draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-18.txt   draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-19.txt 
I2RS working group J. Haas I2RS working group J. Haas
Internet-Draft Juniper Internet-Draft Juniper
Intended status: Informational S. Hares Intended status: Informational S. Hares
Expires: March 24, 2017 Huawei Expires: April 8, 2017 Huawei
September 20, 2016 October 5, 2016
I2RS Ephemeral State Requirements I2RS Ephemeral State Requirements
draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-18.txt draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-19.txt
Abstract Abstract
The I2RS (interface to routing system) Architecture document The I2RS (interface to the routing system) Architecture document
(RFC7920) abstractly describes a number of requirements for ephemeral (RFC7921) abstractly describes a number of requirements for ephemeral
state (in terms of capabilities and behaviors) which any protocol state (in terms of capabilities and behaviors) which any protocol
suite attempting to meet I2RS needs has to provide. This document suite attempting to meet the needs of I2RS has to provide. This
describes in detail requirements for ephemeral state for those document describes, in detail, requirements for ephemeral state for
implementing the I2RS higher-protocol. those implementing the I2RS protocol.
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
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 March 24, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 8, 2017.
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
skipping to change at page 2, line 12 skipping to change at page 2, line 12
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 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Ephemeral State Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Persistence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Persistence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3. Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4. Ephemeral Configuration overlapping Local Configuration . 6 3.4. Ephemeral Configuration overlapping Local Configuration . 5
4. YANG Features for Ephemeral State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. YANG Features for Ephemeral State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. NETCONF Features for Ephemeral State . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. NETCONF Features for Ephemeral State . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. RESTCONF Features for Ephemeral State . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. RESTCONF Features for Ephemeral State . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Requirements regarding Supporting Multi-Head Control via 7. Requirements regarding Supporting Multi-Head Control via
client Priority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 client Priority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Multiple Message Transactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. Multiple Message Transactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Pub/Sub Requirements Expanded for Ephemeral State . . . . . . 8 9. Pub/Sub Requirements Expanded for Ephemeral State . . . . . . 8
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
13.1. Normative References: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 13.1. Normative References: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
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 [RFC7921] abstractly documents a number of requirements for document [RFC7921] abstractly documents a number of requirements for
implementing the I2RS requirements. Section 2 reviews 10 key implementing the I2RS requirements. Section 2 reviews 10 key
skipping to change at page 3, line 14 skipping to change at page 3, line 14
the creation of the I2RS protocol implementations requires that the the creation of the I2RS protocol implementations requires that the
I2RS requirements I2RS requirements
1. select features from YANG, NETCONF, and RESTCONF per version of 1. select features from YANG, NETCONF, and RESTCONF per version of
the I2RS protocol (See sections 4, 5, and 6) the I2RS protocol (See sections 4, 5, and 6)
2. propose additions to YANG, NETCONF, and RESTCONF per version of 2. propose additions to YANG, NETCONF, and RESTCONF per version of
the I2RS protocol for key functions (ephemeral state, protocol the I2RS protocol for key functions (ephemeral state, protocol
security, publication/subscription service, traceability), security, publication/subscription service, traceability),
3. suggest protocol strawman (e.g. The purpose of these requirements is to ensure clarity during I2RS
[I-D.hares-i2rs-protocol-strawman]) as ideas for the NETCONF, protocol creation.
RESTCONF, and YANG changes.
The purpose of these requirements and the suggested protocol straw
man is to provide a quick turnaround on creating the I2RS protocol.
Support for ephemeral state is an I2RS protocol requirement that Support for ephemeral state is an I2RS protocol requirement that
requires datastore changes (see section 3), YANG additions (see requires datastore changes (see section 3), YANG additions (see
section 4), NETCONF additions (see section 5), and RESTCONF additions section 4), NETCONF additions (see section 5), and RESTCONF additions
(see section 6). (see section 6).
Sections 7-9 provide details that expand upon the changes in sections Sections 7-9 provide details that expand upon the changes in sections
3-6 to clarify requirements discussed by the I2RS and NETCONF working 3-6 to clarify requirements discussed by the I2RS and NETCONF working
groups. Section 7 provided additional requirements that detail how groups. Section 7 provided additional requirements that detail how
write-conflicts should be resolved if two I2RS client write the same write-conflicts should be resolved if two I2RS client write the same
skipping to change at page 3, line 44 skipping to change at page 3, line 40
1.1. Requirements Language 1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 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 I2RS architecture defines important high-level requirements for The I2RS architecture defines important high-level requirements for
the I2RS protocol. The following are ten requirements that [RFC7921] the I2RS protocol. The following are requirements distilled from
contains which provide context for the ephemeral data state [RFC7921] that provide context for the ephemeral data state
requirements given in sections 3-8: requirements given in sections 3-8:
1. The I2RS protocol SHOULD support highly reliable notifications 1. The I2RS protocol SHOULD support a high bandwidth, asynchronous
(but not perfectly reliable notifications) from an I2RS agent to interface, with real-time guarantees on getting data from an I2RS
an I2RS client. agent by 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 MUST record the client identity when a node is
created or modified. The I2RS agent SHOULD 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 MUST have only one priority for the client's
identifier. A collision on writes is considered an error, but
the priority associated with each client identifier 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 MUST mutually authenticate each 2. I2RS agent MUST record the client identity when a node is created
other based on pre-established authenticated identities. or modified. The I2RS agent SHOULD 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.
8. Secondary identity data is read-only meta-data that is recorded 3. An I2RS Client identity MUST have only one priority for the
by the I2RS agent associated with a data model's node is client's identifier. A collision on writes is considered an
written, updated or deleted. Just like the primary identity, error, but the priority associated with each client identifier is
the secondary identity SHOULD only be recorded when the data utilized to compare requests from two different clients in order
node is written or updated or deleted 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.
9. I2RS agent MAY have a lower priority I2RS client attempting to 4. I2RS Client's secondary identity data is read-only meta-data that
modify a higher priority client's entry in a data model. The is recorded by the I2RS agent associated with a data model's node
filtering out of lower priority clients attempting to write or is written. Just like the primary client identity, the secondary
modify a higher priority client's entry in a data model SHOULD identity SHOULD only be recorded when the data node is written.
be effectively handled and not put an undue strain on the I2RS
agent.
10. The I2RS protocol MUST support the use of a secure transport. 5. I2RS agent MAY have a lower priority I2RS client attempting to
However, certain functions such as notifications MAY use a non- modify a higher priority client's entry in a data model. The
secure transport. Each model or service (notification, logging) filtering out of lower priority clients attempting to write or
must define within the model or service the valid uses of a non- modify a higher priority client's entry in a data model SHOULD be
secure transport. effectively handled and not put an undue strain on the I2RS
agent.
3. Ephemeral State Requirements 3. Ephemeral State Requirements
In requirements Ephemeral-REQ-01 to Ephemeral-REQ-15, Ephemeral state In requirements Ephemeral-REQ-01 to Ephemeral-REQ-15, Ephemeral state
is defined as potentially including in a data model ephemeral is defined as potentially including in a data model ephemeral
configuration and operational state which is flagged as ephemeral. configuration and operational state which is flagged as ephemeral.
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
skipping to change at page 5, line 32 skipping to change at page 5, line 8
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 have constraints Ephemeral-REQ-03: Ephemeral state MUST be able to have constraints
that refer to operational state, this includes potentially fast that refer to operational state, this includes potentially fast
changing or short lived operational state nodes, such as MPLS LSP-ID changing or short lived operational state nodes, such as MPLS LSP-ID
or a BGP IN-RIB. Ephemeral state constraints should be assessed when (label switched path ID) or a BGP Adj-RIB-IN (Adjacent RIB Inboud).
the ephemeral state is written, and if any of the constraints change Ephemeral state constraints should be assessed when the ephemeral
to make the constraints invalid after that time the I2RS agent SHOULD state is written, and if any of the constraints change to make the
notify the I2RS client. constraints invalid after that time the I2RS agent SHOULD notify the
I2RS client.
Ephemeral-REQ-04: Ephemeral state MUST be able to refer to non- Ephemeral-REQ-04: Ephemeral state MUST be able to refer to non-
ephemeral state as a constraint. Non-ephemeral state can be ephemeral state as a constraint. Non-ephemeral state can be
configuration state or operational state. configuration state or operational state.
Ephemeral-REQ-05: I2RS pub-sub [RFC7923], tracing [RFC7922], RPC or Ephemeral-REQ-05: I2RS pub-sub [RFC7923], tracing [RFC7922], RPC or
other mechanisms may lead to undesirable or unsustainable resource other mechanisms may lead to undesirable or unsustainable resource
consumption on a system implementing an I2RS agent. It is consumption on a system implementing an I2RS agent. It is
RECOMMENDED that mechanisms be made available to permit RECOMMENDED that mechanisms be made available to permit
prioritization of I2RS operations, when appropriate, to permit prioritization of I2RS operations, when appropriate, to permit
skipping to change at page 6, line 12 skipping to change at page 5, line 34
resources. An example of such a work shedding mechanism is rate- resources. An example of such a work shedding mechanism is rate-
limiting. limiting.
3.3. Hierarchy 3.3. Hierarchy
Ephemeral-REQ-06: YANG MUST have the ability to do the following: Ephemeral-REQ-06: YANG MUST have the ability to do the following:
1. to define a YANG module or submodule schema that only contains 1. to define a YANG module or submodule schema that only contains
data nodes with the property of being ephemeral, and data nodes with the property of being ephemeral, and
2. to augment a YANG data model with additional YANG schema nodes 2. to augment a YANG model with additional YANG schema nodes that
that have the property of being ephemeral. have the property of being ephemeral.
3.4. Ephemeral Configuration overlapping Local Configuration 3.4. Ephemeral Configuration overlapping Local Configuration
Ephemeral-REQ-07: Local configuration MUST have a priority that is Ephemeral-REQ-07: Local configuration MUST have a priority that is
comparable with individual I2RS client priorities for making changes. comparable with individual I2RS client priorities for making changes.
This priority will determine whether local configuration changes or This priority will determine whether local configuration changes or
individual ephemeral configuration changes take precedence as individual ephemeral configuration changes take precedence as
described in RFC7921. The I2RS protocol MUST support this mechanism. described in RFC7921. The I2RS protocol MUST support this mechanism.
4. YANG Features for Ephemeral State 4. YANG Features for Ephemeral State
skipping to change at page 6, line 39 skipping to change at page 6, line 14
5. NETCONF Features for Ephemeral State 5. NETCONF Features for Ephemeral State
Ephemeral-REQ-09: The changes to NETCONF must include: Ephemeral-REQ-09: The changes to NETCONF must include:
1. Support for communication mechanisms to enable an I2RS client to 1. Support for communication mechanisms to enable an I2RS client to
determine that an I2RS agent supports the mechanisms needed for determine that an I2RS agent supports the mechanisms needed for
I2RS operation. I2RS operation.
2. The ephemeral state MUST support notification of write conflicts 2. The ephemeral state MUST support notification of write conflicts
using the priority requirements defined in section 7 below in using the priority requirements defined in section 7 below (see
requirements Ephemeral-REQ-11 through Ephemeral-REQ-14). requirements Ephemeral-REQ-11 through Ephemeral-REQ-14).
6. RESTCONF Features for Ephemeral State 6. RESTCONF Features for Ephemeral State
Ephemeral-REQ-10: The conceptual changes to RESTCONF are: Ephemeral-REQ-10: The conceptual changes to RESTCONF are:
1. Support for communication mechanisms to enable an I2RS client to 1. Support for communication mechanisms to enable an I2RS client to
determine that an I2RS agent supports the mechanisms needed for determine that an I2RS agent supports the mechanisms needed for
I2RS operation. I2RS operation.
2. The ephemeral state must support notification of write conflicts 2. The ephemeral state must support notification of write conflicts
using the priority requirements defined in section 7 below in using the priority requirements defined in section 7 below (see
requirements Ephemeral-REQ-11 through Ephemeral-REQ-14). requirements Ephemeral-REQ-11 through Ephemeral-REQ-14).
7. Requirements regarding Supporting Multi-Head Control via client 7. Requirements regarding Supporting Multi-Head Control via client
Priority Priority
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.
skipping to change at page 7, line 36 skipping to change at page 7, line 13
stored. stored.
o The priority MAY be dynamically changed by AAA, but the exact o The priority MAY be dynamically changed by AAA, but the exact
actions are part of the protocol definition as long as collisions actions are part of the protocol definition as long as collisions
are handled as described in Ephemeral-REQ-12, Ephemeral-REQ-13, are handled as described in Ephemeral-REQ-12, Ephemeral-REQ-13,
and Ephemeral-REQ-14. and Ephemeral-REQ-14.
Ephemeral-REQ-12: When a collision occurs as two clients are trying Ephemeral-REQ-12: 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 (which includes indicating data there is a collision, and the data node is changed, a notification
node the collision occurred on) MUST BE sent to the original client (which includes indicating data node the collision occurred on) MUST
to give the original client a chance to deal with the issues BE sent to the original client to give the original client a chance
surrounding the collision. The original client may need to fix their to deal with the issues surrounding the collision. The original
state. client may need to fix their state.
Explanation: RESTCONF and NETCONF updates can come in concurrently Explanation: RESTCONF and NETCONF updates can come in concurrently
from alternative sources. Therefore the collision detection and from alternative sources. Therefore the collision detection and
comparison of priority needs to occur for any type of update. comparison of priority needs to occur for any type of update.
For example, RESTCONF tracks the source of configuration change via For example, RESTCONF tracks the source of configuration change via
the entity-Tag (section 3.5.2 of [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf]) which the entity-Tag (section 3.5.2 of [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf]) which
the server returns to the client along with the value in GET or HEAD the server returns to the client along with the value in GET or HEAD
methods. RESTCONF requires that this resource entity-tag be updated methods. RESTCONF requires that this resource entity-tag be updated
whenever a resource or configuration resource within the resource is whenever a resource or configuration resource within the resource is
skipping to change at page 8, line 32 skipping to change at page 8, line 13
oscillation of the config data node, are also acceptable. oscillation of the config data node, are also acceptable.
8. Multiple Message Transactions 8. Multiple Message Transactions
Ephemeral-REQ-15: Section 7.9 of the [RFC7921] states the I2RS Ephemeral-REQ-15: Section 7.9 of the [RFC7921] states the I2RS
architecture does not include multi-message atomicity and roll-back architecture does not include multi-message atomicity and roll-back
mechanisms. The I2RS protocol implementation MUST NOT require the mechanisms. The I2RS protocol implementation MUST NOT require the
support of these features. As part of this requirement, the I2RS support of these features. As part of this requirement, the I2RS
protocol should support: protocol should support:
multiple operations in one or more messages; though errors in multiple operations in one messge; an error in one operation MUST
message or operation will have no effect on other messages or NOT stop additional operations from being carried out nor can it
commands even they are related. cause previous operations to be rolled back.
No multi-message commands SHOULD cause errors to be inserted into multiple operations in multiple messages, but multiple message
the I2RS ephemeral state. commands error handling MUST NOT insert errors into the I2RS
ephemeral state.
9. Pub/Sub Requirements Expanded for Ephemeral State 9. Pub/Sub Requirements Expanded for Ephemeral State
I2RS clients require the ability to monitor changes to ephemeral I2RS clients require the ability to monitor changes to ephemeral
state. While subscriptions are well defined for receiving state. While subscriptions are well defined for receiving
notifications, the need to create a notification set for all notifications, the need to create a notification set for all
ephemeral configuration state may be overly burdensome to the user. ephemeral configuration state may be overly burdensome to the user.
There is thus a need for a general subscription mechanism that can There is thus a need for a general subscription mechanism that can
provide notification of changed state, with sufficient information to provide notification of changed state, with sufficient information to
skipping to change at page 10, line 21 skipping to change at page 10, line 8
o Joe Clarke, o Joe Clarke,
13. References 13. References
13.1. Normative References: 13.1. Normative References:
[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-11 (work in progress), September 2016. requirements-17 (work in progress), September 2016.
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-security-environment-reqs] [I-D.ietf-i2rs-security-environment-reqs]
Migault, D., Halpern, J., and S. Hares, "I2RS Environment Migault, D., Halpern, J., and S. Hares, "I2RS Environment
Security Requirements", draft-ietf-i2rs-security- Security Requirements", draft-ietf-i2rs-security-
environment-reqs-01 (work in progress), April 2016. environment-reqs-01 (work in progress), April 2016.
[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-16 (work in Protocol", draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-17 (work in
progress), August 2016. progress), September 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>.
[RFC6614] Winter, S., McCauley, M., Venaas, S., and K. Wierenga, [RFC6614] Winter, S., McCauley, M., Venaas, S., and K. Wierenga,
"Transport Layer Security (TLS) Encryption for RADIUS", "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Encryption for RADIUS",
RFC 6614, DOI 10.17487/RFC6614, May 2012, RFC 6614, DOI 10.17487/RFC6614, May 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6614>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6614>.
 End of changes. 24 change blocks. 
95 lines changed or deleted 70 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/