[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-voit-netconf-notification-messages) 00 01 02 03 04 05

NETCONF                                                          E. Voit
Internet-Draft                                             Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track                             H. Birkholz
Expires: August 24, 2018                                  Fraunhofer SIT
                                                              A. Bierman
                                                                A. Clemm
                                                              T. Jenkins
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                       February 20, 2018

                Notification Message Headers and Bundles


   This document defines a new notification message format, using yang-
   data.  Included are:

   o  a new notification mechanism and encoding to replace the one way
      operation of RFC-5277

   o  a set of common, transport agnostic message header objects.

   o  how to bundle multiple event records into a single notification

   o  how to ensure these new capabilities are only used with capable

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 24, 2018.

Voit, et al.             Expires August 24, 2018                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                Notifications                February 2018

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Header Objects  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Encapsulation of Header Objects in Messages . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  One Notification per Message  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.2.  Many Notifications per Message  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Configuration of Headers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Discovering Receiver Support  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  Backwards Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   Appendix A.  Changes between revisions  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   Appendix B.  Issues being worked  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   Appendix C.  Subscription Specific Headers  . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   Appendix D.  Implications to Existing RFCs  . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     D.1.  Implications to RFC-7950  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     D.2.  Implications to RFC-8040  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22

1.  Introduction

   Mechanisms to support subscription to event notifications and yang
   datastore push are being defined in
   [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications] and
   [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push].  Work on those documents has shown that
   notifications described in [RFC7950] section 7.16 could benefit from
   transport independent headers.  Communicating the following

Voit, et al.             Expires August 24, 2018                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                Notifications                February 2018

   information to receiving applications can be done without explicit
   linkage to an underlying transport protocol:

   o  the time information was generated

   o  the time the information was placed in a message and queued for

   o  a signature to verify authenticity

   o  the process generating the information

   o  an originating request correlation

   o  an ability to bundle information records into one a message

   o  the ability to check for message loss/reordering

   The document describes information elements needed for the functions
   above.  It also provides YANG structures for sending messages
   containing one or more events and/or update records to a receiver.

2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174]  when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

   The definition of notification is in RFC 7950 [RFC7950].  Publisher,
   receiver, and subscription are defined in

3.  Header Objects

   There are a number of transport independent headers which should have
   common definition.  These include:

   o  subscription-id: provides a reference into the reason the
      publisher believed the receiver wishes to be notified of this
      specific information.

   o  notification-time: the time an event, datastore update, or other
      item is recognized and recorded within the publisher.

   o  notification-id: Identifies the name of the notification, per the
      YANG notification statement.  May also provide the name of a yang-

Voit, et al.             Expires August 24, 2018                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                Notifications                February 2018

      data statement (whether transporting other types of messages is in
      scope is tbd).

   o  observation-domain-id: identifies the publisher process which
      discovered and recorded the event notification. (note: look to
      reuse the domains set up with IPFIX.)

   o  message-time: the time the message was packaged sent to the
      transport layer for delivery to the receiver.

   o  signature: allows an application to sign a message so that a
      receiver can verify the authenticity of the message.

   o  message-id: for a specific message generator, this identifies a
      message which includes one or more event records.  The message-id
      increments by one with sequential messages.

   o  message-generator-id: identifier for the process which created the
      message.  This allows disambiguation of an information source,
      such as the identification of different line cards sending the
      messages.  Used in conjunction with previous-message-id, this can
      help find drops and duplications when messages are coming from
      multiple sources on a device.  If there is a message-generator-id
      in the header, then the previous-message-id MUST be the message-id
      from the last time that message-generator-id was sent.

4.  Encapsulation of Header Objects in Messages

   A specific set of well-known objects are of potential use to
   networking layers prior being interpreted by some receiving
   application layer process.  By exposing this object information as
   part of a header, and by using standardized object names, it becomes
   possible for this object information to be leveraged in transit.

   The objects defined in the previous section are these well-known
   header objects.  These objects are identified within a dedicated
   header subtree which leads off a particular transportable message.
   This allows header objects to be easily be decoupled, stripped, and
   processed separately.

   There are two types of transportable messages: one format is used
   when there is one notification being encapsulated, and another format
   used when there are many notifications being bundled into one

   A receiver which supporting this document MUST be able to handle
   receipt of either type of message from an publisher.  It is possible

Voit, et al.             Expires August 24, 2018                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                Notifications                February 2018

   that changes between message types can occur without any prior

4.1.  One Notification per Message

   This section will be re-instated if NETCONF WG members are not
   comfortable with the efficiency of the solution which can encode many
   notifications per message described below.

4.2.  Many Notifications per Message

   While possible in some scenarios, it often inefficient to marshal and
   transport every notification independently.  Instead, scale and
   processing speed can be improved by placing multiple notifications
   into one transportable bundle.

   The format of this bundle appears in the yata-data tree below, and is
   more completely defined in the yang module.  There are three parts of
   this bundle:

   o  a message header describing the marshaling, including information
      such as when the marshaling occurred

   o  a list of encapsulated information

   o  an optional message footer for whole-message signing and message-
      generator integrity verification.

   Within the list of encapsulated notifications, there are also three

   o  a notification header defining what is in an encapsulated

   o  the actual notification itself

   o  an optional notification footer for individual notification
      signing and observation-domain integrity verification.

Voit, et al.             Expires August 24, 2018                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                Notifications                February 2018

       yang-data message
          +--ro message!
             +--ro message-header
             |  +--ro message-time            yang:date-and-time
             |  +--ro message-id?             uint32
             |  +--ro message-generator-id?   string
             |  +--ro notification-count?     uint16
             +--ro notifications*
             |  +--ro notification-header
             |  |  +--ro notification-time         yang:date-and-time
             |  |  +--ro yang-module?              yang:yang-identifier
             |  |  +--ro yang-notification-name?   notification-type
             |  |  +--ro subscription-id*          uint32
             |  |  +--ro notification-id?          uint32
             |  |  +--ro observation-domain-id?    string
             |  +--ro notification-contents?
             |  +--ro notification-footer!
             |     +--ro signature-algorithm    string
             |     +--ro signature-value        string
             |     +--ro integrity-evidence?    string
             +--ro message-footer!
                +--ro signature-algorithm    string
                +--ro signature-value        string
                +--ro integrity-evidence?    string

   An XML instance of a message might look like:

Voit, et al.             Expires August 24, 2018                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                Notifications                February 2018

   <yang-data bundled-message
           <push-change-update xmlns=
               <alpha xmlns="http://example.com/sample-data/1.0">
                  <beta urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0:
             ...(record #2)...

Voit, et al.             Expires August 24, 2018                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                Notifications                February 2018

5.  Configuration of Headers

   A publisher MUST select the set of headers to use within any
   particular message.  The two mandatory headers which MUST always be
   applied are 'message-time' and 'subscription-id'

   Beyond these two mandatory headers, additional headers MAY be
   included.  Configuration of what these optional headers should be can
   come from the following sources:

   1.  Publisher wide default headers for all notifications.  These are
       included if an optional header is inserted into 'additional-
       headers' leaf-list shown in the yang tree below.

   2.  More notification specific headers may also be desired.  If new
       headers are needed for a specific type of YANG notification,
       these can be populated through 'additional-notification-headers'

   3.  An application process may also identify common headers to use
       when transporting notifications for a specific subscription.  How
       these are identified to a publisher is out-of-scope.

   The set of headers used for any particular message is the superset of
   headers for the items listed above.

   The YANG tree showing elements of configuration is depicted in the
   following figure.

module: ietf-notification-messages
    +--rw additional-default-headers {publisher}?
       +--rw additional-headers*                         optional-header
       +--rw yang-notification-specific-default*
          |                         [yang-module yang-notification-name]
          +--rw yang-module                         yang:yang-identifier
          +--rw yang-notification-name                 notification-type
          +--rw additional-notification-headers*

                       Configuration Model structure

   Of note in this tree is the optional feature of 'publisher'.  This
   feature indicates an ability to send notifications.  A publisher
   supporting this specification MUST also be able to parse any messages
   received as defined in this document.

Voit, et al.             Expires August 24, 2018                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                Notifications                February 2018

6.  Discovering Receiver Support

   We need capability exchange from the receiver to the publisher at
   transport session initiation to indicate support for this

   For all types of transport connections, if the receiver indicates
   support for this specification, then it MAY be used.  In addition,
   [RFC5277] one-way notifications MUST NOT be used if the receiver
   indicates support for this specification to a publisher which also
   supports it.

   Where NETCONF transport is used, advertising this specification's
   namespace during an earlier client capabilities discovery phase MAY
   be used to indicate support for this specification:

      <hello xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">

   NOTE: It is understood that even though it is allowed in [RFC6241]
   section 8.1, robust NETCONF client driven capabilities exchange is
   not something which is common in implementation.  Therefore reviewers
   are asked to submit alternative proposals to the mailing list.

   For RESTCONF, a mechanism for capability discovery is TBD.  Proposals
   are also welcome here.

   The mechanism described above assumes that a capability discovery
   phase happens before a subscription is started.  This is not always
   the case.  As an example, consider HTTP2 configured subscriptions
   from section 3.1.3 of [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif], there
   is no guarantee that a capability exchange has taken place before the
   updates are pushed.  A solution for this could be that a receiver
   would reply "ok" and reply with the client capabilities as part of
   the POST.  (Or just use a different HTTP status code like 202 instead
   of 200 'ok').  As such a requirement creates a new dependency for
   [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif] upon this specification, more
   discussion is required to decide if this is a viable solution.

Voit, et al.             Expires August 24, 2018                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                Notifications                February 2018

7.  YANG Module

<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-notification-messages@2018-01-31.yang"

module ietf-notification-messages {
  yang-version 1.1;
  prefix nm;

  import ietf-yang-types { prefix yang; }
  import ietf-restconf   { prefix rc;   }

  organization "IETF";
    "WG Web:   <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netconf/>
     WG List:  <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>

     Editor:   Eric Voit

     Editor:   Henk Birkholz

     Editor:   Alexander Clemm

     Editor:   Andy Bierman

     Editor:   Tim Jenkins

    "This module contains conceptual YANG specifications for yang-data
    messages carrying notifications with well known header objects.";

  revision 2018-01-31 {
      "Initial version.";



Voit, et al.             Expires August 24, 2018               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                Notifications                February 2018


  feature publisher {
      "This feature indicates that support for both publisher and
      receiver of messages complying to the specification.";


   /* Identities for common headers */

  identity common-header {
      "A well known header which can be included somewhere within a

  identity message-time {
    base common-header;
      "Header information consisting of time the message headers were
      placed generated prior to being sent to transport";

  identity subscription-id {
    base common-header;
      "Header information consisting of the identifier of the
      subscription associated with the notification being

  identity notification-count {
    base common-header;
      "Header information consisting of the quantity of notifications in
      a bundled-message for a specific receiver.";

  identity optional-header {
    base common-header;
      "A well known header which an application may choose to include
      within a message.";

Voit, et al.             Expires August 24, 2018               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                Notifications                February 2018

  identity message-id {
    base optional-header;
      "Header information that identifies a message to a specific

  identity message-generator-id {
    base optional-header;
      "Header information consisting of an identifier for a software
      entity which created the message (e.g., linecard 1).";

  identity message-signature {
    base optional-header;
      "Identifies two elements of header information consisting of a
      signature and the signtature type for the contents of a message.
      Signatures can be useful for originating applications to
      verify record contents even when shipping over unsecure

  identity message-integrity-evidence {
    base optional-header;
      "Header information consisting of the information which backs up
      the assertions made as to the validity of the information
      provided within the message.";

  identity optional-notification-header {
    base optional-header;
      "A well known header which an application may choose to include
      within a message.";

  identity notification-time  {
    base optional-notification-header;
      "Header information consisting of the time an originating process
      created the notification.";

  identity notification-id {

Voit, et al.             Expires August 24, 2018               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                Notifications                February 2018

    base optional-notification-header;
      "Header information consisting of an identifier for an instance
      of a notification egressing a publisher. ";

  identity observation-domain-id {
    base optional-notification-header;
      "Header information identifying the software entity which created
      the notification (e.g., process id).";

  identity notification-signature {
    base optional-notification-header;
      "Header information consisting of the information which backs up
      the assertions made as to the validity of the information
      provided within the notification.";

  identity notification-integrity-evidence {
    base optional-notification-header;
      "Header information consisting of the information which backs up
      the assertions made as to the validity of the information
      provided within the notification.";


  typedef optional-header {
    type identityref {
      base optional-header;
      "Type of header object which may be included somewhere within a

  typedef optional-notification-header {
    type identityref {
      base optional-notification-header;

Voit, et al.             Expires August 24, 2018               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                Notifications                February 2018

      "Type of header object which may be included somewhere within a

  typedef notification-type {
    type string {
      pattern '[a-zA-Z_][a-zA-Z0-9\-_.]*';
      "The name of a notification within a YANG module.";
      "RFC-7950 Section 7.16";


  grouping message-header {
      "Header information included with a message.";
    leaf message-time {
      type yang:date-and-time;
      mandatory true;
        "time the message was generated prior to being sent to
    leaf message-id {
      type uint32;
        "Id for a message going to a receiver from a message
        generator.  The id will increment by one with each message sent
        from a particular message generator, allowing the message-id
        to be used as a sequence number.";
    leaf message-generator-id {
      type string;
        "Software entity which created the message (e.g., linecard 1).
         The combination of message-id and message-generator-id must be
         unique until reset or a roll-over occurs.";
    leaf notification-count {
      type uint16;
        "Quantity of notification records in a bundled-message

Voit, et al.             Expires August 24, 2018               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                Notifications                February 2018

        specific receiver.";

  grouping notification-within-a-module {
      "A location of a notification within a yang model.";
    leaf yang-module {
      type yang:yang-identifier;
        "Name of the YANG module supported by the publisher.";
    leaf yang-notification-name {
      type notification-type;
         "The name of a notification likely from a YANG module.  Note
         that this object should be in the notification contents, so a
         debate is needed whether this is redundant.";

  grouping notification-header {
      "Common informational objects which might help a receiver
      interpret the meaning, details, or importance of a notification.";
    leaf notification-time {
      type yang:date-and-time;
      mandatory true;
        "Time the system recognized the occurrence of an event.";
    uses notification-within-a-module;
    leaf-list subscription-id {
      type uint32;
        "Id of the subscription which led to the notification being
    leaf notification-id {
      type uint32;
        "Identifier for the notification record.";
    leaf observation-domain-id {
      type string;
        "Software entity which created the notification record (e.g.,
        process id).";

Voit, et al.             Expires August 24, 2018               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft                Notifications                February 2018


  grouping security-footer {
      "Reusable grouping for common objects which apply to the the
      signing of notifications or messages.";
    leaf signature-algorithm {
      type string;
      mandatory true;
        "The technology with which an originator signed of some
        delineated contents.";
    leaf signature-value {
      type string;
      mandatory true;
        "Any originator signing of the contents of a header and
        content.  This is useful for verifying contents even when
        shipping over unsecure transport.";
    leaf integrity-evidence {
      type string;
        "This mechanism allows a verifier to ensure that the use of the
        private key, represented by the corresponding public key
        certificate, was performed with a TCG compliant TPM
        environment.  This evidence is never included in within any
        "TCG Infrastructure Workgroup, Subject Key Attestation Evidence
        Extension, Specification Version 1.0, Revision 7.";

   * YANG-DATA messages for receivers

   rc:yang-data message {
    container message {
        "Indicates attempt to communicate notifications to a receiver.";
        "Message to a receiver containing one or more notifications";

Voit, et al.             Expires August 24, 2018               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft                Notifications                February 2018

      container message-header {
          "Header info for messages.";
        uses message-header;
      list notifications {
          "Set of notifications to a receiver.";
        container notification-header {
            "Header info for a notification.";
          uses notification-header;
        anydata notification-contents {
            "Encapsulates objects following YANG's notification-stmt
            grammar of RFC-7950 section 14.  Within are the notified
            objects the publisher actually generated in order to be
            passed to a receiver after all filtering has completed.";
        container notification-footer {
            "Indicates attempt to secure a notification.";
            "Signature and evidence for messages.";
          uses security-footer;
      container message-footer {
          "Indicates attempt to secure the entire message.";
          "Signature and evidence for messages.";
        uses security-footer;


  container additional-default-headers {
    if-feature "publisher";
      "This container maintains a list of which additional notifications
      should use which optional headers if the receiver supports this

Voit, et al.             Expires August 24, 2018               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft                Notifications                February 2018

    leaf-list additional-headers {
      type optional-header;
        "This list contains the identities of the optional header types
        which are to be included within each message from this
    list yang-notification-specific-default {
      key "yang-module yang-notification-name";
        "For any included YANG notifications, this list provides
        additional optional headers which should be placed within the
        container notification-header if the receiver supports this
        specification.  This list incrementally adds to any headers
        indicated within the leaf-list 'additional-headers'.";
      uses notification-within-a-module;
      leaf-list additional-notification-headers {
         type optional-notification-header;
           "The set of additional default headers which will be sent
           for a specific YANG notification.";


8.  Backwards Compatibility

   With this specification, there is no change to YANG's 'notification'

   Legacy clients are unaffected, and existing users of [RFC5277],
   [RFC7950], and [RFC8040] are free to use current behaviors until all
   involved device support this specification.

9.  Security Considerations

   Certain headers might be computationally complex for a publisher to
   deliver.  Signatures or encryption are two examples of this.  It MUST
   be possible to suspend or terminate a subscription due to lack of
   resources based on this reason.

   Decisions on whether to bundle or not to a receiver are fully under
   the purview of the Publisher.  A receiver could slow delivery to
   existing subscriptions by creating new ones.  (Which would result in
   the publisher going into a bundling mode.)

Voit, et al.             Expires August 24, 2018               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft                Notifications                February 2018

10.  Acknowledgments

   For their valuable comments, discussions, and feedback, we wish to
   acknowledge Martin Bjorklund, Einar Nilsen-Nygaard, and Kent Watsen.

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

              Voit, E., Clemm, A., Gonzalez Prieto, A., Tripathy, A.,
              and E. Nilsen-Nygaard, "Custom Subscription to Event
              Streams", draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-06
              (work in progress), January 2018.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,

   [RFC5277]  Chisholm, S. and H. Trevino, "NETCONF Event
              Notifications", RFC 5277, DOI 10.17487/RFC5277, July 2008,

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

11.2.  Informative References

              Voit, Eric., Clemm, Alexander., Tripathy, A., Nilsen-
              Nygaard, E., and Alberto. Gonzalez Prieto, "Restconf and
              HTTP transport for event notifications", January 2018,

              Clemm, Alexander., Voit, Eric., Gonzalez Prieto, Alberto.,
              Tripathy, A., Nilsen-Nygaard, E., Bierman, A., and B.
              Lengyel, "YANG Datastore Subscription", December 2017,

   [RFC6241]  Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
              and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
              (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,

Voit, et al.             Expires August 24, 2018               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft                Notifications                February 2018

   [RFC7950]  Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
              RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,

   [RFC8040]  Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
              Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,

Appendix A.  Changes between revisions

   (To be removed by RFC editor prior to publication)

   v02 - v03

   o  Removed the option for an unbundled message.  This might be re-
      added later for transport efficiency if desired by the WG

   o  New message structure driven by the desire to put the signature
      information at the end.

   v01 - v02

   o  Fixed the yang-data encapsulation container issue

   o  Updated object definitions to point to RFC-7950 definitions

   o  Added headers for module and notification-type.

   v00 - v01

   o  Alternative to 5277 one-way notification added

   o  Storage of default headers by notification type

   o  Backwards compatibility

   o  Capability discovery

   o  Move to yang-data

   o  Removed dscp and record-type as common headers.  (Record type can
      be determined by the namespace of the record contents.  Dscp is
      useful where applications need internal communications within a
      Publisher, but it is unclear as to whether this use case need be
      exposed to a receiver.

Voit, et al.             Expires August 24, 2018               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft                Notifications                February 2018

Appendix B.  Issues being worked

   (To be removed by RFC editor prior to publication)

   Is this capability just for notifications, or is it for any yang-data
   element too?

   A complete JSON document is supposed to be sent as part of Media Type
   "application/yang-data+json".  As we are sending separate
   notifications after each other, we need to choose whether we start
   with some extra encapsulation for the very first message pushed, or
   if we want a new Media Type for streaming updates.

   Improved discovery mechanisms for NETCONF

   Should we defer support for HTTP2 configured subscriptions until this
   draft is available?  Without capabilities exchange, it might just be
   easier to wait.  In addition, JSON encoding still needs a
   notification type which is not exising or represented in
   referenceable in existing yang-models.

   Need to ensure the proper references exist to a notification
   definition driven by RFC-7950 which is acceptable to other eventual
   users of this specification.

   We need to link to Andy Bierman's anydata extensibility draft for
   informational purposes.  This is under a WG adoption call.

Appendix C.  Subscription Specific Headers

   (To be removed by RFC editor prior to publication)

   This section discusses a future functional addition which could
   leverage this draft.  It is included for informational purposes only.

   A dynamic subscriber might want to mandate that certain headers be
   used for push updates from a publisher.  Some examples of this
   include a subscriber requesting to:

   o  establish this subscription, but just if transport messages
      containing the pushed data will be encrypted,

   o  establish this subscription, but only if you can attest to the
      information being delivered in requested notification records, or

   o  provide a sequence-id for all messages to this receiver (in order
      to check for loss).

Voit, et al.             Expires August 24, 2018               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft                Notifications                February 2018

   Providing this type of functionality would necessitate a new revision
   of the [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications]'s RPCs and
   state change notifications.  Subscription specific header information
   would overwrite the default headers identified in this document.

Appendix D.  Implications to Existing RFCs

   (To be removed by RFC editor prior to publication)

   YANG one-way exchanges currently use a non-extensible header and
   encoding defined in section 4 of RFC-5277.  These RFCs MUST be
   updated to enable this draft.  These RFCs SHOULD be updated to
   provide examples

D.1.  Implications to RFC-7950

   Sections which expose netconf:capability:notification:1.0 are 4.2.10

   Sections which provide examples using netconf:notification:1.0 are
   7.10.4, 7.16.3, and 9.9.6

D.2.  Implications to RFC-8040

   Section 6.4 demands use of RFC-5277's netconf:notification:1.0, and
   later in the section provides an example.

Authors' Addresses

   Eric Voit
   Cisco Systems

   Email: evoit@cisco.com

   Henk Birkholz
   Fraunhofer SIT

   Email: henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de

   Andy Bierman

   Email: andy@yumaworks.com

Voit, et al.             Expires August 24, 2018               [Page 22]

Internet-Draft                Notifications                February 2018

   Alexander Clemm

   Email: ludwig@clemm.org

   Tim Jenkins
   Cisco Systems

   Email: timjenki@cisco.com

Voit, et al.             Expires August 24, 2018               [Page 23]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/