--- 1/draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-05.txt 2016-05-05 23:16:05.436173505 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-06.txt 2016-05-05 23:16:05.468174292 -0700 @@ -1,19 +1,19 @@ I2RS working group J. Haas Internet-Draft Juniper Intended status: Standards Track S. Hares -Expires: September 22, 2016 Huawei - March 21, 2016 +Expires: November 6, 2016 Huawei + May 5, 2016 I2RS Ephemeral State Requirements - draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-05 + draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-06 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 @@ -22,94 +22,99 @@ 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 September 22, 2016. + This Internet-Draft will expire on November 6, 2016. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 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 + 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 3.4. changes to YANG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 3.4.1. Suggested Yang changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 3.4.2. Changes to Yang Under debate . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 3.5. Minimal Changes to NETCONF for I2RS Protocol (v1) . . . . 6 - 3.5.1. dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 3.5.2. New operations (under debate) . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 3.5.3. modified operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 3.5.4. no supported operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 3.5.5. interactions with capabilities (Some Debate) . . . . 7 - 3.6. Changes to RESTCONF for I2RS Protocol (v1) . . . . . . . 7 - 3.6.1. dependencies for RESTCONF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 3.6.2. modification to context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 3.6.3. modification to existing operations . . . . . . . . . 8 + 3.4. Changes to YANG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 3.4.1. Suggested Yang syntax changes . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 3.5. Minimal Changes to NETCONF for I2RS Protocol version 1 . 6 + 3.5.1. Dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 3.5.2. Modified operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 3.5.3. Unsupported operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 + 3.5.4. Interactions with existing capabilities . . . . . . . 7 + 3.6. Changes to RESTCONF for Ephemeral State . . . . . . . . . 7 + 3.6.1. dependencies for RESTCONF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + 3.6.2. modification to context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 3.6.3. modification to existing operations . . . . . . . . . 9 3.7. Requirements regarding Identity, Secondary-Identity and - Priority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 3.7.1. Identity Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 + Priority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 3.7.1. Identity Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.7.2. Priority Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.7.3. Transactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 3.7.4. Subscriptions to Changed State Requirements . . . . . 10 - 4. Previously Considered Ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 4.1. A Separate Ephemeral Datastore . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 4.2. Panes of Glass/Overlay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 8.1. Normative References: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 + 3.7.4. Subscriptions to Changed State Requirements . . . . . 11 + 4. Previously Considered Ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 4.1. A Separate Ephemeral Data store . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 4.2. Panes of Glass/Overlay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 8.1. Normative References: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 + 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 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.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. +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 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 @@ -147,24 +152,24 @@ 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. + ([RFC6536])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 @@ -179,224 +184,264 @@ persistent 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 + operational state (e.g. 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. 3.3. Hierarchy 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 - to be able to have (both) the property of being writable and the - property of the data being ephemeral (or non-ephemeral). + objects) that have the property of being 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 that nodes have the following properties: ephemeral, writable/not- 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: - 1. protocol version support - "version 1", + 1. protocol version support - "I2RS version 1", 2. ephemeral true; (key word) - 3. data models indicate which supported - "NETCONF", "RESTCONF", - "NETCONF pub-sub push", + 3. data models indicate which component protocol is supported + "NETCONF", "RESTCONF" 4. encoding support - XML or JSON - 5. data models indicate which transports protocol supported: "TCP", - "SSH", "TLS", non-secure, and othrs. + 5. data models indicate which transports protocol supported:"SSH", + "TLS", "TCP" (nonsecure); 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" - - for modules or rpc allowing flexible validation. + 1. The key word "no-check" implies the I2RS client has done all + 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 (ephemeral and config), mixed derived state (ephemeral and config). 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 - push", + o protocol support - NETCONF [RFC6241], yang pub-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 transports protocol supported: "TCP", "SSH", "TLS", non-secure, and others. - o ability to select transports data model is available for. - Insecure portions must be able to select a insecure transport. + o ability to select transports data model available for management + 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), - yang modules support notificatino of write-conflicts, and pub/sub - push support. +3.5.1. Dependencies -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 - flexible validation is under debate. + 2. Yang modules must support notification of write conflicts. -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 , , , are altered to abide by ephemeral data store rules. -3.5.4. no supported operations +3.5.3. Unsupported operations and 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- - running, candidate datastore, confirmed commit, distinct start-up - capbility, + Ephemeral data stores do not support interactions with writable- + running, candidate data store, confirmed commit, and a distinct + start-up capability, Ephemeral data stores only support a "roll-back-on error" (I2RS all- - or-nothing), URL capability and XPATH capbility in source or target. - - (Debate) Validate function - is either full (NETCONF/RESTCONF) or - optionally (syntax, no-referential, full) + or-nothing), URL capability and XPATH capability in source or target. -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 - (ephemeral and config), mixed derived state (ephemeral and + o ephemeral model scope allowed - ephemeral modules, mixed config + module (ephemeral and config), mixed derived state (ephemeral and config). 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 - push", + o protocol support - RESTCONF [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf], yang pub- + 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 transports protocol supported: "TCP", "SSH", "TLS", non-secure, - and others. + o transports protocol supported: "SSH", "TLS", "TCP"(non-secure). - o ability to select transports data model is available for. - Insecure portions must be able to select a insecure transport. + o ability to select insecure transport for portion of data model. 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, - 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 [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-patch]. 2. The yang module library feature [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-library], - 3. the equivalent of the netconf pub/subscription push service - found in [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push] + 3. Publication-Subscription model found in + [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 RESTCONF must be able to support ephemeral data with an ephemeral context that supports "edit-collision" features that include timestamp, Entity tag, and the ability to compare I2RS client- priorities. 3.6.3. modification to existing operations The following modification to the existing operations are required: 1. OPTIONS - provide indication of ephemeral in modules, 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". 4. Ephemeral database must support publication notifications or errors as event stream, and subscribing to portions of that event stream. (see [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push] 3.7. Requirements regarding Identity, Secondary-Identity and Priority 3.7.1. Identity Requirements - Ephemeral-REQ-09:Clients shall have identifiers, and secondary + Ephemeral-REQ-09:Clients shall have identifiers and secondary identifiers. Explanation: I2RS requires clients to have an identifier. This identifier will be used by the Agent authentication mechanism over the appropriate protocol. - The Secondary identities can be carried as part of RPC or meta-data. - The primary purpose of the secondary identity is for 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 identities can be carried as part of rpc or meta-data + [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-metadata]. The primary purpose of the + secondary identity is for 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. 3.7.2. 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. 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 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 - 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: When a collision occurs as two clients are trying to write the same data node, this collision is considered an error and priorities were created to give a deterministic result. When 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 surrounding the collision. The original client may need to fix their state. @@ -443,23 +488,23 @@ 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 to sort it out. - Is important to reliability of the datastore that none of these error - handling for multiple operations in one more multiple messages cause - errors into be insert the I2RS ephemeral data-store. + Is important to reliability of the data store that none of these + error handling for multiple operations in one more multiple messages + 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. @@ -477,60 +522,59 @@ 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 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 be defined by - the data models. + o PubSub-REQ-2: Real time for notifications SHOULD be defined by the + data models. o PubSub-REQ-3: Security of the pub/sub data stream SHOULD be able to 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 protocol design MUST balance security against the throughput of the telemetry data. 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 within data models to support knobs for maximum frequency or resolution of pub/sub data. 4. Previously Considered Ideas 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 - + from one data store to another 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. 4.2. Panes of Glass/Overlay I2RS ephemeral configuration state is generally expected to be disjoint from persistent configuration. In some cases, extending @@ -585,68 +628,73 @@ o Kent Watsen 8. References 8.1. Normative References: [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-13 (work in - progress), February 2016. + System", draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-15 (work in + progress), April 2016. [I-D.ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements] Hares, S., Migault, D., and J. Halpern, "I2RS Security Related Requirements", draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security- requirements-03 (work in progress), March 2016. [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-05 (work in progress), February 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. + requirements-07 (work in progress), May 2016. [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-07 (work - in progress), February 2016. + Information Model", draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability-09 (work + 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] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF - Protocol", draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-10 (work in - progress), March 2016. + Protocol", draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-13 (work in + 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] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "YANG Module - Library", draft-ietf-netconf-yang-library-04 (work in - progress), February 2016. + Library", draft-ietf-netconf-yang-library-06 (work in + progress), April 2016. [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-patch] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "YANG Patch Media Type", draft-ietf-netconf-yang-patch-08 (work in progress), March 2016. [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push] Clemm, A., Prieto, A., Voit, E., Tripathy, A., and E. Einar, "Subscribing to YANG datastore push updates", - draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push-01 (work in progress), - February 2016. + draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push-02 (work in progress), March + 2016. [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-metadata] 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. [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, . 8.2. Informative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate