wdiff draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-00.txt draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-01.txt

I2RS working group J. Haas
Internet-Draft Juniper
Intended status: Standards Track S. Hares
Expires: December 25, 2015 February 29, 2016 Huawei
June 23,
August 28, 2015

I2RS Ephemeral State Requirements
draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-00
draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-01

Abstract

This document covers requests to the netmod and netconf Working
Groups for functionality to support the ephemeral state requirements
to implement the I2RS architecture.

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 25, 2015. February 29, 2016.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Review of Requirements from I2RS architecture document . . . 3
3. Ephemeral State Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Persistence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. 5
3.4. changes to YANG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.
3.5. Minimal sub-set of Changes to NETCONF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.
3.6. Requirements regarding Identity, Secondary-Identity and
Priority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. 5
3.6.1. Identity Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2. 5
3.6.2. Priority Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.3. Representing I2RS Attributes in ephemeral configuration
state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.4. Semantics around storing and managing of priority and
client ID. . . . 5
3.6.3. Transactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. 6
3.6.4. Subscriptions to Changed State Requirements . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Transactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. 7
4. Previously Considered Ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.1. 8
4.1. A Separate Ephemeral Datastore . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2. 8
4.2. Panes of Glass/Overlay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. Actions Required to Implement this Draft . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. 8
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
12. 9
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
13. 9
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
14. 9
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
14.1. 10
8.1. Normative References: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
14.2. . 10
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 11

1. Introduction

The Interface to the Routing System (I2RS) Working Group is chartered
with providing architecture and mechanisms to inject into and
retrieve information from the routing system. The I2RS Architecture
document [I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture] abstractly documents a number
of requirements for implementing the I2RS requirements.

The I2RS Working Group has chosen to use the YANG data modeling
language [RFC6020] as the basis to implement its mechanisms.

Additionally, the I2RS Working group has chosen to use the NETCONF
[RFC6241] and its similar but lighter-weight relative RESTCONF
[I-D.bierman-netconf-restconf]
[I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf] as the protocols for carrying I2RS.

While YANG, NETCONF and RESTCONF are a good starting basis for I2RS,
there are some things needed from each of them in order for I2RS to
be implemented.

2. Review of Requirements from I2RS architecture document

The following are ten requirements that [I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture]
contains which are important high level requirements:

1. The I2RS protocol SHOULD support highly reliable notifications
(but not perfectly reliable notifications) from an I2RS agent to
an I2RS client.

2. The I2RS protocol SHOULD support a high bandwidth, asynchronous
interface, with real-time guarantees on getting data from an
I2RS agent by an I2RS client.

3. The I2RS protocol will operate on data models which may be
protocol independent or protocol dependent.

4. I2RS Agent needs to record the client identity when a node is
created or modified. The I2RS Agent needs to be able to read
the client identity of a node and use the client identity's
associated priority to resolve conflicts. The secondary
identity is useful for traceability and may also be recorded.

5. Client identity will have only one priority for the client
identity. A collision on writes is considered an error, but
priority is utilized to compare requests from two different
clients in order to modify an existing node entry. Only an
entry from a client which is higher priority can modify an
existing entry (First entry wins). Priority only has meaning at
the time of use.

6. The Agent identity and the Client identity should be passed
outside of the I2RS protocol in a authentication and
authorization protocol (AAA). Client priority may be passed in
the AAA protocol. The values of identities are originally set
by operators, and not standardized.

7. An I2RS Client and I2RS Agent mutually authenticate each other
based on pre-established authenticated identities.

8. Secondary identity data is read-only meta-data that is recorded
by the I2RS agent associated with a data model's node is
written, updated or deleted. Just like the primary identity,
the secondary identity is only recorded when the data node is
written or updated or deleted

9. I2RS agent can have a lower priority I2RS client attempting to
modify a higher priority client's entry in a data model. The
filtering out of lower priority clients attempting to write or
modify a higher priority client's entry in a data model SHOULD
be effectively handled and not put an undue strain on the I2RS
agent. Note: Jeff's suggests that priority is kept at the NACM
at the client level (rather than the path level or the group
level) will allow these lower priority clients to be filtered
out using an extended NACM approach. This is only a suggestion
of a method to provide the requirement 9.

10. The I2RS protocol MUST support the use of a secure transport.
However, certain functions such as notifications MAY use a non-
secure transport. Each model or service (notification, logging)
must define within the model or service the valid uses of a non-
secure transport.

3. Ephemeral State Requirements

3.1. Persistence

Ephemeral-REQ-01: I2RS requires ephemeral state; i.e. state that does
not persist across reboots. If state must be restored, it should be
done solely by replay actions from the I2RS client via the I2RS
agent.

While at first glance this may seem equivalent to the writable-
running datastore in NETCONF, running-config can be copied to a
persistant data store, like startup config. I2RS ephemeral state
MUST NOT be persisted.

3.2. Constraints

Ephemeral-REQ-02: Non-ephemeral state MUST NOT refer to ephemeral
state for constraint purposes; it SHALL be considered a validation
error if it does.

Ephemeral-REQ-03: Ephemeral state must be able to utilized temporary
operational state which (MPLS LSP-ID or a BGP IN-RIB) as a
constraints.

Ephemeral-REQ-04> Ephemeral state MAY refer to non-ephemeral state
for purposes of implementing constraints. The designer of ephemeral
state modules are advised that such constraints may impact the speed
of processing ephemeral state commits and should avoid them when
speed is essential.

Non-ephemeral state MUST NOT refer to ephemeral state for constraint
purposes; it SHALL be considered a validation error if it does.

3.3. Hierarchy

Similar to configuration state (config true, see [RFC6020], section
7.19.1), ephemeral state is not permitted

Ephemeral-REQ-05: The ability to be configured underneath
nodes add on an object (or a hierarchy of
objects) that are "config false" (state data).

Configuration have the property of ephemeral state underneath "config true" is
permitted. This permits augmentation being ephemeral. An object needs
to be able to have (both) the property of configuration state with
ephemeral nodes.

Configuration being writable and the
property of "config true" state underneath the data being ephemeral state (or non-ephemeral).

3.4. changes to YANG

Ephemeral-REQ-06: Yang MUST
NOT be done.

State data, "config false", is permitted underneath ephemeral state.
This state data is part of the ephemeral module and should become
inaccessible if the ephemeral module reboots.

4. changes to YANG

The YANG "config" keyword ([RFC6020], section 7.19.1) is extended have a way to
support the keyword "ephemeral" indicate in addition to "true" and "false".
"config ephemeral" declares the nodes underneath to be ephemeral
configuration.

5. Changes to NETCONF

A capability is registered declaring a data model
that the server supports
ephemeral configuration. E.g.:

:ephemeral-config
urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:ephemeral-config:1.0

<get-config> will normally return "config ephemeral" nodes as it is a
form of configuration. It is further extended to add a new
parameter, "filter-ephemeral". This parameter accepts have the following
arguments:

o none (default): No filtering properties: ephemeral, writable/not-
writable, status/configuration.

3.5. Minimal sub-set of persistent or ephemeral state is
done.

o ephemeral-only: Only nodes representing ephemeral state are
returned.

o exclude-ephemeral: Only persistent configuration is returned.

<get> is similarly extended to support "filter-ephemeral".

When a <copy-config> Changes

Ephemeral-REQ-07: The minimal set is done, regardless of datastore, nodes that are
"config ephemeral" are excluded from the target output.

6. ...

Potential set:

3.6. Requirements regarding Identity, Secondary-Identity and Priority

6.1.

3.6.1. Identity Requirements

Ephemeral-REQ-08:Clients shall have identities, and secondary
identities.

Explanation

I2RS requires clients to have an identity. This identity will be
used by the Agent authentication mechanism over the appropriate
protocol.

I2RS also permits clients to have a

The Secondary identities can be carried as part of RPC or meta-data.
The primary purpose of the secondary identity which may be
used is for troubleshooting. traceability
information which logs (who modifies certain nodes). This secondary
identity is an opaque value. [I-D.ietf-i2rs-traceability] provides
an example of how the secondary identity can be used for
traceability.

The secondary identity is carried in the configuration operation
using a new parameter to <edit-config>. E.g.:

<rpc message-id="101" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<edit-config>
<i2rs:irs-secondary-identity>user1</i2rs>
<target>
<running/>
</target>
<config>
<top xmlns="http://example.com/schema/1.2/config">
<interface>
<name>Ethernet0/0</name>
<mtu>1500</mtu>
</interface>
</top>
</config>
</edit-config>
</rpc>

"config ephemeral" nodes that are created or altered as part of the
config operation will carry the secondary-identity as read-only
metadata.

6.2.

3.6.2. Priority Requirements

To support Multi-Headed Control, I2RS requires that there be a
decidable means of arbitrating the correct state of data when
multiple clients attempt to manipulate the same piece of data. This
is done via a priority mechanism with the highest priority winning.
This priority is per-client.

This further implies that

Ephemeral-REQ-09: The data nodes MAY store I2RS client identity and
not the effective priority at the time the data node is an attribute that is stored in stored. The
I2RS Client MUST have one priority at a time. The priority MAY be
dynamically changed by AAA, but the NETCONF Access Control Model [RFC6536] as exact actions are part of the group.
E.g.:

+--rw nacm
+--rw enable-nacm? boolean
+--rw read-default? action-type
+--rw write-default? action-type
+--rw exec-default? action-type
+--rw enable-external-groups? boolean
+--ro denied-operations yang:zero-based-counter32
+--ro denied-data-writes yang:zero-based-counter32
+--ro denied-notifications yang:zero-based-counter32
+--rw groups
| +--rw group [name]
| +--rw name group-name-type
| +--rw user-name* user-name-type
| +--rw i2rs:i2rs-priority i2rs-priority-type

Ephemeral configuration state nodes that
protocol definition as long as Collisions are created or altered by
users that match handled as described in
Ephemeral-REQ-10, Ephemeral-REQ-11, and Ephemeral-REQ-12.

Ephemeral-REQ-10: When a rule carrying i2rs-priority will have those nodes
annotated with metadata. Additionally, during commit processing, if
nodes are found where i2rs-priority is already present, and the
priority is better than collision occurs as two clients are trying
to write the transaction's user's priority for that same data node, the commit SHALL fail. An appropriate this collision is considered an error should be returned
and priorities were created to give a deterministic result. When
there is a collision, a notification MUST BE sent to the user stating the nodes where original
client to give the user had insufficient
priority original client a chance to override deal with the state.

6.3. Representing I2RS Attributes in ephemeral configuration state

I2RS attributes issues
surrounding the collision. The original client may be modeled as meta-data,
[I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-metadata]. This meta-data MUST be read-only;
operations attempting to alter it MUST be silently ignored. An I2RS
module will be defined need to document this meta data. An example of its
use:

6.4. Semantics around storing and managing of priority and client ID. fix their
state.

Ephemeral-REQ-11: The semantics and desired behavior around the storing and managing of
priority requirement to support multi-headed control is
required for collisions and client ID have the following properties:

1. First - the priority mechanism is intended to handle "error cases resolution of colliding writes" in a predictable way that results in a
consistent mechanism. It collisions.
Multi-headed control is true that the same mechanism could
be used if they were not considered "errors", but it is important tied to minimize ephemeral state. I2RS is not
mandating how AAA supports priority. Mechanisms which prevent
collisions of two clients trying the need and impact same node of data are the priority mechanism

2. Second, if there is a priority conflict where both focus.

Ephemeral-REQ-12: If two clients
(Client_A and Client_B) share have the same priority, the client that
wrote
architecture says the first one wins. This is The I2RS protocol has this
requirement to avoid network oscillation if two
clients are "fighting" over writing the same state. When there
are multiple clients and prevent was the time arrival of oscillation between clients. If one
uses the messages may not
be predictable (network transit differences, which socket is
read, software differences), basing state on last arrival time
doesn't give consistent and predictable behavior. wins scenario, you may oscillate. That gives
behavior ont the following time-line

1. Time_1: Client_A writes X=N with priority 10

2. Time_2: Client_B attempts to write X=K with priority 10 and
is rejected

3. Time_3: Client_A writes X=P with priority 10 and succeeds

For the I2RS Agent to properly handle these actions, it is
necessary to know that X is owned by Client_A. Priority alone is
not sufficient because the basis for rejecting Client_B's write
but accepting Client_A's write is that Client_A is the owner.
Thus it is necessary to store the Client Identity with the nodes
that it owns. This could be in an I2RS-specific overlay that is
only used by the I2RS agent and only contains the nodes that have
been written by I2RS.

3. Third, a question has come up regarding what the behavior of
priority is if a client's priority changes and whether priority
needs to be stored with each node when that node is written. In
my "keep-it-simple" perspective, priority is associated with a
Client and is only used on a conflict. This would mean that
priority is not stored with a node when that node is written.
Instead, the Client Identity is stored with the node and the
Client's priority is looked up in a client table that the I2RS
Agent can access. That client table could be populated via
configuration, via a AAA protocol, via NACM, etc. The sematic
implications are as follows:

1. Time_1: Client_A writes X=N with priority 10

2. Time_2: Client_A's priority is changed (UNUSUAL) to priority
6

3. Time_3: Client_B writes X=K with priority 8 (succeeds since 8
> 6)

4. Time_4: Client_A attempts to write X=N with priority 6 (fails
b/c 8 > > 6)

5. Time_5: Client_B's priority is changed (UNUSUAL) to priority
7

6. Time_6 Client_B writes X=P with priority 7 and succeeds (same
> owner, no priority check)

The alternate approach would have store the priority with which a
node was written. That is more like a priority lock that could
only be changed by a client with higher priority or by the same
client, regardless of priority. This approach would require
storing a priority per node and the semantic implications would
be as follows:

1. Time_1:Client_A writes X=N with priority 10

2. Time_2:Client_A's priority is changed (UNUSUAL) to priority 6

3. Time_3: Client_B attempts to write X=K with priority 8 and
fails (10 > 8)

4. Time_4: Client_A writes X=N with priority 6 and succeeds
(same owner, no priority check)

5. Time_5: Client_B's priority is changed (UNUSUAL) to priority
7

6. Time_6 Client_B writes X=P with priority 7 and succeeds (7 >
6)

The behavior for these two models is different at Time_3 and
Time_4.

The initial preference was that the priority is not stored with the
node, our
opinion, but if it necessary to store it with the node additional
discussion may be needed with the I2RS WG.

7. Subscriptions to Changed State Requirements

I2RS clients require the ability to monitor changes to ephemeral
state. While subscriptions are well defined for receiving
notifications, the need to create a notification set design which prevents oscillation is the key point.

Hints for all
ephemeral Implementation

Ephemeral configuration state may be overly burdensome to nodes that are created or altered by
users that match a rule carrying i2rs-priority will have those nodes
annotated with metadata. Additionally, during commit processing, if
nodes are found where i2rs-priority is already present, and the user.

There
priority is thus a need better than the transaction's user's priority for a general subscription mechanism that can
provide notification of changed state, with sufficient information to
permit the client to retrieve
node, the impacted nodes. This commit should fail. An appropriate error should be
doable without requiring
returned to the notifications user stating the nodes where the user had
insufficient priority to be created as part of
every single I2RS module.

8. override the state.

3.6.3. Transactions

Ephemeral-REQ-13: Section 7.9 of the [I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture]
states the I2RS architecture does not include multi-message atomicity
and rollback roll-back mechanisms, but suggests an I2RS client may inidicate indicates
one of the following error handling techniques for a given message
sent to the I2RS client:

1. Perform all or none: All operations succeed or none of them will
be applied. This useful when there are mutual dependencies.

2. Perform until error: Operations are applied in order, and when
error occurs the processing stops. This is useful when
dependencies exist between multiple-message operations, and order
is important.

3. Perform all storing errors: Perform all actions storing error
indications for errors. This method can be used when there are
no dependencies between operations, and the client wants wants to sort
it out.

I2RS-REQ-XX: None of these three error handling for multi-message
cases SHOULD cause errors into be insert the I2RS ephemeral data-
store.

Discussion of Current NETCONF/RESTCONF versus

RESTCONF does an atomic action within a http session, and NETCONF has
atomic actions within a commit. These features may be used to
perform these features.

I2RS processing is dependent on the I2RS model. The I2RS model must
consider the dependencies within multiple operations work within a
model.

3.6.4. Subscriptions to Changed State Requirements

I2RS clients require the ability to monitor changes to ephemeral
state. While subscriptions are well defined for receiving
notifications, the need to create a notification set for all
ephemeral configuration state may be overly burdensome to the user.

There is thus a need for a general subscription mechanism that can
provide notification of changed state, with sufficient information to
permit the client to sort
it out.

None of these three cases insert known errors into retrieve the impacted nodes. This should be
doable without requiring the notifications to be created as part of
every single I2RS module.

The following requirements from the
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements] apply to ephemeral
datastore.

RESTCONF does an atomic action within a http session, and NETCONF has
atomic actions within a commit. These features may state:

o PubSub-REQ-1: The I2RS interface SHOULD support user subscriptions
to data with the following parameters: push of data synchronously
or asynchronously via registered subscriptions.

o PubSSub-REQ-2: Real time for notifications SHOULD BEdefined
defined by the data models.

o PubSub-REQ-3: Security of the pub/sub data stream SHOULD be used able
to
perform these features. be model dependent.

o PubSub-REQ-4: The Pub/Sub mechanism SHOULD allow subscription to
critical Node Events. Examples of critical node events are BGP
peers down or ISIS protocol overload bits.

o PubSub-REQ-5:I2RS telemetry data for certain protocols (E.g. BGP)
will require a hierarchy of filters or XPATHs. The I2RS processing is dependent on protocol
design MUST balance security against the throughput of the
telemetry data.

o PubSub-REQ-6: I2RS model. The Filters SHOULD be able to be dynamic.

o Pub-Sub-REQ-7: I2rs protocol MUST be able to allow I2RS model must
consider agent to
set limits on the dependencies within multiple operations work data models it will support for pub/sub and
within a
model.

9. data models to support knobs for maximum frequency or
resolution of pub/sub data.

4. Previously Considered Ideas

9.1.

4.1. A Separate Ephemeral Datastore

The primary advantage of a fully separate datastore is that the
semantics of its contents are always clearly ephemeral. It also
provides strong segregation of I2RS configuration and operational
state from the rest of the system within the network element.

The most obvious disadvantage of such a fully separate datastore is
that interaction with the network element's operational or
configuration state becomes significantly more difficult. As an
example, a BGP I2RS use case would be the dynamic instantiation of a
BGP peer. While it is readily possible to re-use any defined
groupings from an IETF-standardized BGP module in such an I2RS
ephemeral datastore's modules, one cannot currently reference state
from one datastore to anothe

For example, XPath queries are done in the context document of the
datastore in question and thus it is impossible for an I2RS model to
fulfil a "must" or "when" requirement in the BGP module in the
standard data stores. To implement such a mechanism would require
appropriate semantics for XPath.

9.2.

4.2. Panes of Glass/Overlay

I2RS ephemeral configuration state is generally expected to be
disjoint from persistent configuration. In some cases, extending
persistent configuration with ephemeral attributes is expected to be
useful. A case that is considered potentially useful but problematic
was explored was the ability to "overlay" persistent configuration
with ephemeral configuration.

In this overlay scenario, persistent configuration that was not
shadowed by ephemeral configuration could be "read through".

There were two perceived disadvantages to this mechanism:

The general complexity with managing the overlay mechanism itself.

Consistency issues with validation should the ephemeral state be
lost, perhaps on reboot. In such a case, the previously shadowed
persistent state may no longer validate.

10. Actions Required to Implement this Draft

o Draft for adding "config ephemeral" to YANG.

o Draft defining NETCONF changes including capability, RPC operation
changes and support of secondary identity, RPC changes to support
priority.

o I2RS draft to define meta-data for priority and secondary-
identity.

11.

5. IANA Considerations

TBD.

12.

There are no IANA requirements for this document.

6. Security Considerations

TBD.

13.

The security requirements for the I2RS protocol are covered in
[I-D.hares-i2rs-auth-trans] document.

7. Acknowledgements

This document is an attempt to distill lengthy conversations on the
I2RS mailing list for an architecture that was for a long period of
time a moving target. Some individuals in particular warrant
specific mention for their extensive help in providing the basis for
this document:

o Alia Atlas

o Andy Bierman

o Martin Bjorklund

o Dean Bogdanavich

o Rex Fernando

o Joel Halpern

o Thomas Nadeau

o Juergen Schoenwaelder
o Kent Watsen

14.

8. References

14.1.

8.1. Normative References:

[I-D.hares-i2rs-auth-trans]
Hares, S., Migault, D., and J. Halpern, "I2RS Security
Related Requirements", draft-hares-i2rs-auth-trans-05
(work in progress), August 2015.

[I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture]
Atlas, A., Halpern, J., Hares, S., Ward, D., and T.
Nadeau, "An Architecture for the Interface to the Routing
System", draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-09 (work in
progress), March 2015.

[I-D.ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements]
Voit, E., Clemm, A., and A. Prieto, "Requirements for
Subscription to YANG Datastores", draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-
requirements-02 (work in progress), March 2015.

[I-D.ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model]
Bahadur, N., Folkes, R., Kini, S., and J. Medved, "Routing
Information Base Info Model", draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-
model-06 (work in progress), March 2015.

[I-D.ietf-i2rs-traceability]
Clarke, J., Salgueiro, G., and C. Pignataro, "Interface to
the Routing System (I2RS) Traceability: Framework and
Information Model", draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability-03 (work
in progress), May 2015.

[I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-metadata]
Lhotka, L., "Defining and Using Metadata with YANG",
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-01 (work in progress),
June 2015.

14.2.

8.2. Informative References

[I-D.bierman-netconf-restconf]

[I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf]
Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., Watsen, K., and R. Fernando, K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", draft-bierman-netconf-restconf-04 draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-07 (work in
progress), February 2014. July 2015.

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

[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010. 2010,
<http://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. 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.

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

Authors' Addresses

Jeff Haas
Juniper

Email: jhaas@juniper.net

Susan Hares
Huawei
Saline
US

Email: shares@ndzh.com