draft-ietf-netconf-soap-05.txt   draft-ietf-netconf-soap-06.txt 
Network Working Group T. Goddard Network Working Group T. Goddard
Internet-Draft ICEsoft Technologies Inc. Internet-Draft ICEsoft Technologies Inc.
Expires: October 24, 2005 April 25, 2005 Expires: March 20, 2006 September 16, 2005
Using the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) Over the Simple Using the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) Over the Simple
Object Access Protocol (SOAP) Object Access Protocol (SOAP)
draft-ietf-netconf-soap-05 draft-ietf-netconf-soap-06
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
of section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3668.
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 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Internet-Drafts. Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://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 October 24, 2005. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 20, 2006.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract Abstract
The Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) is applicable to a wide The Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) is applicable to a wide
range of devices in a variety of environments. The emergence of Web range of devices in a variety of environments. The emergence of Web
Services gives one such environment, and is presently characterized Services gives one such environment, and is presently characterized
by the use of the Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP). NETCONF by the use of the Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP). NETCONF
finds many benefits in this environment: from the re-use of existing finds many benefits in this environment: from the re-use of existing
standards, to ease of software development, to integration with standards, to ease of software development, to integration with
deployed systems. Herein, we describe SOAP over HTTP and SOAP over deployed systems. Herein, we describe SOAP over HTTP (Hypertext
BEEP bindings for NETCONF. Transport Protocol) and SOAP over BEEP (Blocks Exchange Extensible
Protocol) bindings for NETCONF.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. SOAP Background for NETCONF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. SOAP Background for NETCONF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1 Use and Storage of WSDL and XSD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1 Use and Storage of WSDL and XSD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 SOAP over HTTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2 SOAP over HTTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3 HTTP Drawbacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3 HTTP Drawbacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4 BCP56: On the Use of HTTP as a Substrate . . . . . . . . . 6 2.4 BCP56: On the Use of HTTP as a Substrate . . . . . . . . . 6
2.5 Important HTTP 1.1 Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.5 Important HTTP 1.1 Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.6 SOAP Over BEEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.6 SOAP Over BEEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.7 SOAP Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.7 SOAP Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.7.1 SOAP Feature Exploitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.7.1 SOAP Feature Exploitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.7.2 SOAP Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.7.2 SOAP Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.7.3 SOAP Faults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.7.3 SOAP Faults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. A SOAP Service for NETCONF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3. A SOAP Service for NETCONF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1 Fundamental Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.1 Fundamental Use Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2 NETCONF Session Establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.2 NETCONF Session Establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.3 NETCONF Capabilities Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.3 NETCONF Capabilities Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4 NETCONF Session Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.4 NETCONF Session Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.5 NETCONF Session Teardown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.5 NETCONF Session Teardown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.6 A NETCONF Over SOAP example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.6 A NETCONF Over SOAP example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.7 NETCONF SOAP WSDL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.7 NETCONF SOAP WSDL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.8 Sample Service Definition WSDL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.8 Sample Service Definition WSDL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.1 Integrity, Privacy, and Authentication . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.1 Integrity, Privacy, and Authentication . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2 Vulnerabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.2 Vulnerabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.3 Environmental Specifics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.3 Environmental Specifics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 21 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 22
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Given the use of XML [2] and the remote procedure call Given the use of XML [2] (Extensible Markup Language) and the remote
characteristics, it is natural to consider a binding of the NETCONF procedure call characteristics, it is natural to consider a binding
[1] operations to a SOAP [3] application protocol. This document of the NETCONF [1] operations to a SOAP [3] application protocol.
proposes a binding of this form. This document proposes a binding of this form.
In general, SOAP is a natural messaging scheme for NETCONF, In general, SOAP is a natural messaging scheme for NETCONF,
essentially because of the remote procedure call character of both. essentially because of the remote procedure call character of both.
However, care must be taken with SOAP over HTTP as it is inherently However, care must be taken with SOAP over HTTP as it is inherently
synchronous and client-driven. SOAP over BEEP [14] is technically synchronous and client-driven. SOAP over BEEP [11] is technically
superior, but is not as widely adopted. superior, but is not as widely adopted.
Four basic topics are presented: SOAP specifics of interest to Four basic topics are presented: SOAP specifics of interest to
NETCONF, specifics on implementing NETCONF as a SOAP-based web NETCONF, specifics on implementing NETCONF as a SOAP-based web
service, security considerations, and an appendix with functional service, security considerations, and functional Web Services
WSDL. In some sense, the most important part of the document is the Description Language (WSDL) definitions. In some sense, the most
brief WSDL document presented in Section 3.7. With the right tools, important part of the document is the brief WSDL document presented
the WSDL combined with the base NETCONF XML Schemas provide machine in Section 3.7. With the right tools, the WSDL combined with the
readable descriptions sufficient for the development of software base NETCONF XML Schemas provide machine readable descriptions
applications using NETCONF. sufficient for the development of software applications using
NETCONF.
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 [10] document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [8]
2. SOAP Background for NETCONF 2. SOAP Background for NETCONF
Why introduce SOAP as yet another wrapper around what is already a Why introduce SOAP as yet another wrapper around what is already a
remote procedure call message? There are, in fact, both technical remote procedure call message? There are, in fact, both technical
and practical reasons. The technical reasons are perhaps less and practical reasons. The technical reasons are perhaps less
compelling, but let's examine them first. compelling, but let's examine them first.
The use of SOAP does offer a few technical advantages. SOAP is The use of SOAP does offer a few technical advantages. SOAP is
fundamentally an XML messaging scheme (which is capable of supporting fundamentally an XML messaging scheme (which is capable of supporting
skipping to change at page 4, line 41 skipping to change at page 4, line 41
many developers. SOAP over HTTP (with WSDL) is seeing good success many developers. SOAP over HTTP (with WSDL) is seeing good success
at this, and this means that a device management protocol making use at this, and this means that a device management protocol making use
of these technologies has advantages in being implemented and of these technologies has advantages in being implemented and
adopted. Admittedly, there are interoperability problems with SOAP adopted. Admittedly, there are interoperability problems with SOAP
and WSDL, but such problems have wide attention and can be expected and WSDL, but such problems have wide attention and can be expected
to be resolved. to be resolved.
2.1 Use and Storage of WSDL and XSD 2.1 Use and Storage of WSDL and XSD
One of the advantages of using machine readable formats such as Web One of the advantages of using machine readable formats such as Web
Services Description Language (WSDL) [17] and XML Schemas [4] is that Services Description Language (WSDL) [16] and XML Schemas [4] is that
they can be used automatically in the software development process. they can be used automatically in the software development process.
With appropriate tools, WSDL and XSD can be used to generate classes With appropriate tools, WSDL and XSD can be used to generate classes
that act as remote interfaces or application specific data that act as remote interfaces or application specific data
structures. Other uses, such as document generation and service structures. Other uses, such as document generation and service
location, are also common. A great innovation found with many location, are also common. A great innovation found with many XML-
XML-based definition languages is the use of hyperlinks for referring based definition languages is the use of hyperlinks for referring to
to documents containing supporting definitions. documents containing supporting definitions.
<import namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0" <import namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"
location="http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/ location="http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/
schema/netconf-base_1.0.xsd" /> schema/netconf-base_1.0.xsd" />
For instance, in WSDL, the above import statement imports the For instance, in WSDL, the above import statement imports the
definitions of XML types and elements from the base NETCONF schema. definitions of XML types and elements from the base NETCONF schema.
Ideally, the file containing that schema is hosted on a web server Ideally, the file containing that schema is hosted on a web server
under the authority of the standards body that defined the schema. under the authority of the standards body that defined the schema.
In this way, dependent standards can be built up over time and all In this way, dependent standards can be built up over time and all
are accessible to automated software tools that ensure adherence to are accessible to automated software tools that ensure adherence to
the standards. The IANA maintained registry for this purpose is the standards. The IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority)
described in The IETF XML Registry [16]. maintained registry for this purpose is described in The IETF XML
Registry [13].
Note that WSDL declarations for SOAP over BEEP bindings are not yet Note that WSDL declarations for SOAP over BEEP bindings are not yet
standardized. standardized.
2.2 SOAP over HTTP 2.2 SOAP over HTTP
While it is true that SOAP focuses on messages and can be bound to While it is true that SOAP focuses on messages and can be bound to
different underlying protocols such as HTTP, SMTP, or BEEP, most different underlying protocols such as HTTP, SMTP, or BEEP, most
existing SOAP implementations support only HTTP or HTTP/TLS. existing SOAP implementations support only HTTP or HTTP/TLS.
skipping to change at page 5, line 40 skipping to change at page 5, line 41
HTTP is not the ideal transport for messaging, but it is adequate for HTTP is not the ideal transport for messaging, but it is adequate for
the most basic interpretation of "remote procedure call". HTTP is the most basic interpretation of "remote procedure call". HTTP is
based on a communication pattern whereby the client (which initiates based on a communication pattern whereby the client (which initiates
the TCP connection) makes a "request" to the server. The server the TCP connection) makes a "request" to the server. The server
returns a "response" and this process is continued (possibly over a returns a "response" and this process is continued (possibly over a
persistent connection, as described below). This matches the basic persistent connection, as described below). This matches the basic
idea of a remote procedure call where the caller invokes a procedure idea of a remote procedure call where the caller invokes a procedure
on a remote server and waits for the return value. on a remote server and waits for the return value.
Potential criticisms of HTTP could include the following: Potential criticisms of HTTP could include the following:
o server-initiated data flow is awkward to provide o server-initiated data flow is awkward to provide
o headers are verbose and text-based o headers are verbose and text-based
o idle connections may be closed by intermediate proxies o idle connections may be closed by intermediate proxies
o data encapsulation must adhere to MIME
o data encapsulation must adhere to MIME [15] (Multipurpose Internet
Mail Extensions)
o bulk transfer relies on stream-based ordering o bulk transfer relies on stream-based ordering
In many ways these criticisms are directed at particular compromises In many ways these criticisms are directed at particular compromises
in the design of HTTP. As such, they are important to consider, but in the design of HTTP. As such, they are important to consider, but
it is not clear that they result in fatal drawbacks for a device it is not clear that they result in fatal drawbacks for a device
management protocol. management protocol.
2.4 BCP56: On the Use of HTTP as a Substrate 2.4 BCP56: On the Use of HTTP as a Substrate
Best Current Practice 56 [8] presents a number of important Best Current Practice 56 [6] presents a number of important
considerations on the use of HTTP in application protocols. In considerations on the use of HTTP in application protocols. In
particular, it raises the following concerns: particular, it raises the following concerns:
o HTTP may be more complex than is necessary for the application o HTTP may be more complex than is necessary for the application
o The use of HTTP may mask the application from some firewalls o The use of HTTP may mask the application from some firewalls
o A substantially new service should not re-use port 80 as assigned o A substantially new service should not re-use port 80 as assigned
to HTTP to HTTP
o HTTP caching may mask connection state o HTTP caching may mask connection state
Fundamentally, these concerns lie directly with SOAP over HTTP, Fundamentally, these concerns lie directly with SOAP over HTTP,
rather than the application of SOAP over HTTP to NETCONF. As BCP 56 rather than the application of SOAP over HTTP to NETCONF. As BCP 56
indicates, it is debatable whether HTTP is an appropriate protocol indicates, it is debatable whether HTTP is an appropriate protocol
for SOAP at all, and it is likely that BEEP would be a superior for SOAP at all, and it is likely that BEEP would be a superior
protocol for most SOAP applications. Unfortunately, SOAP over HTTP protocol for most SOAP applications. Unfortunately, SOAP over HTTP
is in common use and must be supported if the practical benefits of is in common use and must be supported if the practical benefits of
SOAP are to be realized. Note that the verbose nature of SOAP SOAP are to be realized. Note that the verbose nature of SOAP
actually makes it more readily processed by firewalls, albeit actually makes it more readily processed by firewalls, albeit
skipping to change at page 6, line 30 skipping to change at page 6, line 40
protocol for most SOAP applications. Unfortunately, SOAP over HTTP protocol for most SOAP applications. Unfortunately, SOAP over HTTP
is in common use and must be supported if the practical benefits of is in common use and must be supported if the practical benefits of
SOAP are to be realized. Note that the verbose nature of SOAP SOAP are to be realized. Note that the verbose nature of SOAP
actually makes it more readily processed by firewalls, albeit actually makes it more readily processed by firewalls, albeit
firewalls designed to process SOAP messages. firewalls designed to process SOAP messages.
HTTP caches SHOULD NOT be inserted between NETCONF managers and HTTP caches SHOULD NOT be inserted between NETCONF managers and
agents as NETCONF session state is tied to the state of the agents as NETCONF session state is tied to the state of the
underlying transport connection. Three defensive actions can be underlying transport connection. Three defensive actions can be
taken: taken:
o Caching MUST be prohibited through the use of HTTP headers
Cache-Control and Pragma: no-cache o Caching MUST be prohibited through the use of HTTP headers Cache-
Control and Pragma: no-cache
o HTTP proxies SHOULD NOT be deployed within the management network o HTTP proxies SHOULD NOT be deployed within the management network
o Use HTTPS o Use HTTPS
It is also possible to respond to the concern on the re-use of port It is also possible to respond to the concern on the re-use of port
80. A NETCONF SOAP service can be offered on any desired port, and 80. A NETCONF SOAP service SHOULD be offered over a new standard
it is recommended that a new standard port for SOAP over HTTP, or a port for NETCONF over SOAP (over HTTP) to be defined as requested in
new standard port for NETCONF over SOAP (over HTTP) be defined, as the IANA considerations of this document.
requested in the IANA considerations of this document.
2.5 Important HTTP 1.1 Features 2.5 Important HTTP 1.1 Features
HTTP 1.1 [7] includes two important features that provide for HTTP 1.1 [5] includes two important features that provide for
relatively efficient transport of SOAP messages. These features are relatively efficient transport of SOAP messages. These features are
"persistent connections" and "chunked transfer-coding". "persistent connections" and "chunked transfer-coding".
Persistent connections allow a single TCP connection to be used Persistent connections allow a single TCP connection to be used
across multiple HTTP requests. This permits multiple SOAP request/ across multiple HTTP requests. This permits multiple SOAP request/
response message pairs to be exchanged without the overhead of response message pairs to be exchanged without the overhead of
creating a new TCP connection for each request. Given that a single creating a new TCP connection for each request. Given that a single
stream is used for both requests and responses, it is clear that some stream is used for both requests and responses, it is clear that some
form of framing is necessary. For messages whose length is known in form of framing is necessary. For messages whose length is known in
advance, this is handled by the HTTP header "Content-length". For advance, this is handled by the HTTP header "Content-length". For
skipping to change at page 7, line 25 skipping to change at page 7, line 38
In terms of application to SOAP message exchanges, persistent In terms of application to SOAP message exchanges, persistent
connections are clearly important for performance reasons, and are connections are clearly important for performance reasons, and are
particularly important when it is the persistence of authenticated particularly important when it is the persistence of authenticated
connections that is at stake. When one considers that messages of connections that is at stake. When one considers that messages of
dynamic length are the rule rather than the exception for SOAP dynamic length are the rule rather than the exception for SOAP
messages, it is also clear that Chunking is very useful. In some messages, it is also clear that Chunking is very useful. In some
cases it is possible to buffer a SOAP response and determine its cases it is possible to buffer a SOAP response and determine its
length before sending, but the storage requirements for this are length before sending, but the storage requirements for this are
prohibitive for many devices. Together, these two features provide a prohibitive for many devices. Together, these two features provide a
good foundation for device management using SOAP over HTTP. HTTP good foundation for device management using SOAP over HTTP. HTTP
chunking and persistent connections SHOULD be used. chunking and persistent connections [5] SHOULD be used.
2.6 SOAP Over BEEP 2.6 SOAP Over BEEP
Although not widely adopted by the Web Services community, BEEP is an Although not widely adopted by the Web Services community, BEEP is an
excellent substrate for SOAP [15]. In particular, it provides for excellent substrate for SOAP [12]. In particular, it provides for
request/response message exchanges initiated by either BEEP peer and request/response message exchanges initiated by either BEEP peer and
allows the number of response messages to be arbitrary (including allows the number of response messages to be arbitrary (including
zero). The BEEP profile for SOAP simply makes use of a single BEEP zero). The BEEP profile for SOAP simply makes use of a single BEEP
channel for exchanging SOAP messages and benefits from BEEP's channel for exchanging SOAP messages and benefits from BEEP's
inherent strengths for message exchange over a single transport inherent strengths for message exchange over a single transport
connection. connection.
2.7 SOAP Implementation Considerations 2.7 SOAP Implementation Considerations
It is not the goal of this document to cover the SOAP [3] It is not the goal of this document to cover the SOAP [3]
skipping to change at page 8, line 14 skipping to change at page 8, line 29
2.7.2 SOAP Headers 2.7.2 SOAP Headers
Implementors of NETCONF over SOAP should be aware of the following Implementors of NETCONF over SOAP should be aware of the following
characteristic of SOAP headers: a SOAP header may have the attribute characteristic of SOAP headers: a SOAP header may have the attribute
"mustUnderstand" and, if so, the recipient must either process the "mustUnderstand" and, if so, the recipient must either process the
header block or not process the SOAP message at all, and instead header block or not process the SOAP message at all, and instead
generate a fault. A "mustUnderstand" header must not be silently generate a fault. A "mustUnderstand" header must not be silently
discarded. discarded.
In general, however, SOAP headers are intended for In general, however, SOAP headers are intended for application-
application-specific uses. The NETCONF SOAP binding does not make specific uses. The NETCONF SOAP binding does not make use of SOAP
use of SOAP headers. headers.
2.7.3 SOAP Faults 2.7.3 SOAP Faults
A SOAP Fault is returned in the event of a NETCONF <rpc-error>. It A SOAP Fault is returned in the event of a NETCONF <rpc-error>. It
is constructed essentially as a wrapper for the <rpc-error>, but is constructed essentially as a wrapper for the <rpc-error>, but
allow SOAP processors to propagate the <rpc-error> to application allow SOAP processors to propagate the <rpc-error> to application
code using a language-appropriate exception mechanism. code using a language-appropriate exception mechanism.
A SOAP Fault is constructed from an <rpc-error> as follows: the SOAP A SOAP Fault is constructed from an <rpc-error> as follows: the SOAP
Fault Code Value is "Reciever" in the SOAP envelope namespace, the Fault Code Value is "Receiver" in the SOAP envelope namespace, the
SOAP Fault Reason Text is the contents of the NETCONF <rpc-error> SOAP Fault Reason Text is the contents of the NETCONF <rpc-error>
"error-tag", and the SOAP Fault detail is the original <rpc-error> "error-tag", and the SOAP Fault detail is the original <rpc-error>
structure. structure.
For instance, given the following <rpc-error>, For instance, given the following <rpc-error>,
<rpc-error xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"> <rpc-error xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<error-type>rpc</error-type> <error-type>rpc</error-type>
<error-tag>MISSING_ATTRIBUTE</error-tag> <error-tag>MISSING_ATTRIBUTE</error-tag>
<error-severity>error</error-severity> <error-severity>error</error-severity>
<error-info> <error-info>
<bad-attribute>message-id</bad-attribute> <bad-attribute>message-id</bad-attribute>
<bad-element>rpc</bad-element> <bad-element>rpc</bad-element>
</error-info> </error-info>
</rpc-error> </rpc-error>
skipping to change at page 9, line 4 skipping to change at page 9, line 15
<error-type>rpc</error-type> <error-type>rpc</error-type>
<error-tag>MISSING_ATTRIBUTE</error-tag> <error-tag>MISSING_ATTRIBUTE</error-tag>
<error-severity>error</error-severity> <error-severity>error</error-severity>
<error-info> <error-info>
<bad-attribute>message-id</bad-attribute> <bad-attribute>message-id</bad-attribute>
<bad-element>rpc</bad-element> <bad-element>rpc</bad-element>
</error-info> </error-info>
</rpc-error> </rpc-error>
the associated SOAP Fault message is the associated SOAP Fault message is
<soapenv:Envelope <soapenv:Envelope
xmlns:soapenv "http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope" xmlns:soapenv=
"http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope"
xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace"> xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace">
<soapenv:Body> <soapenv:Body>
<soapenv:Fault> <soapenv:Fault>
<soapenv:Code> <soapenv:Code>
<soapenv:Value>env:Receiver</soapenv:Value> <soapenv:Value>env:Receiver</soapenv:Value>
</soapenv:Code> </soapenv:Code>
<soapenv:Reason> <soapenv:Reason>
<soapenv:Text <soapenv:Text
xml:lang="en">MISSING_ATTRIBUTE</soapenv:Text> xml:lang="en">MISSING_ATTRIBUTE</soapenv:Text>
</soapenv:Reason> </soapenv:Reason>
<detail> <detail>
<rpc-error xmlns "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"> <rpc-error xmlns=
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<error-type>rpc</error-type> <error-type>rpc</error-type>
<error-tag>MISSING_ATTRIBUTE</error-tag> <error-tag>MISSING_ATTRIBUTE</error-tag>
<error-severity>error</error-severity> <error-severity>error</error-severity>
<error-info> <error-info>
<bad-attribute>message-id</bad-attribute> <bad-attribute>message-id</bad-attribute>
<bad-element>rpc</bad-element> <bad-element>rpc</bad-element>
</error-info> </error-info>
</rpc-error> </rpc-error>
</detail> </detail>
</soapenv:Fault> </soapenv:Fault>
skipping to change at page 10, line 26 skipping to change at page 10, line 26
3.2 NETCONF Session Establishment 3.2 NETCONF Session Establishment
A NETCONF over SOAP session is established by the initial message A NETCONF over SOAP session is established by the initial message
exchange on the underlying substrate. For HTTP, a NETCONF session is exchange on the underlying substrate. For HTTP, a NETCONF session is
established once a SOAP message is POSTed to the NETCONF web established once a SOAP message is POSTed to the NETCONF web
application URI. For BEEP, a NETCONF session is established once the application URI. For BEEP, a NETCONF session is established once the
BEEP profile for SOAP handshake establishes the SOAP channel. BEEP profile for SOAP handshake establishes the SOAP channel.
3.3 NETCONF Capabilities Exchange 3.3 NETCONF Capabilities Exchange
Capabilities exchange is performed through the exchange of <hello> Capabilities exchange and session ID establishment are performed
messages. In the case of SOAP over HTTP, the HTTP client MUST send through the exchange of <hello> messages. In the case of SOAP over
the first <hello> message. The case of SOAP over BEEP imposes no HTTP, the HTTP client MUST send the first <hello> message. The case
ordering constraints. of SOAP over BEEP imposes no ordering constraints. For instance, the
following example shows the exchange of <hello> messages and
establishes a session ID value of 4. Observe that the management
client initiates the exchange and the server agent assigns the
session ID.
C: POST /netconf HTTP/1.1
C: Host: netconfdevice
C: Content-Type: text/xml; charset=utf-8
C: Accept: application/soap+xml, text/*
C: Cache-Control: no-cache
C: Pragma: no-cache
C: Content-Length: 376
C:
C: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
C: <soapenv:Envelope
C: xmlns:soapenv="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope">
C: <soapenv:Body>
C: <hello xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
C: <capabilities>
C: <capability>
C: urn:ietf:params:netconf:base:1.0
C: </capability>
C: </capabilities>
C: </hello>
C: </soapenv:Body>
C: </soapenv:Envelope>
S: HTTP/1.1 200 OK
S: Content-Type: application/soap+xml; charset=utf-8
S: Content-Length: 600
S:
S: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
S: <soapenv:Envelope
S: xmlns:soapenv="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope">
S: <soapenv:Body>
S: <hello xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
S: <capabilities>
S: <capability>
S: urn:ietf:params:netconf:base:1.0
S: </capability>
S: <capability>
S: urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:startup:1.0
S: </capability>
S: <capability>
S: http:/example.net/router/2.3/myfeature
S: </capability>
S: </capabilities>
S: <session-id>4</session-id>
S: </hello>
S: </soapenv:Body>
S: </soapenv:Envelope>
3.4 NETCONF Session Usage 3.4 NETCONF Session Usage
NETCONF sessions are persistent for both performance and semantic NETCONF sessions are persistent for both performance and semantic
reasons. NETCONF session state contains the following: reasons. NETCONF session state contains the following:
1. Authentication Information 1. Authentication Information
2. Capability Information 2. Capability Information
3. Locks 3. Locks
4. Pending Operations 4. Pending Operations
5. Operation Sequence Numbers 5. Operation Sequence Numbers
Authentication must be maintained throughout a session due to the Authentication must be maintained throughout a session due to the
fact that it is expensive to establish. Capability Information is fact that it is expensive to establish. Capability Information is
maintained so that appropriate operations can be applied during a maintained so that appropriate operations can be applied during a
session. Locks are released upon termination of a session as this session. Locks are released upon termination of a session as this
makes the protocol more robust. Pending operations come and go from makes the protocol more robust. Pending operations come and go from
existence during the normal course of RPC operations. Operation existence during the normal course of RPC operations. Operation
sequence numbers provide the small but necessary state information to sequence numbers provide the small but necessary state information to
refer to operations during the session. refer to operations during the session.
skipping to change at page 11, line 4 skipping to change at page 12, line 32
maintained so that appropriate operations can be applied during a maintained so that appropriate operations can be applied during a
session. Locks are released upon termination of a session as this session. Locks are released upon termination of a session as this
makes the protocol more robust. Pending operations come and go from makes the protocol more robust. Pending operations come and go from
existence during the normal course of RPC operations. Operation existence during the normal course of RPC operations. Operation
sequence numbers provide the small but necessary state information to sequence numbers provide the small but necessary state information to
refer to operations during the session. refer to operations during the session.
In the case of SOAP over HTTP, a NETCONF session is supported by an In the case of SOAP over HTTP, a NETCONF session is supported by an
HTTP connection with an authenticated user. For SOAP over BEEP, a HTTP connection with an authenticated user. For SOAP over BEEP, a
NETCONF session is supported by a BEEP channel operating according to NETCONF session is supported by a BEEP channel operating according to
the BEEP profile for SOAP [15]. the BEEP profile for SOAP [12].
3.5 NETCONF Session Teardown 3.5 NETCONF Session Teardown
To allow automated cleanup, NETCONF over SOAP session teardown takes To allow automated cleanup, NETCONF over SOAP session teardown takes
place when the underlying connection (in the case of HTTP) or channel place when the underlying connection (in the case of HTTP) or channel
(in the case of BEEP) is closed. Note that the root cause of such (in the case of BEEP) is closed. Note that the root cause of such
teardown may be the closure of the TCP connection under either HTTP teardown may be the closure of the TCP connection under either HTTP
or BEEP as the case may be. NETCONF managers and agents must be or BEEP as the case may be. NETCONF managers and agents must be
capable of programatically closing the transport connections capable of programatically closing the transport connections
associated with NETCONF sessions, such as in response to a associated with NETCONF sessions, such as in response to a <close-
<close-session> operation; thus, the HTTP or BEEP substrate session> operation; thus, the HTTP or BEEP substrate implementation
implementation must expose this appropriately. must expose this appropriately.
3.6 A NETCONF Over SOAP example 3.6 A NETCONF Over SOAP example
Since the proposed WSDL (in Section 3.7) uses document/literal Since the proposed WSDL (in Section 3.7) uses document/literal
encoding, the use of a SOAP header and body has little impact on the encoding, the use of a SOAP header and body has little impact on the
representation of a NETCONF operation. This example shows HTTP/1.1 representation of a NETCONF operation. This example shows HTTP/1.1
for simplicity. An example for BEEP would be similar. for simplicity. An example for BEEP would be similar.
C: POST /netconf HTTP/1.1 C: POST /netconf HTTP/1.1
C: Host: netconfdevice C: Host: netconfdevice
skipping to change at page 12, line 44 skipping to change at page 14, line 44
S: </users> S: </users>
S: </top> S: </top>
S: </data> S: </data>
S: </rpc-reply> S: </rpc-reply>
S: </soapenv:Body> S: </soapenv:Body>
S: </soapenv:Envelope> S: </soapenv:Envelope>
3.7 NETCONF SOAP WSDL 3.7 NETCONF SOAP WSDL
The following WSDL document assumes a hypothetical location for the The following WSDL document assumes a hypothetical location for the
NETCONF schema. NETCONF schema and a hypothetical identifier for the NETCONF
namespace, subject to IANA considerations for the NETCONF [1]
protocol. It is valid as verified by the xmlsoft.org tool xmllint
against the standard WSDL [16] xmlsoap.org schemas referenced by the
"SOAP" and default namespace declarations below.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<definitions <definitions
xmlns="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/" xmlns="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/"
xmlns:SOAP="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/" xmlns:SOAP="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/"
xmlns:tns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:soap:1.0" xmlns:tns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:soap:1.0"
xmlns:netb="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0" xmlns:netb="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"
targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:soap:1.0" targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:soap:1.0"
name="netconf-soap_1.0.wsdl"> name="netconf-soap_1.0.wsdl">
skipping to change at page 14, line 19 skipping to change at page 16, line 23
<SOAP:body use="literal" <SOAP:body use="literal"
namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"/> namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"/>
</output> </output>
</operation> </operation>
</binding> </binding>
</definitions> </definitions>
3.8 Sample Service Definition WSDL 3.8 Sample Service Definition WSDL
The following WSDL document assumes a hypothetical location for the The following WSDL document assumes a local location for the NETCONF
NETCONF over SOAP WSDL definitions. A typical deployment of a device over SOAP WSDL definitions. A typical deployment of a device
manageable via NETCONF over SOAP would provide a service definition manageable via NETCONF over SOAP would provide a service definition
similar to the following to identify the address of the device. similar to the following to identify the address of the device.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<definitions <definitions
xmlns="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/" xmlns="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/"
xmlns:SOAP="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/" xmlns:SOAP="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/"
xmlns:nets="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:soap:1.0" xmlns:nets="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:soap:1.0"
targetNamespace="urn:myNetconfService" targetNamespace="urn:myNetconfService"
name="myNetconfService.wsdl"> name="myNetconfService.wsdl">
<import namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:soap:1.0" <import namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:soap:1.0"
location="http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/ location="http://localhost:8080/netconf/
schema/netconf-soap_1.0.wsdl"/> schema/netconf-soap_1.0.wsdl"/>
<service name="netconf"> <service name="netconf">
<port name="netconfPort" binding="nets:netconfBinding"> <port name="netconfPort" binding="nets:netconfBinding">
<SOAP:address location="http://localhost:8080/netconf"/> <SOAP:address location="http://localhost:8080/netconf"/>
</port> </port>
</service> </service>
</definitions> </definitions>
skipping to change at page 15, line 27 skipping to change at page 17, line 27
Configuration data may include sensitive information, such as user Configuration data may include sensitive information, such as user
names or security keys. So, NETCONF should only be used over names or security keys. So, NETCONF should only be used over
communications channels that provide strong encryption for data communications channels that provide strong encryption for data
privacy. privacy.
If the NETCONF server provides remote access through insecure If the NETCONF server provides remote access through insecure
protocols, such as HTTP, care should be taken to prevent execution of protocols, such as HTTP, care should be taken to prevent execution of
the NETCONF program when strong user authentication or data privacy the NETCONF program when strong user authentication or data privacy
is not available. is not available.
The IANA requested port SHOULD be used, as this provides a means for
efficient firewall filtering during possible denial-of-service
attacks.
4.1 Integrity, Privacy, and Authentication 4.1 Integrity, Privacy, and Authentication
The NETCONF SOAP binding relies on an underlying secure transport for The NETCONF SOAP binding relies on an underlying secure transport for
integrity and privacy. Such transports are expected to include TLS integrity and privacy. Such transports are expected to include TLS
[11] and IPSec. There are a number of options for authentication [9] and IPsec. There are a number of options for authentication
(some of which are deployment-specific): (some of which are deployment-specific):
o within the transport (such as with TLS client certificates) o within the transport (such as with TLS client certificates)
o within HTTP (such as Digest Access Authentication [9])
o within SOAP (such as a digital signature in the header [19]) o within HTTP (such as Digest Access Authentication [7])
o within SOAP (such as a digital signature in the header [17])
HTTP, BEEP, and SOAP level authentication can be integrated with HTTP, BEEP, and SOAP level authentication can be integrated with
RADIUS [12] to support remote authentication databases. RADIUS [10] (Remote Authentication Dial In User Service) to support
remote authentication databases.
4.2 Vulnerabilities 4.2 Vulnerabilities
The above protocols may have various vulnerabilities, and these may The above protocols may have various vulnerabilities, and these may
be inherited by NETCONF over SOAP. be inherited by NETCONF over SOAP.
NETCONF itself may have vulnerabilities due to the fact that an NETCONF itself may have vulnerabilities due to the fact that an
authorization model is not currently specified. authorization model is not currently specified.
It is important that device capabilities and authorization remain It is important that device capabilities and authorization remain
skipping to change at page 17, line 7 skipping to change at page 19, line 7
selected for deployments involving closed networks or debugging selected for deployments involving closed networks or debugging
scenarios. scenarios.
A device managed by NETCONF may interact (over protocols other than A device managed by NETCONF may interact (over protocols other than
NETCONF) with devices managed by other protocols, all of differing NETCONF) with devices managed by other protocols, all of differing
security. Each point of entry brings with it a potential security. Each point of entry brings with it a potential
vulnerability. vulnerability.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
The IANA will assign TCP ports for NETCONF for SOAP over HTTP and The IANA is requested to assign TCP ports for NETCONF for SOAP over
SOAP over BEEP. HTTP and SOAP over BEEP.
The IANA will place netconf-soap_1.0.wsdl in the IANA XML registry. The IANA is requested to allow the assignment of an XML namespace
within the NETCONF namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf" for the
NETCONF over SOAP WSDL definitions. Following the policies outlined
in RFC 2434 [14], assigned values in this subordinate namespace are
requested to be allocated according to the "Specification Required"
policy.
URI: Please allow the URI assignment
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:soap" within the NETCONF namespace
for use by NETCONF over SOAP.
6. References 6. References
6.1 Normative References 6.1 Normative References
[1] Enns, R., "NETCONF Configuration Protocol", [1] Enns, R., "NETCONF Configuration Protocol",
draft-ietf-netconf-prot-05 (work in progress), Feb 2005, draft-ietf-netconf-prot-07 (work in progress), Feb 2005,
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
draft-ietf-netconf-prot-05.txt>. draft-ietf-netconf-prot-07.txt>.
[2] Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C. and E. Maler, [2] Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C., and E. Maler,
"Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Second Edition)", W3C "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Second Edition)", W3C
REC REC-xml-20001006, October 2000, REC REC-xml-20001006, October 2000,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006>. <http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006>.
[3] Gudgin, M., Hadley, M., Moreau, JJ. and H. Nielsen, "SOAP [3] Gudgin, M., Hadley, M., Moreau, JJ., and H. Nielsen, "SOAP
Version 1.2 Part 1: Messaging Framework", W3C Recommendation Version 1.2 Part 1: Messaging Framework", W3C
REC-soap12-part1-20030624, June 2002, Recommendation REC-soap12-part1-20030624, June 2002,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/>. <http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/>.
[4] Thompson, H., Beech, D., Maloney, M. and N. Mendelsohn, "XML [4] Thompson, H., Beech, D., Maloney, M., and N. Mendelsohn, "XML
Schema Part 1: Structures", W3C Recommendation Schema Part 1: Structures", W3C Recommendation REC-xmlschema-1-
REC-xmlschema-1-20010502, May 2001, 20010502, May 2001,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-1-20010502/>. <http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-1-20010502/>.
[5] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail [5] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter, L.,
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies", Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol --
RFC 2045, November 1996, <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2045.txt>.
[6] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046, November
1996, <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2046.txt>.
[7] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter, L.,
Leach, P. and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol --
HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999, HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999,
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt>. <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt>.
[8] Moore, K., "On the use of HTTP as a Substrate", RFC 3205, [6] Moore, K., "On the use of HTTP as a Substrate", RFC 3205,
February 2002, <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3205.txt>. February 2002, <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3205.txt>.
[9] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Leach, P., [7] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Leach, P.,
Luotonen, A., Sink, E. and L. Stewart, "An Extension to HTTP: Luotonen, A., Sink, E., and L. Stewart, "An Extension to HTTP:
Digest Access Authentication", RFC 2069, January 1997, Digest Access Authentication", RFC 2069, January 1997,
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2069.txt>. <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2069.txt>.
[10] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement [8] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997, Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997,
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt>. <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt>.
[11] Dierks, T., Allen, C., Treese, W., Karlton, P., Freier, A. and [9] Dierks, T., Allen, C., Treese, W., Karlton, P., Freier, A., and
P. Kocher, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0", RFC 2246, January P. Kocher, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0", RFC 2246,
1999, <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2246.txt>. January 1999, <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2246.txt>.
[12] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A. and W. Simpson, "Remote
Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 2865, June
2000, <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2865.txt>.
[13] Rose, M. and D. New, "Reliable Delivery for syslog", RFC 3195, [10] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson, "Remote
November 2001, <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3195.txt>. Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 2865,
June 2000, <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2865.txt>.
[14] Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core", RFC [11] Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core",
3080, March 2001, <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3080.txt>. RFC 3080, March 2001, <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3080.txt>.
[15] O'Tuathail, E. and M. Rose, "Using the Simple Object Access [12] O'Tuathail, E. and M. Rose, "Using the Simple Object Access
Protocol (SOAP) in Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol (BEEP)", Protocol (SOAP) in Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol (BEEP)",
RFC 3288bis, March 2005, <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ RFC 3288bis, March 2005, <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
draft-mrose-rfc3288bis-00.txt>. draft-mrose-rfc3288bis-00.txt>.
[16] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", RFC 3688, January 2004, [13] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", RFC 3688, January 2004,
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3688.txt>. <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3688.txt>.
[14] Alvestrand, H. and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 2434, October 1998,
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2434.txt>.
6.2 Informative References 6.2 Informative References
[17] Christensen, E., Curbera, F., Meredith, G. and S. Weerawarana, [15] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
"Web Services Description Language (WSDL) 1.1", W3C Note Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies",
NOTE-wsdl-20010315, March 2001, RFC 2045, November 1996, <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2045.txt>.
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/NOTE-wsdl-20010315>.
[18] Barton, J., Nielsen, H. and S. Thatte, "SOAP Messages with [16] Christensen, E., Curbera, F., Meredith, G., and S. Weerawarana,
Attachments", W3C Note NOTE-SOAP-attachments-20001211, Dec "Web Services Description Language (WSDL) 1.1", W3C Note NOTE-
2000, wsdl-20010315, March 2001,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-SOAP-attachments-20001211>. <http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/NOTE-wsdl-20010315>.
[19] Brown, A., Fox, B., Hada, S., LaMacchia, B. and H. Maruyama, [17] Brown, A., Fox, B., Hada, S., LaMacchia, B., and H. Maruyama,
"SOAP Security Extensions: Digital Signature", W3C Note "SOAP Security Extensions: Digital Signature", W3C Note NOTE-
NOTE-SOAP-dsig-20010206, Feb 2001, SOAP-dsig-20010206, Feb 2001,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP-dsig/>. <http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP-dsig/>.
[20] Nadalin, A., Kaler, C., Hallam-Baker, P. and R. Monzillo, "Web
Services Security: SOAP Message Security V1.0", OASIS Standard
wss-soap-message-security-1.0, Mar 2004,
<http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/
tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=wss>.
Author's Address Author's Address
Ted Goddard Ted Goddard
ICEsoft Technologies Inc. ICEsoft Technologies Inc.
Suite 300, 1717 10th St. NW Suite 300, 1717 10th St. NW
Calgary, AB T2M 4S2 Calgary, AB T2M 4S2
Canada Canada
Phone: (403) 663-3322 Phone: (403) 663-3322
EMail: ted.goddard@icesoft.com Email: ted.goddard@icesoft.com
URI: http://www.icesoft.com URI: http://www.icesoft.com
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 Rights or other rights that might be claimed to Intellectual Property Rights 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; nor does it represent that it has might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
 End of changes. 75 change blocks. 
140 lines changed or deleted 216 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.27, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/