draft-ietf-netconf-beep-00.txt   draft-ietf-netconf-beep-01.txt 
Network Working Group E. Lear Network Working Group E. Lear
Internet-Draft K. Crozier Internet-Draft K. Crozier
Expires: April 6, 2004 Cisco Systems Expires: December 6, 2004 Cisco Systems
October 7, 2003 June 7, 2004
BEEP Application Protocol Mapping for NETCONF BEEP Application Protocol Mapping for NETCONF
draft-ietf-netconf-beep-00 draft-ietf-netconf-beep-01
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
skipping to change at page 1, line 31 skipping to change at page 1, line 31
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http:// The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://
www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 6, 2004. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 6, 2004.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies an application protocol mapping for the This document specifies an application protocol mapping for the
NETCONF protocol over the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol (BEEP). NETCONF protocol over the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol (BEEP).
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1 Why BEEP? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1 Why BEEP? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. BEEP Transport Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. BEEP Transport Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1 NETCONF Session Initiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1 NETCONF Session Initiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 NETCONF RPC Execution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2 NETCONF RPC Execution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3 NETCONF <rpc-abort> and <rpc-progress> . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3 NETCONF Session Teardown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4 NETCONF Session Teardown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.4 BEEP Profile for NETCONF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.5 BEEP Profiles for NETCONF Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.4.1 Operations Channel Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.5.1 Management Channel Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.4.2 Notification Channel Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.5.2 Operations Channel Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.5.3 Notification Channel Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 14
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The NETCONF protocol [1] defines a simple mechanism through which a The NETCONF protocol [1] defines a simple mechanism through which a
network device can be managed. NETCONF is designed to be usable over network device can be managed. NETCONF is designed to be usable over
a variety of application protocols. This document specifies an a variety of application protocols. This document specifies an
application protocol mapping for NETCONF over the Blocks Extensible application protocol mapping for NETCONF over the Blocks Extensible
Exchange Protocol (BEEP) [2] . Exchange Protocol (BEEP) [2] .
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
skipping to change at page 3, line 30 skipping to change at page 3, line 30
XML. As a peer to peer protocol, BEEP provides an easy way to XML. As a peer to peer protocol, BEEP provides an easy way to
implement NETCONF, no matter which side of the connection was the implement NETCONF, no matter which side of the connection was the
initiator. This "bidirectionality" allows for either side to play initiator. This "bidirectionality" allows for either side to play
the role of the manager with no protocol changes. Either side can the role of the manager with no protocol changes. Either side can
open a channel. Either side could initiate an RPC. This is open a channel. Either side could initiate an RPC. This is
particularly important to support operational models that involve particularly important to support operational models that involve
small devices connecting to a manager, and those devices that must small devices connecting to a manager, and those devices that must
reverse the management connection in the face of firewalls and NATs. reverse the management connection in the face of firewalls and NATs.
The SASL profile used by BEEP allows for a simple and direct mapping The SASL profile used by BEEP allows for a simple and direct mapping
to the existing security model for CLI. to the existing security model for CLI, while TLS provides a strong
well tested encryption mechanism with either server or server and
client-side authentication.
2. BEEP Transport Mapping 2. BEEP Transport Mapping
All NETCONF over BEEP implementations MUST implement the profile and All NETCONF over BEEP implementations MUST implement the profile and
functional mapping between NETCONF and BEEP as described below. functional mapping between NETCONF and BEEP as described below.
2.1 NETCONF Session Initiation 2.1 NETCONF Session Initiation
Managers may be either BEEP listeners or initiators. Similarly, Managers may be either BEEP listeners or initiators. Similarly,
agents may be either listeners or initiators. Thus the initial agents may be either listeners or initiators. Thus the initial
skipping to change at page 4, line 33 skipping to change at page 4, line 33
and listener, as required by the BEEP RFC. and listener, as required by the BEEP RFC.
At this point, if SASL is desired, the initiator starts BEEP channel At this point, if SASL is desired, the initiator starts BEEP channel
1 to perform a SASL exchange to authenticate itself. When SASL is 1 to perform a SASL exchange to authenticate itself. When SASL is
completed, the channel MUST be closed. completed, the channel MUST be closed.
Once authentication has occurred, there is no need to distinguish Once authentication has occurred, there is no need to distinguish
between initiator and listener. We now distinguish between manager between initiator and listener. We now distinguish between manager
and agent. and agent.
The manager now establishes an NETCONF management channel for the The manager now establishes an NETCONF a new
purpose of exchanging capabilities, monitoring progress, and aborting &dquot;operational&dquot; channel for capabilitiesexchange and
remote procedure calls. As initiators assign odd channels and requests and responses. As initiators assign odd channels and
listeners assign even channels, the management channel is BEEP listeners assign even channels, this next channel is BEEP channel 1
channel 1 or 2, depending on whether the manager is the initiator or or 2, depending on whether the manager is the initiator or the
the listener. listener.
The manager next establishes the NETCONF operational channel for the
purpose of issuing RPC requests. This channel is BEEP channel 3 or
4.
Finally, if either manager or agent wishes to send or receive Certain NETCONF capabilities may require additional BEEP channels.
notifications, it may issue a start on the next available channel if When such capabilities are defined, a BEEP mapping must be defined as
the other side has sent the send or receive NETCONF capability. well.
At this point, the NETCONF session is established. At this point, the NETCONF session is established.
2.2 NETCONF RPC Execution 2.2 NETCONF RPC Execution
To issue an RPC, the manager transmits on the operational channel a To issue an RPC, the manager transmits on the operational channel a
BEEP MSG containing the RPC and its arguments. In accordance with BEEP MSG containing the RPC and its arguments. In accordance with
the BEEP standard, RPC requests may be split across multiple BEEP the BEEP standard, RPC requests may be split across multiple BEEP
frames. frames.
Once received and processed, the agent responds with BEEP RPYs on the Once received and processed, the agent responds with BEEP RPYs on the
same channel with the response to the RPC. In accordance with the same channel with the response to the RPC. In accordance with the
BEEP standard, responses may be split across multiple BEEP frames. BEEP standard, responses may be split across multiple BEEP frames.
2.3 NETCONF <rpc-abort> and <rpc-progress> 2.3 NETCONF Session Teardown
<rpc-abort> and <rpc-progress> requests are issued by the manager on
the NETCONF management channel, and the agent responds with BEEP RPYs
on that same channel.
2.4 NETCONF Session Teardown
Either side may initiate the termination of an NETCONF session. In Either side may initiate the termination of an NETCONF session. In
This is done by issuing a BEEP close on the operational channel after This is done by issuing a BEEP close on channel 0 after the current
the current RPC has completed. The same is done with any RPC has completed. Having sent or received a BEEP close, a manager
notification channels by the end that transmits notifications. MUST NOT send further requests, and an agent MUST NOT send additional
Finally, BEEP channel 0 is closed. responses. If there are additional activities due to expanded
capabilities, these MUST cease in an orderly manner, and should be
2.5 BEEP Profiles for NETCONF Channels properly described in the capability mapping.
There are two profiles, the management channel profile and the 2.4 BEEP Profile for NETCONF
operations channel profile. These are not to be confused with the
BEEP control channel.
The operations channel will have two commands, <rpc> and <rpc-reply>. The operations channel will have two commands, <rpc> and <rpc-reply>.
The management channel will have one additional operation with
<rpc-progress>.
2.5.1 Management Channel Profile
<!-- DTD for netconf management over BEEP
Refer to this DTD as:
<!ENTITY % NETCONF PUBLIC "netconf/management/1.0" "">
%NETCONF;
-->
<!-- Contents
Overview
Includes
Profile Summaries
Entity Definitions
Operations
rpc
rpc-reply
rpc-progress
-->
<!-- Overview NETCONF Management channel -->
<!-- Includes -->
<!ENTITY % BEEP PUBLIC "-//Blocks//DTD BEEP//EN"
"">
%BEEP;
<!-- Profile summaries
BEEP profile NETCONF-MANAGEMENT
role MSG RPY ERR
==== === === ===
I or L rpc ok error
I or L rpc-reply ok error
I or L rpc-progress ok error
-->
<!--
Entity Definitions
entity syntax/reference example
====== ================ =======
a PRC
RPC-DATA Alpha
a RPC reply number
RPC-REPLY 1*3DIGIT
a RPC progress number
RPC-PROGRESS 1*3DIGIT
--> 2.4.1 Operations Channel Profile
<!ENTITY % RPC-REPLY "CDATA">
<!ENTITY % RPC-DATA "CDATA">
<!ENTITY % RPC-PROGRESS "CDATA">
-->
<!--
RPC command
-->
<!ELEMENT rpc (#PCDATA)>
<!ATTLIST rpc
rpc-data %RPC_DATA; #REQUIRED>
<!--
Result of RPC.
-->
<!ELEMENT rpc-reply (#PCDATA)>
<!ATTLIST rpc-reply
rpc-reply %RPC-REPLY; #REQUIRED
rpc-data %rpc-data #REQUIRED>
<!--
Progress of RPC operation.
-->
<!ELEMENT rpc-progress (#PCDATA)>
<!ATTLIST rpc-progress
rpc-progress %RPC-PROGRESS; #REQUIRED>
<!-- End of DTD -->
2.5.2 Operations Channel Profile
<!-- DTD for netconf operations over BEEP <!-- DTD for netconf operations over BEEP
Refer to this DTD as: Refer to this DTD as:
<!ENTITY % NETCONF PUBLIC "netconf/Operation/1.0" ""> <!ENTITY % NETCONF PUBLIC "netconf/Operation/1.0" "">
%NETCONF; %NETCONF;
--> -->
<!-- Contents <!-- Contents
skipping to change at page 9, line 14 skipping to change at page 7, line 4
RPC-DATA %RPC_DATA; #REQUIRED> RPC-DATA %RPC_DATA; #REQUIRED>
<!-- <!--
Result of RPC. Result of RPC.
--> -->
<!ELEMENT RPC-REPLY (#PCDATA)> <!ELEMENT RPC-REPLY (#PCDATA)>
<!ATTLIST RPC-REPLY <!ATTLIST RPC-REPLY
RPC-REPLY %RPC-REPLY; #REQUIRED RPC-REPLY %RPC-REPLY; #REQUIRED
RPC-DATA %RPC-DATA #REQUIRED> RPC-DATA %RPC-DATA #REQUIRED>
<!-- End of DTD --> <!-- End of DTD -->
2.5.3 Notification Channel Profile 2.4.2 Notification Channel Profile
The NETCONF notification channel profile is defined in RFC 3195 [6]. The NETCONF notification channel profile is defined in RFC 3195 [6].
3. Security Considerations 3. Security Considerations
Configuration information is by its very nature sensitive. Its Configuration information is by its very nature sensitive. Its
transmission in the clear and without integrity checking leaves transmission in the clear and without integrity checking leaves
devices open to classic so-called "person in the middle" attacks. devices open to classic so-called "person in the middle" attacks.
Configuration information often times contains passwords, user names, Configuration information often times contains passwords, user names,
service descriptions, and topological information, all of which are service descriptions, and topological information, all of which are
skipping to change at page 13, line 8 skipping to change at page 11, line 8
Ens, Phil Schafer, Andy Bierman, Wes Hardiger, Ted Goddard, and Ens, Phil Schafer, Andy Bierman, Wes Hardiger, Ted Goddard, and
Margaret Wasserman all contributed in some fashion to this work, Margaret Wasserman all contributed in some fashion to this work,
which was originally to be found in the NETCONF base protocol which was originally to be found in the NETCONF base protocol
specification. Thanks also to Weijing Chen, Keith Allen, Juergen specification. Thanks also to Weijing Chen, Keith Allen, Juergen
Schoenwaelder, and Eamon O'Tuathail for their very constructive Schoenwaelder, and Eamon O'Tuathail for their very constructive
participation. participation.
Normative References Normative References
[1] Enns, R., "NETCONF Configuration Protocol", [1] Enns, R., "NETCONF Configuration Protocol",
draft-ietf-netconf-prot-00 (work in progress), August 2003. draft-ietf-netconf-prot-01 (work in progress), October 2003.
[2] Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core", RFC [2] Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core", RFC
3080, March 2001. 3080, March 2001.
[3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement [3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[4] Myers, J., "Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL)", [4] Myers, J., "Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL)",
RFC 2222, October 1997. RFC 2222, October 1997.
skipping to change at page 15, line 5 skipping to change at page 13, line 5
EMail: lear@cisco.com EMail: lear@cisco.com
Ken Crozier Ken Crozier
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
170 W. Tasman Dr. 170 W. Tasman Dr.
San Jose, CA 95134-1706 San Jose, CA 95134-1706
US US
EMail: kcrozier@cisco.com EMail: kcrozier@cisco.com
Appendix A. Change Log
Removed management channel, rpc-status, rpc-abort, and associated
profile changes.
Intellectual Property Statement Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
skipping to change at page 15, line 29 skipping to change at page 14, line 29
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director. Director.
Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.23, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/