactions and locking (which might now apply across the network)
   were to be provided.  While it is conceivable that additional
   capabilities for operations on mounted information are introduced at
   some point in time, their specification is beyond the scope of this
   specification.

   YANG does provide means by which modules that have been separately
   defined can reference and augment one another.  YANG also does
   provide means to specify data nodes that reference other data nodes.
   However, all the data is assumed to be instantiated as part of the
   same datastore, for example a datastore provided through a NETCONF
   server.  Existing YANG mechanisms do not account for the possibility
   that some information that needs to be referred not only resides in a
   different subtree of the same datastore, or was defined in a separate
   module that is also instantiated in the same datastore, but that is
   genuinely part of a different datastore that is provided by a
   different server.

   The ability to mount information from local and remote datastores is
   new and not covered by existing YANG mechanisms.  Until now,
   management information provided in a datastore has been intrinsically
   tied to the same server and to a single data hierarchy.  In contrast,
   the capability introduced in this specification allows the server to
   render alternative data hierarchies, and to represent information
   from remote systems as if it were its own and contained in its own
   local data hierarchy.

   The capability of allowing the mounting of information from other
   subtrees is accomplished by a set of YANG extensions that allow to
   define such mount points.  For this purpose, a new YANG module is
   introduced.  The module defines the YANG extensions, as well as a
   data model that can be used to manage the mountpoints and mounting
   process itself.  Only the mounting module and its server (i.e.  the
   "receivers" or "consumers" of the mounted information) need to be
   aware of the concepts introduced here.  Mounting is transparent to
   the "providers" of the mounted information and models that are being
   mounted; any data nodes or subtrees within any YANG model can be
   mounted.




Clemm, et al.            Expires October 1, 2017                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                 YANG-Mount                     March 2017


   Alias-Mount and Peer-Mount build on top of each other.  It is
   possible for a server to support Alias-Mount but not Peer-Mount.  In
   essence, Peer-Mount requires an additional parameter that is used to
   refer to the target system.  This parameter does not need to be
   supported if only Alias-Mount is provided.

   Finally, it should be mentioned that Alias-Mount and Peer-Mount are
   not to be confused with the ability to mount a schema, aka Schema
   Mount.  A Schema Mount allows to instantiate an existing model
   definition underneath a mount point, not reference a set of YANG data
   that has already been instantiated somewhere else.  In that sense,
   Schema-Mount resembles more a "grouping" concept that allows to reuse
   an existing definition in a new context, as opposed to referencing
   and incorporating existing instance information into a new context.

1.2.  Examples

   The ability to mount data from remote datastores is useful to address
   various problems that several categories of applications are faced
   with.

   One category of applications that can leverage this capability are
   network controller applications that need to present a consolidated
   view of management information in datastores across a network.
   Controller applications are faced with the problem that in order to
   expose information, that information needs to be part of their own
   datastore.  Today, this requires support of a corresponding YANG data
   module.  In order to expose information that concerns other network
   elements, that information has to be replicated into the controller's
   own datastore in the form of data nodes that may mirror but are
   clearly distinct from corresponding data nodes in the network
   element's datastore.  In addition, in many cases, a controller needs
   to impose its own hierarchy on the data that is different from the
   one that was defined as part of the original module.  An example for
   this concerns interface data, both operational data (e.g. various
   types of interface statistics) and configuration data, such as
   defined in [RFC7223].  This data will be contained in a top-level
   container ("interfaces", in this particular case) in a network
   element datastore.  The controller may need to provide its clients a
   view on interface data from multiple devices under its scope of
   control.  One way of to do so would involve organizing the data in a
   list with separate list elements for each device.  However, this in
   turn would require introduction of redundant YANG modules that
   effectively replicate the same interface data save for differences in
   hierarchy.

   By directly mounting information from network element datastores, the
   controller does not need to replicate the same information from



Clemm, et al.            Expires October 1, 2017                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                 YANG-Mount                     March 2017


   multiple datastores, nor does it need to re-define any network
   element and system-level abstractions to be able to put them in the
   context of network abstractions.  Instead, the subtree of the remote
   system is attached to the local mount point.  Operations that need to
   access data below the mount point are in effect transparently
   redirected to remote system, which is the authoritative owner of the
   data.  The mounting system does not even necessarily need to be aware
   of the specific data in the remote subtree.  Optionally, caching
   strategies can be employed in which the mounting system prefetches
   data.

   A second category of applications concerns decentralized networking
   applications that require globally consistent configuration of
   parameters.  When each network element maintains its own datastore
   with the same configurable settings, a single global change requires
   modifying the same information in many network elements across a
   network.  In case of inconsistent configurations, network failures
   can result that are difficult to troubleshoot.  In many cases, what
   is more desirable is the ability to configure such settings in a
   single place, then make them available to every network element.
   Today, this requires in general the introduction of specialized
   servers and configuration options outside the scope of NETCONF, such
   as RADIUS [RFC2866] or DHCP [RFC2131].  In order to address this
   within the scope of NETCONF and YANG, the same information would have
   to be redundantly modeled and maintained, representing operational
   data (mirroring some remote server) on some network elements and
   configuration data on a designated master.  Either way, additional
   complexity ensues.

   Instead of replicating the same global parameters across different
   datastores, the solution presented in this document allows a single
   copy to be maintained in a subtree of single datastore that is then
   mounted by every network element that requires awareness of these
   parameters.  The global parameters can be hosted in a controller or a
   designated network element.  This considerably simplifies the
   management of such parameters that need to be known across elements
   in a network and require global consistency.

   It should be noted that for these and many other applications merely
   having a view of the remote information is sufficient.  It allows to
   define consolidated views of information without the need for
   replicating data and models that have already been defined, to audit
   information, and to validate consistency of configurations across a
   network.  Only retrieval operations are required; no operations that
   involve configuring remote data are involved.






Clemm, et al.            Expires October 1, 2017                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                 YANG-Mount                     March 2017


2.  Definitions and Acronyms

   Data node: An instance of management information in a YANG datastore.

   DHCP: Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol.

   Datastore: A conceptual store of instantiated management information,
   with individual data items represented by data nodes which are
   arranged in hierarchical manner.

   Datastore-push: A mechanism that allows a client to subscribe to
   updates from a datastore, which are then automatically pushed by the
   server to the client.

   Data subtree: An instantiated data node and the data nodes that are
   hierarchically contained within it.

   Mount client: The system at which the mount point resides, into which
   the remote subtree is mounted.

   Mount point: A data node that receives the root node of the remote
   datastore being mounted.

   Mount server: The server with which the mount client communicates and
   which provides the mount client with access to the mounted
   information.  Can be used synonymously with mount target.

   Mount target: A remote server whose datastore is being mounted.

   NACM: NETCONF Access Control Model

   NETCONF: Network Configuration Protocol

   RADIUS: Remote Authentication Dial In User Service.

   RPC: Remote Procedure Call

   Remote datastore: A datastore residing at a remote node.

   URI: Uniform Resource Identifier

   YANG: A data definition language for NETCONF

3.  Example scenarios

   The following example scenarios outline some of the ways in which the
   ability to mount YANG datastores can be applied.  Other mount
   topologies can be conceived in addition to the ones presented here.



Clemm, et al.            Expires October 1, 2017                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                 YANG-Mount                     March 2017


3.1.  Network controller view

   Network controllers can use the mounting capability to present a
   consolidated view of management information across the network.  This
   allows network controllers to expose network-wide abstractions, such
   as topologies or paths, multi-device abstractions, such as VRRP
   [RFC3768], and network-element specific abstractions, such as
   information about a network element's interfaces.

   While an application on top of a controller could bypass the
   controller to access network elements directly for their element-
   specific abstractions, this would come at the expense of added
   inconvenience for the client application.  In addition, it would
   compromise the ability to provide layered architectures in which
   access to the network by controller applications is truly channeled
   through the controller.

   Without a mounting capability, a network controller would need to at
   least conceptually replicate data from network elements to provide
   such a view, incorporating network element information into its own
   controller model that is separate from the network element's,
   indicating that the information in the controller model is to be
   populated from network elements.  This can introduce issues such as
   data inconsistency and staleness.  Equally important, it would lead
   to the need to define redundant data models: one model that is
   implemented by the network element itself, and another model to be
   implemented by the network controller.  This leads to poor
   maintainability, as analogous information has to be redundantly
   defined and implemented across different data models.  In general,
   controllers cannot simply support the same modules as their network
   elements for the same information because that information needs to
   be put into a different context.  This leads to "node"-information
   that needs to be instantiated and indexed differently, because there
   are multiple instances across different data stores.

   For example, "system"-level information of a network element would
   most naturally placed into a top-level container at that network
   element's datastore.  At the same time, the same information in the
   context of the overall network, such as maintained by a controller,
   might better be provided in a list.  For example, the controller
   might maintain a list with a list element for each network element,
   underneath which the network element's system-level information is
   contained.  However, the containment structure of data nodes in a
   module, once defined, cannot be changed.  This means that in the
   context of a network controller, a second module that repeats the
   same system-level information would need to be defined, implemented,
   and maintained.  Any augmentations that add additional system-level
   information to the original module will likewise need to be



Clemm, et al.            Expires October 1, 2017                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                 YANG-Mount                     March 2017


   redundantly defined, once for the "system" module, a second time for
   the "controller" module.

   By allowing a network controller to directly mount information from
   network element datastores, the controller does not need to replicate
   the same information from multiple datastores.  Perhaps even more
   importantly, the need to re-define any network element and system-
   level abstractions just to be able to put them in the context of
   network abstractions is avoided.  In this solution, a network
   controller's datastore mounts information from many network element
   datastores.  For example, the network controller datastore (the
   "primary" datastore) could implement a list in which each list
   element contains a mountpoint.  Each mountpoint mounts a subtree from
   a different network element's datastore.  The data from the mounted
   subtrees is then accessible to clients of the primary datastore using
   the usual data retrieval operations.

   This scenario is depicted in Figure 1.  In the figure, M1 is the
   mountpoint for the datastore in Network Element 1 and M2 is the
   mountpoint for the datastore in Network Element 2.  MDN1 is the
   mounted data node in Network Element 1, and MDN2 is the mounted data
   node in Network Element 2.

   +-------------+
   |   Network   |
   |  Controller |
   |  Datastore  |
   |             |
   | +--N10      |
   |    +--N11   |
   |    +--N12   |
   |       +--M1*******************************
   |       +--M2******                        *
   |             |   *                        *
   +-------------+   *                        *
                     *   +---------------+    *    +---------------+
                     *   | +--N1         |    *    | +--N5         |
                     *   |     +--N2     |    *    |     +--N6     |
                     ********> +--MDN2   |    *********> +--MDN1   |
                         |         +--N3 |         |         +--N7 |
                         |         +--N4 |         |         +--N8 |
                         |               |         |               |
                         |    Network    |         |    Network    |
                         |    Element    |         |    Element    |
                         |   Datastore   |         |   Datastore   |
                         +---------------+         +---------------+

                Figure 1: Network controller mount topology



Clemm, et al.            Expires October 1, 2017                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                 YANG-Mount                     March 2017


3.2.  Consistent network configuration

   A second category of applications concerns decentralized networking
   applications that require globally consistent configuration of
   parameters that need to be known across elements in a network.
   Today, the configuration of such parameters is generally performed on
   a per network element basis, which is not only redundant but, more
   importantly, error-prone.  Inconsistent configurations lead to
   erroneous network behavior that can be challenging to troubleshoot.

   Using the ability to mount information from remote datastores opens
   up a new possibility for managing such settings.  Instead of
   replicating the same global parameters across different datastores, a
   single copy is maintained in a subtree of single datastore.  This
   datastore can hosted in a controller or a designated network element.
   The subtree is subsequently mounted by every network element that
   requires access to these parameters.

   In many ways, this category of applications is an inverse of the
   previous category: Whereas in the network controller case data from
   many different datastores would be mounted into the same datastore
   with multiple mountpoints, in this case many elements, each with
   their own datastore, mount the same remote datastore, which is then
   mounted by many different systems.

   The scenario is depicted in Figure 2.  In the figure, M1 is the
   mountpoint for the Network Controller datastore in Network Element 1
   and M2 is the mountpoint for the Network Controller datastore in
   Network Element 2.  MDN is the mounted data node in the Network
   Controller datastore that contains the data nodes that represent the
   shared configuration settings.  (Note that there is no reason why the
   Network Controller Datastore in this figure could not simply reside
   on a network element itself; the division of responsibilities is a
   logical one.

















Clemm, et al.            Expires October 1, 2017               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                 YANG-Mount                     March 2017


   +---------------+         +---------------+
   |    Network    |         |    Network    |
   |    Element    |         |    Element    |
   |   Datastore   |         |   Datastore   |
   |               |         |               |
   | +--N1         |         | +--N5         |
   | |   +--N2     |         | |   +--N6     |
   | |   +--N2     |         | |   +--N6     |
   | |       +--N3 |         | |       +--N7 |
   | |       +--N4 |         | |       +--N8 |
   | |             |         | |             |
   | +--M1         |         | +--M2         |
   +-----*---------+         +-----*---------+
         *                         *               +---------------+
         *                         *               |               |
         *                         *               | +--N10        |
         *                         *               |    +--N11     |
         *********************************************> +--MDN     |
                                                   |        +--N20 |
                                                   |        +--N21 |
                                                   |         ...   |
                                                   |        +--N22 |
                                                   |               |
                                                   |    Network    |
                                                   |   Controller  |
                                                   |   Datastore   |
                                                   +---------------+

              Figure 2: Distributed config settings topology

4.  Operating on mounted data

   This section provides a rough illustration of the operations flow
   involving mounted datastores.

4.1.  General principles

   The first thing that should be noted about these operations flows
   concerns the fact that a mount client essentially constitutes a
   special management application that interacts with a subtree to
   render the data of that subtree as an alternative tree hierarchy.  In
   the case of Alias-Mount, both original and alternative tree are
   maintained by the same server, which in effect provides alternative
   paths to the same data.  In the case of Peer-Mount, the mount client
   constitutes in effect another application, with the remote system
   remaining the authoritative owner of the data.  While it is
   conceivable that the remote system (or an application that proxies
   for the remote system) provides certain functionality to facilitate



Clemm, et al.            Expires October 1, 2017               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                 YANG-Mount                     March 2017


   the specific needs of the mount client to make it more efficient, the
   fact that another system decides to expose a certain "view" of that
   data is fundamentally not the remote system's concern.

   When a client application makes a request to a server that involves
   data that is mounted from a remote system, the server will
   effectively act as a proxy to the remote system on the client
   application's behalf.  It will extract from the client application
   request the portion that involves the mounted subtree from the remote
   system.  It will strip that portion of the local context, i.e. remove
   any local data paths and insert the data path of the mounted remote
   subtree, as appropriate.  The server will then forward the transposed
   request to the remote system that is the authoritative owner of the
   mounted data, acting itself as a client to the remote server.  Upon
   receiving the reply, the server will transpose the results into the
   local context as needed, for example map the data paths into the
   local data tree structure, and combine those results with the results
   of the remainder portion of the original request.

4.2.  Data retrieval

   Data retrieval operations are the only category of operations that is
   supported for peer-mounted information.  In that case, a Netconf
   "get" or "get-configuration" operation might be applied on a subtree
   whose scope includes a mount point.  When resolving the mount point,
   the server issues its own "get" or "get-configuration" request
   against the remote system's subtree that is attached to the mount
   point.  The returned information is then inserted into the data
   structure that is in turn returned to the client that originally
   invoked the request.

4.3.  Other operations

   The fact that only data retrieval operations are the only category of
   operations that are supported for peer-mounted information does not
   preclude other operations to be applied to datastore subtrees that
   contain mountpoints and peer-mounted information.  Peer-mounted
   information is simply transparent to those operations.  When an
   operation is applied to a subtree which includes mountpoints, mounted
   information is ignored for purposes of the operation.  For example,
   for a Netconf "edit-config" operation that includes a subtree with a
   mountpoint, a server will ignore the data under the mountpoint and
   apply the operation only to the local configuration.  Mounted data is
   "read-only" data.  The server does not even need to return an error
   message that the operation could not be applied to mounted data; the
   mountpoint is simply ignored.





Clemm, et al.            Expires October 1, 2017               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                 YANG-Mount                     March 2017


   In principle, it is conceivable that operations other than data-
   retrieval are applied to mounted data as well.  For example, an
   operation to edit configuration information might expect edits to be
   applied to remote systems as part of the operation, where the edited
   subtree involves mounted information.  However, editing of
   information and "writing through" to remote systems potentially
   involves significant complexity, particularly if transactions and
   locking across multiple configuration items are involved.  Support
   for such operations will require additional capabilities,
   specification of which is beyond the scope of this specification.

   Likewise, YANG-Mount does not extend towards RPCs that are defined as
   part of YANG modules whose contents is being mounted.  Support for
   RPCs that involve mounted portions of the datastore, while
   conceivable, would require introduction of an additional capability,
   whose definition is outside the scope of this specification.

   By the same token, YANG-Mount does not extend towards notifications.
   It is conceivable to offer such support in the future using a
   separate capability, definition of which is once again outside the
   scope of this specification.

4.4.  Other considerations

   Since mounting of information typically involves communication with a
   remote system, there is a possibility that the remote system will not
   respond within a certain amount of time, that connectivity is lost,
   or that other errors occur.  Accordingly, the ability to mount
   datastores also involves mountpoint management, which includes the
   ability to configure timeouts, retries, and management of mountpoint
   state (including dynamic addition removal of mountpoints).
   Mountpoint management will be discussed in section Section 5.3.

   It is expected that some implementations will introduce caching
   schemes.  Caching can increase performance and efficiency in certain
   scenarios (for example, in the case of data that is frequently read
   but that rarely changes), but increases implementation complexity.
   Caching is not required for YANG-mount to work - in which case access
   to mounted information is "on-demand", in which the authoritative
   data node always gets accessed.  Whether to perform caching is a
   local implementation decision.

   When caching is introduced, it can benefit from the ability to
   subscribe to updates on remote data by remote servers.  Some
   optimizations to facilitate caching support will be discussed in
   section Section 5.4.





Clemm, et al.            Expires October 1, 2017               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                 YANG-Mount                     March 2017


5.  Data model structure

5.1.  YANG mountpoint extensions

   At the center of the module is a set of YANG extensions that allow to
   define a mountpoint.

   o  The first extension, "mountpoint", is used to declare a
      mountpoint.  The extension takes the name of the mountpoint as an
      argument.

   o  The second extension, "subtree", serves as substatement underneath
      a mountpoint statement.  It takes an argument that defines the
      root node of the datastore subtree that is to be mounted,
      specified as string that contains a path expression.  This
      extension is used to define mountpoints for Alias-Mount, as well
      as Peer-Mount.

   o  The third extension, "target", also serves as a substatement
      underneath a mountpoint statement.  It is used for Peer-Mount and
      takes an argument that identifies the target system.  The argument
      is a reference to a data node that contains the information that
      is needed to identify and address a remote server, such as an IP
      address, a host name, or a URI [RFC3986].

   A mountpoint MUST be contained underneath a container.  Future
   revisions might allow for mountpoints to be contained underneath
   other data nodes, such as lists, leaf-lists, and cases.  However, to
   keep things simple, at this point mounting is only allowed directly
   underneath a container.

   Only a single data node can be mounted at one time.  While the mount
   target could refer to any data node, it is recommended that as a best
   practice, the mount target SHOULD refer to a container.  It is
   possible to maintain e.g. a list of mount points, with each mount
   point each of which has a mount target an element of a remote list.
   However, to avoid unnecessary proliferation of the number of mount
   points and associated management overhead, when data from lists or
   leaf-lists is to be mounted, a container containing the list
   respectively leaf-list SHOULD be mounted instead of individual list
   elements.

   It is possible for a mounted datastore to contain another mountpoint,
   thus leading to several levels of mount indirections.  However,
   mountpoints MUST NOT introduce circular dependencies.  In particular,
   a mounted datastore MUST NOT contain a mountpoint which specifies the
   mounting datastore as a target and a subtree which contains as root
   node a data node that in turn contains the original mountpoint.



Clemm, et al.            Expires October 1, 2017               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                 YANG-Mount                     March 2017


   Whenever a mount operation is performed, this condition mountpoint.
   Whenever a mount operation is performed, this condition MUST be
   validated by the mount client.

5.2.  YANG structure diagrams

   YANG data model structure overviews have proven very useful to convey
   the "Big Picture".  It would be useful to indicate in YANG data model
   structure overviews the fact that a given data node serves as a
   mountpoint.  We propose for this purpose also a corresponding
   extension to the structure representation convention.  Specifically,
   we propose to prefix the name of the mounting data node with upper-
   case 'M'.

   rw network
   +-- rw nodes
       +-- rw node [node-ID]
           +-- rw node-ID
           +-- M node-system-info

5.3.  Mountpoint management

   The YANG module contains facilities to manage the mountpoints
   themselves.

   For this purpose, a list of the mountpoints is introduced.  Each list
   element represents a single mountpoint.  It includes an
   identification of the mount target, i.e. the remote system hosting
   the remote datastore and a definition of the subtree of the remote
   data node being mounted.  It also includes monitoring information
   about current status (indicating whether the mount has been
   successful and is operational, or whether an error condition applies
   such as the target being unreachable or referring to an invalid
   subtree).

   In addition to the list of mountpoints, a set of global mount policy
   settings allows to set parameters such as mount retries and timeouts.

   Each mountpoint list element also contains a set of the same
   configuration knobs, allowing administrators to override global mount
   policies and configure mount policies on a per-mountpoint basis if
   needed.

   There are two ways how mounting occurs: automatic (dynamically
   performed as part of system operation) or manually (administered by a
   user or client application).  A separate mountpoint-origin object is
   used to distinguish between manually configured and automatically
   populated mountpoints.



Clemm, et al.            Expires October 1, 2017               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                 YANG-Mount                     March 2017


   Whether mounting occurs automatically or needs to be manually
   configured by a user or an application can depend on the mountpoint
   being defined, i.e. the semantics of the model.

   When configured automatically, mountpoint information is
   automatically populated by the datastore that implements the
   mountpoint.  The precise mechanisms for discovering mount targets and
   bootstrapping mount points are provided by the mount client
   infrastructure and outside the scope of this specification.
   Likewise, when a mountpoint should be deleted and when it should
   merely have its mount-status indicate that the target is unreachable
   is a system-specific implementation decision.

   Manual mounting consists of two steps.  In a first step, a mountpoint
   is manually configured by a user or client application through
   administrative action.  Once a mountpoint has been configured, actual
   mounting occurs through an RPCs that is defined specifically for that
   purpose.  To unmount, a separate RPC is invoked; mountpoint
   configuration information needs to be explicitly deleted.  Manual
   mounting can also be used to override automatic mounting, for example
   to allow an administrator to set up or remove a mountpoint.

   It should be noted that mountpoint management does not allow users to
   manually "extend" the model, i.e. simply add a subtree underneath
   some arbitrary data node into a datastore, without a supporting
   mountpoint defined in the model to support it.  A mountpoint
   definition is a formal part of the model with well-defined semantics.
   Accordingly, mountpoint management does not allow users to
   dynamically "extend" the data model itself.  It allows users to
   populate the datastore and mount structure within the confines of a
   model that has been defined prior.

   The structure of the mountpoint management data model is depicted in
   the following figure, where brackets enclose list keys, "rw" means
   configuration, "ro" operational state data, and "?" designates
   optional nodes.  Parantheses enclose choice and case nodes.  The
   figure does not depict all definitions; it is intended to illustrate
   the overall structure.













Clemm, et al.            Expires October 1, 2017               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                 YANG-Mount                     March 2017


   module: ietf-mount
      +--rw mount-server-mgmt {mount-server-mgmt}?
         +--rw mountpoints
         |  +--rw mountpoint* [mountpoint-id]
         |     +--rw mountpoint-id        string
         |     +--ro mountpoint-origin?   enumeration
         |     +--rw subtree-ref          subtree-ref
         |     +--rw mount-target
         |     |  +--rw (target-address-type)
         |     |     +--:(IP)
         |     |     |  +--rw target-ip?          inet:ip-address
         |     |     +--:(URI)
         |     |     |  +--rw uri?                inet:uri
         |     |     +--:(host-name)
         |     |     |  +--rw hostname?           inet:host
         |     |     +--:(node-ID)
         |     |     |  +--rw node-info-ref?      subtree-ref
         |     |     +--:(other)
         |     |        +--rw opaque-target-ID?   string
         |     +--ro mount-status?        mount-status
         |     +--rw manual-mount?        empty
         |     +--rw retry-timer?         uint16
         |     +--rw number-of-retries?   uint8
         +--rw global-mount-policies
            +--rw manual-mount?        empty
            +--rw retry-timer?         uint16
            +--rw number-of-retries?   uint8

5.4.  Caching

   Under certain circumstances, it can be useful to maintain a cache of
   remote information.  Instead of accessing the remote system, requests
   are served from a copy that is locally maintained.  This is
   particularly advantageous in cases where data is slow changing, i.e.
   when there are many more "read" operations than changes to the
   underlying data node, and in cases when a significant delay were
   incurred when accessing the remote system, which might be prohibitive
   for certain applications.  Examples of such applications are
   applications that involve real-time control loops requiring response
   times that are measured in milliseconds.  However, as data nodes that
   are mounted from an authoritative datastore represent the "golden
   copy", it is important that any modifications are reflected as soon
   as they are made.

   It is a local implementation decision of mount clients whether to
   cache information once it has been fetched.  However, in order to
   support more powerful caching schemes, it becomes necessary for the
   mount server to "push" information proactively.  For this purpose, it



Clemm, et al.            Expires October 1, 2017               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                 YANG-Mount                     March 2017


   is useful for the mount client to subscribe for updates to the
   mounted information at the mount server.  A corresponding mechanism
   that can be leveraged for this purpose is specified in draft-ietf-
   netconf-yang-push-05.

   Note that caching large mountpoints can be expensive.  Therefore
   limiting the amount of data unnecessarily passed when mounting near
   the top of a YANG subtree is important.  For these reasons, an
   ability to specify a particular caching strategy in conjunction with
   mountpoints can be desirable, including the ability to exclude
   certain nodes and subtrees from caching.  According capabilities may
   be introduced in a future version of this draft.

5.5.  Other considerations

5.5.1.  Authorization

   Access to mounted information is subject to authorization rules.  To
   the mounted system, a mounting client will in general appear like any
   other client.  Authorization privileges for remote mounting clients
   need to be specified through NACM (NETCONF Access Control Model)
   [RFC6536].

5.5.2.  Datastore qualification

   It is conceivable to differentiate between different datastores on
   the remote server, that is, to designate the name of the actual
   datastore to mount, e.g. "running" or "startup".  However, for the
   purposes of this spec, we assume that the datastore to be mounted is
   generally implied.  Mounted information is treated as analogous to
   operational data; in general, this means the running or "effective"
   datastore is the target.  That said, the information which targets to
   mount does constitute configuration and can hence be part of a
   startup or candidate datastore.

5.5.3.  Mount cascades

   It is possible for the mounted subtree to in turn contain a
   mountpoint.  However, circular mount relationships MUST NOT be
   introduced.  For this reason, a mounted subtree MUST NOT contain a
   mountpoint that refers back to the mounting system with a mount
   target that directly or indirectly contains the originating
   mountpoint.  As part of a mount operation, the mount points of the
   mounted system need to be checked accordingly.







Clemm, et al.            Expires October 1, 2017               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft                 YANG-Mount                     March 2017


5.5.4.  Implementation considerations

   Implementation specifics are outside the scope of this specification.
   That said, the following considerations apply:

   Systems that wish to mount information from remote datastores need to
   implement a mount client.  The mount client communicates with a
   remote system to access the remote datastore.  To do so, there are
   several options:

   o  The mount client acts as a NETCONF client to a remote system.
      Alternatively, another interface to the remote system can be used,
      such as a REST API using JSON encodings, as specified in
      [RFC7951].  --> Either way, to the remote system, the mount client
      constitutes essentially a client application like any other.  The
      mount client in effect IS a special kind of client application.

   o  The mount client communicates with a remote mount server through a
      separate protocol.  The mount server is deployed on the same
      system as the remote NETCONF datastore and interacts with it
      through a set of local APIs.

   o  The mount client communicates with a remote mount server that acts
      as a NETCONF client proxy to a remote system, on the client's
      behalf.  The communication between mount client and remote mount
      server might involve a separate protocol, which is translated into
      NETCONF operations by the remote mount server.

   It is the responsibility of the mount client to manage the
   association with the target system, e.g. validate it is still
   reachable by maintaining a permanent association, perform
   reachability checks in case of a connectionless transport, etc.

   It is the responsibility of the mount client to manage the
   mountpoints.  This means that the mount client needs to populate the
   mountpoint monitoring information (e.g. keep mount-status up to data
   and determine in the case of automatic mounting when to add and
   remove mountpoint configuration).  In the case of automatic mounting,
   the mount client also interacts with the mountpoint discovery and
   bootstrap process.

   The mount client needs to also participate in servicing datastore
   operations involving mounted information.  An operation requested
   involving a mountpoint is relayed by the mounting system's
   infrastructure to the mount client.  For example, a request to
   retrieve information from a datastore leads to an invocation of an
   internal mount client API when a mount point is reached.  The mount
   client then relays a corresponding operation to the remote datastore.



Clemm, et al.            Expires October 1, 2017               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft                 YANG-Mount                     March 2017


   It subsequently relays the result along with any responses back to
   the invoking infrastructure, which then merges the result (e.g. a
   retrieved subtree with the rest of the information that was
   retrieved) as needed.  Relaying the result may involve the need to
   transpose error response codes in certain corner cases, e.g.  when
   mounted information could not be reached due to loss of connectivity
   with the remote server, or when a configuration request failed due to
   validation error.

5.5.5.  Modeling best practices

   There is a certain amount of overhead associated with each mount
   point.  The mount point needs to be managed and state maintained.
   Data subscriptions need to be maintained.  Requests including mounted
   subtrees need to be decomposed and responses from multiple systems
   combined.

   For those reasons, as a general best practice, models that make use
   of mount points SHOULD be defined in a way that minimizes the number
   of mountpoints required.  Finely granular mounts, in which multiple
   mountpoints are maintained with the same remote system, each
   containing only very small data subtrees, SHOULD be avoided.  For
   example, lists SHOULD only contain mountpoints when individual list
   elements are associated with different remote systems.  To mount data
   from lists in remote datastores, a container node that contains all
   list elements SHOULD be mounted instead of mounting each list element
   individually.  Likewise, instead of having mount points refer to
   nodes contained underneath choices, a mountpoint should refer to a
   container of the choice.

6.  Datastore mountpoint YANG module

   <CODE BEGINS>
   file "ietf-mount@2017-03-30.yang"
   module ietf-mount {
     namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-mount";
     prefix mnt;

     import ietf-inet-types {
       prefix inet;
     }

     organization
       "IETF NETMOD (NETCONF Data Modeling Language) Working Group";
     contact
       "WG Web:   <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netmod/>
        WG List:  <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>




Clemm, et al.            Expires October 1, 2017               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft                 YANG-Mount                     March 2017


        WG Chair: Kent Watsen
                  <mailto:kwatsen@juniper.net>

        WG Chair: Lou Berger
                  <mailto:lberger@labn.net>

        Editor: Alexander Clemm
        <mailto:ludwig@clemm.org>

        Editor: Jan Medved
        <mailto:jmedved@cisco.com>

        Editor: Eric Voit
        <mailto:evoit@cisco.com>";
     description
       "This module provides a set of YANG extensions and definitions
        that can be used to mount information from remote datastores.";

     revision 2017-03-30 {
       description
         "Initial revision.";
       reference
         "draft-clemm-netmod-mount-06.txt";
     }

     extension mountpoint {
       argument name;
       description
         "This YANG extension is used to mount data from another
          subtree in place of the node under which this YANG extension
          statement is used.

          This extension takes one argument which specifies the name
          of the mountpoint.

          This extension can occur as a substatement underneath a
          container statement, a list statement, or a case statement.
          As a best practice, it SHOULD occur as statement only
          underneath a container statement, but it MAY also occur
          underneath a list or a case statement.

          The extension can take two parameters, target and subtree,
          each defined as their own YANG extensions.

          For Alias-Mount, a mountpoint statement MUST contain a
          subtree statement for the mountpoint definition to be valid.
          For Peer-Mount, a mountpoint statement MUST contain both a
          target and a subtree substatement for the mountpoint



Clemm, et al.            Expires October 1, 2017               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft                 YANG-Mount                     March 2017


          definition to be valid.

          The subtree SHOULD be specified in terms of a data node of
          type 'mnt:subtree-ref'. The targeted data node MUST
          represent a container.

          The target system MAY be specified in terms of a data node
          that uses the grouping 'mnt:mount-target'.  However, it
          can be specified also in terms of any other data node that
          contains sufficient information to address the mount target,
          such as an IP address, a host name, or a URI.

          It is possible for the mounted subtree to in turn contain a
          mountpoint.  However, circular mount relationships MUST NOT
          be introduced. For this reason, a mounted subtree MUST NOT
          contain a mountpoint that refers back to the mounting system
          with a mount target that directly or indirectly contains the
          originating mountpoint.";
     }

     extension target {
       argument target-name;
       description
         "This YANG extension is used to perform a Peer-Mount.
          It is used to specify a remote target system from which to
          mount a datastore subtree.  This YANG
          extension takes one argument which specifies the remote
          system. In general, this argument will contain the name of
          a data node that contains the remote system information. It
          is recommended that the reference data node uses the
          mount-target grouping that is defined further below in this
          module.

          This YANG extension can occur only as a substatement below
          a mountpoint statement. It MUST NOT occur as a substatement
          below any other YANG statement.";
     }

     extension subtree {
       argument subtree-path;
       description
         "This YANG extension is used to specify a subtree in a
          datastore that is to be mounted.  This YANG extension takes
          one argument which specifies the path to the root of the
          subtree. The root of the subtree SHOULD represent an
          instance of a YANG container.  However, it MAY represent
          also another data node.




Clemm, et al.            Expires October 1, 2017               [Page 22]


Internet-Draft                 YANG-Mount                     March 2017


          This YANG extension can occur only as a substatement below
          a mountpoint statement. It MUST NOT occur as a substatement
          below any other YANG statement.";
     }

     feature mount-server-mgmt {
       description
         "Provide additional capabilities to manage remote mount
          points";
     }

     typedef mount-status {
       type enumeration {
         enum "ok" {
           description
             "Mounted";
         }
         enum "no-target" {
           description
             "The argument of the mountpoint does not define a
              target system";
         }
         enum "no-subtree" {
           description
             "The argument of the mountpoint does not define a
               root of a subtree";
         }
         enum "target-unreachable" {
           description
             "The specified target system is currently
              unreachable";
         }
         enum "mount-failure" {
           description
             "Any other mount failure";
         }
         enum "unmounted" {
           description
             "The specified mountpoint has been unmounted as the
              result of a management operation";
         }
       }
       description
         "This type is used to represent the status of a
          mountpoint.";
     }

     typedef subtree-ref {



Clemm, et al.            Expires October 1, 2017               [Page 23]


Internet-Draft                 YANG-Mount                     March 2017


       type string;
       description
         "This string specifies a path to a datanode. It corresponds
          to the path substatement of a leafref type statement.  Its
          syntax needs to conform to the corresponding subset of the
          XPath abbreviated syntax. Contrary to a leafref type,
          subtree-ref allows to refer to a node in a remote datastore.
          Also, a subtree-ref refers only to a single node, not a list
          of nodes.";
     }

     grouping mount-monitor {
       description
         "This grouping contains data nodes that indicate the
          current status of a mount point.";
       leaf mount-status {
         type mount-status;
         config false;
         description
           "Indicates whether a mountpoint has been successfully
            mounted or whether some kind of fault condition is
            present.";
       }
     }

     grouping mount-target {
       description
         "This grouping contains data nodes that can be used to
          identify a remote system from which to mount a datastore
          subtree.";
       container mount-target {
         description
           "A container is used to keep mount target information
            together.";
         choice target-address-type {
           mandatory true;
           description
             "Allows to identify mount target in different ways,
              i.e. using different types of addresses.";
           case IP {
             leaf target-ip {
               type inet:ip-address;
               description
                 "IP address identifying the mount target.";
             }
           }
           case URI {
             leaf uri {



Clemm, et al.            Expires October 1, 2017               [Page 24]


Internet-Draft                 YANG-Mount                     March 2017


               type inet:uri;
               description
                 "URI identifying the mount target";
             }
           }
           case host-name {
             leaf hostname {
               type inet:host;
               description
                 "Host name of mount target.";
             }
           }
           case node-ID {
             leaf node-info-ref {
               type subtree-ref;
               description
                 "Node identified by named subtree.";
             }
           }
           case other {
             leaf opaque-target-ID {
               type string;
               description
                 "Catch-all; could be used also for mounting
                  of data nodes that are local.";
             }
           }
         }
       }
     }

     grouping mount-policies {
       description
         "This grouping contains data nodes that allow to configure
          policies associated with mountpoints.";
       leaf manual-mount {
         type empty;
         description
           "When present, a specified mountpoint is not
            automatically mounted when the mount data node is
            created, but needs to mounted via specific RPC
            invocation.";
       }
       leaf retry-timer {
         type uint16;
         units "seconds";
         description
           "When specified, provides the period after which



Clemm, et al.            Expires October 1, 2017               [Page 25]


Internet-Draft                 YANG-Mount                     March 2017


            mounting will be automatically reattempted in case of a
            mount status of an unreachable target";
       }
       leaf number-of-retries {
         type uint8;
         description
           "When specified, provides a limit for the number of
            times for which retries will be automatically
            attempted";
       }
     }

     rpc mount {
       description
         "This RPC allows an application or administrative user to
          perform a mount operation.  If successful, it will result in
          the creation of a new mountpoint.";
       input {
         leaf mountpoint-id {
           type string {
             length "1..32";
           }
           description
             "Identifier for the mountpoint to be created.
              The mountpoint-id needs to be unique;
              if the mountpoint-id of an existing mountpoint is
              chosen, an error is returned.";
         }
       }
       output {
         leaf mount-status {
           type mount-status;
           description
             "Indicates if the mount operation was successful.";
         }
       }
     }
     rpc unmount {
       description
         "This RPC allows an application or administrative user to
          unmount information from a remote datastore.  If successful,
          the corresponding mountpoint will be removed from the
          datastore.";
       input {
         leaf mountpoint-id {
           type string {
             length "1..32";
           }



Clemm, et al.            Expires October 1, 2017               [Page 26]


Internet-Draft                 YANG-Mount                     March 2017


           description
             "Identifies the mountpoint to be unmounted.";
         }
       }
       output {
         leaf mount-status {
           type mount-status;
           description
             "Indicates if the unmount operation was successful.";
         }
       }
     }
     container mount-server-mgmt {
       if-feature mount-server-mgmt;
       description
         "Contains information associated with managing the
          mountpoints of a datastore.";
       container mountpoints {
         description
           "Keep the mountpoint information consolidated
            in one place.";
         list mountpoint {
           key "mountpoint-id";
           description
             "There can be multiple mountpoints.
              Each mountpoint is represented by its own
              list element.";
           leaf mountpoint-id {
             type string {
               length "1..32";
             }
             description
               "An identifier of the mountpoint.
                RPC operations refer to the mountpoint
                using this identifier.";
           }
           leaf mountpoint-origin {
             type enumeration {
               enum "client" {
                 description
                   "Mountpoint has been supplied and is
                    manually administered by a client";
               }
               enum "auto" {
                 description
                   "Mountpoint is automatically
                    administered by the server";
               }



Clemm, et al.            Expires October 1, 2017               [Page 27]


Internet-Draft                 YANG-Mount                     March 2017


             }
             config false;
             description
               "This describes how the mountpoint came
                into being.";
           }
           leaf subtree-ref {
             type subtree-ref;
             mandatory true;
             description
               "Identifies the root of the subtree in the
                target system that is to be mounted.";
           }
           uses mount-target;
           uses mount-monitor;
           uses mount-policies;
         }
       }
       container global-mount-policies {
         description
           "Provides mount policies applicable for all mountpoints,
            unless overridden for a specific mountpoint.";
         uses mount-policies;
       }
     }
   }

   <CODE ENDS>

7.  Security Considerations

   TBD

8.  Acknowledgements

   We wish to acknowledge the helpful contributions, comments, and
   suggestions that were received from Tony Tkacik, Ambika Tripathy,
   Robert Varga, Prabhakara Yellai, Shashi Kumar Bansal, Lukas Sedlak,
   and Benoit Claise.

9.  Normative References

   [RFC2131]  Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",
              RFC 2131, DOI 10.17487/RFC2131, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2131>.






Clemm, et al.            Expires October 1, 2017               [Page 28]


Internet-Draft                 YANG-Mount                     March 2017


   [RFC2866]  Rigney, C., "RADIUS Accounting", RFC 2866,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2866, June 2000,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2866>.

   [RFC3768]  Hinden, R., Ed., "Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol
              (VRRP)", RFC 3768, DOI 10.17487/RFC3768, April 2004,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3768>.

   [RFC3986]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
              Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
              RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.

   [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,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.

   [RFC6536]  Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration
              Protocol (NETCONF) Access Control Model", RFC 6536,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6536, March 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6536>.

   [RFC7223]  Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
              Management", RFC 7223, DOI 10.17487/RFC7223, May 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7223>.

   [RFC7923]  Voit, E., Clemm, A., and A. Gonzalez Prieto, "Requirements
              for Subscription to YANG Datastores", RFC 7923,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7923, June 2016,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7923>.

   [RFC7950]  Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
              RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.

   [RFC7951]  Lhotka, L., "JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG",
              RFC 7951, DOI 10.17487/RFC7951, August 2016,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7951>.

   [RFC8040]  Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
              Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.








Clemm, et al.            Expires October 1, 2017               [Page 29]


Internet-Draft                 YANG-Mount                     March 2017


Appendix A.  Example

   In the following example, we are assuming the use case of a network
   controller that wants to provide a controller network view to its
   client applications.  This view needs to include network abstractions
   that are maintained by the controller itself, as well as certain
   information about network devices where the network abstractions tie
   in with element-specific information.  For this purpose, the network
   controller leverages the mount capability specified in this document
   and presents a fictitious Controller Network YANG Module that is
   depicted in the outlined structure below.  The example illustrates
   how mounted information is leveraged by the mounting datastore to
   provide an additional level of information that ties together network
   and device abstractions, which could not be provided otherwise
   without introducing a (redundant) model to replicate those device
   abstractions

   rw controller-network
   +-- rw topologies
   |   +-- rw topology [topo-id]
   |       +-- rw topo-id                 node-id
   |       +-- rw nodes
   |       |   +-- rw node [node-id]
   |       |       +-- rw node-id         node-id
   |       |       +-- rw supporting-ne   network-element-ref
   |       |       +-- rw termination-points
   |       |           +-- rw term-point [tp-id]
   |       |               +-- tp-id      tp-id
   |       |               +-- ifref      mountedIfRef
   |       +-- rw links
   |           +-- rw link [link-id]
   |               +-- rw link-id         link-id
   |               +-- rw source          tp-ref
   |               +-- rw dest            tp-ref
   +-- rw network-elements
       +-- rw network-element [element-id]
           +-- rw element-id              element-id
           +-- rw element-address
           |   +-- ...
           +-- M interfaces

   The controller network model consists of the following key
   components:

   o  A container with a list of topologies.  A topology is a graph
      representation of a network at a particular layer, for example, an
      IS-IS topology, an overlay topology, or an Openflow topology.
      Specific topology types can be defined in their own separate YANG



Clemm, et al.            Expires October 1, 2017               [Page 30]


Internet-Draft                 YANG-Mount                     March 2017


      modules that augment the controller network model.  Those
      augmentations are outside the scope of this example

   o  An inventory of network elements, along with certain information
      that is mounted from each element.  The information that is
      mounted in this case concerns interface configuration information.
      For this purpose, each list element that represents a network
      element contains a corresponding mountpoint.  The mountpoint uses
      as its target the network element address information provided in
      the same list element

   o  Each topology in turn contains a container with a list of nodes.
      A node is a network abstraction of a network device in the
      topology.  A node is hosted on a network element, as indicated by
      a network-element leafref.  This way, the "logical" and "physical"
      aspects of a node in the network are cleanly separated.

   o  A node also contains a list of termination points that terminate
      links.  A termination point is implemented on an interface.
      Therefore, it contains a leafref that references the corresponding
      interface configuration which is part of the mounted information
      of a network element.  Again, the distinction between termination
      points and interfaces provides a clean separation between logical
      concepts at the network topology level and device-specific
      concepts that are instantiated at the level of a network element.
      Because the interface information is mounted from a different
      datastore and therefore occurs at a different level of the
      containment hierarchy than it would if it were not mounted, it is
      not possible to use the interface-ref type that is defined in YANG
      data model for interface management [] to allow the termination
      point refer to its supporting interface.  For this reason, a new
      type definition "mountedIfRef" is introduced that allows to refer
      to interface information that is mounted and hence has a different
      path.

   o  Finally, a topology also contains a container with a list of
      links.  A link is a network abstraction that connects nodes via
      node termination points.  In the example, directional point-to-
      point links are depicted in which one node termination point
      serves as source, another as destination.

   The following is a YANG snippet of the module definition which makes
   use of the mountpoint definition.








Clemm, et al.            Expires October 1, 2017               [Page 31]


Internet-Draft                 YANG-Mount                     March 2017


   <CODE BEGINS>
   module controller-network {
       namespace "urn:cisco:params:xml:ns:yang:controller-network";
       // example only, replace with IANA namespace when assigned
       prefix cn;
       import mount {
           prefix mnt;
       }
       import interfaces {
           prefix if;
       }
       ...
       typedef mountedIfRef {
           type leafref {
               path "/cn:controller-network/cn:network-elements/"
               +"cn:network-element/cn:interfaces/if:interface/if:name";
               //  cn:interfaces corresponds to the mountpoint
           }
       }
       ...
       list termination-point {
           key "tp-id";
           ...
           leaf ifref {
               type mountedIfRef;
           }
           ...
           list network-element {
               key "element-id";
               leaf element-id {
                   type element-ID;
               }
               container element-address {
                   ... // choice definition that allows to specify
                   // host name,
                   // IP addresses, URIs, etc
               }
               mnt:mountpoint "interfaces" {
                   mnt:target "./element-address";
                   mnt:subtree "/if:interfaces";
               }
           ...
       }
   ...
   <CODE ENDS>

   Finally, the following contains an XML snippet of instantiated YANG
   information.  We assume three datastores: NE1 and NE2 each have a



Clemm, et al.            Expires October 1, 2017               [Page 32]


Internet-Draft                 YANG-Mount                     March 2017


   datastore (the mount targets) that contains interface configuration
   data, which is mounted into NC's datastore (the mount client).

   Interface information from NE1 datastore:

   <interfaces>
     <interface>
       <name>fastethernet-1/0</name>
       <name>ethernetCsmacd</type>
       <location>1/0</location>
     </interface>
     <interface>
       <name>fastethernet-1/1</name>
       <name>ethernetCsmacd</type>
       <location>1/1</location>
     </interface>
   <interfaces>

   Interface information from NE2 datastore:
   <interfaces>
     <interface>
       <name>fastethernet-1/0</name>
       <name>ethernetCsmacd</type>
       <location>1/0</location>
     </interface>
     <interface>
       <name>fastethernet-1/2</name>
       <name>ethernetCsmacd</type>
       <location>1/2</location>
     </interface>
   <interfaces>

   NC datastore with mounted interface information from NE1 and NE2:


















Clemm, et al.            Expires October 1, 2017               [Page 33]


Internet-Draft                 YANG-Mount                     March 2017


   <controller-network>
     ...
     <network-elements>
       <network-element>
         <element-id>NE1</element-id>
         <element-address> .... </element-address>
         <interfaces>
           <if:interface>
             <if:name>fastethernet-1/0</if:name>
             <if:type>ethernetCsmacd</if:type>
             <if:location>1/0</if:location>
           </if:interface>
           <if:interface>
             <if:name>fastethernet-1/1</if:name>
             <if:type>ethernetCsmacd</if:type>
             <if:location>1/1</if:location>
           </if:interface>
         <interfaces>
       </network-element>
       <network-element>
         <element-id>NE2</element-id>
         <element-address> .... </element-address>
         <interfaces>
           <if:interface>
             <if:name>fastethernet-1/0</if:name>
             <if:type>ethernetCsmacd</if:type>
             <if:location>1/0</if:location>
           </if:interface>
           <if:interface>
             <if:name>fastethernet-1/2</if:name>
             <if:type>ethernetCsmacd</if:type>
             <if:location>1/2</if:location>
           </if:interface>
         <interfaces>
       </network-element>
     </network-elements>
     ...
   </controller-network>

Authors' Addresses

   Alexander Clemm
   Huawei

   EMail: ludwig@clemm.org






Clemm, et al.            Expires October 1, 2017               [Page 34]


Internet-Draft                 YANG-Mount                     March 2017


   Eric Voit
   Cisco Systems

   EMail: evoit@cisco.com


   Jan Medved
   Cisco Systems

   EMail: jmedved@cisco.com









































Clemm, et al.            Expires October 1, 2017               [Page 35]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.122, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/