draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf-04.txt   draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf-05.txt 
Network Working Group M. Bjorklund Network Working Group M. Bjorklund
Internet-Draft Tail-f Systems Internet-Draft Tail-f Systems
Updates: 8040 (if approved) J. Schoenwaelder Updates: 8040 (if approved) J. Schoenwaelder
Intended status: Standards Track Jacobs University Intended status: Standards Track Jacobs University
Expires: October 22, 2018 P. Shafer Expires: April 12, 2019 P. Shafer
K. Watsen K. Watsen
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
R. Wilton R. Wilton
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
April 20, 2018 October 9, 2018
RESTCONF Extensions to Support the Network Management Datastore RESTCONF Extensions to Support the Network Management Datastore
Architecture Architecture
draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf-04 draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf-05
Abstract Abstract
This document extends the RESTCONF protocol defined in RFC 8040 in This document extends the RESTCONF protocol defined in RFC 8040 in
order to support the Network Management Datastore Architecture order to support the Network Management Datastore Architecture
defined in RFC 8342. defined in RFC 8342.
This document updates RFC 8040 by introducing new datastore This document updates RFC 8040 by introducing new datastore
resources, adding a new query parameter, and requiring the usage of resources, adding a new query parameter, and requiring the usage of
I-D.ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis by RESTCONF servers implementing the I-D.ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis by RESTCONF servers implementing the
skipping to change at page 1, line 47 skipping to change at page 1, line 47
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 October 22, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 12, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 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 4, line 5 skipping to change at page 4, line 5
NMDA. NMDA.
3.1. New Datastore Resources 3.1. New Datastore Resources
This document defines a set of new resources representing datastores This document defines a set of new resources representing datastores
as defined in [RFC8342]. These resources are available using the as defined in [RFC8342]. These resources are available using the
following resource path template: following resource path template:
{+restconf}/ds/<datastore> {+restconf}/ds/<datastore>
The <datastore> path component is encoded as an "identity" according The <datastore> path component is encoded as an "identityref"
to the JSON encoding rules for identities, defined in Section 4 of according to the JSON encoding rules for identities, defined in
[RFC7951]. Such an identity MUST be derived from the "datastore" Section 6.8 of [RFC7951]. The namespace-qualified form MUST be used.
identity defined in the "ietf-datastores" YANG module [RFC8342]. Such an identity MUST be derived from the "datastore" identity
defined in the "ietf-datastores" YANG module [RFC8342].
Specifically: Specifically:
o The resource {+restconf}/ds/ietf-datastores:operational refers to o The resource {+restconf}/ds/ietf-datastores:operational refers to
the operational state datastore. the operational state datastore.
o The resource {+restconf}/ds/ietf-datastores:running refers to the o The resource {+restconf}/ds/ietf-datastores:running refers to the
running configuration datastore. running configuration datastore.
o The resource {+restconf}/ds/ietf-datastores:intended refers to the o The resource {+restconf}/ds/ietf-datastores:intended refers to the
intended configuration datastore. intended configuration datastore.
An NMDA-compliant server MUST implement {+restconf}/ds/ietf- An NMDA-compliant server MUST implement {+restconf}/ds/ietf-
datastores:operational. Other datastore resources are optional to datastores:operational. Other datastore resources MAY be
implement. implemented.
YANG actions can only be invoked in {+restconf}/ds/ietf- YANG actions can only be invoked in {+restconf}/ds/ietf-
datastores:operational. datastores:operational.
If a server implements the example datastore "ds-ephemeral" in the If a server implements other datastores, such as the example
module "example-ds-ephemeral", it would implement the resource datastore "ds-ephemeral" in the module "example-ds-ephemeral", the
{+restconf}/ds/example-ds-ephemeral:ds-ephemeral. server would implement the resource {+restconf}/ds/example- ds-
ephemeral:ds-ephemeral.
3.2. Protocol Operations 3.2. Protocol Operations
The protocol operations available for the new datastore resources The protocol operations available for the new datastore resources
(Section 3.1) are the same as the protocol operations defined in (Section 3.1) are the same as the protocol operations defined in
[RFC8040] for the {+restconf}/data resource with the following [RFC8040] for the {+restconf}/data resource with the following
exceptions: exceptions:
o Dynamic configuration datastores are excluded, as each dynamic o Dynamic configuration datastores are excluded, as each dynamic
configuration datastore definition needs to be reviewed for what configuration datastore definition needs to be reviewed for what
skipping to change at page 5, line 11 skipping to change at page 5, line 11
o The semantics of the "with-defaults" query parameter ([RFC8040], o The semantics of the "with-defaults" query parameter ([RFC8040],
Section 4.8.9) differs when interacting with the operational state Section 4.8.9) differs when interacting with the operational state
datastore. The semantics are described below, in Section 3.2.1. datastore. The semantics are described below, in Section 3.2.1.
o [RFC8040], Section 3.5.4, paragraph 3 does not apply when o [RFC8040], Section 3.5.4, paragraph 3 does not apply when
interacting with any resource under {+restconf}/ds. interacting with any resource under {+restconf}/ds.
3.2.1. With-defaults query parameter on the operational state datastore 3.2.1. With-defaults query parameter on the operational state datastore
The "with-defaults" query parameter ([RFC8040], Section 4.8.9) is The "with-defaults" query parameter ([RFC8040], Section 4.8.9) is
optional to support when interacting with {+restconf}/ds/ietf- OPTIONAL to support when interacting with {+restconf}/ds/ietf-
datastores:operational. The associated capability to indicate a datastores:operational. The associated capability to indicate a
server's support is identified with the URI: server's support is identified with the URI:
urn:ietf:params:restconf:capability:with-operational-defaults:1.0 urn:ietf:params:restconf:capability:with-operational-defaults:1.0
For servers that support it, the behavior of the "with-defaults" For servers that support it, the behavior of the "with-defaults"
query parameter on the operational state datastore is defined as query parameter on the operational state datastore is defined as
follows: follows:
o If no "with-defaults" query parameter is specified, or if it is o If no "with-defaults" query parameter is specified, or if it is
skipping to change at page 6, line 15 skipping to change at page 6, line 15
Data in the operational state datatstore can come from multiple Data in the operational state datatstore can come from multiple
sources. The server should return the most accurate value for the sources. The server should return the most accurate value for the
"origin" metadata annotation as possible, indicating the source of "origin" metadata annotation as possible, indicating the source of
the operational value, as specified in Section 5.3.4 of [RFC8342]. the operational value, as specified in Section 5.3.4 of [RFC8342].
When encoding the origin metadata annotation for a hierarchy of When encoding the origin metadata annotation for a hierarchy of
returned nodes, the annotation can be omitted for a child node when returned nodes, the annotation can be omitted for a child node when
the value matches that of the parent node, as described in the value matches that of the parent node, as described in
"ietf-origin" YANG module [RFC8342]. "ietf-origin" YANG module [RFC8342].
The "with-origin" query parameter is optional to support. It is The "with-origin" query parameter is OPTIONAL to support. It is
identified with the URI: identified with the URI:
urn:ietf:params:restconf:capability:with-origin:1.0 urn:ietf:params:restconf:capability:with-origin:1.0
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
This document defines two capability identifier URNs in the "RESTCONF This document defines two capability identifier URNs in the "RESTCONF
Capability URNs" registry defined in [RFC8040]: Capability URNs" registry defined in [RFC8040]:
Index Index
skipping to change at page 6, line 37 skipping to change at page 6, line 37
--------------------- ---------------------
:with-origin :with-origin
urn:ietf:params:restconf:capability:with-origin:1.0 urn:ietf:params:restconf:capability:with-origin:1.0
:with-operational-defaults :with-operational-defaults
urn:ietf:params:restconf:capability:with-operational-defaults:1.0 urn:ietf:params:restconf:capability:with-operational-defaults:1.0
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
This documents extends the RESTCONF protocol by introducing new This document extends the RESTCONF protocol by introducing new
datastore resources. The lowest RESTCONF layer is HTTPS, and the datastore resources. The lowest RESTCONF layer is HTTPS, and the
mandatory-to-implement secure transport is TLS [RFC5246]. The mandatory-to-implement secure transport is TLS [RFC8446]. The
RESTCONF protocol uses the network configuration access control model RESTCONF protocol uses the network configuration access control model
[RFC8341], which provides the means to restrict access for particular [RFC8341], which provides the means to restrict access for particular
RESTCONF users to a preconfigured subset of all available RESTCONF RESTCONF users to a preconfigured subset of all available RESTCONF
protocol operations and content. protocol operations and content.
The security constraints for the base RESTCONF protocol (see The security constraints for the base RESTCONF protocol (see
Section 12 of [RFC8040] apply to the new RESTCONF datastore resources Section 12 of [RFC8040]) apply to the new RESTCONF datastore
defined in this document. resources defined in this document.
6. Normative References 6. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis] [I-D.ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis]
Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Watsen, K., Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Watsen, K.,
and R. Wilton, "YANG Library", draft-ietf-netconf- and R. Wilton, "YANG Library", draft-ietf-netconf-
rfc7895bis-06 (work in progress), April 2018. rfc7895bis-06 (work in progress), April 2018.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/ Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-
rfc2119>. editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, DOI 10.17487/
RFC5246, August 2008, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/
rfc5246>.
[RFC7951] Lhotka, L., "JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG", RFC [RFC7951] Lhotka, L., "JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG",
7951, DOI 10.17487/RFC7951, August 2016, <https://www.rfc- RFC 7951, DOI 10.17487/RFC7951, August 2016,
editor.org/info/rfc7951>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7951>.
[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF [RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017, Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8341] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration [RFC8341] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration
Access Control Model", STD 91, RFC 8341, DOI 10.17487/ Access Control Model", STD 91, RFC 8341,
RFC8341, March 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/ DOI 10.17487/RFC8341, March 2018, <https://www.rfc-
rfc8341>. editor.org/info/rfc8341>.
[RFC8342] Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K., [RFC8342] Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K.,
and R. Wilton, "Network Management Datastore Architecture and R. Wilton, "Network Management Datastore Architecture
(NMDA)", RFC 8342, DOI 10.17487/RFC8342, March 2018, (NMDA)", RFC 8342, DOI 10.17487/RFC8342, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8342>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8342>.
[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Martin Bjorklund Martin Bjorklund
Tail-f Systems Tail-f Systems
Email: mbj@tail-f.com Email: mbj@tail-f.com
Juergen Schoenwaelder Juergen Schoenwaelder
Jacobs University Jacobs University
Email: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Email: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de
 End of changes. 16 change blocks. 
33 lines changed or deleted 34 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/