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

Versions: 00 01 02

Network Working Group                                           S. Jiang
Internet-Draft                              Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
Intended status: Standards Track                            B. Carpenter
Expires: December 28, 2014                             Univ. of Auckland
                                                                  B. Liu
                                            Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
                                                           June 26, 2014


  Configuration Discovery and Negotiation Protocol for Network Devices
               draft-jiang-config-negotiation-protocol-02

Abstract

   This document defines a new protocol that enables intelligent devices
   to dynamically discover and negotiate their configuration with
   counterpart devices.  This document only defines a general protocol
   as a negotiation platform while the negotiation objectives for
   specific scenarios are to be described in separate documents.

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 December 28, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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



Jiang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2014               [Page 1]


Internet-DraConfiguration Discovery and Negotiation Protocol   June 2014


   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
   2.  Requirements Language and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  CDNP Protocol Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  IP Version Independent  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Objective Oriented Discovery Mechanism  . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.3.  Neighbor Diverting Discovery Mechanism  . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.4.  Certificate-based Security Mechanism  . . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.4.1.  Support for algorithm agility . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.4.2.  Message validation on reception . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.4.3.  TimeStamp checking  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.5.  Negotiation Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.  CDNP Constants  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.  Device Identifier and Certificate Tag . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  Session Identifier  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   7.  CDNP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.1.  CDNP Messsage Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     7.2.  Request Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     7.3.  Negotiation Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     7.4.  Negotiation-ending Message  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     7.5.  Confirm-waiting Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   8.  CDNP General Options  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     8.1.  Format of CDNP Options  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     8.2.  Divert Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     8.3.  Accept Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     8.4.  Decline Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     8.5.  Waiting Time Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     8.6.  Certificate Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     8.7.  Signature Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     8.8.  Locator Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       8.8.1.  Locator IPv4 address option . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       8.8.2.  Locator IPv6 address option . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       8.8.3.  Locator FQDN option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   9.  Objective Options and Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     9.1.  Organizing of CDNP Options  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     9.2.  Vendor Specific Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     9.3.  Experimental Options  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   10. Items for Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   13. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   14. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]  . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   15. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24



Jiang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2014               [Page 2]


Internet-DraConfiguration Discovery and Negotiation Protocol   June 2014


     15.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     15.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26

1.  Introduction

   The success of the Internet has made IP-based networks bigger and
   more complicated.  Large-scale ISP networks have become more and more
   problematic for human based management.  Also operational costs are
   growing quickly.  Consequently, there are therefore increased
   requirements for autonomy in the networks.  General aspects of
   autonomic networks are discussed in
   [I-D.irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions] and
   [I-D.irtf-nmrg-an-gap-analysis].  In order to fulfil autonomy,
   devices that are more intelligent need to be able to negotiate
   directly with each other.  [I-D.jiang-config-negotiation-ps]
   describes the requirements and application scenarios for network
   device negotiation.  It also describes a behavior model of a generic
   negotiation protocol.  Prior to negotiation, devices must discover
   each other.  The design of Configuration Discovery and Negotiation
   Protocol (CDNP) in this document is mainly based on this behavior
   model.

   Although many negotiations may happen between distributed horizontal
   peers, the main target scenarios are still hierarchical networks,
   which is the major structure of current large-scale networks.  Thus,
   where necessary, we assume that each network element has a
   hierarchical superior.  Of course, the protocol itself is capable of
   being used in a small and/or flat network structure such as a small
   office or home network, too.

   This document defines a generic discovery and negotiation protocol,
   named Configuration Discovery and Negotiation Protocol (CDNP), that
   can be used to control decision process among distributed devices or
   between networks.  The newly defined CDNP in this document adapts a
   tight certificate-based mechanism, which needs a Public Key
   Infrastracture (PKI, [RFC5280]) system.  The PKI may be managed by an
   operator or be autonomic.  The document also introduces a new
   discovery mechanism, which is based on a neighbor learning process
   and is oriented towards negotiation objectives.

   It is understood that in realistic deployments, not all devices will
   support CDNP.  Such mixed scenarios are not discussed in this
   specification.







Jiang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2014               [Page 3]


Internet-DraConfiguration Discovery and Negotiation Protocol   June 2014


2.  Requirements Language and Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   [RFC2119] when they appear in ALL CAPS.  When these words are not in
   ALL CAPS (such as "should" or "Should"), they have their usual
   English meanings, and are not to be interpreted as [RFC2119] key
   words.

   o  Negotiation Objective: specific negotiation content, which needs
      to be decided in coordination with another network device.  It is
      naturally based on a specific service or function or action.  It
      could be a logical, numeric, or string value or a more complex
      data structure.

   o  Negotiation Initiator: a device that spontaneously starts
      discovery or negotiation by sending a request message referring to
      a specific negotiation objective.

   o  Negotiation Counterpart: a peer device with which the Negotiation
      Initiator negotiates a specific negotiation objective.

   o  Device Identifier: a public key, which identifies the device in
      CDNP messages.  It is assumed that its associated private key is
      maintained in the device only.

   o  Device Certificate: A certificate for a single device, also the
      identitier of the device, further described in Section 5.

   o  Device Certificate Tag: a tag, which is bound to the device
      identitier.  It is used to present Device Certificate in short
      form.

3.  CDNP Protocol Overview

   The Configuration Discovery and Negotiation protocol is designed to
   be a generic platform, which is independent from the negotiation
   contents.  It only takes care of the general intercommunication
   between negotiation counterparts.  The negotiation contents vary,
   giving the various negotiation objectives and the different pairs of
   negotiating counterparts.  CDNP runs over UDP.

   The CDNP has been designed based on simple initiator/responder model,
   while multiple-party negotiations could be completed by indirect
   steps.  The initiator requests a particular objective and the
   counterpart responds accordingly.




Jiang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2014               [Page 4]


Internet-DraConfiguration Discovery and Negotiation Protocol   June 2014


3.1.  IP Version Independent

   To be a generic platform, CDNP should be IP version independent.  In
   other words, it should be able to run over IPv6 and IPv4.  Its
   messages and general options are neutral with respect to the IP
   version.

   However, some functions, such as multicasting or broadcasting on a
   link, might need to be IP version dependent.  For these parts, the
   document defines support for both IP versions separately.

3.2.  Objective Oriented Discovery Mechanism

   Typically, one network device has multiple functions.  It may be
   involved in different negotiation processes for different negotiation
   objectives.  Therefore, the traditional topology-oriented device
   discovery mechanisms are not sufficient for CDNP.  A new discovery
   mechanism is needed to find negotiation counterparts based on a
   specific negotiation objective.  As a result, an objective-based
   discovery mechanism is described in this document.

   For every new negotiation objective, the negotiation initiator needs
   to start a new discovery process in order to find the proper
   negotiation counterpart.  Because a listening CDNP-enabled device has
   to know the requested negotiation objective to decide whether it is a
   proper negotiation counterpart and make a response, the discovery
   process needs to be tightly coupled with the request process.
   Therefore, in this document, the discovery process is merged into the
   request process.  There is no need for an independent discovery
   message and process.

3.3.  Neighbor Diverting Discovery Mechanism

   We now discuss the general flow of Request, Negotiation, and
   Negotiation-Ending messages, and Accept, Decline and Divert options.
   Details of the options are given later.

   Discovery starts as on-link operation.  However, negotiation may
   continue either on-link or off-link.  The Divert option can tell the
   negotiation initiator to contact an off-link counterpart.

   Every Request message is sent by a negotiation initiator to the
   ALL_CDNP_NEIGHBOR multicast address (Section 4).

   If the neighbor device is a proper negotiation counterpart, it MAY
   respond with a Negotiation message to start a negotiation process, or
   with a Negotiation-Ending message in the case of a clear Accept or
   Decline.



Jiang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2014               [Page 5]


Internet-DraConfiguration Discovery and Negotiation Protocol   June 2014


   If the neigbor device is not a proper negotiation counterpart for the
   objective given in the Request message, but knows a proper
   negotiation counterpart, for example because it negotiated the same
   objective with that other negotiation counterpart before, it SHOULD
   respond with a Negotiation-Ending message with a Divert option
   pointed to the proper negotiation counterpart.  If the neigbor device
   is not a proper negotiation counterpart, but does not know a proper
   negotiation counterpart, it SHOULD respond with a Negotiation-Ending
   message with a Divert option pointed to its hierachical upstream
   device.

   After a CDNP device successfully negotiated a specific objective with
   a negotiation counterpart, it SHOULD record this negotiation
   counterpart with this objective type locally.  This record may be
   used for future negotiation or to pass to another neighbor as a
   Divert option.  This learning mechanism should be able to support
   most network establishment scenarios.

3.4.  Certificate-based Security Mechanism

   A certification based security mechanism provides security properties
   for CDNP:

   o  the identity of a CDNP message sender can be verified by a
      recipient.

   o  the integrity of CDNP message can be checked by the recipient of
      the message.

   o  anti-replay protection on the CDNP message recipient.

   The authority of the CDNP message sender depends on a Public Key
   Infrastructure (PKI) system with a Certification Authority (CA),
   which should normally be run by the network operator.  In the case of
   a network with no operator, such as a small office or home network,
   the PKI itself needs to be established by an autonomic process, which
   is out of scope for this specification.

   A Request message MUST carry a Certificate option, defined in
   Section 8.6.  The first Negotiation Message, responding to a Request
   message, SHOULD also carry a Certificate option.  Using these
   messages, recipients build their certificate stores, indexed by the
   Device Certificate Tags included in every CDNP message.  This process
   is described in more detail below.

   Every message MUST carry a signature option, defined in Section 8.7.





Jiang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2014               [Page 6]


Internet-DraConfiguration Discovery and Negotiation Protocol   June 2014


   For now, the authors do not think packet size is a problem.  In this
   CDNP specification, there SHOULD NOT be multiple certificates in a
   single message.  The current most used public keys are 1024/2048
   bits, some may reach 4096.  With overhead included, a single
   certificate is less than 500 bytes.  Messages should be far shorter
   than the normal packet MTU within a modern network.

3.4.1.  Support for algorithm agility

   Hash functions are used to provide message integrity checks.  In
   order to provide a means of addressing problems that may emerge in
   the future with existing hash algorithms, as recommended in
   [RFC4270], a mechanism for negotiating the use of more secure hashes
   in the future is provided.

   In addition to hash algorithm agility, a mechanism for signature
   algorithm agility is also provided.

   The support for algorithm agility in this document is mainly a
   unilateral notification mechanism from sender to recipient.  If the
   recipient does not support the algorithm used by the sender, it
   cannot authenticate the message.  Senders in a single administrative
   domain are not required to upgrade to a new algorithm simultaneously.

   So far, the algorithm agility is supported by one-way notification,
   rather than negotiation mode.  As defined in Section 8.7, the sender
   notifies the recipient what hash/signature algorithms it uses.  If
   the responder doesn't know a new algorithm used by the sender, the
   negotiation request would fail.  In order to establish a negotiation
   session, the sender MAY fall back to an older, less preferred
   algorithm.  To avoid downgrade attacks it MUST NOT fall back to an
   algorithm considered weak.

3.4.2.  Message validation on reception

   When receiving a CDNP message, a recipient MUST discard the CDNP
   message if the Signature option is absent, or the Certificate option
   is in a Request Message.

   For the Request message and the Response message with a Certification
   Option, the recipient MUST first check the authority of this sender
   following the rules defined in [RFC5280].  After successful authority
   validation, an implementation MUST add the sender's certification
   into the local trust certificate record indexed by the associated
   Device Certificate Tag, defined in Section 5.

   The recipient MUST now authenticate the sender by verifying the
   Signature and checking a timestamp, as specified in Section 3.4.3.



Jiang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2014               [Page 7]


Internet-DraConfiguration Discovery and Negotiation Protocol   June 2014


   The order of two procedures is left as an implementation decision.
   It is RECOMMENDED to check timestamp first, because signature
   verification is much more computationally expensive.

   The signature field verification MUST show that the signature has
   been calculated as specified in Section 8.7.  The public key used for
   signature validation is obtained from the certificate either carried
   by the message or found from a local trust certificate record by
   searching the message-carried Device Certicate Tag.

   Only the messages that get through both the signature verifications
   and timestamp check are accepted and continue to be handled for their
   contained CDNP options.  Messages that do not pass the above tests
   MUST be discarded as insecure messages.

3.4.3.  TimeStamp checking

   Recipients SHOULD be configured with an allowed timestamp Delta
   value, a "fuzz factor" for comparisons, and an allowed clock drift
   parameter.  The recommended default value for the allowed Delta is
   300 seconds (5 minutes); for fuzz factor 1 second; and for clock
   drift, 0.01 second.

   The timestamp is defined in the Signature Option, Section 8.7.  To
   facilitate timestamp checking, each recipient SHOULD store the
   following information for each sender:

   o  The receive time of the last received and accepted CDNP message.
      This is called RDlast.

   o  The time stamp in the last received and accepted CDNP message.
      This is called TSlast.

   An accepted CDNP message is any successfully verified (for both
   timestamp check and signature verification) CDNP message from the
   given peer.  It initiates the update of the above variables.
   Recipients MUST then check the Timestamp field as follows:

   o  When a message is received from a new peer (i.e., one that is not
      stored in the cache), the received timestamp, TSnew, is checked,
      and the message is accepted if the timestamp is recent enough to
      the reception time of the packet, RDnew:

         -Delta < (RDnew - TSnew) < +Delta

      The RDnew and TSnew values SHOULD be stored in the cache as RDlast
      and TSlast.




Jiang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2014               [Page 8]


Internet-DraConfiguration Discovery and Negotiation Protocol   June 2014


   o  When a message is received from a known peer (i.e., one that
      already has an entry in the cache), the timestamp is checked
      against the previously received CDNP message:

         TSnew + fuzz > TSlast + (RDnew - RDlast) x (1 - drift) - fuzz

      If this inequality does not hold, the recipient SHOULD silently
      discard the message.  If, on the other hand, the inequality holds,
      the recipient SHOULD process the message.

      Moreover, if the above inequality holds and TSnew > TSlast, the
      recipient SHOULD update RDlast and TSlast.  Otherwise, the
      recipient MUST NOT update RDlast or TSlast.

   An implementation MAY use some mechanism such as a timestamp cache to
   strengthen resistance to replay attacks.  When there is a very large
   number of nodes on the same link, or when a cache filling attack is
   in progress, it is possible that the cache holding the most recent
   timestamp per sender will become full.  In this case, the node MUST
   remove some entries from the cache or refuse some new requested
   entries.  The specific policy as to which entries are preferred over
   others is left as an implementation decision.

3.5.  Negotiation Procedures

   A negotiation initiator sends a negotiation request to discovered
   negotiation counterpart devices, which may be different according to
   different negotiation objectives.  It may request relevant
   information from the negotiation counterpart so that it can decide
   its local configuration to give the most coordinated performance.  It
   may request the negotiation counterpart to make a matching
   configuration in order to set up a successful communication with it.
   It may request certain simulation or forecast result by sending some
   dry run conditions.  The details will be defined separately for each
   type of negotiation objective.

   If the counterpart can immediately apply the requested confguration,
   it will give a positive (yes) answer.  This will normally end the
   negotiation phase immediately.  Otherwise it will give a negative
   (no) answer.  Normally, this will not end the negotiation phase.

   In the negative (no) case, the negotiation counterpart should be able
   to reply with a proposed alternative configuration that it can apply
   (typically, a configuration that uses fewer resources than requested
   by the negotiation initiator).  This will start a bi-directional
   negotiation to reach a compromise between the two network devices.





Jiang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2014               [Page 9]


Internet-DraConfiguration Discovery and Negotiation Protocol   June 2014


   The negotiation procedure is ended when one of the negotiation peers
   sends a Negotiation Ending message, which contains an accept or
   decline option and does not need a response from the negotiation
   peer.

   A negotiation procedure concerns one objective and one counterpart.
   Both the initiator and the counterpart may take part in simultaneous
   negotiations with various other devices, or in simultaneous
   negotiations about different objectives.  Thus, CDNP is expected to
   be used in a multi-threaded mode.  Certain negotiation objectives may
   have restrictions on multi-threading, for example to avoid over-
   allocating resources.

4.  CDNP Constants

   o  ALL_CDNP_NEIGHBOR (TBD1)

      A link-local scope multicast address used by a CDNP-enabled router
      to discover CDNP-enabled neighbor (i.e., on-link) devices . All
      routers that support CDNP are members of this multicast group.

      *  IPv6 multicast address: TBD1

      *  IPv4 multicast address: TBD2

   o  CDNP Listen Port (TBD3)

      A UDP port that every CDNP-enabled network device always listens
      to.

5.  Device Identifier and Certificate Tag

   A CDNP-enabled Device MUST generate a stable public/private key pair
   before it participates in CDNP.  There MUST NOT be any way of
   accessing the private key via the network or an operator interface.
   The device then uses the public key as its identifier, which is
   cryptographic in nature.  It is a CDNP unique identifier for a CDNP
   participant.

   It then gets a certificate for this public key, signed by a
   Certificate Authority that is trusted by other network devices.  The
   Certificate Authority SHOULD be managed by the network administrator,
   to avoid needing to trust a third party.  The signed certificate
   would be used for authentication of the message sender.  In a managed
   network, this certification process could be performed at a central
   location before the device is physically installed at its intended
   location.  In an unmanaged network, this process must be autonomic,
   including the bootstrap phase.



Jiang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2014              [Page 10]


Internet-DraConfiguration Discovery and Negotiation Protocol   June 2014


   A 128-bit Device Certifcate Tag, which is generated by taking a
   cryptographic hash over the device certificate, is a short
   presentation for CDNP messages.  It is the index key to find the
   device certificate in a recipient's local trusted certificate record.

   The tag value is formed by taking a SHA-1 hash algorithm over the
   corresponding device certificate and taking the leftmost 128 bits of
   the hash result.

6.  Session Identifier

   A 24-bit opaque value used to distinguish multiple sessions between
   the same two devices.  A new Session ID SHOULD be generated for every
   new Request message.  All followup messages in the same negotiation
   procedure, which is initiated by the request message, SHOULD carry
   the same Session ID.

   The Session ID SHOULD have a very low collision rate locally.  It is
   RECOMMENDED to be generated by a pseudo-random algorithm using a seed
   which is unlikely to be used by any other device in the same network.

7.  CDNP Messages

   This document defines the following CDNP message format and types.
   Message types not listed here are reserved for future use.  The
   numeric encoding for each message type is shown in parentheses.

7.1.  CDNP Messsage Format

   All CDNP messages share an identical fixed format header and a
   vaiable format area for options.  Every Message carries the Device
   Certificate Tag of its sender and a Session ID.  Options are
   presented serially in the options field, with no padding between the
   options.  Options are byte-aligned.

   The following diagram illustrates the format of CDNP messages:















Jiang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2014              [Page 11]


Internet-DraConfiguration Discovery and Negotiation Protocol   June 2014


    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | MESSAGE_TYPE  |                Session ID                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                   Device Certificate Tag                      |
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                        Options  (variable length)             |
   .                                                               .
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   MESSAGE_TYPE   Identifies the CDNP message type. 8-bit.

   Session ID     Identifies this negotiation session, as defined in
                  Section 6. 24-bit.

   Device Certificate Tag
                  Present the Device Certificate, which identifies
                  the negotiation deviceas, as defined in Section 5.
                  The Device Certificate Tag is 128 bit, also defined
                  in Section 5. It is used as index key to find the
                  device certificate.

   Options        CDNP Options carried in this message. Options are
                  definded in Section 8.

7.2.  Request Message

   REQUEST (1)    A negotiation requesting node sends a REQUEST message
                  to initiate a negotiation.

                  If the requesting node does not know any negotiation
                  counterpart, it sends the REQUEST messages to the
                  link-local ALL_CDNP_NEIGHBOR multicast address.

                  If the requesting node re-contacts a known negotiation
                  counterpart, it sends the REQUEST message to the
                  unicast address of the negotiation counterpart
                  directly.

7.3.  Negotiation Message







Jiang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2014              [Page 12]


Internet-DraConfiguration Discovery and Negotiation Protocol   June 2014


   NEGOTIATION (2)A negotiation counterpart sends an NEGOTIATION
                  message in response to a REQUEST message or a
                  Negotiation message in a negotiation process which
                  may need multiple steps.

7.4.  Negotiation-ending Message

   NEGOTIATION-ENDING (3)
                  A negotiation counterpart sends an NEGOTIATION-EDNING
                  message to close the negotiation. It MUST contain
                  one, but only one of accept/decline/divert option,
                  defined in Section 8. It could be sent either by the
                  requesting node or the responding node.

7.5.  Confirm-waiting Message

   CONFIRM-WAITING (4)
                  A responding node sends a CONFIRM-WAITING message to
                  indicate the requesting node to wait for a further
                  negotiation response. It might be that the local
                  process needs more time or that the negotiation
                  depends on another triggered negotiation. This
                  message MUST NOT include any other options than the
                  WAITING option defined in Section 8.5.

8.  CDNP General Options

   This section defines the CDNP general option for the negotiation
   protocol signalling.  Option type 10~64 is reserved for CDNP general
   options defined in the future.

8.1.  Format of CDNP Options



















Jiang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2014              [Page 13]


Internet-DraConfiguration Discovery and Negotiation Protocol   June 2014


    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |          option-code          |           option-len          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          option-data                          |
   |                      (option-len octets)                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Option-code    An unsigned integer identifying the specific option
                  type carried in this option.

   Option-len     An unsigned integer giving the length of the
                  option-data field in this option in octets.

   Option-data    The data for the option; the format of this data
                  depends on the definition of the option.

   CDNP options are scoped by using encapsulation.  If an option
   contains other options, the outer Option-len includes the total size
   of the encapsulated options, and the latter apply only to the outer
   option.

8.2.  Divert Option

   The divert option is used to redirect a CDNP request to another node,
   which may be more appropriate for the intended negotiation.  It may
   redirect to an entity that is known as a specific negotiation
   counterpart or a default gateway or a hierarchically upstream
   devices.  The divert option MUST only be encapsulated in Negotiation-
   ending messages.  If found elsewhere it SHOULD be silently ignored.




















Jiang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2014              [Page 14]


Internet-DraConfiguration Discovery and Negotiation Protocol   June 2014


    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |         OPTION_DIVERT         |           option-len          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |             Locator Option (s) of Diversion Device(s)         |
   .                                                               .
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Option-code    OPTION_DIVERT (1).

   Option-len     The total length of diverted destination
                  sub-option(s) in octets.

   Locator Option (s) of Diverted Device
                  Emedded Locator Option(s), defined in Section 8.8,
                  that point to diverted destination device(s).

8.3.  Accept Option

   The accept option is used to indicate the negotiation counterpart
   that the proposed negotiation content is accepted.

   The accept option MUST only be encapsulated in Negotiation-ending
   messages.  If found elsewhere it SHOULD be silently ignored.

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        OPTION_ACCEPT          |           option-len          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Option-code    OPTION_ACCEPT (2).

   Option-len     0.

8.4.  Decline Option

   The decline option is used to indicate the negotiation counterpart
   the proposed negotiation content is declined and end the negotiation
   process.

   The decline option MUST only be encapsulated in Negotiation-ending
   messages.  If found elsewhere it SHOULD be silently ignored.







Jiang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2014              [Page 15]


Internet-DraConfiguration Discovery and Negotiation Protocol   June 2014


    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        OPTION_DECLINE         |           option-len          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Option-code    OPTION_DECLINE (3).

   Option-len     0.

   Notes: there are scenarios where a negotiation counterpart wants to
   decline the proposed negotiation content and continue the negotiation
   process.  For these scenarios, the negotiation counterpart SHOULD use
   a Response message, with either an objective option that contains at
   least one data field with all bits set to 1 to indicate a meaningless
   initial value, or a specific objective option that provides further
   conditions for convergence.

8.5.  Waiting Time Option

   The waiting time option is used to indicate that the negotiation
   counterpart needs to wait for a further negotiation response, since
   the processing might need more time than usual or it might depend on
   another triggered negotiation.

   The waiting time option MUST only be encapsulated in Confirm-waiting
   messages.  If found elsewhere it SHOULD be silently ignored.

   The counterpart SHOULD send a Response message or another Confirm-
   waiting message before the current waiting time expires.  If not, the
   initiator SHOULD abandon or restart the negotiation procedure, to
   avoid an indefinite wait.

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |       OPTION_WAITING          |           option-len          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                              Time                             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Option-code    OPTION_WAITING (4).

   Option-len     4, in octets.

   Time           The time is counted in millisecond as a unit.





Jiang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2014              [Page 16]


Internet-DraConfiguration Discovery and Negotiation Protocol   June 2014


8.6.  Certificate Option

   The Certificate option carries the certificate of the sender.  The
   format of the Certificate option is as follows:

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |       OPTION Certificate      |           option-len          |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     .                    Certificate (variable length)              .
     .                                                               .
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     Option-code    OPTION_CERT_PARAMETER (5)

     Option-len     Length of certificate in octets

     Public key     A variable-length field containing a certificate

8.7.  Signature Option

   The Signature option allows public key-based signatures to be
   attached to a CDNP message.  The Signature option is REQUIRED in
   every CDNP message and could be any place within the CDNP message.
   It protects the entire CDNP header and options.  A TimeStamp has been
   integrated in the Signature Option for anti-replay protection.  The
   format of the Signature option is described as follows:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     OPTION_SIGNATURE          |           option-len          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           HA-id               |            SA-id              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Timestamp (64-bit)                        |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   .                    Signature (variable length)                .
   .                                                               .
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Option-code    OPTION_SIGNATURE (6)



Jiang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2014              [Page 17]


Internet-DraConfiguration Discovery and Negotiation Protocol   June 2014


   Option-len     12 + Length of Signature field in octets.

   HA-id          Hash Algorithm id. The hash algorithm is used for
                  computing the signature result. This design is
                  adopted in order to provide hash algorithm agility.
                  The value is from the Hash Algorithm for CDNP
                  registry in IANA. The initial value assigned
                  for SHA-1 is 0x0001.

   SA-id          Signature Algorithm id. The signature algorithm is
                  used for computing the signature result. This
                  design is adopted in order to provide signature
                  algorithm agility. The value is from the Signature
                  Algorithm for CDNP registry in IANA. The initial
                  value assigned for RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 is
                  0x0001.

   Timestamp      The current time of day (NTP-format timestamp
                  [RFC5905] in UTC (Coordinated Universal Time), a
                  64-bit unsigned fixed-point number, in seconds
                  relative to 0h on 1 January 1900.). It can reduce
                  the danger of replay attacks.

   Signature      A variable-length field containing a digital
                  signature. The signature value is computed with
                  the hash algorithm and the signature algorithm, as
                  described in HA-id and SA-id. The signature
                  constructed by using the sender's private key
                  protects the following sequence of octets:

                  1. The CDNP message header.

                  2. All CDNP options including the Signature option
                  (fill the signature field with zeroes).

                  The signature field MUST be padded, with all 0, to
                  the next 16 bit boundary if its size is not an even
                  multiple of 8 bits. The padding length depends on
                  the signature algorithm, which is indicated in the
                  SA-id field.


8.8.  Locator Options

   These locator options are used to present a device's or interface's
   reachability information.  They are Locator IPv4 Address Option,
   Locator IPv6 Address Option and Locator FQDN (Fully Qualified Domain
   Name) Option.



Jiang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2014              [Page 18]


Internet-DraConfiguration Discovery and Negotiation Protocol   June 2014


8.8.1.  Locator IPv4 address option

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    OPTION_LOCATOR_IPV4ADDR    |           option-len          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          IPv4-Address                         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Option-code    OPTION_LOCATOR_IPV4ADDR (7)

   Option-len     4, in octets.

   IPv4-Address   The IPv4 address locator of the device/interface.

8.8.2.  Locator IPv6 address option

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   OPTION_LOCATOR_IPV6ADDR     |           option-len          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                          IPv6-Address                         |
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Option-code    OPTION_LOCATOR_IPV6ADDR (8).

   Option-len     16, in octets.

   IPv6-Address   The IPv6 address locator of the device/interface.

   Note: link-local IPv6 address SHOULD be avoided when this option is
   used in the Divert option.  It may create a connection problem.

8.8.3.  Locator FQDN option












Jiang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2014              [Page 19]


Internet-DraConfiguration Discovery and Negotiation Protocol   June 2014


    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |         OPTION_FQDN           |           option-len          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                   Fully Qualified Domain Name                 |
   |                       (variable length)                       |
   .                                                               .
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Option-code    OPTION_FQDN (9).

   Option-len     Length of Fully Qualified Domain Name in octets.

   Domain-Name    The Fully Qualified Domain Name of the entity.

9.  Objective Options and Considerations

   The Objective options contains negotiation objectives, which are
   various according to different functions/services.  They MUST be
   carried by Request or Negotiation Messages only.  Objective options
   SHOULD be assigned an option type greater than 64 in the CDNP option
   table.

   For most scenarios, there SHOULD be initial values in the negotiation
   requests.  Consequently, the Objective options SHOULD always be
   completely presented in a Request message.  If there is no initial
   value, the bits in the value field SHOULD all be set to 1 to indicate
   a meaningless value, unless this is inappropriate for the specific
   negotiation objective.

9.1.  Organizing of CDNP Options

   Naturally, a negotiation objective, which is based on a specific
   service or function or action, SHOULD be organized as a single CDNP
   option.  It is NOT RECOMMENDED to organize multiple negotiation
   objectives into a single option.

   A negotiation objective may have multiple parameters.  Parameters can
   be categorized into two class: the obligatory ones presented as fixed
   fields; and the optional ones presented in TLV sub-options.  It is
   NOT RECOMMENDED to split parameters in a single objective into
   multiple options, unless they have different response periods.  An
   exception scenario may also be described by split objectives.







Jiang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2014              [Page 20]


Internet-DraConfiguration Discovery and Negotiation Protocol   June 2014


9.2.  Vendor Specific Options

   Option codes 128~159 have been reserved for vendor specific options.
   Multiple option codes have been assigned because a single vendor may
   use multiple options simultaneously.  These vendor specific options
   are highly likely to have different meanings when used by different
   vendors.  Therefore, they SHOULD NOT be used without an explicit
   human decision.  They are not suitable for unmanaged networks such as
   home networks.

9.3.  Experimental Options

   Option code 176~191 have been reserved for experimental options.
   Multiple option codes have been assigned because a single experiment
   may use multiple options simultaneously.  These experimental options
   are highly likely to have different meanings when used for different
   experiments.  Therefore, they SHOULD NOT be used without an explicit
   human decision.  They are not suitable for unmanaged networks such as
   home networks.

10.  Items for Future Work

   There are a few open design questions that are worthy of more work in
   the near future, as listed below:

   o  UDP vs TCP: For now, this specification has chosen UDP as message
      transport mechanism.  However, this is not closed yet.  UDP is
      good for short conversations, fitting the divert scenarios well.
      However, it may have issues with large packets.  TCP is good for
      stable and long sessions, with a little bit of time comsumption
      during the session establishment stage.  If messages exceed a
      reasonable MTU, a TCP mode may be necessary.

   o  Message encryption: should CDNP messages be encrypted as well as
      signed, to protect against internal eavesdropping within the
      network?

   o  TLS or DTLS vs built-in security mechanism.  For now, this
      specifcation has chosen a PKI based build-in security mechanism.
      However, TLS or DTLS might be chosen as security infrastructure
      for simplification reasons.

   o  Timeout for lost Negotiation Ending and other messages to be
      added.

   o  CDNP currently requires every participant to have an NTP-
      synchronized clock.  Is this OK for low-end devices?




Jiang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2014              [Page 21]


Internet-DraConfiguration Discovery and Negotiation Protocol   June 2014


   o  Would use of MDNS have any impact on the Locator FQDN option?

   o  Use case.  A use case may help readers to understand the
      applicability of this specification.  However, the authors have
      not yet decided whether to have a separate document or have it in
      this document.  General uses cases for AN have been developed, but
      they are not specific enough for this purpose.

   o  Rules about how data items are defined in a negotiation objective.
      Maybe a formal information model is needed.

   o  We currently assume that there is only one counterpart for each
      discovery action.  If this is false or one negotiation request
      receives multiple different responses, how does the initator
      choose between them?  Could it split them into multiple follow-up
      negotiations?

   o  Alternatives to TLV format.  It may be useful to provide a generic
      method of carrying negotiation objectives in a high-level format
      such as YANG or an XML schema.  It may also be useful to provide a
      generic method of carrying existing configuration information such
      as DHCP(v6) or IPv6 RA messages.  These features could be provided
      by encapsulating such messages in their own TLVs.

11.  Security Considerations

   Using certificate-based security mechanism and its verification
   mechanism in CDNP message exchanging provides the authentication and
   data integrity protection.  The timestamp mechanism provides an anti-
   replay function.

   Since CDNP is intended to be deployed in a single administrative
   domain recommended to operate its own CA, there is no need for a
   trusted third party.

12.  IANA Considerations

   Section 4 defines the following mtwpulticast addresses, which have
   been assigned by IANA for use by CDNP:

   ALL_CDNP_NEIGHBOR multicast address  (IPv6): (TBD1)

   ALL_CDNP_NEIGHBOR multicast address  (IPv4): (TBD2)

   Section 4 defines the following UDP port, which have been assigned by
   IANA for use by CDNP:

   CDNP Listen Port:  (TBD3)



Jiang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2014              [Page 22]


Internet-DraConfiguration Discovery and Negotiation Protocol   June 2014


   This document defined a new Configuration Discovery and Negotiation
   Protocol.  The IANA is requested to create a new CDNP registry.  The
   IANA is also requested to add two new registry tables to the newly-
   created CDNP registry.  The two tables are the CDNP Messages table
   and CDNP Options table.

   Initial values for these registries are given below.  Future
   assignments are to be made through Standards Action or Specification
   Required [RFC5226].  Assignments for each registry consist of a type
   code value, a name and a document where the usage is defined.

   CDNP Messages table.  The values in this table are 16-bit unsigned
   integers.  The following initial values are assigned in Section 7 in
   this document:

         Type  |          Name               |   RFCs
      ---------+-----------------------------+------------
           0   |Reserved                     | this document
           1   |Request Message              | this document
           2   |Negotiation Message          | this document
           3   |Negotiation-end Message      | this document
           4   |Confirm-waiting Message      | this document

   CDNP Options table.  The values in this table are 16-bit unsigned
   integers.  The following initial values are assigned in Section 8 and
   Section 9 in this document:

         Type  |          Name               |   RFCs
      ---------+-----------------------------+------------
           0   |Reserved                     | this document
           1   |Divert Option                | this document
           2   |Accept Option                | this document
           3   |Decline Option               | this document
           4   |Waiting Time Option          | this document
           5   |Certificate Option           | this document
           6   |Sigature Option              | this document
           7   |Device IPv4 Address Option   | this document
           8   |Device IPv6 Address Option   | this document
           9   |Device FQDN Option           | this document
        10~64  |Reserved for future CDNP     | this document
               |General Options              |
       128~159 |Vendor Specific Options      | this document
       176~191 |Experimental Options         | this document

   The IANA is also requested to create two new registry tables in the
   CDNP Parameters registry.  The two tables are the Hash Algorithm for
   CDNP table and the Signature Algorithm for CDNP table.




Jiang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2014              [Page 23]


Internet-DraConfiguration Discovery and Negotiation Protocol   June 2014


   Initial values for these registries are given below.  Future
   assignments are to be made through Standards Action or Specification
   Required [RFC5226].  Assignments for each registry consist of a name,
   a value and a document where the algorithm is defined.

   Hash Algorithm for CDNP.  The values in this table are 16-bit
   unsigned integers.  The following initial values are assigned for
   Hash Algorithm for CDNP in this document:

             Name          |  Value    |  RFCs
      ---------------------+-----------+------------
            Reserved       |   0x0000  | this document
            SHA-1          |   0x0001  | this document
            SHA-256        |   0x0002  | this document

   Signature Algorithm for CDNP.  The values in this table are 16-bit
   unsigned integers.  The following initial values are assigned for
   Signature Algorithm for CDNP in this document:

             Name          |   Value   |  RFCs
      ---------------------+-----------+------------
            Reserved       |   0x0000  | this document
       RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5   |   0x0001  | this document

13.  Acknowledgements

   Valuable comments were received from Zhenbin Li and Dacheng Zhang,
   and other participants in the xxx working group.

   This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629].

14.  Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]

   draft-jiang-config-negotiation-protocol-02: adapted scope to include
   discovery, multiple threads, mentioned YANG etc. encapsulation,
   2013-06-26.

   draft-jiang-config-negotiation-protocol-01: corrections and
   additions, 2014-04-21.

   draft-jiang-config-negotiation-protocol-00: original version,
   2013-10-19.

15.  References







Jiang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2014              [Page 24]


Internet-DraConfiguration Discovery and Negotiation Protocol   June 2014


15.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC5280]  Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S.,
              Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
              Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
              (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, May 2008.

15.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.irtf-nmrg-an-gap-analysis]
              Behringer, M., Carpenter, B., and S. Jiang, "Gap Analysis
              for Autonomic Networking", draft-irtf-nmrg-an-gap-
              analysis-00 (work in progress), April 2014.

   [I-D.irtf-nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions]
              Behringer, M., Pritikin, M., Bjarnason, S., Clemm, A.,
              Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and L. Ciavaglia, "Autonomic
              Networking - Definitions and Design Goals", draft-irtf-
              nmrg-autonomic-network-definitions-00 (work in progress),
              December 2013.

   [I-D.jiang-config-negotiation-ps]
              Jiang, S., Yin, Y., and B. Carpenter, "Network
              Configuration Negotiation Problem Statement and
              Requirements", draft-jiang-config-negotiation-ps-03 (work
              in progress), May 2014.

   [RFC2629]  Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
              June 1999.

   [RFC4270]  Hoffman, P. and B. Schneier, "Attacks on Cryptographic
              Hashes in Internet Protocols", RFC 4270, November 2005.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.

   [RFC5905]  Mills, D., Martin, J., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch, "Network
              Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
              Specification", RFC 5905, June 2010.








Jiang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2014              [Page 25]


Internet-DraConfiguration Discovery and Negotiation Protocol   June 2014


Authors' Addresses

   Sheng Jiang
   Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
   Q14, Huawei Campus
   No.156 Beiqing Road
   Hai-Dian District, Beijing  100095
   P.R. China

   Email: jiangsheng@huawei.com


   Brian Carpenter
   Department of Computer Science
   University of Auckland
   PB 92019
   Auckland  1142
   New Zealand

   Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com


   Bing Liu
   Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
   Q14, Huawei Campus
   No.156 Beiqing Road
   Hai-Dian District, Beijing  100095
   P.R. China

   Email: leo.liubing@huawei.com





















Jiang, et al.           Expires December 28, 2014              [Page 26]


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