draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-05.txt   draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-06.txt 
I2RS working group J. Haas I2RS working group J. Haas
Internet-Draft Juniper Internet-Draft Juniper
Intended status: Standards Track S. Hares Intended status: Standards Track S. Hares
Expires: September 22, 2016 Huawei Expires: November 6, 2016 Huawei
March 21, 2016 May 5, 2016
I2RS Ephemeral State Requirements I2RS Ephemeral State Requirements
draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-05 draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-06
Abstract Abstract
This document covers requests to the netmod and netconf Working This document covers requests to the netmod and netconf Working
Groups for functionality to support the ephemeral state requirements Groups for functionality to support the ephemeral state requirements
to implement the I2RS architecture. to implement the I2RS architecture.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
skipping to change at page 1, line 33 skipping to change at page 1, line 33
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 22, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 6, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Review of Requirements from I2RS architecture document . . . 3 2. Review of Requirements from I2RS architecture document . . . 3
3. Ephemeral State Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Ephemeral State Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Persistence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Persistence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.3. Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4. changes to YANG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.4. Changes to YANG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4.1. Suggested Yang changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.4.1. Suggested Yang syntax changes . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4.2. Changes to Yang Under debate . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.5. Minimal Changes to NETCONF for I2RS Protocol version 1 . 6
3.5. Minimal Changes to NETCONF for I2RS Protocol (v1) . . . . 6 3.5.1. Dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.5.1. dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.5.2. Modified operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.5.2. New operations (under debate) . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.5.3. Unsupported operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.5.3. modified operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.5.4. Interactions with existing capabilities . . . . . . . 7
3.5.4. no supported operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.6. Changes to RESTCONF for Ephemeral State . . . . . . . . . 7
3.5.5. interactions with capabilities (Some Debate) . . . . 7 3.6.1. dependencies for RESTCONF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.6. Changes to RESTCONF for I2RS Protocol (v1) . . . . . . . 7 3.6.2. modification to context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.6.1. dependencies for RESTCONF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.6.3. modification to existing operations . . . . . . . . . 9
3.6.2. modification to context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.6.3. modification to existing operations . . . . . . . . . 8
3.7. Requirements regarding Identity, Secondary-Identity and 3.7. Requirements regarding Identity, Secondary-Identity and
Priority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Priority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.7.1. Identity Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.7.1. Identity Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.7.2. Priority Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.7.2. Priority Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.7.3. Transactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.7.3. Transactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.7.4. Subscriptions to Changed State Requirements . . . . . 10 3.7.4. Subscriptions to Changed State Requirements . . . . . 11
4. Previously Considered Ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4. Previously Considered Ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1. A Separate Ephemeral Datastore . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.1. A Separate Ephemeral Data store . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2. Panes of Glass/Overlay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.2. Panes of Glass/Overlay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1. Normative References: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8.1. Normative References: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Interface to the Routing System (I2RS) Working Group is chartered The Interface to the Routing System (I2RS) Working Group is chartered
with providing architecture and mechanisms to inject into and with providing architecture and mechanisms to inject into and
retrieve information from the routing system. The I2RS Architecture retrieve information from the routing system. The I2RS Architecture
document [I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture] abstractly documents a number document [I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture] abstractly documents a number
of requirements for implementing the I2RS requirements. of requirements for implementing the I2RS requirements.
The I2RS Working Group has chosen to use the YANG data modeling The I2RS Working Group has chosen to use the YANG data modeling
language [RFC6020] as the basis to implement its mechanisms. language [RFC6020] as the basis to implement its mechanisms.
Additionally, the I2RS Working group has chosen to use the NETCONF Additionally, the I2RS Working group has chosen to use the NETCONF
[RFC6241] and its similar but lighter-weight relative RESTCONF [RFC6241] and its similar but lighter-weight relative RESTCONF
[I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf] as the protocols for carrying I2RS. [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf] as the protocols for carrying I2RS.
While YANG, NETCONF and RESTCONF are a good starting basis for 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 there are some things needed from each of them in order for I2RS to
be implemented. be implemented.
1.1. Requirements Language
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].
2. Review of Requirements from I2RS architecture document 2. Review of Requirements from I2RS architecture document
The following are ten requirements that [I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture] The following are ten requirements that [I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture]
contains which are important high level requirements: contains which are important high level requirements:
1. The I2RS protocol SHOULD support highly reliable notifications 1. The I2RS protocol SHOULD support highly reliable notifications
(but not perfectly reliable notifications) from an I2RS agent to (but not perfectly reliable notifications) from an I2RS agent to
an I2RS client. an I2RS client.
2. The I2RS protocol SHOULD support a high bandwidth, asynchronous 2. The I2RS protocol SHOULD support a high bandwidth, asynchronous
skipping to change at page 4, line 17 skipping to change at page 4, line 22
written, updated or deleted. Just like the primary identity, written, updated or deleted. Just like the primary identity,
the secondary identity is only recorded when the data node is the secondary identity is only recorded when the data node is
written or updated or deleted written or updated or deleted
9. I2RS agent can have a lower priority I2RS client attempting to 9. I2RS agent can have a lower priority I2RS client attempting to
modify a higher priority client's entry in a data model. The modify a higher priority client's entry in a data model. The
filtering out of lower priority clients attempting to write or filtering out of lower priority clients attempting to write or
modify a higher priority client's entry in a data model SHOULD modify a higher priority client's entry in a data model SHOULD
be effectively handled and not put an undue strain on the I2RS be effectively handled and not put an undue strain on the I2RS
agent. Note: Jeff's suggests that priority is kept at the NACM agent. Note: Jeff's suggests that priority is kept at the NACM
at the client level (rather than the path level or the group ([RFC6536])at the client level (rather than the path level or
level) will allow these lower priority clients to be filtered the group level) will allow these lower priority clients to be
out using an extended NACM approach. This is only a suggestion filtered out using an extended NACM approach. This is only a
of a method to provide the requirement 9. suggestion of a method to provide the requirement 9.
10. The I2RS protocol MUST support the use of a secure transport. 10. The I2RS protocol MUST support the use of a secure transport.
However, certain functions such as notifications MAY use a non- However, certain functions such as notifications MAY use a non-
secure transport. Each model or service (notification, logging) secure transport. Each model or service (notification, logging)
must define within the model or service the valid uses of a non- must define within the model or service the valid uses of a non-
secure transport. secure transport.
3. Ephemeral State Requirements 3. Ephemeral State Requirements
3.1. Persistence 3.1. Persistence
Ephemeral-REQ-01: I2RS requires ephemeral state; i.e. state that does Ephemeral-REQ-01: I2RS requires ephemeral state; i.e. state that does
not persist across reboots. If state must be restored, it should be not persist across reboots. If state must be restored, it should be
done solely by replay actions from the I2RS client via the I2RS done solely by replay actions from the I2RS client via the I2RS
agent. agent.
While at first glance this may seem equivalent to the writable- While at first glance this may seem equivalent to the writable-
running datastore in NETCONF, running-config can be copied to a running data store in NETCONF, running-config can be copied to a
persistent data store, like startup config. I2RS ephemeral state persistent data store, like startup config. I2RS ephemeral state
MUST NOT be persisted. MUST NOT be persisted.
3.2. Constraints 3.2. Constraints
Ephemeral-REQ-02: Non-ephemeral state MUST NOT refer to ephemeral Ephemeral-REQ-02: Non-ephemeral state MUST NOT refer to ephemeral
state for constraint purposes; it SHALL be considered a validation state for constraint purposes; it SHALL be considered a validation
error if it does. error if it does.
Ephemeral-REQ-03: Ephemeral state must be able to utilized temporary Ephemeral-REQ-03: Ephemeral state must be able to utilized temporary
operational state which (MPLS LSP-ID or a BGP IN-RIB) as a operational state (e.g. MPLS LSP-ID or a BGP IN-RIB) as a
constraints. constraints.
Ephemeral-REQ-04: Ephemeral state MAY refer to non-ephemeral state Ephemeral-REQ-04: Ephemeral state MAY refer to non-ephemeral state
for purposes of implementing constraints. The designer of ephemeral for purposes of implementing constraints. The designer of ephemeral
state modules are advised that such constraints may impact the speed state modules are advised that such constraints may impact the speed
of processing ephemeral state commits and should avoid them when of processing ephemeral state commits and should avoid them when
speed is essential. speed is essential.
3.3. Hierarchy 3.3. Hierarchy
Ephemeral-REQ-05: The ability to add on an object (or a hierarchy of Ephemeral-REQ-05: The ability to add on an object (or a hierarchy of
objects) that have the property of being ephemeral. An object needs objects) that have the property of being ephemeral.
to be able to have (both) the property of being writable and the
property of the data being ephemeral (or non-ephemeral).
3.4. changes to YANG 3.4. Changes to YANG
Ephemeral-REQ-06: Yang MUST have a way to indicate in a data model Ephemeral-REQ-06: Yang MUST have a way to indicate in a data model
that nodes have the following properties: ephemeral, writable/not- that nodes have the following properties: ephemeral, writable/not-
writable, status/configuration, and secure/non-secure transport. writable, status/configuration, and secure/non-secure transport.
3.4.1. Suggested Yang changes 3.4.1. Suggested Yang syntax changes
The minimal changes to Yang are: The minimal changes to Yang are:
1. protocol version support - "version 1", 1. protocol version support - "I2RS version 1",
2. ephemeral true; (key word) 2. ephemeral true; (key word)
3. data models indicate which supported - "NETCONF", "RESTCONF", 3. data models indicate which component protocol is supported
"NETCONF pub-sub push", "NETCONF", "RESTCONF"
4. encoding support - XML or JSON 4. encoding support - XML or JSON
5. data models indicate which transports protocol supported: "TCP", 5. data models indicate which transports protocol supported:"SSH",
"SSH", "TLS", non-secure, and othrs. "TLS", "TCP" (nonsecure);
6. configuration for non-secure transport 6. configuration for non-secure transport
1. i2rs:nonsecure-ok; 1. i2rs-transport-non-secure ok;
3.4.2. Changes to Yang Under debate 7. Configuration for no validation checks: ephemeral-validation no
check;
(under debate) "ephemeral-validation syntax, no-reference, full" - 1. The key word "no-check" implies the I2RS client has done all
for modules or rpc allowing flexible validation. the validation and the I2RS agent is only validating the
message context. The risk in this validation method
3.5. Minimal Changes to NETCONF for I2RS Protocol (v1) 2. the key word "full" implies the I2RS Client is doing all
validation normally done for a configuration node.
Ephemeral-REQ-07: The conceptual changes to NETCONF/RESTCONF are: 8. These key words can apply to ephemeral leafs, ephemeral sub-
modules, ephemeral modules, and rpc allowing flexible validation
levels. This validation level can also be set on an rpc command
(e.g. rpc for creating a new route in the I2RS RIB). The default
for all I2RS ephemeral writes is full.
o protocol version support - "version 1", 9. Note: Anything less than full validation runs the risk of having
bad data in the I2RS ephemeral state.
3.5. Minimal Changes to NETCONF for I2RS Protocol version 1
Ephemeral-REQ-07: The conceptual changes to NETCONF
o protocol version support - "I2RS-version 1",
o ephemeral model scope - ephemeral modules, mixed config module o ephemeral model scope - ephemeral modules, mixed config module
(ephemeral and config), mixed derived state (ephemeral and (ephemeral and config), mixed derived state (ephemeral and
config). config).
o multiple message support - "all or nothing", o multiple message support - "all or nothing",
o pane of glass support - "single only". o pane of glass support - single ephemeral pane only.
o protocol supported - "NETCONF", "RESTCONF", "NETCONF pub-sub o protocol support - NETCONF [RFC6241], yang pub-sub push
push", [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push], yang module library
[I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-library], call-home
[I-D.ietf-netconf-call-home], and server modules
[I-D.ietf-netconf-server-model] (server module must be augmented
to support mutual authentication).
o encoding support - XML or JSON o encoding support - XML or JSON
o transports protocol supported: "TCP", "SSH", "TLS", non-secure, o transports protocol supported: "TCP", "SSH", "TLS", non-secure,
and others. and others.
o ability to select transports data model is available for. o ability to select transports data model available for management
Insecure portions must be able to select a insecure transport. protocol. Insecure portions must be able to select a insecure
transport.
3.5.1. dependencies o yang modules syntax changes described in section 3.4.
The dependencies for ephemeral support are: yang changes (see below), 3.5.1. Dependencies
yang modules support notificatino of write-conflicts, and pub/sub
push support.
3.5.2. New operations (under debate) 1. Yang data models, sub-modules, or modules must be flagged with
ephemeral data store flag,
The new operations were a bulk-write. This feature along with the 2. Yang modules must support notification of write conflicts.
flexible validation is under debate.
3.5.3. modified operations 3. yang modules syntax changes described in section 3.4.
4. Yang modules must support the following NETCONF/RESTCONF
features:
1. The yang module library feature
[I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-library],
2. Publication-Subscription model found in
[I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push]
3. Server initiated connection to a client
[I-D.ietf-netconf-call-home]
4. data models to configure RESTCONF/NETCONF servers
[I-D.ietf-netconf-server-model],
3.5.2. Modified operations
<get-config>, <edit-config> <copy-config>, <delete-config> <get> <get-config>, <edit-config> <copy-config>, <delete-config> <get>
<close-session>, <kill-session> are altered to abide by ephemeral <close-session>, <kill-session> are altered to abide by ephemeral
data store rules. data store rules.
3.5.4. no supported operations 3.5.3. Unsupported operations
<lock> and <unlock> are not supported for a target of ephemeral. <lock> and <unlock> are not supported for a target of ephemeral.
3.5.5. interactions with capabilities (Some Debate) 3.5.4. Interactions with existing capabilities
Ephemeral data stores do not support inteaction with writable- Ephemeral data stores do not support interactions with writable-
running, candidate datastore, confirmed commit, distinct start-up running, candidate data store, confirmed commit, and a distinct
capbility, start-up capability,
Ephemeral data stores only support a "roll-back-on error" (I2RS all- Ephemeral data stores only support a "roll-back-on error" (I2RS all-
or-nothing), URL capability and XPATH capbility in source or target. or-nothing), URL capability and XPATH capability in source or target.
(Debate) Validate function - is either full (NETCONF/RESTCONF) or
optionally (syntax, no-referential, full)
3.6. Changes to RESTCONF for I2RS Protocol (v1) 3.6. Changes to RESTCONF for Ephemeral State
Ephemeral-REQ-08: The conceptual changes to NETCONF/RESTCONF are: Ephemeral-REQ-08: The conceptual changes to RESTCONF are:
o protocol version support - "version 1", o protocol version support - "I2RS-version 1".
o ephemeral model scope - ephemeral modules, mixed config module o ephemeral model scope allowed - ephemeral modules, mixed config
(ephemeral and config), mixed derived state (ephemeral and module (ephemeral and config), mixed derived state (ephemeral and
config). config).
o multiple message support - "all or nothing", o multiple message support - "all or nothing",
o pane of glass support - "single only". o pane of glass support - "single ephemeral pane only".
o protocol supported - "NETCONF", "RESTCONF", "NETCONF pub-sub o protocol support - RESTCONF [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf], yang pub-
push", sub push [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push], yang module library
[I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-library], call-home
[I-D.ietf-netconf-call-home], and server modules
[I-D.ietf-netconf-server-model] (server module must be augmented
to support mutual authentication).
o encoding support - XML or JSON o encoding support - XML or JSON
o transports protocol supported: "TCP", "SSH", "TLS", non-secure, o transports protocol supported: "SSH", "TLS", "TCP"(non-secure).
and others.
o ability to select transports data model is available for. o ability to select insecure transport for portion of data model.
Insecure portions must be able to select a insecure transport.
3.6.1. dependencies for RESTCONF 3.6.1. dependencies for RESTCONF
1. Yang data models, sub-modules, or modules must be flaged with 1. Yang data models, sub-modules, or modules must be flagged with
ephemeral data store flag, ephemeral data store flag,
2. Yang modules must suport notification of write conflicts. 2. Yang modules must support notification of write conflicts.
3. Yang modules must suport the following: 3. yang modules syntax changes described in section 3.4.
4. Yang modules must support the following NETCONF/RESTCONF
features:
1. the yang-patch features as specified in 1. the yang-patch features as specified in
[I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-patch]. [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-patch].
2. The yang module library feature 2. The yang module library feature
[I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-library], [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-library],
3. the equivalent of the netconf pub/subscription push service 3. Publication-Subscription model found in
found in [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push] [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push]
4. Server initiated connection to a client
[I-D.ietf-netconf-call-home]
5. data models to configure RESTCONF/NETCONF servers
[I-D.ietf-netconf-server-model],
3.6.2. modification to context 3.6.2. modification to context
RESTCONF must be able to support ephemeral data with an ephemeral RESTCONF must be able to support ephemeral data with an ephemeral
context that supports "edit-collision" features that include context that supports "edit-collision" features that include
timestamp, Entity tag, and the ability to compare I2RS client- timestamp, Entity tag, and the ability to compare I2RS client-
priorities. priorities.
3.6.3. modification to existing operations 3.6.3. modification to existing operations
The following modification to the existing operations are required: The following modification to the existing operations are required:
1. OPTIONS - provide indication of ephemeral in modules, 1. OPTIONS - provide indication of ephemeral in modules,
2. HEAD - able to get HEAD of ephemeral or config module or the head 2. HEAD - able to get HEAD of ephemeral or config module or the head
of groups of ephemeral or configuratinon nodes in a module. of groups of ephemeral or configuration nodes in a module.
3. GET,Post,PUt, Patch, Delete, Query Parmeters - must be able to 3. GET,Post,PUT, Patch, Delete, Query Parameters - must be able to
handle a context="Ephemeral". handle a context="Ephemeral".
4. Ephemeral database must support publication notifications or 4. Ephemeral database must support publication notifications or
errors as event stream, and subscribing to portions of that event errors as event stream, and subscribing to portions of that event
stream. (see [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push] stream. (see [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push]
3.7. Requirements regarding Identity, Secondary-Identity and Priority 3.7. Requirements regarding Identity, Secondary-Identity and Priority
3.7.1. Identity Requirements 3.7.1. Identity Requirements
Ephemeral-REQ-09:Clients shall have identifiers, and secondary Ephemeral-REQ-09:Clients shall have identifiers and secondary
identifiers. identifiers.
Explanation: Explanation:
I2RS requires clients to have an identifier. This identifier will be I2RS requires clients to have an identifier. This identifier will be
used by the Agent authentication mechanism over the appropriate used by the Agent authentication mechanism over the appropriate
protocol. protocol.
The Secondary identities can be carried as part of RPC or meta-data. The Secondary identities can be carried as part of rpc or meta-data
The primary purpose of the secondary identity is for traceability [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-metadata]. The primary purpose of the
information which logs (who modifies certain nodes). This secondary secondary identity is for traceability information which logs (who
identity is an opaque value. [I-D.ietf-i2rs-traceability] provides modifies certain nodes). This secondary identity is an opaque value.
an example of how the secondary identity can be used for [I-D.ietf-i2rs-traceability] provides an example of how the secondary
traceability. identity can be used for traceability.
3.7.2. Priority Requirements 3.7.2. Priority Requirements
To support Multi-Headed Control, I2RS requires that there be a To support Multi-Headed Control, I2RS requires that there be a
decidable means of arbitrating the correct state of data when decidable means of arbitrating the correct state of data when
multiple clients attempt to manipulate the same piece of data. This multiple clients attempt to manipulate the same piece of data. This
is done via a priority mechanism with the highest priority winning. is done via a priority mechanism with the highest priority winning.
This priority is per-client. This priority is per-client.
Ephemeral-REQ-09: The data nodes MAY store I2RS client identity and Ephemeral-REQ-09: The data nodes MAY store I2RS client identity and
not the effective priority at the time the data node is stored. The not the effective priority at the time the data node is stored. The
I2RS Client MUST have one priority at a time. The priority MAY be I2RS Client MUST have one priority at a time. The priority MAY be
dynamically changed by AAA, but the exact actions are part of the dynamically changed by AAA, but the exact actions are part of the
protocol definition as long as Collisions are handled as described in protocol definition as long as collisions are handled as described in
Ephemeral-REQ-10, Ephemeral-REQ-11, and Ephemeral-REQ-12. Ephemeral-REQ-10, Ephemeral-REQ-11, and Ephemeral-REQ-12.
Ephemeral-REQ-10: When a collision occurs as two clients are trying Ephemeral-REQ-10: When a collision occurs as two clients are trying
to write the same data node, this collision is considered an error to write the same data node, this collision is considered an error
and priorities were created to give a deterministic result. When and priorities were created to give a deterministic result. When
there is a collision, a notification MUST BE sent to the original there is a collision, a notification MUST BE sent to the original
client to give the original client a chance to deal with the issues client to give the original client a chance to deal with the issues
surrounding the collision. The original client may need to fix their surrounding the collision. The original client may need to fix their
state. state.
skipping to change at page 9, line 44 skipping to change at page 10, line 38
Ephemeral-REQ-12: If two clients have the same priority, the Ephemeral-REQ-12: If two clients have the same priority, the
architecture says the first one wins. The I2RS protocol has this architecture says the first one wins. The I2RS protocol has this
requirement to prevent was the oscillation between clients. If one requirement to prevent was the oscillation between clients. If one
uses the last wins scenario, you may oscillate. That was our uses the last wins scenario, you may oscillate. That was our
opinion, but a design which prevents oscillation is the key point. opinion, but a design which prevents oscillation is the key point.
Hints for Implementation Hints for Implementation
Ephemeral configuration state nodes that are created or altered by Ephemeral configuration state nodes that are created or altered by
users that match a rule carrying i2rs-priority will have those nodes users that match a rule carrying i2rs-priority will have those nodes
annotated with metadata. Additionally, during commit processing, if annotated with meta data. Additionally, during commit processing, if
nodes are found where i2rs-priority is already present, and the nodes are found where i2rs-priority is already present, and the
priority is better than the transaction's user's priority for that priority is better than the transaction's user's priority for that
node, the commit should fail. An appropriate error should be node, the commit should fail. An appropriate error should be
returned to the user stating the nodes where the user had returned to the user stating the nodes where the user had
insufficient priority to override the state. insufficient priority to override the state.
3.7.3. Transactions 3.7.3. Transactions
Ephemeral-REQ-13: Section 7.9 of the [I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture] Ephemeral-REQ-13: Section 7.9 of the [I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture]
states the I2RS architecture does not include multi-message atomicity states the I2RS architecture does not include multi-message atomicity
skipping to change at page 10, line 32 skipping to change at page 11, line 25
2. Perform until error: Operations are applied in order, and when 2. Perform until error: Operations are applied in order, and when
error occurs the processing stops. This is useful when error occurs the processing stops. This is useful when
dependencies exist between multiple-message operations, and order dependencies exist between multiple-message operations, and order
is important. is important.
3. Perform all storing errors: Perform all actions storing error 3. Perform all storing errors: Perform all actions storing error
indications for errors. This method can be used when there are indications for errors. This method can be used when there are
no dependencies between operations, and the client wants to sort no dependencies between operations, and the client wants to sort
it out. it out.
Is important to reliability of the datastore that none of these error Is important to reliability of the data store that none of these
handling for multiple operations in one more multiple messages cause error handling for multiple operations in one more multiple messages
errors into be insert the I2RS ephemeral data-store. cause errors into be insert the I2RS ephemeral data-store.
Discussion of Current NETCONF/RESTCONF versus Discussion of Current NETCONF/RESTCONF versus
RESTCONF does an atomic action within a http session, and NETCONF has RESTCONF does an atomic action within a http session, and NETCONF has
atomic actions within a commit. These features may be used to atomic actions within a commit. These features may be used to
perform these features. perform these features.
I2RS processing is dependent on the I2RS model. The I2RS model must I2RS processing is dependent on the I2RS model. The I2RS model must
consider the dependencies within multiple operations work within a consider the dependencies within multiple operations work within a
model. model.
skipping to change at page 11, line 18 skipping to change at page 12, line 12
doable without requiring the notifications to be created as part of doable without requiring the notifications to be created as part of
every single I2RS module. every single I2RS module.
The following requirements from the The following requirements from the
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements] apply to ephemeral state: [I-D.ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements] apply to ephemeral state:
o PubSub-REQ-1: The I2RS interface SHOULD support user subscriptions o PubSub-REQ-1: The I2RS interface SHOULD support user subscriptions
to data with the following parameters: push of data synchronously to data with the following parameters: push of data synchronously
or asynchronously via registered subscriptions. or asynchronously via registered subscriptions.
o PubSSub-REQ-2: Real time for notifications SHOULD be defined by o PubSub-REQ-2: Real time for notifications SHOULD be defined by the
the data models. data models.
o PubSub-REQ-3: Security of the pub/sub data stream SHOULD be able o PubSub-REQ-3: Security of the pub/sub data stream SHOULD be able
to be model dependent. to be model dependent.
o PubSub-REQ-4: The Pub/Sub mechanism SHOULD allow subscription to o PubSub-REQ-4: The Pub/Sub mechanism SHOULD allow subscription to
critical Node Events. Examples of critical node events are BGP critical Node Events. Examples of critical node events are BGP
peers down or ISIS protocol overload bits. peers down or ISIS protocol overload bits.
o PubSub-REQ-5:I2RS telemetry data for certain protocols (E.g. BGP) o PubSub-REQ-5:I2RS telemetry data for certain protocols (E.g. BGP)
will require a hierarchy of filters or XPATHs. The I2RS protocol will require a hierarchy of filters or XPATHs. The I2RS protocol
design MUST balance security against the throughput of the design MUST balance security against the throughput of the
telemetry data. telemetry data.
o PubSub-REQ-6: I2RS Filters SHOULD be able to be dynamic. o PubSub-REQ-6: I2RS Filters SHOULD be able to be dynamic.
o Pub-Sub-REQ-7: I2rs protocol MUST be able to allow I2RS agent to o PubSub-REQ-7: I2rs protocol MUST be able to allow I2RS agent to
set limits on the data models it will support for pub/sub and set limits on the data models it will support for pub/sub and
within data models to support knobs for maximum frequency or within data models to support knobs for maximum frequency or
resolution of pub/sub data. resolution of pub/sub data.
4. Previously Considered Ideas 4. Previously Considered Ideas
4.1. A Separate Ephemeral Datastore 4.1. A Separate Ephemeral Data store
The primary advantage of a fully separate datastore is that the The primary advantage of a fully separate data store is that the
semantics of its contents are always clearly ephemeral. It also semantics of its contents are always clearly ephemeral. It also
provides strong segregation of I2RS configuration and operational provides strong segregation of I2RS configuration and operational
state from the rest of the system within the network element. state from the rest of the system within the network element.
The most obvious disadvantage of such a fully separate datastore is The most obvious disadvantage of such a fully separate data store is
that interaction with the network element's operational or that interaction with the network element's operational or
configuration state becomes significantly more difficult. As an configuration state becomes significantly more difficult. As an
example, a BGP I2RS use case would be the dynamic instantiation of a 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 BGP peer. While it is readily possible to re-use any defined
groupings from an IETF-standardized BGP module in such an I2RS groupings from an IETF-standardized BGP module in such an I2RS
ephemeral datastore's modules, one cannot currently reference state ephemeral data store's modules, one cannot currently reference state
from one datastore to anothe from one data store to another
For example, XPath queries are done in the context document of the 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 data store in question and thus it is impossible for an I2RS model to
fulfil a "must" or "when" requirement in the BGP module in the fulfil a "must" or "when" requirement in the BGP module in the
standard data stores. To implement such a mechanism would require standard data stores. To implement such a mechanism would require
appropriate semantics for XPath. appropriate semantics for XPath.
4.2. Panes of Glass/Overlay 4.2. Panes of Glass/Overlay
I2RS ephemeral configuration state is generally expected to be I2RS ephemeral configuration state is generally expected to be
disjoint from persistent configuration. In some cases, extending disjoint from persistent configuration. In some cases, extending
persistent configuration with ephemeral attributes is expected to be persistent configuration with ephemeral attributes is expected to be
useful. A case that is considered potentially useful but problematic useful. A case that is considered potentially useful but problematic
skipping to change at page 13, line 30 skipping to change at page 14, line 23
o Kent Watsen o Kent Watsen
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References: 8.1. Normative References:
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture] [I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture]
Atlas, A., Halpern, J., Hares, S., Ward, D., and T. Atlas, A., Halpern, J., Hares, S., Ward, D., and T.
Nadeau, "An Architecture for the Interface to the Routing Nadeau, "An Architecture for the Interface to the Routing
System", draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-13 (work in System", draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-15 (work in
progress), February 2016. progress), April 2016.
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements] [I-D.ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements]
Hares, S., Migault, D., and J. Halpern, "I2RS Security Hares, S., Migault, D., and J. Halpern, "I2RS Security
Related Requirements", draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security- Related Requirements", draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-
requirements-03 (work in progress), March 2016. requirements-03 (work in progress), March 2016.
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements] [I-D.ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements]
Voit, E., Clemm, A., and A. Prieto, "Requirements for Voit, E., Clemm, A., and A. Prieto, "Requirements for
Subscription to YANG Datastores", draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub- Subscription to YANG Datastores", draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-
requirements-05 (work in progress), February 2016. requirements-07 (work in progress), May 2016.
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model]
Bahadur, N., Kini, S., and J. Medved, "Routing Information
Base Info Model", draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-08 (work
in progress), October 2015.
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-traceability] [I-D.ietf-i2rs-traceability]
Clarke, J., Salgueiro, G., and C. Pignataro, "Interface to Clarke, J., Salgueiro, G., and C. Pignataro, "Interface to
the Routing System (I2RS) Traceability: Framework and the Routing System (I2RS) Traceability: Framework and
Information Model", draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability-07 (work Information Model", draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability-09 (work
in progress), February 2016. in progress), May 2016.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-call-home]
Watsen, K., "NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home",
draft-ietf-netconf-call-home-17 (work in progress),
December 2015.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf] [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf]
Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-10 (work in Protocol", draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-13 (work in
progress), March 2016. progress), April 2016.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-server-model]
Watsen, K. and J. Schoenwaelder, "NETCONF Server and
RESTCONF Server Configuration Models", draft-ietf-netconf-
server-model-09 (work in progress), March 2016.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-library] [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-library]
Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "YANG Module Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "YANG Module
Library", draft-ietf-netconf-yang-library-04 (work in Library", draft-ietf-netconf-yang-library-06 (work in
progress), February 2016. progress), April 2016.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-patch] [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-patch]
Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "YANG Patch Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "YANG Patch
Media Type", draft-ietf-netconf-yang-patch-08 (work in Media Type", draft-ietf-netconf-yang-patch-08 (work in
progress), March 2016. progress), March 2016.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push] [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push]
Clemm, A., Prieto, A., Voit, E., Tripathy, A., and E. Clemm, A., Prieto, A., Voit, E., Tripathy, A., and E.
Einar, "Subscribing to YANG datastore push updates", Einar, "Subscribing to YANG datastore push updates",
draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push-01 (work in progress), draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push-02 (work in progress), March
February 2016. 2016.
[I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-metadata] [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-metadata]
Lhotka, L., "Defining and Using Metadata with YANG", Lhotka, L., "Defining and Using Metadata with YANG",
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-06 (work in progress), draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-07 (work in progress),
March 2016. March 2016.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., [RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011, (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
 End of changes. 68 change blocks. 
133 lines changed or deleted 182 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/