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

Versions: (draft-ietf-netconf-reverse-ssh) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 RFC 8071

NETCONF Working Group                                          K. Watsen
Internet-Draft                                          Juniper Networks
Intended status: Standards Track                       November 24, 2015
Expires: May 27, 2016


                NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home
                    draft-ietf-netconf-call-home-13

Abstract

   This RFC presents NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home, which
   enable a NETCONF or RESTCONF server to initiate a secure connection
   to a NETCONF or RESTCONF client respectively.

Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)

   This draft contains many placeholder values that need to be replaced
   with finalized values at the time of publication.  This note
   summarizes all of the substitutions that are needed.  Please note
   that no other RFC Editor instructions are specified anywhere else in
   this document.

   Artwork in this document contains placeholder references for this
   draft.  Please apply the following replacement:

   o  "XXXX" --> the assigned RFC value for this draft

   This document contains references to another draft in progress, both
   in the Normative References section, as well as in body text
   throughout.  Please update the following reference to reflect its
   final RFC assignment:

   o  draft-ietf-netconf-restconf

   Artwork in this document contains placeholder values for ports
   pending IANA assignment from "draft-ietf-netconf-call-home".  Please
   apply the following replacements:

   o  "PORT-X" --> the assigned port value for "netconf-ch-ssh"

   o  "PORT-Y" --> the assigned port value for "netconf-ch-tls"

   o  "PORT-Z" --> the assigned port value for "restconf-ch-tls"

   The following two Appendix sections are to be removed prior to
   publication:




Watsen                    Expires May 27, 2016                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft  NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home   November 2015


   o  Appendix A.  Change Log

   o  Appendix B.  Open Issues

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 May 27, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Motivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.2.  Requirements Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     1.3.  Applicability Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     1.4.  Relation to RFC 4253  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     1.5.  The NETCONF/RESTCONF Convention . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   2.  Solution Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   3.  The NETCONF or RESTCONF Client  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  Protocol Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Configuration Data Model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8



Watsen                    Expires May 27, 2016                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft  NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home   November 2015


   4.  The NETCONF or RESTCONF Server  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.1.  Protocol Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.2.  Configuration Data Model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Appendix A.  Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     A.1.  00 to 01  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     A.2.  01 to 02  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     A.3.  02 to 03  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     A.4.  03 to 04  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     A.5.  04 to 05  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     A.6.  05 to 06  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     A.7.  06 to 07  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     A.8.  07 to 08  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     A.9.  08 to 09  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     A.10. 09 to 10  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     A.11. 10 to 11  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     A.12. 11 to 12  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     A.13. 12 to 13  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   Appendix B.  Open Issues  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17

1.  Introduction

   This RFC presents NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home, which
   enable a NETCONF or RESTCONF server to initiate a secure connection
   to a NETCONF or RESTCONF client respectively.

   NETCONF Call Home supports both of the secure transports used by the
   NETCONF protocol [RFC6241], SSH and TLS.  The NETCONF protocol's
   binding to SSH is defined in [RFC6242].  The NETCONF protocol's
   binding to TLS is defined in [RFC7589].

   RESTCONF Call Home only supports TLS, the same as the RESTCONF
   protocol [draft-ietf-netconf-restconf].  The RESTCONF protocol's
   binding to TLS is defined in [draft-ietf-netconf-restconf].

   The SSH protocol is defined in [RFC4253].  The TLS protocol is
   defined in [RFC5246].  Both the SSH and TLS protocols are layered on
   top of the TCP protocol, which is defined in [RFC793].

   Both NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home preserve all but one of
   the client/server roles in their respective protocol stacks, as
   compared to client-initiated NETCONF and RESTCONF connections.  The



Watsen                    Expires May 27, 2016                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft  NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home   November 2015


   one and only role reversal that occurs is at the TCP layer; that is,
   which peer is the TCP-client and which is the TCP-server.

   For example, a network element is traditionally the TCP-server.
   However, when calling home, the network element becomes the TCP-
   client.  The network element's secure transport layer roles (SSH-
   server, TLS-server) and its application layer roles (NETCONF-server,
   RESTCONF-server) both remain the same.

   Having consistency in both the secure transport layer (SSH, TLS) and
   application layer (NETCONF, RESTCONF) roles conveniently enables
   deployed network management infrastructure to support call home also.
   For instance, existing certificate chains and user authentication
   mechanisms are unaffected by call home.

1.1.  Motivation

   Call home is generally useful for both the initial deployment and on-
   going management of networking elements.  Here are some scenarios
   enabled by call home:

   o  The network element may proactively call home after being powered
      on for the first time in order to register itself with its
      management system.

   o  The network element may access the network in a way that
      dynamically assigns it an IP address, but does not register its
      assigned IP address to a mapping service (e.g., dynamic DNS).

   o  The network element may be deployed behind a firewall that
      implements network address translation (NAT) for all internal
      network IP addresses.

   o  The network element may be deployed behind a firewall that doesn't
      allow any management access to the internal network.

   o  The network element may be configured in "stealth mode" and thus
      doesn't have any open ports for the management system to connect
      to.

   o  The operator may prefer to have network elements initiate
      management connections, believing it is easier to secure one open
      port in the data center than to have an open port on each network
      element in the network.







Watsen                    Expires May 27, 2016                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft  NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home   November 2015


1.2.  Requirements Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

1.3.  Applicability Statement

   The techniques described in this document are suitable for network
   management scenarios such as the ones described in Section 1.1.
   However, these techniques are only defined for NETCONF Call Home and
   RESTCONF Call Home, as described in this document.

   The reason for this restriction is that different protocols have
   different security assumptions.  The NETCONF and RESTCONF protocols
   require clients and servers to verify the identity of the other
   party.  This requirement is specified for the NETCONF protocol in
   Section 2.2 of [RFC6241], and is specified for the RESTCONF protocol
   in Sections 2.4 and 2.5 of [draft-ietf-netconf-restconf]).

   This contrasts with the base SSH and TLS protocols, which do not
   require programmatic verification of the other party (section 9.3.4
   of [RFC4251], section 4 of [RFC4252], and section 7.3 of [RFC5246]).
   In such circumstances, allowing the SSH/TLS server to contact the
   SSH/TLS client would open new vulnerabilities.  Any use of call home
   with SSH/TLS for purposes other than NETCONF or RESTCONF will need a
   thorough, contextual security analysis, similar to that performed in
   the process of publishing this document.

1.4.  Relation to RFC 4253

   This document uses the SSH Transport Layer Protocol [RFC4253] with
   the exception that the statement "The client initiates the
   connection" made in Section 4 (Connection Setup) does not apply.
   Assuming the reference to client means "SSH client" and the reference
   to connection means "TCP connection", this statement doesn't hold
   true in call home, where the network element is the SSH server and
   yet still initiates the TCP connection.  Security implications
   related to this change are discussed in Security Considerations
   (Section 5).

1.5.  The NETCONF/RESTCONF Convention

   Throughout the remainder of this document, the term "NETCONF/
   RESTCONF" is used as an abbreviation in place of the text "the
   NETCONF or the RESTCONF".  The NETCONF/RESTCONF abbreviation is not
   intended to require or to imply that a client or server must
   implement both the NETCONF standard and the RESTCONF standard.



Watsen                    Expires May 27, 2016                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft  NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home   November 2015


2.  Solution Overview

   The diagram below illustrates call home from a protocol layering
   perspective:

          NETCONF/RESTCONF                    NETCONF/RESTCONF
               Server                              Client
                 |                                    |
                 |         1. TCP                     |
                 |----------------------------------->|
                 |                                    |
                 |                                    |
                 |         2. SSH/TLS                 |
                 |<-----------------------------------|
                 |                                    |
                 |                                    |
                 |         3. NETCONF/RESTCONF        |
                 |<-----------------------------------|
                 |                                    |

                Note: arrows point from the "client" to
                  the "server" at each protocol layer

   This diagram makes the following points:

   1.  The NETCONF/RESTCONF server begins by initiating a TCP connection
       to the NETCONF/RESTCONF client.

   2.  Using this TCP connection, the NETCONF/RESTCONF client initiates
       a SSH/TLS session to the NETCONF/RESTCONF server.

   3.  Using this SSH/TLS session, the NETCONF/RESTCONF client intiates
       a NETCONF/RESTCONF session to the NETCONF/RESTCONF server.



3.  The NETCONF or RESTCONF Client

   The term "client" is defined in [RFC6241], Section 1.1 "client".  In
   the context of network management, the NETCONF/RESTCONF client might
   be a network management system.

3.1.  Protocol Operation

   C1  The NETCONF/RESTCONF client listens for TCP connection requests
       from NETCONF/RESTCONF servers.  The client MUST support accepting
       TCP connections on the IANA-assigned ports defined in Section 6,
       but MAY be configured to listen a defferent port.



Watsen                    Expires May 27, 2016                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft  NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home   November 2015


   C2  The NETCONF/RESTCONF client accepts an incoming TCP connection
       request and a TCP connection is established.

   C3  Using this TCP connection, the NETCONF/RESTCONF client starts
       either the SSH-client [RFC4253] or the TLS-client [RFC5246]
       protocol.  For example, assuming the use of the IANA-assigned
       ports, the SSH-client protocol is started when the connection is
       accepted on port PORT-X and the TLS-client protocol is started
       when the connection is accepted on either port PORT-Y or PORT-Z.

   C4  If using TLS, the NETCONF/RESTCONF client MUST advertise
       "peer_allowed_to_send", as defined by [RFC6520].  This is
       required so NETCONF/RESTCONF servers can depend on it being there
       for call home connections, when keep-alives are needed the most.

   C5  As part of establishing an SSH or TLS connection, the NETCONF/
       RESTCONF client MUST validate the server's presented host key or
       certificate.  This validation MAY be accomplished by certificate
       path validation or by comparing the host key or certificate to a
       previously trusted or "pinned" value.  If a certificate is
       presented and it contains revocation checking information, the
       NETCONF/RESTCONF client SHOULD check the revocation status of the
       certificate.  If it is determined that a certificate has been
       revoked, the client MUST immediately close the connection.

   C6  If certificate path validation is used, the NETCONF/RESTCONF
       client MUST ensure that the presented certificate has a valid
       chain of trust to a preconfigured Issuer and that the presented
       certificate encodes an "identifier" [RFC6125] that the client had
       awareness of prior to the connection attempt.  Clients SHOULD
       ensure that the Issuer used to authenticate the presented
       certificate defines the namespace for the identifiers of
       interest.  How identifiers are encoded in certificates MAY be
       determined by a policy associated with the certificate's Issuer.
       For instance, a given Issuer may be known to only sign IDevID
       certificates [Std-802.1AR-2009] having a unique identifier (e.g.,
       serial number) in the X.509 certificate's "CommonName" field.

   C7  After the server's host key or certificate is validated, the SSH
       or TLS protocol proceeds as normal to establish a SSH or TLS
       connection.  When performing client-authentcation with the
       NETCONF/RESTCONF server, the NETCONF/RESTCONF client MUST ensure
       to only use credentials that it had previously associated for the
       NETCONF/RESTCONF server's presented host key or server
       certificate.

   C8  Once the SSH or TLS connection is established, the NETCONF/
       RESTCONF client starts either the NETCONF-client [RFC6241] or



Watsen                    Expires May 27, 2016                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft  NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home   November 2015


       RESTCONF-client [draft-ietf-netconf-restconf] protocol.  Assuming
       the use of the IANA-assigned ports, the NETCONF-client protocol
       is started when the connection is accepted on either port PORT-X
       or PORT-Y and the RESTCONF-client protocol is started when the
       connection is accepted on port PORT-Z.

3.2.  Configuration Data Model

   How a NETCONF or RESTCONF client is configured is outside the scope
   of this document.  For instance, such configuration might be used to
   enable listening for call home connections, configuring trust
   anchors, or configuring identifiers for expected connections.



4.  The NETCONF or RESTCONF Server

   The term "server" is defined in [RFC6241], Section 1.1 "server".  In
   the context of network management, the NETCONF/RESTCONF server might
   be a network element or a device.

4.1.  Protocol Operation

   S1  The NETCONF/RESTCONF server initiates a TCP connection request to
       the NETCONF/RESTCONF client.  The server MUST support connecting
       to one of the IANA-assigned ports defined in Section 6, but MAY
       be configured to connect to a different port.  Using the IANA-
       assigned ports, the server connects to port PORT-X for NETCONF
       over SSH, port PORT-Y for NETCONF over TLS, and port PORT-Z for
       RESTCONF over TLS.

   S2  The TCP connection request is accepted and a TCP connection is
       established.

   S3  Using this TCP connection, the NETCONF/RESTCONF server starts
       either the SSH-server [RFC4253] or the TLS-server [RFC5246]
       protocol, depending on how it is configured.  For example,
       assuming the use of the IANA-assigned ports, the SSH-server
       protocol is used after connecting to the remote port PORT-X and
       the TLS-server protocol is used after connecting to one of the
       remote ports PORT-Y or PORT-Z.

   S4  As part of establishing the SSH or TLS connection, the NETCONF/
       RESTCONF server will send its host key or certificate to the
       client.  If a certificate is sent, the server MUST also send all
       intermediate certificates leading up to the certificate's trust
       anchor.  How to send a list of certificates is defined for SSH in
       [RFC6187] Section 2.1, and for TLS in [RFC5246] Section 7.4.2.



Watsen                    Expires May 27, 2016                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft  NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home   November 2015


   S5  Establishing an SSH or TLS session requires server authentication
       of client credentials in all cases except with RESTCONF, where
       some client authentication schemes occur after the secure
       transport connection (TLS) has been established.  If transport
       (SSH or TLS) level client authentication is required, and the
       client is unable to successfully authenticate itself to the
       server in an amount of time defined by local policy, the server
       MUST close the connection.

   S6  Once the SSH or TLS connection is established, the NETCONF/
       RESTCONF server starts either the NETCONF-server [RFC6241] or
       RESTCONF-server [draft-ietf-netconf-restconf] protocol, depending
       on how it is configured.  Assuming the use of the IANA-assigned
       ports, the NETCONF-server protocol is used after connecting to
       remote port PORT-X or PORT-Y, and the RESTCONF-server protocol is
       used after connecting to remote port PORT-Z.

   S7  If a persistent connection is desired, the NETCONF/RESTCONF
       server, as the connection initiator, SHOULD actively test the
       aliveness of the connection using a keep-alive mechanism.  For
       TLS based connections, the NETCONF/RESTCONF server SHOULD send
       HeartbeatRequest messages, as defined by [RFC6520].  For SSH
       based connections, per section 4 of [RFC4254], the NETCONF/
       RESTCONF server SHOULD send a SSH_MSG_GLOBAL_REQUEST message with
       the purposely nonexistent "request name" value
       "keepalive@ietf.org" and the "want reply" value set to '1'.

4.2.  Configuration Data Model

   How a NETCONF or RESTCONF server is configured is outside the scope
   of this document.  This includes configuration that might be used to
   specify hostnames, IP addresses, ports, algorithms, or other relevant
   parameters.  That said, a YANG [RFC6020] model for configuring
   NETCONF and RESTCONF servers, including call home, is provided in
   [draft-ietf-netconf-server-model].

5.  Security Considerations

   The security considerations described in [RFC6242] and [RFC7589], and
   by extension [RFC4253], [RFC5246], and [draft-ietf-netconf-restconf]
   apply here as well.

   This RFC deviates from standard SSH and TLS usage by having the SSH/
   TLS server initiate the underlying TCP connection.  This reversal is
   incongruous with [RFC4253], which says "the client initiates the
   connection" and also [RFC6125], which says "the client MUST construct
   a list of acceptable reference identifiers, and MUST do so
   independently of the identifiers presented by the service."  To



Watsen                    Expires May 27, 2016                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft  NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home   November 2015


   account for these variances, this RFC requires that the NETCONF/
   RESTCONF client validate the SSH host key or certificate via
   certificate path validation to a preconfigured Issuer certificate or
   by comparing the host key or certificate to a previously trusted or
   "pinned" value.  Furthermore, if certificate path validation is used,
   this RFC requires that the client be able to match a presented
   identifier encoded in the certificate with an identifier the client
   was preconfigured to expect.

   Internet facing hosts running NETCONF or RESTCONF call home will be
   fingerprinted via scanning tools such as `zmap` [zmap].  Both SSH and
   TLS provide many ways in which a device can be fingerprinted.  SSH
   and TLS servers are fairly mature and able to withstand an attack,
   but SSH and TLS clients may not be as robust.  Implementers and
   deployments need to ensure that software update mechanisms are
   provided so that vulnerabilities can be fixed in a timely fashion.

   An attacker could launch a denial of service (DoS) attack on the
   NETCONF/RESTCONF client by having it perform computationally
   expensive operations, before deducing that the attacker doesn't
   posses a valid key.  For instance, in TLS 1.3 [draft-ietf-tls-tls13],
   the ClientHello message contains a Key Share value based on an
   asymmetric key operation.  This is similar to any other secured
   service and all common precautions apply (e.g., temporarily
   blacklisting the source address after a set number of unsuccessful
   login attempts).

   For cases when the NETCONF/RESTCONF server presents an X.509
   certificate, the NETCONF/RESTCONF client needs to ensure that the
   Issuer cartificate used for certificate path validation is unique to
   the manufacturer of the server.  This is especially important when
   the client-authentication mechanism passes a shared secret (e.g., a
   password) to the server.  Not doing so could otherwise lead to a case
   where the client sends the shared secret to another device that
   happens to have the same identity value (e.g., serial number) as the
   server the client was configured to expect.

   When using call home with the RESTCONF protocol, special care is
   required when using some HTTP authentication mechanisms, especially
   the Basic [RFC7617] and Digest [RFC7616] authentication schemes,
   which convey a shared key.  Implementations and deployments should be
   sure to review the Security Considerations section for any client
   authentication scheme used.








Watsen                    Expires May 27, 2016                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft  NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home   November 2015


6.  IANA Considerations

   This RFC requests that IANA assigns three TCP port numbers in the
   "Registered Port Numbers" range with the service names "netconf-ch-
   ssh", "netconf-ch-tls", and "restconf-ch-tls".  These ports will be
   the default ports for NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home
   protocols.  Below is the registration template following the rules in
   [RFC6335].

   Service Name:           netconf-ch-ssh
   Transport Protocol(s):  TCP
   Assignee:               IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
   Contact:                IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
   Description:            NETCONF Call Home (SSH)
   Reference:              RFC XXXX
   Port Number:            PORT-X

   Service Name:           netconf-ch-tls
   Transport Protocol(s):  TCP
   Assignee:               IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
   Contact:                IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
   Description:            NETCONF Call Home (TLS)
   Reference:              RFC XXXX
   Port Number:            PORT-Y

   Service Name:           restconf-ch-tls
   Transport Protocol(s):  TCP
   Assignee:               IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
   Contact:                IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
   Description:            RESTCONF Call Home (TLS)
   Reference:              RFC XXXX
   Port Number:            PORT-Z

7.  Acknowledgements

   The author would like to thank the following for lively discussions
   on list and in the halls (ordered by last name): Andy Bierman, Martin
   Bjorklund, Mehmet Ersue, Wes Hardaker, Stephen Hanna, David
   Harrington, Jeffrey Hutzelman, Radek Krejci, Alan Luchuk, Mouse, Russ
   Mundy, Tom Petch, Juergen Schoenwaelder, Peter Saint-Andre, Joe
   Touch, Hannes Tschofenig, Sean Turner, and Bert Wijnen.

8.  References








Watsen                    Expires May 27, 2016                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft  NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home   November 2015


8.1.  Normative References

   [draft-ietf-netconf-restconf]
              Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
              Protocol", draft-ieft-netconf-restconf-04 (work in
              progress), 2014, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-
              netconf-restconf>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC4251]  Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, Ed., "The Secure Shell (SSH)
              Protocol Architecture", RFC 4251, DOI 10.17487/RFC4251,
              January 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4251>.

   [RFC4252]  Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, Ed., "The Secure Shell (SSH)
              Authentication Protocol", RFC 4252, DOI 10.17487/RFC4252,
              January 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4252>.

   [RFC4253]  Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, Ed., "The Secure Shell (SSH)
              Transport Layer Protocol", RFC 4253, DOI 10.17487/RFC4253,
              January 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4253>.

   [RFC4254]  Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, Ed., "The Secure Shell (SSH)
              Connection Protocol", RFC 4254, DOI 10.17487/RFC4254,
              January 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4254>.

   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.

   [RFC6125]  Saint-Andre, P. and J. Hodges, "Representation and
              Verification of Domain-Based Application Service Identity
              within Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509
              (PKIX) Certificates in the Context of Transport Layer
              Security (TLS)", RFC 6125, DOI 10.17487/RFC6125, March
              2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6125>.

   [RFC6187]  Igoe, K. and D. Stebila, "X.509v3 Certificates for Secure
              Shell Authentication", RFC 6187, DOI 10.17487/RFC6187,
              March 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6187>.







Watsen                    Expires May 27, 2016                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft  NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home   November 2015


   [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>.

   [RFC6242]  Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure
              Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC6242, June 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6242>.

   [RFC6335]  Cotton, M., Eggert, L., Touch, J., Westerlund, M., and S.
              Cheshire, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
              Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and
              Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", BCP 165,
              RFC 6335, DOI 10.17487/RFC6335, August 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6335>.

   [RFC6520]  Seggelmann, R., Tuexen, M., and M. Williams, "Transport
              Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
              (DTLS) Heartbeat Extension", RFC 6520,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6520, February 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6520>.

   [RFC7589]  Badra, M., Luchuk, A., and J. Schoenwaelder, "Using the
              NETCONF Protocol over Transport Layer Security (TLS) with
              Mutual X.509 Authentication", RFC 7589,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7589, June 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7589>.

   [RFC793]   Postel, J., "TRANSMISSION CONTROL PROTOCOL", STD 7,
              September 1981, <https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc793.txt>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [draft-ietf-netconf-server-model]
              Watsen, K. and J. Schoenwaelder, "NETCONF Server
              Configuration Model", 2014, <http://tools.ietf.org/html/
              draft-ietf-netconf-server-model>.

   [draft-ietf-tls-tls13]
              Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
              Version 1.3", 2015,
              <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-tls13>.

   [RFC6020]  Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
              the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.




Watsen                    Expires May 27, 2016                 [Page 13]


Internet-Draft  NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home   November 2015


   [RFC7616]  Shekh-Yusef, R., Ed., Ahrens, D., and S. Bremer, "HTTP
              Digest Access Authentication", RFC 7616,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7616, September 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7616>.

   [RFC7617]  Reschke, J., "The 'Basic' HTTP Authentication Scheme",
              RFC 7617, DOI 10.17487/RFC7617, September 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7617>.

   [Std-802.1AR-2009]
              IEEE SA-Standards Board, "IEEE Standard for Local and
              metropolitan area networks - Secure Device Identity",
              December 2009, <http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/
              standard/802.1AR-2009.html>.

   [zmap]     Durumeric, Z., Wustrow, E., and J. Halderman, "ZMap: Fast
              Internet-Wide Scanning and its Security Applications",
              2013, <https://zmap.io/paper.html>.

              In proceedings of the 22nd USENIX Security Symposium































Watsen                    Expires May 27, 2016                 [Page 14]


Internet-Draft  NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home   November 2015


Appendix A.  Change Log

A.1.  00 to 01

   o  The term "TCP connection" is now used throughout.

   o  The terms "network element" and "management system" are now only
      used in the Motivation section.

   o  Restructured doc a little to create an Introduction section.

   o  Fixed reference in Applicability Statement so it would work
      equally well for SSH and TLS.

   o  Fixed reported odd wording and three references.

A.2.  01 to 02

   o  Added call home support for the RESTCONF protocol.

   o  Fixed paragraph 3 of Security Considerations to equally apply to
      the TLS protocol.

A.3.  02 to 03

   o  Tried to improve readability (issue #6)

   o  Removed "FIXME" in section 1.3 (issue #7)

   o  Added RFC Editor notes (issue #8)

   o  Removed "TCP session" term (issue #9)

   o  Improved language for usage of IANA-assigned ports (issue #10)

A.4.  03 to 04

   o  Replaced "verify credentials" with "verify identity" (issue #11)

A.5.  04 to 05

   o  Applied many suggestions from WGLC

   o  Removed essay like "Server Identification and Verification"
      section

   o  Added text about keep-alives




Watsen                    Expires May 27, 2016                 [Page 15]


Internet-Draft  NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home   November 2015


   o  Added Configuration Data Model section for client protocol

   o  Improved Security Considerations section

A.6.  05 to 06

   o  Addressed comments raised by Alan Luchuk.

A.7.  06 to 07

   o  replaced "reference identifier" with "identifier"

   o  added reference to RFC6125

   o  moved reference to 6020 to Informative section

A.8.  07 to 08

   o  Added text regarding client authentication

   o  Now says client-initiated (not standard) NETCONF/RESTCONF
      connections

   o  Now says server must send all (not any) intermediate certificates

   o  Improved wording based on suggestions from Jonathan and Tom

A.9.  08 to 09

   o  Added dynamic DNS as an example for an IP mapping service

   o  Replaced draft-ietf-netconf-rfc5539bis with RFC7589

   o  Recharacterized this draft's relationship to RFC4253

A.10.  09 to 10

   o  Updates from AD review

A.11.  10 to 11

   o  Fixed typo introduced in -10

A.12.  11 to 12

   o  Addresses DISCUSS and COMMENTS from IESG review.





Watsen                    Expires May 27, 2016                 [Page 16]


Internet-Draft  NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home   November 2015


A.13.  12 to 13

   o  Fixed a couple typos and removed the VeriSign example

Appendix B.  Open Issues

   All issues with this draft are tracked using GitHub issues.  Please
   see: https://github.com/netconf-wg/call-home/issues to see currently
   opened issues.

Author's Address

   Kent Watsen
   Juniper Networks

   EMail: kwatsen@juniper.net



































Watsen                    Expires May 27, 2016                 [Page 17]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/