[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [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

NETCONF                                                          E. Voit
Internet-Draft                                                 R. Rahman
Intended status: Standards Track                       E. Nilsen-Nygaard
Expires: August 18, 2019                                   Cisco Systems
                                                                A. Clemm
                                                                  Huawei
                                                              A. Bierman
                                                               YumaWorks
                                                       February 14, 2019


    Dynamic subscription to YANG Events and Datastores over RESTCONF
                  draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif-13

Abstract

   This document provides a RESTCONF binding to the dynamic subscription
   capability of both subscribed notifications and YANG-Push.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 18, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of



Voit, et al.             Expires August 18, 2019                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft               RESTCONF-Notif                February 2019


   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.  Dynamic Subscriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Transport Connectivity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.3.  RESTCONF RPCs and HTTP Status Codes . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.4.  Call Flow for Server-Sent Events (SSE)  . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  QoS Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  Notification Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  YANG Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  YANG module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Appendix A.  Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     A.1.  Dynamic Subscriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       A.1.1.  Establishing Dynamic Subscriptions  . . . . . . . . .  16
       A.1.2.  Modifying Dynamic Subscriptions . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       A.1.3.  Deleting Dynamic Subscriptions  . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     A.2.  Subscription State Notifications  . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       A.2.1.  subscription-modified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       A.2.2.  subscription-completed, subscription-resumed, and
               replay-complete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
       A.2.3.  subscription-terminated and subscription-suspended  .  22
     A.3.  Filter Example  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   Appendix B.  Changes between revisions  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27

1.  Introduction

   Mechanisms to support event subscription and push are defined in
   [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications].  Enhancements to
   [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications] which enable YANG
   datastore subscription and push are defined in
   [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push].  This document provides a transport
   specification for dynamic subscriptions over RESTCONF [RFC8040].
   Driving these requirements is [RFC7923].






Voit, et al.             Expires August 18, 2019                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft               RESTCONF-Notif                February 2019


   The streaming of notifications encapsulating the resulting
   information push is done via the mechanism described in section 6.3
   of [RFC8040].

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].

   The following terms use the definitions from
   [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications]: dynamic
   subscription, event stream, notification message, publisher,
   receiver, subscriber, and subscription.

   Other terms reused include datastore, which is defined in [RFC8342],
   and HTTP2 stream which maps to the definition of "stream" within
   [RFC7540], Section 2.

   [ note to the RFC Editor - please replace XXXX within this document
   with the number of this document ]

3.  Dynamic Subscriptions

   This section provides specifics on how to establish and maintain
   dynamic subscriptions over RESTCONF [RFC8040].  Subscribing to event
   streams is accomplished in this way via RPCs defined within
   [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications] Section 2.4, the
   RPCs are done via RESTCONF POSTs.  YANG datastore subscription is
   accomplished via augmentations to
   [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications] as described within
   [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push] Section 4.4.

   As described in [RFC8040] Section 6.3, a GET needs to be made against
   a specific URI on the publisher.  Subscribers cannot pre-determine
   the URI against which a subscription might exist on a publisher, as
   the URI will only exist after the "establish-subscription" RPC has
   been accepted.  Therefore, the POST for the "establish-subscription"
   RPC replaces the GET request for the "location" leaf which is used in
   [RFC8040] to obtain the URI.  The subscription URI will be determined
   and sent as part of the response to the "establish-subscription" RPC,
   and a subsequent GET to this URI will be done in order to start the
   flow of notification messages back to the subscriber.  A subscription
   does not move to the active state as per Section 2.4.1. of
   [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications] until the GET is
   received.





Voit, et al.             Expires August 18, 2019                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft               RESTCONF-Notif                February 2019


3.1.  Transport Connectivity

   For a dynamic subscription, where a RESTCONF session doesn't already
   exist, a new RESTCONF session is initiated from the subscriber.

   As stated in Section 2.1 of [RFC8040], a subscriber MUST establish
   the HTTP session over TLS [RFC5246] in order to secure the content in
   transit.

   Without the involvement of additional protocols, HTTP sessions by
   themselves do not allow for a quick recognition of when the
   communication path has been lost with the publisher.  Where quick
   recognition of the loss of a publisher is required, a subscriber
   SHOULD use a TLS heartbeat [RFC6520], just from receiver to
   publisher, to track HTTP session continuity.

   Loss of the heartbeat MUST result in any subscription related TCP
   sessions between those endpoints being torn down.  A subscriber can
   then attempt to re-establish the dynamic subscription by using the
   procedure described in Section 3.

3.2.  Discovery

   Subscribers can learn what event streams a RESTCONF server supports
   by querying the "streams" container of ietf-subscribed-
   notification.yang in
   [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications].  Support for the
   "streams" container of ietf-restconf-monitoring.yang in [RFC8040] is
   not required.  If it is supported, the event streams which are in the
   "streams" container of ietf-subscribed-notifications.yang SHOULD also
   be in the "streams" container of ietf-restconf-monitoring.yang.

   Subscribers can learn what datastores a RESTCONF server supports by
   following Section 2 of [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf].

3.3.  RESTCONF RPCs and HTTP Status Codes

   Specific HTTP responses codes as defined in [RFC7231] section 6 will
   indicate the result of RESTCONF RPC requests with publisher.  An HTTP
   status code of 200 is the proper response to any successful RPC
   defined within [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications] or
   [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push].

   If a publisher fails to serve the RPC request for one of the reasons
   indicated in [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications]
   Section 2.4.6 or [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push] Appendix A, this will
   be indicated by "406" status code transported in the HTTP response.




Voit, et al.             Expires August 18, 2019                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft               RESTCONF-Notif                February 2019


   When a "406" status code is returned, the RPC reply MUST include an
   "rpc-error" element per [RFC8040] Section 7.1 with the following
   parameter values:

   o  an "error-type" node of "application".

   o  an "error-tag" node with the value being a string that corresponds
      to an identity associated with the error.  This "error-tag" will
      come from one of two places.  Either it will correspond to the
      error identities within
      [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications] section 2.4.6
      for general subscription errors:

             error identity         uses error-tag
             ---------------------- --------------
             dscp-unavailable       invalid-value
             encoding-unsupported   invalid-value
             filter-unsupported     invalid-value
             insufficient-resources resource-denied
             no-such-subscription   invalid-value
             replay-unsupported     operation-not-supported

      Or this "error-tag" will correspond to the error identities within
      [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push] Appendix A.1 for subscription errors
      specific to YANG datastores:

             error identity              uses error-tag
             ----------------------      --------------
             cant-exclude                operation-not-supported
             datastore-not-subscribable  invalid-value
             no-such-subscription-resync invalid-value
             on-change-unsupported       operation-not-supported
             on-change-sync-unsupported  operation-not-supported
             period-unsupported          invalid-value
             update-too-big              too-big
             sync-too-big                too-big
             unchanging-selection        operation-failed

   o  an "error-app-tag" node with the value being a string that
      corresponds to an identity associated with the error, as defined
      in [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications] section 2.4.6
      for general subscriptions, and [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push]
      Appendix A.1, for datastore subscriptions.  The tag to use depends
      on the RPC for which the error occurred.  Viable errors for
      different RPCs are as follows:






Voit, et al.             Expires August 18, 2019                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft               RESTCONF-Notif                February 2019


            RPC                     select an identity with a base
            ----------------------  ------------------------------
            establish-subscription  establish-subscription-error
            modify-subscription     modify-subscription-error
            delete-subscription     delete-subscription-error
            kill-subscription       delete-subscription-error
            resync-subscription     resync-subscription-error

   Each error identity will be inserted as the "error-app-tag" using
   JSON encoding following the form <modulename>:<identityname>.  An
   example of such a valid encoding would be "ietf-subscribed-
   notifications:no-such-subscription".

   In case of error responses to an "establish-subscription" or "modify-
   subscription" request there is the option of including an "error-
   info" node.  This node may contain hints for parameter settings that
   might lead to successful RPC requests in the future.  Following are
   the yang-data structures which may be returned:

      establish-subscription returns hints in yang-data structure
      ---------------------- ------------------------------------
      target: event stream   establish-subscription-stream-error-info
      target: datastore      establish-subscription-datastore-error-info

      modify-subscription    returns hints in yang-data structure
      ---------------------- ------------------------------------
      target: event stream   modify-subscription-stream-error-info
      target: datastore      modify-subscription-datastore-error-info

      The yang-data included within "error-info" SHOULD NOT include the
      optional leaf "error-reason", as such a leaf would be redundant
      with information that is already placed within the
      "error-app-tag".

      In case of an rpc error as a result of a "delete-subscription", a
      "kill-subscription", or a "resync-subscription" request, no
      "error-info" needs to be included, as the "subscription-id" is
      the only RPC input parameter and no hints regarding this RPC input
      parameters need to be provided.

   Note that "error-path" [RFC8040] does not need to be included with
   the "rpc-error" element, as subscription errors are generally
   associated with the choice of RPC input parameters.








Voit, et al.             Expires August 18, 2019                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft               RESTCONF-Notif                February 2019


3.4.  Call Flow for Server-Sent Events (SSE)

   The call flow is defined in Figure 1.  The logical connections
   denoted by (a) and (b) can be a TCP connection or an HTTP2 stream
   (multiple HTTP2 streams can be carried in one TCP connection).
   Requests to [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications] or
   [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push] augmented RPCs are sent on a connection
   indicated by (a).  A successful "establish-subscription" will result
   in an RPC response returned with both a subscription identifier which
   uniquely identifies a subscription, as well as a URI which uniquely
   identifies the location of subscription on the publisher (b).  This
   URI is defined via the "uri" leaf the Data Model in Section 7.

   An HTTP GET is then sent on a separate logical connection (b) to the
   URI on the publisher.  This initiates the publisher to initiate the
   flow of notification messages which are sent in SSE [W3C-20150203] as
   a response to the GET.


































Voit, et al.             Expires August 18, 2019                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft               RESTCONF-Notif                February 2019


   +--------------+                             +--------------+
   |  Subscriber  |                             |   Publisher  |
   |              |                             |              |
   |    Logical   |                             |     Logical  |
   |  Connection  |                             |   Connection |
   |  (a)  (b)    |                             |    (a)  (b)  |
   +--------------+                             +--------------+
       | RESTCONF POST (RPC:establish-subscription)   |
       |--------------------------------------------->|
       |                          HTTP 200 OK (ID,URI)|
       |<---------------------------------------------|
       |    |HTTP GET (URI)                                |
       |    |--------------------------------------------->|
       |    |                                   HTTP 200 OK|
       |    |<---------------------------------------------|
       |    |                           SSE (notif-message)|
       |    |<---------------------------------------------|
       | RESTCONF POST (RPC:modify-subscription)      |    |
       |--------------------------------------------->|    |
       |    |                              HTTP 200 OK|    |
       |<---------------------------------------------|    |
       |    |                   SSE (subscription-modified)|
       |    |<------------------------------------------(c)|
       |    |                           SSE (notif-message)|
       |    |<---------------------------------------------|
       | RESTCONF POST (RPC:delete-subscription)      |    |
       |--------------------------------------------->|    |
       |    |                              HTTP 200 OK|    |
       |<---------------------------------------------|    |
       |    |                                         |    |
       |    |                                         |    |
       (a) (b)                                       (a)  (b)

                 Figure 1: Dynamic with server-sent events

   Additional requirements for dynamic subscriptions over SSE include:

   o  All subscription state notifications from a publisher MUST be
      returned in a separate SSE message used by the subscription to
      which the state change refers.

   o  Subscription RPCs MUST NOT use the connection currently providing
      notification messages for that subscription.

   o  In addition to an RPC response for a "modify-subscription" RPC
      traveling over (a), a "subscription-modified" state change
      notification MUST be sent within (b).  This allows the receiver to




Voit, et al.             Expires August 18, 2019                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft               RESTCONF-Notif                February 2019


      know exactly when the new terms of the subscription have been
      applied to the notification messages.  See arrow (c).

   o  In addition to any required access permissions (e.g., NACM), RPCs
      modify-subscription, resync-subscription and delete-subscription
      SHOULD only be allowed by the same RESTCONF username [RFC8040]
      which invoked establish-subscription.

   o  The kill-subscription RPC can be invoked by any RESTCONF username
      with the required administrative permissions.

   A publisher MUST terminate a subscription in the following cases:

   o  Receipt of a "delete-subscription" or a "kill-subscription" RPC
      for that subscription.

   o  Loss of TLS heartbeat

   A publisher MAY terminate a subscription at any time as stated in
   [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications] Section 1.3

4.  QoS Treatment

   To meet subscription quality of service promises, the publisher MUST
   take any existing subscription "dscp" and apply it to the DSCP
   marking in the IP header.

   In addition, where HTTP2 transport is available to a notification
   message queued for transport to a receiver, the publisher MUST:

   o  take any existing subscription "priority", as specified by the
      "weighting" leaf node in
      [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications], and copy it
      into the HTTP2 stream weight, [RFC7540] section 5.3, and

   o  take any existing subscription "dependency", as specified by the
      "dependency" leaf node in
      [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications], and use the
      HTTP2 stream for the parent subscription as the HTTP2 stream
      dependency, [RFC7540] section 5.3.1, of the dependent
      subscription.

   o  set the exclusive flag, [RFC7540] section 5.3.1, to 0.








Voit, et al.             Expires August 18, 2019                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft               RESTCONF-Notif                February 2019


5.  Notification Messages

   Notification messages transported over RESTCONF will be encoded
   according to [RFC8040], section 6.4.

6.  YANG Tree

   The YANG model defined in Section 7 has one leaf augmented into three
   places of [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications].

   module: ietf-restconf-subscribed-notifications
     augment /sn:establish-subscription/sn:output:
       +--ro uri?   inet:uri
     augment /sn:subscriptions/sn:subscription:
       +--ro uri?   inet:uri
     augment /sn:subscription-modified:
       +--ro uri?   inet:uri

7.  YANG module

   This module references
   [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications].

<CODE BEGINS> file
   "ietf-restconf-subscribed-notifications@2019-01-11.yang"
module ietf-restconf-subscribed-notifications {
  yang-version 1.1;
  namespace
    "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:" +
    "ietf-restconf-subscribed-notifications";

  prefix rsn;

  import ietf-subscribed-notifications {
    prefix sn;
  }
  import ietf-inet-types {
    prefix inet;
  }

  organization "IETF NETCONF (Network Configuration) Working Group";
  contact
    "WG Web:   <http:/tools.ietf.org/wg/netconf/>
     WG List:  <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>

     Editor:   Eric Voit
               <mailto:evoit@cisco.com>




Voit, et al.             Expires August 18, 2019               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft               RESTCONF-Notif                February 2019


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

     Editor:   Reshad Rahman
               <mailto:rrahman@cisco.com>";

  description
    "Defines RESTCONF as a supported transport for subscribed
     event notifications.

     Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as authors
     of the code.  All rights reserved.

     Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
     modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject to the license
     terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License set forth in Section
     4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
     (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).

     This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX; see the RFC
     itself for full legal notices.";

  revision 2019-01-11 {
    description
      "Initial version";
    reference
      "RFC XXXX: RESTCONF Transport for Event Notifications";
  }

  grouping uri {
    description
      "Provides a reusable description of a URI.";
    leaf uri {
      type inet:uri;
      config false;
      description
        "Location of a subscription specific URI on the publisher.";
    }
  }

  augment "/sn:establish-subscription/sn:output" {
    description
      "This augmentation allows RESTCONF specific parameters for a
       response to a publisher's subscription request.";
    uses uri;
  }

  augment "/sn:subscriptions/sn:subscription" {



Voit, et al.             Expires August 18, 2019               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft               RESTCONF-Notif                February 2019


    description
      "This augmentation allows RESTCONF specific parameters to be
       exposed for a subscription.";
    uses uri;
  }

  augment "/sn:subscription-modified" {
    description
      "This augmentation allows RESTCONF specific parameters to be
       included as part of the notification that a subscription has been
       modified.";
    uses uri;
  }
}
<CODE ENDS>

8.  IANA Considerations

   This document registers the following namespace URI in the "IETF XML
   Registry" [RFC3688]:

   URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-restconf-subscribed-
   notifications
   Registrant Contact: The IESG.
   XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.

   This document registers the following YANG module in the "YANG Module
   Names" registry [RFC6020]:

   Name: ietf-restconf-subscribed-notifications
   Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-restconf-subscribed-
   notifications
   Prefix: rsn
   Reference: RFC XXXX: RESTCONF Transport for Event Notifications

9.  Security Considerations

   The YANG module specified in this document defines a schema for data
   that is designed to be accessed via network management transports
   such as NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040].  The lowest NETCONF
   layer is the secure transport layer, and the mandatory-to-implement
   secure transport is Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC6242].  The lowest
   RESTCONF layer is HTTPS, and the mandatory-to-implement secure
   transport is TLS [RFC5246].

   The one new data node introduced in this YANG module may be
   considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments.  It
   is thus important to control read access (e.g., via get, get-config,



Voit, et al.             Expires August 18, 2019               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft               RESTCONF-Notif                February 2019


   or notification) to this data nodes.  These are the subtrees and data
   nodes and their sensitivity/vulnerability:

   Container: "/subscriptions"

   o  "uri": leaf will show where subscribed resources might be located
      on a publisher.  Access control must be set so that only someone
      with proper access permissions, and perhaps even HTTP session has
      the ability to access this resource.

   The subscription URI is implementation specific and is encrypted via
   the use of TLS.  Therefore, even if an attacker succeeds in guessing
   the subscription URI, a RESTCONF username [RFC8040] with the required
   administrative permissions must be used to be able to access or
   modify that subscription.

10.  Acknowledgments

   We wish to acknowledge the helpful contributions, comments, and
   suggestions that were received from: Ambika Prasad Tripathy, Alberto
   Gonzalez Prieto, Susan Hares, Tim Jenkins, Balazs Lengyel, Kent
   Watsen, Michael Scharf, Guangying Zheng, Martin Bjorklund, Qin Wu and
   Robert Wilton.

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications]
              Voit, E., Clemm, A., Gonzalez Prieto, A., Tripathy, A.,
              and E. Nilsen-Nygaard, "Custom Subscription to Event
              Streams", draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-21
              (work in progress), January 2019.

   [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push]
              Clemm, A., Voit, E., Gonzalez Prieto, A., Prasad Tripathy,
              A., Nilsen-Nygaard, E., Bierman, A., and B. Lengyel,
              "Subscribing to YANG datastore push updates", draft-ietf-
              netconf-yang-push-20 (work in progress), October 2018,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/
              draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push/>.

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





Voit, et al.             Expires August 18, 2019               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft               RESTCONF-Notif                February 2019


   [RFC3688]  Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.

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

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

   [RFC6241]  Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
              and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
              (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.

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

   [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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6520>.

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

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

   [RFC8342]  Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K.,
              and R. Wilton, "Network Management Datastore Architecture
              (NMDA)", RFC 8342, DOI 10.17487/RFC8342, March 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8342>.

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




Voit, et al.             Expires August 18, 2019               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft               RESTCONF-Notif                February 2019


11.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications]
              Clemm, Alexander., Voit, Eric., Gonzalez Prieto, Alberto.,
              Nilsen-Nygaard, E., and A. Tripathy, "NETCONF support for
              event notifications", May 2018,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/
              draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications/>.

   [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf]
              Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K.,
              and R. Wilton, "RESTCONF Extensions to Support the Network
              Management Datastore Architecture", April 2018,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/
              draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf/>.

   [RFC7231]  Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
              Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.

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

   [RFC8347]  Liu, X., Ed., Kyparlis, A., Parikh, R., Lindem, A., and M.
              Zhang, "A YANG Data Model for the Virtual Router
              Redundancy Protocol (VRRP)", RFC 8347,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8347, March 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8347>.

   [XPATH]    Clark, J. and S. DeRose, "XML Path Language (XPath)
              Version 1.0", November 1999,
              <http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xpath-19991116>.

Appendix A.  Examples

   This section is non-normative.  To allow easy comparison, this
   section mirrors the functional examples shown with NETCONF over XML
   within [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications].  In
   addition, HTTP2 vs HTTP1.1 headers are not shown as the contents of
   the JSON encoded objects are identical within.








Voit, et al.             Expires August 18, 2019               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft               RESTCONF-Notif                February 2019


A.1.  Dynamic Subscriptions

A.1.1.  Establishing Dynamic Subscriptions

   The following figure shows two successful "establish-subscription"
   RPC requests as per
   [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications].  The first request
   is given a subscription identifier of 22, the second, an identifier
   of 23.

      +------------+                  +-----------+
      | Subscriber |                  | Publisher |
      +------------+                  +-----------+
            |                               |
            |establish-subscription         |
            |------------------------------>|  (a)
            |     HTTP 200 OK, id#22, URI#1 |
            |<------------------------------|  (b)
            |GET (URI#1)                    |
            |------------------------------>|  (c)
            | HTTP 200 OK,notif-mesg (id#22)|
            |<------------------------------|
            |                               |
            |                               |
            |establish-subscription         |
            |------------------------------>|
            |      HTTP 200 OK, id#23, URI#2|
            |<------------------------------|
            |GET (URI#2)                    |
            |------------------------------>|
            |                               |
            |                               |
            |             notif-mesg (id#22)|
            |<------------------------------|
            | HTTP 200 OK,notif-mesg (id#23)|
            |<------------------------------|
            |                               |

            Figure 2: Multiple subscriptions over RESTCONF/HTTP

   To provide examples of the information being transported, example
   messages for interactions in Figure 2 are detailed below:









Voit, et al.             Expires August 18, 2019               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft               RESTCONF-Notif                February 2019


   POST /restconf/operations
        /ietf-subscribed-notifications:establish-subscription

   {
      "ietf-subscribed-notifications:input": {
         "stream-xpath-filter": "/example-module:foo/",
         "stream": "NETCONF",
         "dscp": "10"
      }
   }

               Figure 3: establish-subscription request (a)

   As publisher was able to fully satisfy the request, the publisher
   sends the subscription identifier of the accepted subscription, and
   the URI:

   HTTP status code - 200

   {
      "id": "22",
      "uri": "https://example.com/restconf/subscriptions/22"
   }


               Figure 4: establish-subscription success (b)

   Upon receipt of the successful response, the subscriber does a GET
   the provided URI to start the flow of notification messages.  When
   the publisher receives this, the subscription is moved to the active
   state (c).

   GET /restconf/subscriptions/22


             Figure 5: establish-subscription subsequent POST

   While not shown in Figure 2, if the publisher had not been able to
   fully satisfy the request, or subscriber has no authorization to
   establish the subscription, the publisher would have sent an RPC
   error response.  For instance, if the "dscp" value of 10 asserted by
   the subscriber in Figure 3 proved unacceptable, the publisher may
   have returned:








Voit, et al.             Expires August 18, 2019               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft               RESTCONF-Notif                February 2019


         HTTP status code - 406

         { "ietf-restconf:errors" : {
             "error" : [
               {
                 "error-type": "application",
                 "error-tag": "invalid-value",
                 "error-severity": "error",
                 "error-app-tag":
                     "ietf-subscribed-notifications:dscp-unavailable"
               }
             ]
           }
         }


             Figure 6: an unsuccessful establish subscription

   The subscriber can use this information in future attempts to
   establish a subscription.

A.1.2.  Modifying Dynamic Subscriptions

   An existing subscription may be modified.  The following exchange
   shows a negotiation of such a modification via several exchanges
   between a subscriber and a publisher.  This negotiation consists of a
   failed RPC modification request/response, followed by a successful
   one.























Voit, et al.             Expires August 18, 2019               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft               RESTCONF-Notif                February 2019


      +------------+                 +-----------+
      | Subscriber |                 | Publisher |
      +------------+                 +-----------+
            |                              |
            |  notification message (id#23)|
            |<-----------------------------|
            |                              |
            |modify-subscription (id#23)   |
            |----------------------------->|  (d)
            |    HTTP 406 error (with hint)|
            |<-----------------------------|  (e)
            |                              |
            |modify-subscription (id#23)   |
            |----------------------------->|
            |                  HTTP 200 OK |
            |<-----------------------------|
            |                              |
            |            notif-mesg (id#23)|
            |<-----------------------------|
            |                              |

   Figure 7: Interaction model for successful subscription modification

   If the subscription being modified in Figure 7 is a datastore
   subscription as per [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push], the modification
   request made in (d) may look like that shown in Figure 8.  As can be
   seen, the modifications being attempted are the application of a new
   xpath filter as well as the setting of a new periodic time interval.

   POST /restconf/operations
        /ietf-subscribed-notifications:modify-subscription

   {
    "ietf-subscribed-notifications:input": {
       "id": "23",
       "ietf-yang-push:datastore-xpath-filter":
          "/example-module:foo/example-module:bar",
       "ietf-yang-push:periodic": {
          "ietf-yang-push:period": "500"
       }
     }
   }


              Figure 8: Subscription modification request (c)

   If the publisher can satisfy both changes, the publisher sends a
   positive result for the RPC.  If the publisher cannot satisfy either



Voit, et al.             Expires August 18, 2019               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft               RESTCONF-Notif                February 2019


   of the proposed changes, the publisher sends an RPC error response
   (e).  The following is an example RPC error response for (e) which
   includes a hint.  This hint is an alternative time period value which
   might have resulted in a successful modification:

         HTTP status code - 406

         { "ietf-restconf:errors" : {
             "error" : [
               "error-type": "application",
               "error-tag": "invalid-value",
               "error-severity": "error",
               "error-app-tag": "ietf-yang-push:period-unsupported",
               "error-info": {
                 "ietf-yang-push":
                 "modify-subscription-datastore-error-info": {
                    "period-hint": "3000"
                 }
               }
             ]
           }
         }

            Figure 9: Modify subscription failure with Hint (e)

A.1.3.  Deleting Dynamic Subscriptions

   The following demonstrates deleting a subscription.  This
   subscription may have been to either a stream or a datastore.

   POST /restconf/operations
        /ietf-subscribed-notifications:delete-subscription

   {
    "delete-subscription": {
       "id": "22"
    }
   }

                      Figure 10: Delete subscription

   If the publisher can satisfy the request, the publisher replies with
   success to the RPC request.

   If the publisher cannot satisfy the request, the publisher sends an
   error-rpc element indicating the modification didn't work.  Figure 11
   shows a valid response for existing valid subscription identifier,




Voit, et al.             Expires August 18, 2019               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft               RESTCONF-Notif                February 2019


   but that subscription identifier was created on a different transport
   session:

         HTTP status code - 406

         {
           "ietf-restconf:errors" : {
             "error" : [
               "error-type": "application",
               "error-tag": "invalid-value",
               "error-severity": "error",
               "error-app-tag":
                  "ietf-subscribed-notifications:no-such-subscription"
             ]
           }
         }

                Figure 11: Unsuccessful delete subscription

A.2.  Subscription State Notifications

   A publisher will send subscription state notifications according to
   the definitions within
   [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications]).

A.2.1.  subscription-modified

   A "subscription-modified" encoded in JSON would look like:

   {
     "ietf-restconf:notification" : {
       "eventTime": "2007-09-01T10:00:00Z",
       "ietf-subscribed-notifications:subscription-modified": {
         "id": "39",
         "uri": "https://example.com/restconf/subscriptions/22"
         "stream-xpath-filter": "/example-module:foo",
         "stream": {
            "ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications" : "NETCONF"
         }
       }
     }
   }

     Figure 12: subscription-modified subscription state notification







Voit, et al.             Expires August 18, 2019               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft               RESTCONF-Notif                February 2019


A.2.2.  subscription-completed, subscription-resumed, and replay-
        complete

   A "subscription-completed" would look like:


   {
     "ietf-restconf:notification" : {
       "eventTime": "2007-09-01T10:00:00Z",
       "ietf-subscribed-notifications:subscription-completed": {
         "id": "39",
       }
     }
   }

          Figure 13: subscription-completed notification in JSON

   The "subscription-resumed" and "replay-complete" are virtually
   identical, with "subscription-completed" simply being replaced by
   "subscription-resumed" and "replay-complete".

A.2.3.  subscription-terminated and subscription-suspended

   A "subscription-terminated" would look like:

   {
     "ietf-restconf:notification" : {
       "eventTime": "2007-09-01T10:00:00Z",
       "ietf-subscribed-notifications:subscription-terminated": {
         "id": "39",
         "error-id": "suspension-timeout"
       }
     }
   }

    Figure 14: subscription-terminated subscription state notification

   The "subscription-suspended" is virtually identical, with
   "subscription-terminated" simply being replaced by "subscription-
   suspended".

A.3.  Filter Example

   This section provides an example which illustrate the method of
   filtering event record contents.  The example is based on the YANG
   notification "vrrp-protocol-error-event" as defined per the ietf-
   vrrp.yang module within [RFC8347].  Event records based on this
   specification which are generated by the publisher might appear as:



Voit, et al.             Expires August 18, 2019               [Page 22]


Internet-Draft               RESTCONF-Notif                February 2019


         data: {
         data:   "ietf-restconf:notification" : {
         data:     "eventTime" : "2018-09-14T08:22:33.44Z",
         data:     "ietf-vrrp:vrrp-protocol-error-event" : {
         data:       "protocol-error-reason" : "checksum-error"
         data:     }
         data:   }
         data: }

             Figure 15: RFC 8347 (VRRP) - Example Notification

   Suppose a subscriber wanted to establish a subscription which only
   passes instances of event records where there is a "checksum-error"
   as part of a VRRP protocol event.  Also assume the publisher places
   such event records into the NETCONF stream.  To get a continuous
   series of matching event records, the subscriber might request the
   application of an XPath filter against the NETCONF stream.  An
   "establish-subscription" RPC to meet this objective might be:

   POST /restconf/operations
        /ietf-subscribed-notifications:establish-subscription
   {
      "ietf-subscribed-notifications:input": {
         "stream": "NETCONF",
         "stream-xpath-filter":
           "/ietf-vrrp:vrrp-protocol-error-event[
             protocol-error-reason='checksum-error']/",
      }
   }

       Figure 16: Establishing a subscription error reason via XPath

   For more examples of XPath filters, see [XPATH].

   Suppose the "establish-subscription" in Figure 16 was accepted.  And
   suppose later a subscriber decided they wanted to broaden this
   subscription cover to all VRRP protocol events (i.e., not just those
   with a "checksum error").  The subscriber might attempt to modify the
   subscription in a way which replaces the XPath filter with a subtree
   filter which sends all VRRP protocol events to a subscriber.  Such a
   "modify-subscription" RPC might look like:










Voit, et al.             Expires August 18, 2019               [Page 23]


Internet-Draft               RESTCONF-Notif                February 2019


   POST /restconf/operations
        /ietf-subscribed-notifications:modify-subscription
   {
      "ietf-subscribed-notifications:input": {
         "stream": "NETCONF",
         "stream-subtree-filter": {
           "/ietf-vrrp:vrrp-protocol-error-event" : {}
         }
      }
   }

                                 Figure 17

   For more examples of subtree filters, see [RFC6241], section 6.4.

Appendix B.  Changes between revisions

   (To be removed by RFC editor prior to publication)

   v12 - v13

   o  Enhanced "error-tag" values based on SN review.

   v11 - v12

   o  Added text in 3.2 for expected behavior when ietf-restconf-
      monitoring.yang is also supported.

   o  Added section 2 to the reference to draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-
      restconf.

   o  Replaced kill-subscription-error by delete-subscription-error in
      section 3.3.

   o  Clarified vertical lines (a) and (b) in Figure 1 of section 3.4

   o  Section 3.4, 3rd bullet after Figure 1, replaced "must" with
      "MUST".

   o  Modified text in section 3.4 regarding access to RPCs modify-
      subscription, resync-subscription, delete-subscription and kill-
      subscription.

   o  Section 4, first bullet for HTTP2: replaced dscp and priority with
      weighting and weight.

   o  Section 6, added YANG tree diagram and fixed description of the
      module.



Voit, et al.             Expires August 18, 2019               [Page 24]


Internet-Draft               RESTCONF-Notif                February 2019


   o  Section 7, fixed indentation of module description statement.

   o  Section 7, in YANG module changed year in copyright statement to
      2019.

   o  Section 8, added text on how server protects access to the
      subscription URI.

   o  Fixed outdated references and removed unused references.

   o  Fixed the instances of line too long.

   o  Fixed example in Figure 3.

   v10 - v11

   o  Per Kent's request, added name attribute to artwork which need to
      be extracted

   v09 - v10

   o  Fixed typo for resync.

   o  Added text wrt RPC permissions and RESTCONF username.

   v08 - v09

   o  Addressed comments received during WGLC.

   v07 - v08

   o  Aligned with RESTCONF mechanism.

   o  YANG model: removed augment of subscription-started, added
      restconf transport.

   o  Tweaked Appendix A.1 to match draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-
      notifications-13.

   o  Added Appendix A.3 for filter example.

   v06 - v07

   o  Removed configured subscriptions.

   o  Subscription identifier renamed to id.

   v05 - v06



Voit, et al.             Expires August 18, 2019               [Page 25]


Internet-Draft               RESTCONF-Notif                February 2019


   o  JSON examples updated by Reshad.

   v04 - v05

   o  Error mechanisms updated to match embedded RESTCONF mechanisms

   o  Restructured format and sections of document.

   o  Added a YANG data model for HTTP specific parameters.

   o  Mirrored the examples from the NETCONF transport draft to allow
      easy comparison.

   v03 - v04

   o  Draft not fully synched to new version of subscribed-notifications
      yet.

   o  References updated

   v02 - v03

   o  Event notification reframed to notification message.

   o  Tweaks to wording/capitalization/format.

   v01 - v02

   o  Removed sections now redundant with
      [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications] and
      [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push] such as: mechanisms for subscription
      maintenance, terminology definitions, stream discovery.

   o  3rd party subscriptions are out-of-scope.

   o  SSE only used with RESTCONF and HTTP1.1 dynamic subscriptions

   o  Timeframes for event tagging are self-defined.

   o  Clean-up of wording, references to terminology, section numbers.

   v00 - v01

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

   o  Updated call flows.  Extensively.




Voit, et al.             Expires August 18, 2019               [Page 26]


Internet-Draft               RESTCONF-Notif                February 2019


   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


   Reshad Rahman
   Cisco Systems

   Email: rrahman@cisco.com


   Einar Nilsen-Nygaard
   Cisco Systems

   Email: einarnn@cisco.com


   Alexander Clemm
   Huawei

   Email: ludwig@clemm.org


   Andy Bierman
   YumaWorks

   Email: andy@yumaworks.com














Voit, et al.             Expires August 18, 2019               [Page 27]


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