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

Versions: (draft-voit-netconf-restconf-notif) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15

NETCONF                                                          E. Voit
Internet-Draft                                                  A. Clemm
Intended status: Standards Track                      A. Gonzalez Prieto
Expires: April 2, 2017                                       A. Tripathy
                                                       E. Nilsen-Nygaard
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                              A. Bierman
                                                               YumaWorks
                                                      September 29, 2016


          Restconf and HTTP Transport for Event Notifications
                  draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif-01

Abstract

   This document defines Restconf, HTTP2, and HTTP1.1 bindings for the
   transport Subscription requests and corresponding push updates.
   Being subscribed may be both Event Notifications and YANG Datastores.

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 April 2, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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



Voit, et al.              Expires April 2, 2017                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft               Restconf-Notif               September 2016


   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Solution  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Mechanisms for Subscription Establishment and Maintenance   4
     3.2.  Dynamic YANG Subscription with RESTCONF control . . . . .   5
     3.3.  Subscription Multiplexing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.4.  Encoded Subscription and Event Notification Examples  . .   9
     3.5.  Stream Discovery  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   5.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Appendix A.  Proxy YANG Subscription when the Subscriber and
                Receiver are different . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   Appendix B.  End-to-End Deployment Guidance . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     B.1.  Call Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     B.2.  TLS Heartbeat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   Appendix C.  Issues being worked and resolved . . . . . . . . . .  18
     C.1.  Unresolved Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     C.2.  Agreement in principal  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     C.3.  Resolved Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   Appendix D.  Changes between revisions  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19

1.  Introduction

   Mechanisms to support Event subscription and push are defined in
   [rfc5277bis].  Enhancements to [rfc5277bis] which enable YANG
   Datastore subscription and push are defined in [yang-push].  This
   document provides a transport specification for these protocols over
   Restconf and HTTP.  Driving these requirements is [RFC7923].

   The streaming of Subscription Event Notifications has synergies with
   HTTP2 streams.  Benefits which can be realized when transporting
   events directly HTTP2 [RFC7540] include:

   o  Elimination of head-of-line blocking

   o  Weighting and proportional dequeuing of Events from different
      subscriptions




Voit, et al.              Expires April 2, 2017                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft               Restconf-Notif               September 2016


   o  Explicit precedence in subscriptions so that events from one
      subscription must be sent before another dequeues

2.  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].

   Configured Subscription: a Subscription installed via a configuration
   interface which persists across reboots.

   Dynamic Subscription: a Subscription negotiated between Subscriber
   and Publisher via create, establish, modify, and delete RPC signaling
   messages.

   Event: an occurrence of something that may be of interest. (e.g., a
   configuration change, a fault, a change in status, crossing a
   threshold, status of a flow, or an external input to the system.)

   Event Notification: a set of information intended for a Receiver
   indicating that one or more Event(s) have occurred.  Details of the
   Event(s) may be included within.

   Event Stream: a continuous, ordered set of Events grouped under an
   explicit criteria.

   Notification: the communication of an occurrence, perhaps triggered
   by the occurrence of an Event.

   Publisher: an entity responsible for streaming Event Notifications
   per the terms of a Subscription.

   Receiver: a target to which a Publisher pushes Event Notifications.
   For Dynamic Subscriptions, the Receiver and Subscriber will often be
   the same entity.

   Subscriber: an entity able to request and negotiate a contract for
   the receipt of Event Notifications from a Publisher

   Subscription: a contract between a Subscriber and a Publisher
   stipulating which information the Receiver wishes to have pushed from
   the Publisher without the need for further solicitation.








Voit, et al.              Expires April 2, 2017                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft               Restconf-Notif               September 2016


3.  Solution

   Event subscription is defined in [rfc5277bis], YANG Datastore
   subscription is defined in [yang-push].  This section specifies
   transport mechanisms applicable to both.

3.1.  Mechanisms for Subscription Establishment and Maintenance

   There are three models for Subscription establishment and
   maintenance:

   1.  Dynamic Subscription: Here the Subscriber and Receiver are the
       same.  A Subscription ends with a subscription-terminated
       notification, or by a loss of transport connectivity.

   2.  Configured Subscription: Receiver(s) are specified on Publisher
       in startup and running config.  Subscription is not terminated
       except via an operations interface.  (Subscriptions may be
       Suspended, with no Event Notifications sent however.)

   3.  Proxy Subscription: Subscriber and Receiver are different.
       Subscription ends when a Subscription End-time is reached, or the
       Publisher process is restarted.  A key difference between this
       and configured subscriptions (#2) is that configuration requests
       are made to RPCs which might evaluate run-time conditions much
       like in (#1).  Typically direct configuration via (#2) will not
       go through the same sort of capacity and validation checks seen
       in (#1).

   The first two models are described in this section.  The third is
   described in Appendix A.  This third model will be moved into the
   body of this specification should the IETF community desire.  In
   theory, all three models may be intermixed in a single deployment.


















Voit, et al.              Expires April 2, 2017                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft               Restconf-Notif               September 2016


                          .---------------.
                          |   Publisher   |
                          '---------------'
                            ^   ^   |   ^
                            |   |   |   |
          .-----Restconf----'   |   |   '-----Restconf----.
          |               .-----'   '-HTTP-.              |
          V               |                V              |
   .-------------.  .------------.  .----------.  .------------.
   | Subscriber+ |  | Operations |  | Receiver |  | Subscriber |
   | Receiver    |  |  /Config   |  '----------'  '------------'
   '-------------'  '------------'    ^     ^               ^
          ^         (out of scope)    :     :               :
          :             ^             :     :...Model #3....:
       Model #1         :..Model #2...:      (out of scope)

                       Figure 1: Subscription Models

3.2.  Dynamic YANG Subscription with RESTCONF control

   Dynamic Subscriptions for both [rfc5277bis] and its [yang-push]
   augmentations are configured and managed via signaling messages
   transported over [restconf].  These interactions will be accomplished
   via a Restconf POST into RPCs located on the Publisher.  HTTP
   responses codes will indicate the results of the interaction with the
   Publisher.  An HTTP status code of 200 is the proper response to a
   successful <establish-subscription> RPC call.  The successful
   <establish-subscription> will result in a HTTP message with returned
   subscription URI on a logically separate mechanism than was used for
   the original Restconf POST.  This mechanism would be via a parallel
   TCP connection in the case of HTTP 1.x, or in the case of HTTP2 via a
   separate HTTP stream within the HTTP connection.  When a being
   returned by the Publisher, failure will be indicated by error codes
   transported in payload, as well as the return of negotiation
   parameters.

   Once established, streaming Event Notifications are then delivered
   via SSE for HTTP1.1 and via HTTP Data for HTTP2.

3.2.1.  Call Flow for HTTP2

   Requests to [yang-push] augmented RPCs are sent on one or more HTTP2
   streams indicated by (a) in Figure 2.  Event Notifications related to
   a single subscription are pushed on a unique logical channel (b).  In
   the case below, a newly established subscription has its events
   pushed over HTTP2 stream (7).





Voit, et al.              Expires April 2, 2017                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft               Restconf-Notif               September 2016


   +------------+                                 +------------+
   | Subscriber |                                 | Publisher  |
   |HTTP2 Stream|                                 |HTTP2 Stream|
   |  (a)  (b)  |                                 |  (a)  (b)  |
   +------------+                                 +------------+
       | Restconf POST (RPC:establish-subscription)   |
       |--------------------------------------------->|
       |                             HTTP 200 OK (URI)|
       |<---------------------------------------------|
       |   (7)HTTP POST (URI)                             (7)
       |    |--------------------------------------------->|
       |    |                                   HTTP 200 OK|
       |    |<---------------------------------------------|
       |    |                       HTTP Data (event-notif)|
       |    |<---------------------------------------------|
       | Restconf POST (RPC:modify-subscription)      |    |
       |--------------------------------------------->|    |
       |    |                              HTTP 200 OK|    |
       |<---------------------------------------------|    |
       |    |             HTTP Data (subscription-modified)|
       |    |<---------------------------------------------|
       |    |                       HTTP Data (event-notif)|
       |    |<---------------------------------------------|
       | Restconf POST (RPC:delete-subscription)      |    |
       |--------------------------------------------->|    |
       |    |                              HTTP 200 OK|    |
       |<---------------------------------------------|    |
       |    |                  HTTP Headers (end of stream)|
       |   (/7)<-----------------------------------------(/7)
       |

                       Figure 2: Dynamic with HTTP2

3.2.2.  Call flow for HTTP1.1

   Requests to [yang-push] RPCs are sent on the TCP connection indicated
   by (a).  Event Notifications are pushed on a separate connection (b).
   This connection (b) will be used for all Event Notifications across
   all subscriptions.












Voit, et al.              Expires April 2, 2017                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft               Restconf-Notif               September 2016


   +--------------+                             +--------------+
   |  Subscriber  |                             |   Publisher  |
   |TCP connection|                             |TCP connection|
   |  (a)  (b)    |                             |    (a)  (b)  |
   +--------------+                             +--------------+
       | Restconf POST (RPC:establish-subscription)   |
       |--------------------------------------------->|
       |                             HTTP 200 OK (URI)|
       |<---------------------------------------------|
       |    |HTTP GET (URI)                                |
       |    |--------------------------------------------->|
       |    |                                   HTTP 200 OK|
       |    |<---------------------------------------------|
       |    |                             SSE (event-notif)|
       |    |<---------------------------------------------|
       | Restconf POST (RPC:modify-subscription)      |    |
       |--------------------------------------------->|    |
       |    |                              HTTP 200 OK|    |
       |<---------------------------------------------|    |
       |    |                   SSE (subscription-modified)|
       |    |<---------------------------------------------|
       |    |                             SSE (event-notif)|
       |    |<---------------------------------------------|
       | Restconf POST (RPC:delete-subscription)      |    |
       |--------------------------------------------->|    |
       |    |                              HTTP 200 OK|    |
       |<---------------------------------------------|    |
       |    |                                              |
       |    |

                      Figure 3: Dynamic with HTTP1.1

3.2.3.  Configured Subscription over HTTP2

   With a Configured Subscription, all information needed to establish a
   secure relationship with that Receiver is available on the Publisher.
   With this information, the Publisher will establish a secure
   transport connection with the Receiver and then begin pushing the
   Event Notifications to the Receiver.  Since Restconf might not exist
   on the Receiver, it is not desirable to require that such Event
   Notifications be pushed with any dependency on Restconf.  Nor is
   there value which Restconf provides on top of HTTP.  Therefore in
   place of Restconf, a TLS secured HTTP2 Client connection must be
   established with an HTTP2 Server located on the Receiver.  Event
   Notifications will then be sent as part of an extended HTTP POST to
   the Receiver.





Voit, et al.              Expires April 2, 2017                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft               Restconf-Notif               September 2016


   POST messages will be addressed to HTTP augmentation code on the
   Receiver capable of accepting and responding to Event Notifications.
   The first POST message must be a subscription-started notification.
   Push update notifications must not be sent until the receipt of an
   HTTP 200 OK for this initial notification.  The 200 OK will indicate
   that the Receiver is ready for Event Notifications.  At this point a
   Subscription must be allocated its own HTTP2 stream.  Figure 4
   depicts this message flow.

   +------------+                                 +------------+
   |  Receiver  |                                 | Publisher  |
   |HTTP2 Stream|                                 |HTTP2 Stream|
   |  (a)  (b)  |                                 |  (a)  (b)  |
   +------------+                                 +------------+
       |    HTTP Post Headers, Data (sub-start, SubID)|
       |<---------------------------------------------|
       | HTTP 200 OK                                  |
       |--------------------------------------------->|
       |    |         HTTP Post Headers, Data (event-notif)|
       |    |<---------------------------------------------|
       |    |                       HTTP Data (event-notif)|
       |    |<---------------------------------------------|
       |    |                     HTTP Data (sub-terminate)|
       |    |<---------------------------------------------|
       |    |HTTP 200 OK                                   |
       |    |--------------------------------------------->|

                      Figure 4: Configured over HTTP2

   As the HTTP2 transport is available to the Receiver, the Publisher
   should:

   o  take any subscription-priority and copy it into the HTTP2 stream
      priority, and

   o  take a subscription-dependency if it has been provided and map the
      HTTP2 stream for the parent subscription into the HTTP2 stream
      dependency.

3.3.  Subscription Multiplexing

   It is possible that updates might be delivered in a different
   sequence than generated.  Reasons for this might include (but are not
   limited to):

   o  replay of pushed updates





Voit, et al.              Expires April 2, 2017                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft               Restconf-Notif               September 2016


   o  temporary loss of transport connectivity, with update buffering
      and different dequeuing priorities per Subscription

   o  population, marshalling and bundling of independent Subscription
      Updates, and

   Therefore each Event Notification will include a millisecond level
   timestamp to ensure that a Receiver understands the time when a that
   update was generated.  Use of this timestamp can give an indication
   of the state of objects at a Publisher when state-entangled
   information is received across different subscriptions.  The use of
   the latest Event Notification timestamp for a particular object
   update can introduce errors.  So when state-entangled updates have
   inconsistent object values and temporally close timestamps, a
   Receiver might consider performing a GET to validate the current
   state of a Publisher.

3.4.  Encoded Subscription and Event Notification Examples

   Transported updates will contain context data for one or more Event
   Notifications.  Each transported Event Notification will contain
   several parameters:

3.4.1.  Restconf Subscription and Events over HTTP1.1

   Subscribers can dynamically learn whether a RESTCONF server supports
   various types of Event or Yang datastore subscription capabilities.
   This is done by issuing an HTTP request OPTIONS, HEAD, or GET on the
   stream.  Some examples building upon the Call flow for HTTP1.1 from
   Section 3.2.2 are:

   GET /restconf/data/ietf-restconf-monitoring:restconf-state/
            streams/stream=yang-push HTTP/1.1
   Host: example.com
   Accept: application/yang.data+xml

   If the server supports it, it may respond














Voit, et al.              Expires April 2, 2017                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft               Restconf-Notif               September 2016


   HTTP/1.1 200 OK
   Content-Type: application/yang.api+xml
   <stream xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-restconf-monitoring">
               <name>yang-push</name>
               <description>Yang push stream</description>
               <access>
                  <encoding>xml</encoding>
                  <location>https://example.com/streams/yang-push-xml
                  </location>
               </access>
               <access>
                  <encoding>json</encoding>
                  <location>https://example.com/streams/yang-push-json
                  </location>
               </access>
            </stream>

   If the server does not support any form of subscription, it may
   respond

   HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found
   Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2012 11:10:30 GMT
   Server: example-server

   Subscribers can determine the URL to receive updates by sending an
   HTTP GET as a request for the "location" leaf with the stream list
   entry.  The stream to use for may be selected from the Event Stream
   list provided in the capabilities exchange.  Note that different
   encodings are supporting using different Event Stream locations.  For
   example, the Subscriber might send the following request:

   GET /restconf/data/ietf-restconf-monitoring:restconf-state/
            streams/stream=yang-push/access=xml/location HTTP/1.1
   Host: example.com
   Accept: application/yang.data+xml

   The Publisher might send the following response:

   HTTP/1.1 200 OK
   Content-Type: application/yang.api+xml
      <location
           xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-restconf-monitoring">
           https://example.com/streams/yang-push-xml
      </location>

   To subscribe and start receiving updates, the subscriber can then
   send an HTTP GET request for the URL returned by the Publisher in the
   request above.  The accept header must be "text/event-stream".  The



Voit, et al.              Expires April 2, 2017                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft               Restconf-Notif               September 2016


   Publisher uses the Server Sent Events [W3C-20150203] transport
   strategy to push filtered Event Notifications from the Event stream.

   The Publisher MUST support individual parameters within the POST
   request body for all the parameters of a subscription.  The only
   exception is the encoding, which is embedded in the URI.  An example
   of this is:

   // subtree filter = /foo
   // periodic updates, every 5 seconds
   POST /restconf/operations/ietf-event-notifications:
        establish-subscription HTTP/1.1
         Host: example.com
         Content-Type: application/yang-data+json

         {
           "ietf-event-notifications:input" : {
             ?stream?: ?push-data"
             ?period" : 5,
             "xpath-filter" : ?/ex:foo[starts-with(?bar?.?some']"
           }
         }

   Should the publisher not support the requested subscription, it may
   reply:


























Voit, et al.              Expires April 2, 2017                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft               Restconf-Notif               September 2016


   HTTP/1.1 501 Not Implemented
   Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:11:00 GMT
   Server: example-server
   Content-Type: application/yang.errors+xml
       <errors xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-restconf">
          <error>
              <error-type>application</error-type>
              <error-tag>operation-not-supported</error-tag>
              <error-severity>error</error-severity>
              <error-message>Xpath filters not supported</error-message>
              <error-info>
                  <supported-subscription xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:
                      netconf:datastore-push:1.0">
                      <subtree-filter/>
                  </supported-subscription>
              </error-info>
          </error>
        </errors>

   with an equivalent JSON encoding representation of:

   HTTP/1.1 501 Not Implemented
   Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:11:00 GMT
   Server: example-server
   Content-Type: application/yang.errors+json
         {
           "ietf-restconf:errors": {
             "error": {
               "error-type": "protocol",
               "error-tag": "operation-not-supported",
               "error-message": "Xpath filters not supported."
               "error-info": {
                  "datastore-push:supported-subscription": {
                        "subtree-filter": [null]
                    }
               }
             }
           }
         }

   The following is an example of a pushed Event Notification data for
   the Subscription above.  It contains a subtree with root foo that
   contains a leaf called bar:








Voit, et al.              Expires April 2, 2017                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft               Restconf-Notif               September 2016


   XML encoding representation:
     <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
     <notification xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-restconf">
        <subscription-id xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:restconf:
            datastore-push:1.0">
              my-sub
        </subscription-id>
        <eventTime>2015-03-09T19:14:56.23Z</eventTime>
        <datastore-contents xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:restconf:
           datastore-push:1.0">
           <foo xmlns="http://example.com/yang-push/1.0">
             <bar>some_string</bar>
           </foo>
        </datastore-contents>
     </notification>

   Or with the equivalent YANG over JSON encoding representation as
   defined in [RFC7951]:

   {
     "ietf-restconf:notification": {
       "datastore-push:subscription-id": "my-sub",
       "eventTime": "2015-03-09T19:14:56.23Z",
       "datastore-push:datastore-contents": {
         "example-mod:foo": { "bar": "some_string" }
       }
     }
   }

   To modify a Subscription, the subscriber issues another POST request
   on the provided URI using the same subscription-id as in the original
   request.  For example, to modify the update period to 10 seconds, the
   subscriber may send:

   POST /restconf/operations/ietf-event-notifications:
         modify-subscription HTTP/1.1
         Host: example.com
         Content-Type: application/yang-data+json

         {
           "ietf-event-notifications:input" : {
             ?subscription-id?: 100,
             ?period" : 10
           }
         }






Voit, et al.              Expires April 2, 2017                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft               Restconf-Notif               September 2016


   To delete a Subscription, the Subscriber issues a DELETE request on
   the provided URI using the same subscription-id as in the original
   request

3.4.2.  Event Notification over HTTP2

   The basic encoding will look as below.  It will consists of a JSON
   representation wrapped in an HTTP2 header.

   HyperText Transfer Protocol 2
         Stream: HEADERS, Stream ID: 5
         Header: :method: POST
         Stream: HEADERS, Stream ID: 5

   {
     "ietf-yangpush:notification": {
       "datastore-push:subscription-id": "my-sub",
       "eventTime": "2015-03-09T19:14:56.23Z",
       "datastore-push:datastore-contents": {
         "foo": { "bar": "some_string" }
       }
     }
   }

3.5.  Stream Discovery

   Relevant for Dynamic Subscriptions, this will be accomplished as
   specified in [restconf] section 6.2.  The namespace chosen will be
   the same as how stream names are acquired for NETCONF, and so that
   backwards compatibility can be maintained without replicating this
   information.

   As per [restconf] section 6.3, RESTCONF clients can determine the URL
   for the subscription resource (to receive notifications) by sending
   an HTTP GET request for the "location" leaf with the stream list
   entry.

4.  Security Considerations

   Subscriptions could be used to intentionally or accidentally overload
   the resources of a Publisher.  For this reason, it is important that
   the Publisher has the ability to prioritize the establishment and
   push of Event Notifications where there might be resource exhaust
   potential.  In addition, a server needs to be able to suspend
   existing Subscriptions when needed.  When this occurs, the
   subscription status must be updated accordingly and the Receivers
   notified.




Voit, et al.              Expires April 2, 2017                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft               Restconf-Notif               September 2016


   A Subscription could be used to attempt retrieve information for
   which a Receiver has no authorized access.  Therefore it is important
   that data pushed via a Subscription is authorized equivalently with
   regular data retrieval operations.  Data being pushed to a Receiver
   needs therefore to be filtered accordingly, just like if the data
   were being retrieved on-demand.  The Netconf Authorization Control
   Model [RFC6536] applies even though the transport is not NETCONF.

   One or more Publishers of Configured Subscriptions could be used to
   overwhelm a Receiver which doesn't even support Subscriptions.  There
   are two protections here.  First Event Notifications for Configured
   Subscriptions MUST only be transmittable over Encrypted transports.
   Clients which do not want pushed Event Notifications need only
   terminate or refuse any transport sessions from the Publisher.
   Second, the HTTP transport augmentation on the Receiver must send an
   HTTP 200 OK to a subscription started notification before the
   Publisher starts streaming any events.

   One or more Publishers could overwhelm a Receiver which is unable to
   control or handle the volume of Event Notifications received.  In
   deployments where this might be a concern, HTTP2 transport such as
   HTTP2) should be selected.

5.  Acknowledgments

   We wish to acknowledge the helpful contributions, comments, and
   suggestions that were received from: Susan Hares, Tim Jenkins, Balazs
   Lengyel, Kent Watsen, Michael Scharf, and Guangying Zheng.

6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

   [restconf]
              Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
              Protocol", March 2016, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/
              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>.

   [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>.



Voit, et al.              Expires April 2, 2017                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft               Restconf-Notif               September 2016


   [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>.

   [RFC7540]  Belshe, M., Peon, R., and M. Thomson, Ed., "Hypertext
              Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)", RFC 7540,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7540, May 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7540>.

   [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>.

   [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>.

6.2.  Informative References

   [call-home]
              Watsen, K., "NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home",
              December 2015, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-
              netconf-call-home-17>.

   [rfc5277bis]
              Gonzalez Prieto, A., Clemm, A., Voit, E., Prasad Tripathy,
              A., and E. Nilsen-Nygaard, "NETCONF Event Notifications",
              September 2016, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-
              ietf-netconf-rfc5277bis/>.

   [W3C-20150203]
              "Server-Sent Events, World Wide Web Consortium CR CR-
              eventsource-20121211", February 2015,
              <https://www.w3.org/TR/2015/REC-eventsource-20150203/>.

   [yang-push]
              Clemm, A., Voit, E., Gonzalez Prieto, A., Prasad Tripathy,
              A., and E. Nilsen-Nygaard, "Subscribing to YANG datastore
              push updates", June 2016,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-yang-
              push/>.








Voit, et al.              Expires April 2, 2017                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft               Restconf-Notif               September 2016


Appendix A.  Proxy YANG Subscription when the Subscriber and Receiver
             are different

   The properties of Dynamic and Configured Subscriptions can be
   combined to enable deployment models where the Subscriber and
   Receiver are different.  Such separation can be useful with some
   combination of:

   o  An operator does not want the subscription to be dependent on the
      maintenance of transport level keep-alives.  (Transport
      independence provides different scalability characteristics.)

   o  There is not a transport session binding, and a transient
      Subscription needs to survive in an environment where there is
      unreliable connectivity with the Receiver and/or Subscriber.

   o  An operator wants the Publisher to include highly restrictive
      capacity management and Subscription security mechanisms outside
      of domain of existing operational or programmatic interfaces.

   To build a Proxy Subscription, first the necessary information must
   be signaled as part of the <establish-subscription>.  Using this set
   of Subscriber provided information; the same process described within
   section 3 will be followed.  There is one exception.  Only when an
   HTTP status code of 200 comes back from the receiver, will it inform
   the Subscriber of Subscription establishment success via its Restconf
   connection.

   After a successful establishment, if the Subscriber wishes to track
   the state of Receiver subscriptions, it may choose to place a
   separate on-change Subscription into the "Subscriptions" subtree of
   the YANG Datastore on the Publisher.

Appendix B.  End-to-End Deployment Guidance

   Several technologies are expected to be seen within a deployment to
   achieve security and ease-of-use requirements.  These are not
   necessary for an implementation of this specification, but will be
   useful to consider when considering the operational context.

B.1.  Call Home

   Pub/Sub implementations should have the ability to transparently
   incorporate [call-home] so that secure TLS connections can originate
   from the desired device.






Voit, et al.              Expires April 2, 2017                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft               Restconf-Notif               September 2016


B.2.  TLS Heartbeat

   HTTP sessions might not quickly allow a Subscriber to recognize when
   the communication path has been lost from the Publisher.  To
   recognize this, it is possible for a Receiver to establish a TLS
   heartbeat [RFC6520].  In the case where a TLS heartbeat is included,
   it should be sent just from Receiver to Publisher.  Loss of the
   heartbeat should result in any Subscription related TCP sessions
   between those endpoints being torn down.  The subscription can then
   attempt to re-establish.

Appendix C.  Issues being worked and resolved

   (To be removed by RFC editor prior to publication)

C.1.  Unresolved Issues

   RT3 - Do we include 3rd party signaled subscriptions within models
   that need to be supported generically, or for a particular type of
   transport.

   RT10 - Right now the examples show a YANG timestamp at the hundredths
   of a second level.  But the yang-push draft is at seconds.  And the
   requirements show at least milliseconds (if not more).

C.2.  Agreement in principal

   RT4 - Need to add into document examples of 5277bis Event streams.
   Document only includes yang-push examples at this point.

   RT6 - We need to define encodings of rfc5277bis notifications.

C.3.  Resolved Issues

   RT1 - Integration specifics for Restconf capability discovery on
   different types of Streams

   RT2 - In what way to we position Event notifications model in this
   document vs. current solution in Restconf.

   RT5 - Doesn't make sense to use Restconf for Configured
   subscriptions.  HTTP will be used.

   RT7 - HTTP native option doesn't currently use SSE.  But we should
   evaluate moving to that as possible.  It will make development
   integration easier and more consistent.





Voit, et al.              Expires April 2, 2017                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft               Restconf-Notif               September 2016


   RT8 - Once SSE starts, there will be no more Restconf interpretation
   of further signaling upon the connection.  It is unclear how this can
   be made to work with modify and delete subscription.  If it cannot, a
   method of sending events without SSE will be needed, although this
   would diverge from the existing Restconf mechanisms

   RT9 - For static subscriptions, perhaps we can use Restconf call home
   to originate an SSE connection.  This assume RT8 & RT2 can be
   resolved with SSE.

Appendix D.  Changes between revisions

   (To be removed by RFC editor prior to publication)

   v00 - v01

   o  Removed the ability for more than one subscription to go to a
      single HTTP2 stream.

   o  Updated call flows.  Extensively.

   o  SSE only used with Restconf and HTTP1.1 Dynamic Subscriptions

   o  HTTP is not used to determine that a Receiver has gone silent and
      is not Receiving Event Notifications

   o  Many clean-ups of wording and terminology

Authors' Addresses

   Eric Voit
   Cisco Systems

   Email: evoit@cisco.com


   Alexander Clemm
   Cisco Systems

   Email: alex@clemm.org


   Alberto Gonzalez Prieto
   Cisco Systems

   Email: albertgo@cisco.com





Voit, et al.              Expires April 2, 2017                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft               Restconf-Notif               September 2016


   Ambika Prasad Tripathy
   Cisco Systems

   Email: ambtripa@cisco.com


   Einar Nilsen-Nygaard
   Cisco Systems

   Email: einarnn@cisco.com


   Andy Bierman
   YumaWorks

   Email: andy@yumaworks.com



































Voit, et al.              Expires April 2, 2017                [Page 20]


Voit, et al.             Expires March 27, 2017                [Page 20]

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