NETMOD Q. Ma, Ed. Internet-Draft Q. Wu Updates: 8342, 6241, 8526, 8040 (if approved) Huawei Intended status: Standards Track C. Feng Expires: 20 December 2024 18 June 2024 System-defined Configuration draft-ietf-netmod-system-config-08 Abstract This document defines how a management client and management server handle YANG-modeled configuration data that is instantiated by the server itself. The system-defined configuration can be referenced (e.g., leafref) by configuration explicitly created by a client. The Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) defined in RFC 8342 is updated with a read-only conventional configuration datastore called "system" to expose system-defined configuration. This document updates RFC 6241, RFC 8040, RFC 8342, and RFC 8526. 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 20 December 2024. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2024 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. Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 1] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.3. Updates to RFC 8342 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.4. Updates to RFC 6241 and RFC 8526 . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.5. Updates to RFC 8040 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2. Kinds of System Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1. Immediately-Present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2. Conditionally-Present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. The System Configuration Datastore () . . . . . . . . 7 4. Static Characteristics of . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1. Read-only to Clients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2. May Change via Software Upgrades or Resource Changes . . 7 4.3. No Impact to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Dynamic Behaviors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1. Conceptual Model of Datastores . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1.1. Origin Metadata Annotation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.2. Explicit Declaration of System Configuration . . . . . . 10 5.3. Servers Auto-configuring System Configuration ("resolve-system" parameter) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.3.1. NETCONF Support for "resolve-system" Parameter . . . 12 5.3.2. RESTCONF Support for "resolve-system" Parameter . . . 12 5.3.2.1. Query Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.3.2.2. Query Parameter URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.4. Modifying (Overriding) System Configuration . . . . . . . 13 5.5. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.5.1. Declaring a System-defined Node in Explicitly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.5.2. Server Configuring of Automatically . . . . 19 5.5.3. Modifying a System-instantiated Leaf's Value . . . . 21 5.5.4. Configuring Descendant Nodes of a System-defined Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 6. Default Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 7. Relation to Other Datastores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 7.1. The "factory-default" Datastore . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 7.2. The "candidate" Datastore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 8. The "ietf-system-datastore" Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 8.1. Data Model Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 8.2. Example Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 8.3. YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 2] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 9. The "ietf-netconf-resolve-system" Module . . . . . . . . . . 29 9.1. Data Model Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 9.2. Example Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 9.3. YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 10.1. The "IETF XML" Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 10.2. The "YANG Module Names" Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 10.3. NETCONF Capability URN Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 10.4. RESTCONF Capability URN Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 11.1. Considerations for the "ietf-system-datastore" YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 11.2. Considerations for the "ietf-netconf-resolve-system" YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Appendix A. Key Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 A.1. Device Powers On . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 A.2. Client Commits Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 A.3. Operator Installs Card into a Chassis . . . . . . . . . . 41 A.4. Client further Commits Configuration . . . . . . . . . . 42 Appendix B. Changes between Revisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 1. Introduction The Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) [RFC8342] defines system configuration as the configuration that is supplied by the device itself and appears in when it is in use (Figure 2 in [RFC8342]). However, there is a desire to enable a server to better structure and expose the system configuration. NETCONF/RESTCONF clients can benefit from a standard mechanism to retrieve what system configuration is available on a server. Some servers allow clients to reference a system-defined node which is not present in the datastore. The absence of the system configuration in the datastore can render the datastore invalid from the perspective of a client or offline tools (e.g., missing leafref targets). This document describes several approaches to bring the datastore to a valid state and satisfy referential integrity constraints. Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 3] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 Some servers allow the descendant nodes of system-defined configuration to be configured or modified. For example, the system configuration may contain an almost empty physical interface, while the client needs to be able to add, modify, or remove a number of descendant nodes. Some descendant nodes may not be modifiable (e.g., the interface "type" set by the system). This document updates the NMDA defined in [RFC8342] with a read-only conventional configuration datastore called "system" to expose system-defined configuration. As an alternative to clients explicitly copying referenced system- defined configuration so that the datastore is valid, a "resolve- system" parameter is defined to allow the server to copy referenced system nodes automatically. This solution enables clients to reference nodes defined in , override system-provided values, and configure descendant nodes of system-defined configuration. If a system-defined node is referenced, it refers to one of the following cases throughout this document: * It is present in a leafref "path" statement and referred as the leafref value. * It is used as an "instance-identifier" type value. * It is present in an XPath expression of "when" constraints. * It is present in an XPath expression of "must" constraints. * It is defined to satisfy the "mandatory true" constraints. * It is defined to satisfy the "min-elements" constraints. Conformance to this document requires that NMDA servers implement the "ietf-system-datastore" YANG module (Section 8). 1.1. Terminology This document assumes that the reader is familiar with the contents of [RFC6241], [RFC7950], [RFC8342], [RFC8407], and [RFC8525] and uses terminologies from those documents. The following terms are defined in this document: System configuration: Configuration that is provided by the system Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 4] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 itself. System configuration is present in the system configuration datastore (regardless of whether it is applied or referenced). It is a different and separate concept from factory default configuration defined in [RFC8808] (which represents a preset initial configuration that is used to initialize the configuration of a server). System configuration datastore: A configuration datastore holding configuration provided by the system itself. This datastore is referred to as "". This document redefines the term "conventional configuration datastore" in Section 3 of [RFC8342] to add "system" to the list of conventional configuration datastores: Conventional configuration datastore: One of the following set of configuration datastores: , , , , and . These datastores share a common datastore schema, and protocol operations allow copying data between these datastores. The term "conventional" is chosen as a generic umbrella term for these datastores. 1.2. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "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. 1.3. Updates to RFC 8342 This document updates RFC 8342 to define a configuration datastore called "system" to hold system configuration (Section 3), it also redefines the term "conventional configuration datastore" from [RFC8342] to add "system" to the list of conventional configuration datastores. Configuration in is merged with to create the contents of after the configuration transformations to (e.g., template expansion, removal of inactive configuration defined in [RFC8342]) have been performed (Section 5.1). The definition of "intended" origin metadata annotation identity is also updated (Section 5.1.1). Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 5] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 1.4. Updates to RFC 6241 and RFC 8526 This document updates RFC 6241 to augment the NETCONF , , , and operations with an additional input parameter named "resolve-system", as specified in Section 5.3. This document also updates RFC 8526 to augment the NETCONF operation with the "resolve-system" parameter, as specified in Section 5.3. 1.5. Updates to RFC 8040 This document extends Sections 4.8 and 9.1.1 in [RFC8040] to add a new query parameter "resolve-system" and corresponding query parameter capability URI (Section 5.3.2). 2. Kinds of System Configuration This document defines two types of system configuration: configuration that is generated in immediately when the device boots and configuration that is generated in only when specific conditions being met on a device, they are described in Section 2.1 and Section 2.2, respectively. 2.1. Immediately-Present Immediately-present refers to system configuration which is generated in when the device is powered on, irrespective of physical resource present or not, a special functionality enabled or not. An example of immediately-present system configuration is an always- existing loopback interface. 2.2. Conditionally-Present Conditionally-present refers to system configuration which is generated in based on specific conditions being met in a system. For example, if a physical resource is present (e.g., an interface card is inserted), the system automatically detects it and loads associated configuration; when the physical resource is not present (an interface card is removed), the system configuration will be automatically cleared. Another example is when a special functionality is enabled, e.g., when a license or feature is enabled, specific configuration may be created by the system. Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 6] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 3. The System Configuration Datastore () Following guidelines for defining datastores in the Appendix A of [RFC8342], this document introduces a new datastore resource named "system" that represents the system configuration. NMDA servers compliant with this document MUST implement a system configuration datastore, and they SHOULD also implement . * Name: "system" * YANG modules: all * YANG nodes: all "config true" data nodes up to the root of the tree, generated by the system * Management operations: The datastore can be read using network management protocols such as NETCONF and RESTCONF, but its contents cannot be changed by manage operations via NETCONF and RESTCONF protocols. * Origin: This document does not define any new origin identity. The "system" origin Metadata Annotation [RFC7952] is used to indicate the origin of a data item in system (Section 5.1.1). * Protocols: YANG-driven management protocols, such as NETCONF and RESTCONF. * Defining YANG module: "ietf-system-datastore" (Section 8). The system configuration datastore doesn't persist across reboots. 4. Static Characteristics of 4.1. Read-only to Clients The system datastore is read-only (i.e., edits towards directly MUST be denied), though the client may be allowed to override the value of a system-initialized node (see Section 5.4). 4.2. May Change via Software Upgrades or Resource Changes The contents of MAY change dynamically under various conditions, such as license change, software upgrade, and system- controlled resources change (see Section 2.2). The updates of system configuration may be obtained through YANG notifications (e.g., on- change notification) [RFC8639][RFC8641]. Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 7] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 In general, any update of should not cause the automatic update of to not surprise clients with unexpected changes. In particular, the behavior of system data migration during software upgrade is outside the scope of this document. That said, here are some examples of how a server might handle this scenario ensuring remains accurate: * Servers migrate system configuration update in . * Servers reject the operation to change system configuration (e.g., software upgrade fails) and needs the client to update the configuration in as a prerequisite. Servers are recommended to include some hints in error responses to help clients understand how should be updated. 4.3. No Impact to This work intends to have no impact to and does not define any new origin identity beyond Section 5.3.4 of [RFC8342]. The existence of enables a subset of those system-generated nodes to be defined like configuration, i.e., made visible to clients in order for being referenced or configurable prior to present in . "config false" nodes are out of scope, hence existing "config false" nodes are not impacted by this work. 5. Dynamic Behaviors 5.1. Conceptual Model of Datastores Clients MAY reference nodes defined in , override system- provided values, and configure descendant nodes of system-defined configuration in , as detailed in Section 5.2, Section 5.3, and Section 5.4. To ensure the validity of , configuration in is merged with to become , in which process, configuration appearing in takes precedence over the same node in . If includes configuration that requires further transformation (e.g., template expansion, removal of inactive configuration defined in [RFC8342]) before it can be applied, configuration transformations MUST be performed before is merged with . Whenever configuration in changes, the server MUST also immediately update and validate . Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 8] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 As a result, Figure 2 in Section 5 of [RFC8342] is updated with the below conceptual model of datastores which incorporates the system configuration datastore. +-------------+ +-----------+ | | | | | (ct, rw) |<---+ +---->| (ct, rw) | +-------------+ | | +-----------+ | | | | +-----------+ | +-----------+ | | | +------->| |<--------+ | (ct, ro) | | (ct, rw) | +-----------+ +-----------+ | | // configuration transformations, | | // e.g., removal of nodes marked | // merge | // as "inactive", expansion of +--------------+---------------+ // templates | | v +------------+ | | // subject to validation | (ct, ro) | +------------+ | // changes applied, subject to | // local factors, e.g., missing | // resources, delays dynamic | configuration | +-------- learned configuration datastores -----+ | +-------- default configuration | | | v v v +---------------+ | | <-- system state | (ct + cf, ro) | +---------------+ ct = config true; cf = config false rw = read-write; ro = read-only boxes denote named datastores Figure 1: Architectural Model of Datastores Configuration in is non-deletable to clients (e.g., a system-defined list entry can never be removed), even though a client may override or delete a copied system node from . If system initializes a value for a particular leaf which is overridden by the client with a different value in (Section 5.4), the Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 9] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 client may delete it in , in which case system-initialized value defined in may still be in use and appear in . 5.1.1. Origin Metadata Annotation This document does not define any new origin identity when interacts with and flows into . The "intended" identity of origin value defined in [RFC8342] to represent the origin of configuration provided by , this document updates its definition as origin source of configuration explicitly provided by , and allows a subset of configuration in that flows from yet is not configured or overridden explicitly in to use "system" as its origin value. Configuration copied from into has its origin value reported as "intended" when it flows into . 5.2. Explicit Declaration of System Configuration It is possible for a client to explicitly declare system configuration nodes with the same values as in , by configuring a node (list/leaf-list entry, leaf, etc.) in the target datastore (e.g., and ) that matches the same node and value in . The explicit declaration of system-defined nodes that are referenced elsewhere can be useful, for example, when the client does not support the "resolve-system" parameter (Section 5.3) but needs the datastore to be referentially complete. Clients MUST declare the system configuration that are required to make the datastore appear valid, which may include: * any targets of leafrefs with "require-instance true". * any targets of instance-identifiers with "require-instance true". * any nodes referenced by any "when" expressions. * any nodes referenced by any "must" expressions. * any nodes needed to satisfy the "min-elements" statement with a value greater than zero. Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 10] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 When declaring a node having descendants, clients MUST also declare all descendant nodes, including any leafs, leaf-lists, lists, presence containers, non-presence containers that have any child nodes. 5.3. Servers Auto-configuring System Configuration ("resolve-system" parameter) This document defines a new parameter "resolve-system" to the input for some of the NETCONF and RESTCONF operations. Clients that are aware of the "resolve-system" parameter MAY use this parameter to avoid the requirement to provide a referentially complete configuration. The "resolve-system" parameter is optional and has no value. If it is present, and the server supports this capability, similar to Section 5.2, the server MUST copy the entire referenced system configuration, including all descendants into the target datastore (e.g., and ) without the client doing the copy/ paste explicitly, to resolve any references not resolved by the client. The copy operation MUST NOT override any explicit configuration in the target datastore. The server copies the referenced system-defined nodes only when triggered by the "resolve- system" parameter. Legacy clients don't see any changes in the server behaviors. There is no distinction between the configuration automatically configured by the server and the one explicitly declared by the client, e.g., a read back of the datastore (e.g., NETCONF // operation, or RESTCONF GET method) returns automatically configured nodes. Note that even though an auto-configured node is allowed to be deleted from the target datastore by the client, the system may automatically recreate the deleted node to make configuration valid, when a "resolve-system" parameter is carried. It is also possible that the operation request (e.g., ) may not succeed due to incomplete referential integrity. Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 11] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 Support for the "resolve-system" parameter is OPTIONAL. Servers not supporting NMDA [RFC8342] MAY also implement this parameter without implementing the system configuration datastore, which would only eliminate the ability to retrieve the system configuration via protocol operations. If a server implements , referenced system configuration is copied from into the target datastore when the "resolve-system" parameter is used. If a server does not implement , it is up to the implementation to determine how the "resolve-system" mechanism fills in the missing configuration items in the target datastore, e.g., or . 5.3.1. NETCONF Support for "resolve-system" Parameter This document defines a NETCONF protocol capability to indicate support for this parameter. NETCONF server that supports "resolve- system" parameter MUST advertise the following capability identifier: urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:resolve-system:1.0 5.3.2. RESTCONF Support for "resolve-system" Parameter 5.3.2.1. Query Parameter The "resolve-system" parameter may be present in the request URI of some RESTCONF operations as shown in Figure 2. This parameter is only allowed with no values carried. If this parameter has any unexpected value, then a "400 Bad Request" status-line is returned. +----------------+---------+----------------------------------------+ | Name | Methods | Description | +----------------+---------+----------------------------------------+ |resolve-system | POST, | Request the server to copy any system | | | PUT | configuration that are required to make| | | PATCH | the datastore valid, as well as any | | | | descendant nodes of the copied system | | | | configuration. This parameter can be | | | | given in any order. | +----------------+---------+----------------------------------------+ Figure 2: RESTCONF "resolve-system" Query Parameter 5.3.2.2. Query Parameter URI To enable a RESTCONF client to discover if the "resolve-system" query parameter is supported by the server, the following capability URI is defined, which is advertised by the server if supported, using the "ietf-restconf-monitoring" module defined in [RFC8040]: Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 12] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 urn:ietf:params:restconf:capability:resolve-system:1.0 5.4. Modifying (Overriding) System Configuration In some cases, a server may allow some parts of system configuration (e.g., a leaf's value) to be modified. Modification of system configuration is achieved by the client writing configuration to that overrides the system configuration. Configurations defined in take precedence over system configuration nodes in if the server allows the nodes to be modified. For instance, descendant nodes in a system-defined list entry may be modifiable or not, even if some system configuration has been copied into earlier. If a system node is non-modifiable, then writing a different value for that node MUST return an error during a , or operation, depending on the target datastore. The immutability of system configuration is defined in [I-D.ietf-netmod-immutable-flag]. 5.5. Examples This section presents some sample data models and corresponding contents of various datastores with different dynamic behaviors described above. The XML snippets are used only for illustration purposes. 5.5.1. Declaring a System-defined Node in Explicitly In this subsection, the following fictional module is used: Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 13] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 module example-application { yang-version 1.1; namespace "urn:example:application"; prefix "ex-app"; import ietf-inet-types { prefix "inet"; } container applications { list application { key "name"; leaf name { type string; } leaf app-id { type string; } leaf protocol { type enumeration { enum tcp; enum udp; } mandatory true; } leaf destination-port { default "0"; type inet:port-number; } leaf description { type string; } container security-protection { presence "Indicates that security protection is enabled."; leaf risk-level { type enumeration { enum high; enum low; } } //additional leafs for security-specific configuration... } } } } A fictional ACL YANG module is used as follows, which defines a leafref for the leaf-list "application" data node to refer to an existing application name. Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 14] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 module example-acl { yang-version 1.1; namespace "urn:example:acl"; prefix "ex-acl"; import example-application { prefix "ex-app"; } import ietf-inet-types { prefix "inet"; } container acl { list acl-rule { key "name"; leaf name { type string; } container matches { choice l3 { container ipv4 { leaf src-address { type inet:ipv4-prefix; } leaf dst-address { type inet:ipv4-prefix; } } } choice applications { leaf-list application { type leafref { path "/ex-app:applications/ex-app:application" + "/ex-app:name"; } } } } leaf packet-action { type enumeration { enum forward; enum drop; enum redirect; } } } } Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 15] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 } The server may predefine some applications as a convenience for clients. The system-instantiated application entries may be present in as follows: ftp 001 tcp 21 low tftp 002 udp 69 low smtp 003 tcp 25 low The client may also define its customized applications. Suppose the configuration of applications is present in as follows: Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 16] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 my-app-1 101 tcp 2345 customized application high my-app-2 102 udp 69 customized application If a client configures an ACL rule referencing system-provided applications which are not present in , it is possible for the client to explicitly declare the referenced system configuration. For instance, the client explicitly configuring the entire application entries named "ftp" and "tftp" are as follows: ftp 001 tcp 21 low tftp 002 udp 69 low Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 17] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 And the configuration of ACL rules referencing application "ftp" and "tftp": allow-access-to-ftp-tftp 198.51.100.0/24 192.0.2.0/24 ftp tftp my-app-1 forward And might contain the following: my-app-1 101 tcp 2345 customized application high my-app-2 102 udp 69 customized application ftp 001 tcp 21 low Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 18] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 tftp 002 udp 69 low smtp 003 tcp 25 low 5.5.2. Server Configuring of Automatically In the above example, a client configures an ACL rule referencing system-provided applications which are not present in , the client may also issue an operation with the parameter "resolve-system" to the NETCONF server as follows: Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 19] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 =============== NOTE: '\' line wrapping per RFC 8792 ================ allow-access-to-ftp-tftp 198.51.100.0/24 192.0.2.0/24 ftp tftp my-app-1 forward The server receiving the "resolve-system" parameter copies the entire application list entries named "ftp" and "tftp" per Section 5.3. The following shows the configuration of applications in which is returned in the response to a follow-up retrieval operation: Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 20] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 my-app-1 101 tcp 2345 customized application high my-app-2 102 udp 69 customized application ftp 001 tcp 21 low tftp 002 udp 69 low Once the data is written into , it makes no difference whether it is explicitly declared by the client or automatically copied by the server. The configuration for applications in and would be identical to the ones in Section 5.5.1. 5.5.3. Modifying a System-instantiated Leaf's Value This subsection uses the following fictional interface YANG module: Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 21] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 module example-interface { yang-version 1.1; namespace "urn:example:interface"; prefix "ex-if"; import ietf-inet-types { prefix "inet"; } container interfaces { list interface { key name; leaf name { type string; } leaf description { type string; } leaf mtu { type uint32; } leaf-list ip-address { type inet:ip-address; } } } } Suppose the system provides a loopback interface (named "lo0") with a MTU value "65536", a default IPv4 address of "127.0.0.1", and a default IPv6 address of "::1". The configuration of "lo0" interface is present in as follows: lo0 65536 127.0.0.1 ::1 A client modifies the value of MTU to 9216 and adds the following configuration into using a "merge" operation: Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 22] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 lo0 9216 Then the configuration of interfaces is present in as follows: lo0 9216 127.0.0.1 ::1 5.5.4. Configuring Descendant Nodes of a System-defined Node In the above example, imagine the client further configures the description node of a "lo0" interface in using a "merge" operation as follows: lo0 loopback The configuration of interface "lo0" is present in as follows: lo0 loopback 9216 127.0.0.1 ::1 Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 23] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 6. Default Interactions should not contain the configuration using the schema default value, either specified in the "default" statement or described in the "description" statement. Any value provided by the system that is not the schema default value MUST be contained in . If system provides a value that is not the schema default value, and the node is not explicitly set by the client, it MUST be copied into the target datastore when its closest ancestor node needs to be copied to satisfy referential integrity constraints, when triggered by the "resolve-system" parameter. 7. Relation to Other Datastores 7.1. The "factory-default" Datastore Any deletable system-provided configuration that is populated as part of by the system at boot up, without being part of the contents of a datastore, must be defined in [RFC8808], which is used to initialize when the device is first-time powered on or reset to its factory default condition. Deletable system configuration must not be defined in . The RPC operation can reset to its factory default contents. 7.2. The "candidate" Datastore If the device supports the :candidate or :private-candidate [I-D.ietf-netconf-privcand] capability, a client may edit the candidate or private-candidate datastore without expecting it to be valid until a or operation takes place. The client may use the "resolve-system" parameter in one of the following situations: * The client makes an edit (e.g., NETCONF /, or RESTCONF edit operation) to the candidate/private-candidate datastore. This is possible, though may not be required. * The client issues a operation. * The client issues a operation. Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 24] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 In particular, [I-D.ietf-netconf-privcand] defines the concept of conflict, the server's copy referenced system nodes triggered by "resolve-system" parameter might conflict with the contents of , the conflict resolution is no different than the resolution of conflict caused by configuration explicitly provided by the client. 8. The "ietf-system-datastore" Module 8.1. Data Model Overview This YANG module defines a new YANG identity named "system" that uses the "ds:datastore" identity defined in [RFC8342]. A client can discover the system configuration datastore support on the server by reading the YANG library information from the operational state datastore. The system datastore is defined as a conventional configuration datastore and shares a common datastore schema with other conventional datastores. The following diagram illustrates the relationship amongst the "identity" statements defined in the "ietf-system-datastore" and "ietf-datastores" YANG modules: Identities: +--- datastore | +--- conventional | | +--- running | | +--- candidate | | +--- startup | | +--- system | | +--- intended | +--- dynamic | +--- operational The diagram above uses syntax that is similar to but not defined in [RFC8340]. 8.2. Example Usage This section gives an example of data retrieval from . The fictional YANG module which imports type defined in [RFC6991] is used as follows: Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 25] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 module example-bgp { yang-version 1.1; namespace "urn:example:bgp"; prefix "ex-bgp"; import ietf-inet-types { prefix "inet"; } container bgp { leaf local-as { type inet:as-number; } leaf peer-as { type inet:as-number; } list peer { key "address"; leaf address { type inet:ip-address; } leaf local-as { type inet:as-number; description "... Defaults to ../local-as."; } leaf peer-as { type inet:as-number; description "... Defaults to ../peer-as."; } leaf local-port { type inet:port-number; } leaf remote-port { type inet:port-number; default "179"; } leaf state { config false; type enumeration { enum init; enum established; enum closing; } } } } Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 26] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 } Suppose the following BGP peer configuration is added to ( The message is presented in a protocol-independent manner. JSON is used to not imply a preferred encoding in this document): { "example-bgp:bgp": { "local-as": 64501, "peer-as": 64502, "peer": [ { "address": "2001:db8::2:3", "local-as": 64501, "peer-as": 64502 } ] } } Since both the "local-port" and "remote-port" nodes are not provided in , and there is a default value specified for "remote- port", the system will select a value for "local-port". Note that per Section 6, the configuration using the schema default value described in the "description" statement will not be included in . The following example shows the RPC towards : ds:system Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 27] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024
2001:db8::2:3
60794
8.3. YANG Module file "ietf-system-datastore@2024-06-18.yang" module ietf-system-datastore { yang-version 1.1; namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-system-datastore"; prefix sysds; import ietf-datastores { prefix ds; reference "RFC 8342: Network Management Datastore Architecture(NMDA)"; } organization "IETF NETMOD (Network Modeling) Working Group"; contact "WG Web: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/netmod/ WG List: NETMOD WG list Author: Qiufang Ma Author: Qin Wu Author: Chong Feng "; description "This module defines a new YANG identity that uses the ds:datastore identity defined in [RFC8342]. Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as authors of the code. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 28] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 subject to the license terms contained in, the Revised BSD License set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcXXXX); see the RFC itself for full legal notices."; revision 2024-06-18 { description "Initial version."; reference "RFC XXXX: System-defined Configuration"; } identity system { base ds:conventional; description "This read-only datastore contains the configuration provided by the system itself."; } } 9. The "ietf-netconf-resolve-system" Module This YANG module is optional to implement. 9.1. Data Model Overview The following tree diagram [RFC8340] illustrates the "ietf-netconf- resolve-system" module: module: ietf-netconf-resolve-system augment /nc:edit-config/nc:input: +---w resolve-system? empty augment /nc:copy-config/nc:input: +---w resolve-system? empty augment /nc:validate/nc:input: +---w resolve-system? empty augment /nc:commit/nc:input: +---w resolve-system? empty augment /ncds:edit-data/ncds:input: +---w resolve-system? empty Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 29] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 9.2. Example Usage Please refer to Section 5.5.2 for example usage of the "resolve- system" parameter. 9.3. YANG Module This module imports modules "ietf-netconf" and "ietf-netconf-nmda", defined in [RFC6241] and [RFC8526], respectively. file "ietf-netconf-resolve-system@2024-06-18.yang" module ietf-netconf-resolve-system { yang-version 1.1; namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-netconf-resolve-system"; prefix ncrs; import ietf-netconf { prefix nc; reference "RFC 6241: Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)"; } import ietf-netconf-nmda { prefix ncds; reference "RFC 8526: NETCONF Extensions to Support the Network Management Datastore Architecture"; } organization "IETF NETMOD (Network Modeling) Working Group"; contact "WG Web: WG List: Author: Qiufang Ma Author: Qin Wu Author: Chong Feng "; description "This module defines an extension to the NETCONF protocol that allows the NETCONF client to control whether the server is allowed to copy referenced system configuration automatically without the client doing so explicitly. Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 30] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as authors of the code. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject to the license terms contained in, the Revised BSD License set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcXXXX); see the RFC itself for full legal notices. The key words 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', 'REQUIRED', 'SHALL', 'SHALL NOT', 'SHOULD', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED', 'NOT RECOMMENDED', 'MAY', and 'OPTIONAL' in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 (RFC 2119) (RFC 8174) when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here."; revision 2024-06-18 { description "Initial version."; reference "RFC XXXX: System-defined Configuration"; } grouping resolve-system-grouping { description "Define the resolve-system parameter grouping."; leaf resolve-system { type empty; description "When present, and the server supports this capability, the server MUST copy the entire referenced system configuration, including all descendants into the target datastore (e.g., and ) without the client doing the copy/paste explicitly, to resolve any references not resolved by the client. The copy operation MUST NOT override any explicit configuration in the target datastore."; } } augment "/nc:edit-config/nc:input" { description "Adds the 'resolve-system' parameter to the input of the Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 31] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 NETCONF operation."; uses resolve-system-grouping; } augment "/nc:copy-config/nc:input" { description "Adds the 'resolve-system' parameter to the input of the NETCONF operation."; uses resolve-system-grouping; } augment "/nc:validate/nc:input" { description "Adds the 'resolve-system' parameter to the input of the NETCONF operation."; uses resolve-system-grouping; } augment "/nc:commit/nc:input" { description "Adds the 'resolve-system' parameter to the input of the NETCONF operation."; uses resolve-system-grouping; } augment "/ncds:edit-data/ncds:input" { description "Adds the 'resolve-system' parameter to the input of the NETCONF operation."; uses resolve-system-grouping; } } 10. IANA Considerations 10.1. The "IETF XML" Registry This document registers two XML namespace URNs in the 'IETF XML registry', following the format defined in [RFC3688]. URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-system-datastore Registrant Contact: The IESG. XML: N/A, the requested URIs are XML namespaces. URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-netconf-resolve-system Registrant Contact: The IESG. XML: N/A, the requested URIs are XML namespaces. Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 32] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 10.2. The "YANG Module Names" Registry This document registers two module names in the 'YANG Module Names' registry, defined in [RFC6020]. name: ietf-system-datastore prefix: sysds namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-system-datatstore maintained by IANA? N RFC: XXXX // RFC Ed.: replace XXXX and remove this comment name: ietf-netconf-resolve-system prefix: ncrs namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-netconf-resolve-system maintained by IANA? N RFC: XXXX // RFC Ed.: replace XXXX and remove this comment 10.3. NETCONF Capability URN Registry This document registers the following capability identifier URN in the 'Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) Capability URNs' registry: urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:resolve-system:1.0 10.4. RESTCONF Capability URN Registry This document registers a capability in the 'RESTCONF Capability URNs' registry [RFC8040]: Index Capability Identifier ----------------------------------------------------------------------- :resolve-system urn:ietf:params:restconf:capability:resolve-system:1.0 11. Security Considerations 11.1. Considerations for the "ietf-system-datastore" YANG Module This section uses the template described in Section 3.7 of [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis]. Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 33] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 The "ietf-system-datastore" YANG module defines a schema for data that is designed to be accessed via network management protocols such as NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040]. These network management protocols are required to use a secure transport layer and mutual authentication, e.g., SSH [RFC6242] without the "none" authentication option, Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8446] with mutual X.509 authentication, and HTTPS with HTTP authentication (Section 11 of [RFC9110]). The Network Configuration Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC8341] provides the means to restrict access for particular NETCONF or RESTCONF users to a preconfigured subset of all available NETCONF or RESTCONF protocol operations and content. The YANG module only defines a identity that uses the "ds:conventional" identity as its base. The module by itself does not expose any data nodes that are writable, date nodes that contain read-only state, or RPCs. As such, there are no additional security issues related to the YANG module that need to be considered. 11.2. Considerations for the "ietf-netconf-resolve-system" YANG Module This section uses the template described in Section 3.7 of [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis]. The "ietf-netconf-resolve-system" YANG module defines a schema for data that is designed to be accessed via network management protocols such as NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040]. These network management protocols are required to use a secure transport layer and mutual authentication, e.g., SSH [RFC6242] without the "none" authentication option, Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8446] with mutual X.509 authentication, and HTTPS with HTTP authentication (Section 11 of [RFC9110]). The Network Configuration Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC8341] provides the means to restrict access for particular NETCONF or RESTCONF users to a preconfigured subset of all available NETCONF or RESTCONF protocol operations and content. The "ietf-netconf-resolve-system" YANG module extends the base operations of NETCONF protocol in [RFC6241] and [RFC8526]. The security considerations for the NETCONF protocol operations (see Section 9 of [RFC6241] and Section 6 of [RFC8526]) apply to the extended RPC operations defined in this document. There is not any beyond the potential performance impacts of implementing the "resolve-system" parameter defined in the YANG module, which may mean employing some form of rate limiting or adapting the rate threshold for limiting might be a good idea to avoid DoS attacks. Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 34] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 12. References 12.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [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, . [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, . [RFC8341] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration Access Control Model", STD 91, RFC 8341, DOI 10.17487/RFC8341, March 2018, . [RFC8342] Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K., and R. Wilton, "Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)", RFC 8342, DOI 10.17487/RFC8342, March 2018, . [RFC8526] Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K., and R. Wilton, "NETCONF Extensions to Support the Network Management Datastore Architecture", RFC 8526, DOI 10.17487/RFC8526, March 2019, . [RFC8639] Voit, E., Clemm, A., Gonzalez Prieto, A., Nilsen-Nygaard, E., and A. Tripathy, "Subscription to YANG Notifications", RFC 8639, DOI 10.17487/RFC8639, September 2019, . [RFC8641] Clemm, A. and E. Voit, "Subscription to YANG Notifications for Datastore Updates", RFC 8641, DOI 10.17487/RFC8641, September 2019, . 12.2. Informative References Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 35] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 [I-D.ietf-netconf-privcand] Cumming, J. and R. Wills, "NETCONF Private Candidates", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-netconf- privcand-03, 30 May 2024, . [I-D.ietf-netmod-immutable-flag] Ma, Q., Wu, Q., Lengyel, B., and H. Li, "YANG Metadata Annotation for Immutable Flag", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-netmod-immutable-flag-00, 18 March 2024, . [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis] Bierman, A., Boucadair, M., and Q. Wu, "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of Documents Containing YANG Data Models", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf- netmod-rfc8407bis-11, 18 April 2024, . [RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004, . [RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020, DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010, . [RFC6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC6242, June 2011, . [RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types", RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013, . [RFC7952] Lhotka, L., "Defining and Using Metadata with YANG", RFC 7952, DOI 10.17487/RFC7952, August 2016, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 36] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 [RFC8340] Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams", BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018, . [RFC8407] Bierman, A., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of Documents Containing YANG Data Models", BCP 216, RFC 8407, DOI 10.17487/RFC8407, October 2018, . [RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018, . [RFC8525] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Watsen, K., and R. Wilton, "YANG Library", RFC 8525, DOI 10.17487/RFC8525, March 2019, . [RFC8808] Wu, Q., Lengyel, B., and Y. Niu, "A YANG Data Model for Factory Default Settings", RFC 8808, DOI 10.17487/RFC8808, August 2020, . [RFC9110] Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP Semantics", STD 97, RFC 9110, DOI 10.17487/RFC9110, June 2022, . Appendix A. Key Use Cases This section provides three use cases related to how interacts with other datastores (e.g., , , , and ). The following fictional interface data model is used: Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 37] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 module example-interface-management { yang-version 1.1; namespace "urn:example:interfacemgmt"; prefix "ex-ifm"; import ietf-inet-types { prefix "inet"; } container interfaces { list interface { key "name"; leaf name { type string; } leaf type { type enumeration { enum ethernet; enum atm; enum loopback; } } leaf enabled { type boolean; default "false"; } leaf mtu { type uint32; } leaf-list ip-address { type inet:ip-address; } leaf speed { when "../type = 'ethernet'"; type enumeration { enum 10Mb; enum 100Mb; } } leaf description { type string; } } } } Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 38] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 For each use case, corresponding sample configuration in , , and are shown. The XML snippets are used only for illustration purposes. A.1. Device Powers On When the device is powered on, suppose the system provides a loopback interface (named "lo0") which is not explicitly configured in . Thus, no configuration for interfaces appears in ; And the contents of are: lo0 loopback true 127.0.0.1 ::1 predefined interface In this case, the configuration of loopback interface is only present in , the configuration of interface in would be identical to the one in shown above. And will show the system-provided loopback interface: lo0 loopback true 127.0.0.1 ::1 predefined interface A.2. Client Commits Configuration If a client creates an interface "et-0/0/0" but the interface does not physically exist at this point, what is in appears as follows: Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 39] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 et-0/0/0 ethernet pre-provisioned interface And the contents of keep unchanged since the interface is not physically present: lo0 loopback true 127.0.0.1 ::1 predefined interface The contents of represent the merged data of and : lo0 loopback true 127.0.0.1 ::1 predefined interface et-0/0/0 ethernet pre-provisioned interface Since the interface named "eth-0/0/0" does not exist, the associated configuration is not present in , which appears as follows: Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 40] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 lo0 loopback true 127.0.0.1 ::1 predefined interface A.3. Operator Installs Card into a Chassis When the interface is installed by the operator, the system will detect it and generate the associated configuration in . The contents of keep unchanged: et-0/0/0 ethernet pre-provisioned interface And might appear as follows: lo0 loopback true 127.0.0.1 ::1 predefined interface et-0/0/0 ethernet 1500 100Mb Then contains the merged configuration of and : Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 41] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 lo0 loopback true 127.0.0.1 ::1 predefined interface et-0/0/0 ethernet 1500 100Mb pre-provisioned interface And the contents of appear as follows: lo0 loopback true 127.0.0.1 ::1 predefined interface et-0/0/0 ethernet false 1500 100Mb pre-provisioned interface A.4. Client further Commits Configuration If the client further sets the speed of interface "eth-0/0/0" to a lower rate in using a "merge" operation with the referenced node "type" being explicitly declared and enables this interface: Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 42] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 et-0/0/0 ethernet false 1500 10Mb pre-provisioned interface The contents of keep unchanged: lo0 loopback true 127.0.0.1 ::1 predefined interface et-0/0/0 ethernet 1500 100Mb And the contents of which represents a merged results of and are as follows: Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 43] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 lo0 loopback true 127.0.0.1 ::1 predefined interface et-0/0/0 ethernet true 1500 10Mb pre-provisioned interface And would appear as follows: lo0 loopback true 127.0.0.1 ::1 predefined interface et-0/0/0 ethernet true 1500 10Mb pre-provisioned interface Appendix B. Changes between Revisions v05 - v06 * remove inactive-until-referenced system config Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 44] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 * add a new section (sec.6) to clarify the interplay between system config and defaults * add a new section (sec.7) to clarify relation to other datastores, which includes and / * leave the merge behavior of and unspecified * augment and PRC operation to support "resolve- system" parameter * editorial updates v04 - v05 * Explicitly state that system configuration copied from into have its origin value being reported as "intended" and update the examples accordingly to reflect it * Update the definition of "intended" origin identity in 8342 to allow a subset of configuration in to use "system" as origin value * State server behaviors of migrating updated system data into is beyond the scope of this document, and give a couple of implementation examples * Remove the related statement which mandates referenced system configuration must be copied into * Refine usage examples (e.g., fix validation errors, remove redundancy) v03 - v04 * Add some implementation consideration for "resolve-system" parameter * Define a NETCONF capability identifier for "resolve-system" parameter so that the client can discover if it is supported by the server. * state servers may upgrade copied system configuration in as well during device upgrade or licensing change. v02 - v03 Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 45] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 * remove the merge mechanism related comments, as discussed in https://github.com/netconf-wg/netconf-next/issues/19 * Editorial changes v01 - v02 * Define referenced system configuration * better clarify "resolve-system" parameter * update Figure 2 in NMDA RFC * Editorial changes v00 - v01 * Clarify why client's explicit copy is not preferred but cannot be avoided if resolve-system parameter is not defined * Clarify active system configuration * Update the timing when the server's auto copy should be enforced if a resolve-system parameter is used * Editorial changes Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank for following for discussions and providing input to this document: Balazs Lengyel, Robert Wilton, Juergen Schoenwaelder, Andy Bierman, Martin Bjorklund, Mohamed Boucadair, Michal Vaško, Alexander Clemm, and Timothy Carey. Contributors Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 46] Internet-Draft System-defined Configuration June 2024 Kent Watsen Watsen Networks Email: kent+ietf@watsen.net Jan Lindblad Cisco Systems Email: jlindbla@cisco.com Chongfeng Xie China Telecom Beijing China Email: xiechf@chinatelecom.cn Jason Sterne Nokia Email: jason.sterne@nokia.com Authors' Addresses Qiufang Ma (editor) Huawei 101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District Nanjing Jiangsu, 210012 China Email: maqiufang1@huawei.com Qin Wu Huawei 101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District Nanjing Jiangsu, 210012 China Email: bill.wu@huawei.com Chong Feng Email: fengchongllly@gmail.com Ma, et al. Expires 20 December 2024 [Page 47]