Diff: draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-04.txt - draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-05.txt

	< draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-04.txt	draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-05.txt >

	Network Working Group A. Clemm	Network Working Group A. Clemm
	Internet-Draft Y. Qu	Internet-Draft Y. Qu
	Intended status: Standards Track Futurewei	Intended status: Standards Track Futurewei

	Expires: January 14, 2021 J. Tantsura	Expires: March 19, 2021 J. Tantsura
	Apstra	Apstra
	A. Bierman	A. Bierman
	YumaWorks	YumaWorks

	July 13, 2020	September 15, 2020

	Comparison of NMDA datastores	Comparison of NMDA datastores

	draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-04	draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-05

	Abstract	Abstract

	This document defines an RPC operation to compare management	This document defines an RPC operation to compare management
	datastores that comply with the NMDA architecture.	datastores that comply with the NMDA architecture.

	Status of This Memo	Status of This Memo

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

	skipping to change at page 1, line 35 ¶	skipping to change at page 1, line 35 ¶
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.	Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

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


	This Internet-Draft will expire on January 14, 2021.	This Internet-Draft will expire on March 19, 2021.

	Copyright Notice	Copyright Notice

	Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the	Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.	document authors. All rights reserved.

	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of	(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents	publication of this document. Please review these documents

	skipping to change at page 2, line 19 ¶	skipping to change at page 2, line 19 ¶
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	2. Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3	2. Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3. Definitions and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3	3. Definitions and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	4. Data Model Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4	4. Data Model Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	5. YANG Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6	5. YANG Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	6. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9	6. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	7. Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13	7. Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	8. Possible Future Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14	8. Possible Future Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14	9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	9.1. Updates to the IETF XML Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 14	9.1. Updates to the IETF XML Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

	9.2. Updates to the YANG Module Names Registry . . . . . . . . 15	9.2. Updates to the YANG Module Names Registry . . . . . . . . 14
	10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15	10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

	11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16	11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16	12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16	12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17	12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

	1. Introduction	1. Introduction

	The revised Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)	The revised Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)
	[RFC8342] introduces a set of new datastores that each hold YANG-	[RFC8342] introduces a set of new datastores that each hold YANG-
	defined data [RFC7950] and represent a different "viewpoint" on the	defined data [RFC7950] and represent a different "viewpoint" on the
	data that is maintained by a server. New YANG datastores that are	data that is maintained by a server. New YANG datastores that are

	skipping to change at page 6, line 7 ¶	skipping to change at page 6, line 7 ¶
	+--ro target target-resource-offset	+--ro target target-resource-offset
	+--ro point? target-resource-offset	+--ro point? target-resource-offset
	+--ro where? enumeration	+--ro where? enumeration
	+--ro value?	+--ro value?
	+--ro source-value?	+--ro source-value?

	Structure of ietf-nmda-compare	Structure of ietf-nmda-compare

	5. YANG Data Model	5. YANG Data Model


	<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-nmda-compare@2019-11-04.yang"	<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-nmda-compare@2020-09-15.yang"
	module ietf-nmda-compare {	module ietf-nmda-compare {

	yang-version 1.1;	yang-version 1.1;
	namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-nmda-compare";	namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-nmda-compare";


	prefix cp;	prefix cmp;

	import ietf-yang-types {	import ietf-yang-types {
	prefix yang;	prefix yang;

		reference "RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types";
	}	}
	import ietf-datastores {	import ietf-datastores {
	prefix ds;	prefix ds;

		reference "RFC 8342: Network Management Datastore
		Architecture (NMDA)";
	}	}
	import ietf-yang-patch {	import ietf-yang-patch {
	prefix ypatch;	prefix ypatch;

		reference "RFC 8072: YANG Patch Media Type";
	}	}
	import ietf-netconf {	import ietf-netconf {
	prefix nc;	prefix nc;

		reference "RFC6241: Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)";
	}	}

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

	Author: Alexander Clemm	Author: Alexander Clemm
	<mailto:ludwig@clemm.org>	<mailto:ludwig@clemm.org>


	skipping to change at page 7, line 19 ¶	skipping to change at page 7, line 24 ¶
	Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or	Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
	without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject to	without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject to
	the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License set	the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License set
	forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions	forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
	Relating to IETF Documents	Relating to IETF Documents
	(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).	(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).

	This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX; see the	This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX; see the
	RFC itself for full legal notices.";	RFC itself for full legal notices.";


	revision 2019-11-04 {	revision 2020-09-15 {
	description	description
	"Initial revision";	"Initial revision";
	reference	reference
	"RFC XXXX: Comparison of NMDA datastores";	"RFC XXXX: Comparison of NMDA datastores";
	}	}

	/* RPC */	/* RPC */
	rpc compare {	rpc compare {
	description	description
	"NMDA compare operation.";	"NMDA compare operation.";

	skipping to change at page 8, line 37 ¶	skipping to change at page 8, line 41 ¶
	target datastore to retrieve.";	target datastore to retrieve.";
	reference "RFC 6241, Section 6.";	reference "RFC 6241, Section 6.";
	}	}
	leaf xpath-filter {	leaf xpath-filter {
	if-feature nc:xpath;	if-feature nc:xpath;
	type yang:xpath1.0;	type yang:xpath1.0;
	description	description
	"This parameter contains an XPath expression	"This parameter contains an XPath expression
	identifying the portions of the target	identifying the portions of the target
	datastore to retrieve.";	datastore to retrieve.";

		reference "RFC 6021: Common YANG Data Types";
	}	}
	}	}
	}	}
	output {	output {
	choice compare-response {	choice compare-response {
	description	description
	"Comparison results.";	"Comparison results.";
	leaf no-matches {	leaf no-matches {
	type empty;	type empty;
	description	description

	skipping to change at page 9, line 24 ¶	skipping to change at page 9, line 29 ¶
	when "../operation = 'delete'"	when "../operation = 'delete'"
	+ "or ../operation = 'merge'"	+ "or ../operation = 'merge'"
	+ "or ../operation = 'move'"	+ "or ../operation = 'move'"
	+ "or ../operation = 'replace'"	+ "or ../operation = 'replace'"
	+ "or ../operation = 'remove'";	+ "or ../operation = 'remove'";
	description	description
	"The anydata 'value' is only used for 'delete',	"The anydata 'value' is only used for 'delete',
	'move', 'merge', 'replace', and 'remove'	'move', 'merge', 'replace', and 'remove'
	operations.";	operations.";
	}	}

		reference "RFC 8072: YANG Patch Media Type";
	}	}
	}	}
	}	}
	}	}
	}	}
	}	}
	}	}
	<CODE ENDS>	<CODE ENDS>

	6. Example	6. Example

	The following example compares the difference between <operational>	The following example compares the difference between <operational>
	and <intended> for a subtree under "interfaces". The subtree	and <intended> for a subtree under "interfaces". The subtree

	contains objects that are defined in a YANG data model for the	contains a subset of objects that are defined in a YANG data model
	management of interfaces defined in [RFC8343]. The excerpt of the	for the management of interfaces defined in [RFC8343]. The excerpt
	data model whose instantiation is basis of the comparison is as	of the data model whose instantiation is basis of the comparison is
	follows:	as follows:

	container interfaces {	container interfaces {
	description	description
	"Interface parameters.";	"Interface parameters.";
	list interface {	list interface {
	key "name";	key "name";
	leaf name {	leaf name {
	type string;	type string;
	description	description
	"The name of the interface".	"The name of the interface".

	skipping to change at page 10, line 32 ¶	skipping to change at page 10, line 32 ¶
	default "true";	default "true";
	description	description
	"This leaf contains the configured, desired state of the	"This leaf contains the configured, desired state of the
	interface.";"	interface.";"
	}	}
	}	}
	}	}

	The contents of <intended> and <operational> datastores:	The contents of <intended> and <operational> datastores:


	<interfaces xmlns:or="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-origin"	//INTENDED
	or:origin="or:intended">	<interfaces xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-interfaces">
	<interface>	<interface>
	<name>eth0</name>	<name>eth0</name>
	<enabled>false</enabled>	<enabled>false</enabled>
	<description>ip interface</description>	<description>ip interface</description>
	</interface>	</interface>

	</interfa	</interfaces>
	<interfaces xmlns:or="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-origin"
	or:origin="or:operational">	//OPERATIONAL
	<interface>	<interfaces
		xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-interfaces"
		xmlns:or="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-origin">
		<interface or:origin="or:learned">
	<name>eth0</name>	<name>eth0</name>
	<enabled>true</enabled>	<enabled>true</enabled>

	</interface>
	</interfaces>


	<operational> contains one object that was not contained in	</interface>
	<intended>, "preference". Another object, "explicit-router-id", has	</interfaces>
	differences in values. A third object, "enable", is the same in both	<operational> does not contain object "description" that is contained
	cases.	in <intended>. Another object, "enabled", has differences in values,
		being "true" in <operational> and "false" in <intended>. A third
		object, "name", is the same in both cases. The origin of the objects
		in <operational> is "learned", which may help explain the
		discrepancies.


	RPC request to compare <operational< (source of the comparison) with	RPC request to compare <operational> (source of the comparison) with
	<intended>(target of the comparison):	<intended>(target of the comparison):

	<rpc message-id="101"	<rpc message-id="101"
	xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">	xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
	<compare xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-nmda-compare"	<compare xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-nmda-compare"
	xmlns:ds="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-datastores">	xmlns:ds="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-datastores">
	<source>ds:operational</source>	<source>ds:operational</source>
	<target>ds:intended</target>	<target>ds:intended</target>
	<xpath-filter	<xpath-filter

	xmlns:if="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-interfaces">\	xmlns:if="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-interfaces">
	/if:interfaces\	/if:interfaces
	</xpath-filter>	</xpath-filter>
	</compare>	</compare>
	</rpc>	</rpc>

	RPC reply, when a difference is detected:	RPC reply, when a difference is detected:

	<rpc-reply	<rpc-reply
	xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"	xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"
	message-id="101">	message-id="101">
	<differences	<differences
	xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-nmda-compare"	xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-nmda-compare"
	xmlns:or="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-origin">	xmlns:or="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-origin">
	<yang-patch>	<yang-patch>
	<patch-id>interface status</patch-id>	<patch-id>interface status</patch-id>

	<comment>diff between operational and intended</comment>	<comment>
		diff between operational (source) and intended (target)
		</comment>
	<edit>	<edit>
	<edit-id>1</edit-id>	<edit-id>1</edit-id>
	<operation>replace</operation>	<operation>replace</operation>
	<target>/ietf-interfaces:interface=eth0/enabled</target>	<target>/ietf-interfaces:interface=eth0/enabled</target>
	<value>	<value>

	<if:enabled	<if:enabled>false<if:enabled>
	or:origin="or:system">true<enabled>
	</value>	</value>
	<source-value>	<source-value>

	<if:enabled	<if:enabled or:origin="or:learned">true</if:enabled>
	or:origin="or:intended">false<enabled>
	</source-value>	</source-value>
	<edit-id>2</edit-id>	<edit-id>2</edit-id>
	<operation>create</operation>	<operation>create</operation>
	<target>/ietf-interfaces:interface=eth0/description</target>	<target>/ietf-interfaces:interface=eth0/description</target>
	<value>	<value>

	<if:description	<if:description>ip interface<description>
	or:origin="or:system">ip interface<description>
	</value>	</value>
	</edit>	</edit>
	</yang-patch>	</yang-patch>
	</differences>	</differences>
	</rpc-reply>	</rpc-reply>

	The same request in RESTCONF (using JSON format):	The same request in RESTCONF (using JSON format):

	POST /restconf/operations/ietf-nmda-compare:compare HTTP/1.1	POST /restconf/operations/ietf-nmda-compare:compare HTTP/1.1
	Host: example.com	Host: example.com
	Content-Type: application/yang-data+json	Content-Type: application/yang-data+json
	Accept: application/yang-d	Accept: application/yang-d
	{ "ietf-nmda-compare:input" {	{ "ietf-nmda-compare:input" {

	"source" : "ietf-datastores:operational",	"source" : "ietf-datastores:operational"
	"target" : "ietf-datastores:intended".	"target" : "ietf-datastores:intended"
	"xpath-filter" : \	"xpath-filter" : \
	"/ietf-interfaces:interfaces"	"/ietf-interfaces:interfaces"
	}	}
	}	}

	The same response in RESTCONF (using JSON format):	The same response in RESTCONF (using JSON format):

	HTTP/1.1 200 OK	HTTP/1.1 200 OK
	Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2019 20:56:30 GMT	Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2019 20:56:30 GMT
	Server: example-server	Server: example-server
	Content-Type: application/yang-d	Content-Type: application/yang-d
	{ "ietf-nmda-compare:output" : {	{ "ietf-nmda-compare:output" : {
	"differences" : {	"differences" : {
	"ietf-yang-patch:yang-patch" : {	"ietf-yang-patch:yang-patch" : {
	"patch-id" : "interface status",	"patch-id" : "interface status",

	"comment" : "diff between operational and intended",	"comment" : "diff between intended (source) and operational",
	"edit" : [	"edit" : [
	{	{
	"edit-id" : "1",	"edit-id" : "1",
	"operation" : "replace",	"operation" : "replace",
	"target" : "/ietf-interfaces:interface=eth0/enabled",	"target" : "/ietf-interfaces:interface=eth0/enabled",
	"value" : {	"value" : {

	"ietf-interfaces:interface/enabled" : "true"
	"@ietf-interfaces:interface/enabled" : {
	"ietf-origin:origin" : "ietf-origin:system"
	}
	"source-value" : {
	"ietf-interfaces:interface/enabled" : "false"	"ietf-interfaces:interface/enabled" : "false"

		},
		"source-value" : {
		"ietf-interfaces:interface/enabled" : "true",
	"@ietf-interfaces:interface/enabled" : {	"@ietf-interfaces:interface/enabled" : {

	"ietf-origin:origin" : "ietf-origin:intended"	"ietf-origin:origin" : "ietf-origin:learned"
	}	}

		}
	"edit-id" : "2",	"edit-id" : "2",
	"operation" : "create",	"operation" : "create",
	"target" : "/ietf-interfaces:interface=eth0/description",	"target" : "/ietf-interfaces:interface=eth0/description",
	"value" : {	"value" : {
	"ietf-interface:interface/description" : "ip interface"	"ietf-interface:interface/description" : "ip interface"

	"@ietf-interface:interfaces/description" : {	}
	"ietf-origin:origin" : "ietf-origin:intended"
	}
	}	}
	]	]
	}	}
	}	}
	}	}
	}	}

	7. Performance Considerations	7. Performance Considerations

	The compare operation can be computationally expensive. While	The compare operation can be computationally expensive. While
	responsible client applications are expected to use the operation	responsible client applications are expected to use the operation
	responsibly and sparingly only when warranted, implementations need	responsibly and sparingly only when warranted, implementations need
	to be aware of the fact that excessive invocation of this operation	to be aware of the fact that excessive invocation of this operation
	will burden system resources and need to ensure that system	will burden system resources and need to ensure that system
	performance will not be adversely impacted. One possibility for an	performance will not be adversely impacted. One possibility for an
	implementation to mitigate against such a possibility is to limit the	implementation to mitigate against such a possibility is to limit the

	number of requests that is served to a client in any one time	number of requests that is served to a client, or to any number of
	interval, rejecting requests made at a higher frequency than the	clients, in any one time interval, rejecting requests made at a
	implementation can reasonably sustain.	higher frequency than the implementation can reasonably sustain.

	8. Possible Future Extensions	8. Possible Future Extensions

	It is conceivable to extend the compare operation with a number of	It is conceivable to extend the compare operation with a number of
	possible additional features in the future.	possible additional features in the future.

	Specifically, it is possible to define an extension with an optional	Specifically, it is possible to define an extension with an optional
	feature for dampening. This will allow clients to specify a minimum	feature for dampening. This will allow clients to specify a minimum
	time period for which a difference must persist for it to be	time period for which a difference must persist for it to be
	reported. This will enable clients to distinguish between	reported. This will enable clients to distinguish between

	skipping to change at page 15, line 12 ¶	skipping to change at page 15, line 4 ¶

	XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.	XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.

	9.2. Updates to the YANG Module Names Registry	9.2. Updates to the YANG Module Names Registry

	This document registers a YANG module in the YANG Module Names	This document registers a YANG module in the YANG Module Names
	registry [RFC7950]. Following the format in [RFC7950], the following	registry [RFC7950]. Following the format in [RFC7950], the following
	registration is requested:	registration is requested:

	name: ietf-nmda-compare	name: ietf-nmda-compare


	namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-nmda-compare	namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-nmda-compare


	prefix: cp	prefix: cmp

	reference: RFC XXXX	reference: RFC XXXX

	10. Security Considerations	10. Security Considerations

	The YANG module specified in this document defines a schema for data	The YANG module specified in this document defines a schema for data
	that is designed to be accessed via network management protocols such	that is designed to be accessed via network management protocols such
	as NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040]. The lowest NETCONF layer	as NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040]. The lowest NETCONF layer
	is the secure transport layer, and the mandatory-to-implement secure	is the secure transport layer, and the mandatory-to-implement secure
	transport is Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC6242]. The lowest RESTCONF layer	transport is Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC6242]. The lowest RESTCONF layer

	skipping to change at page 16, line 8 ¶	skipping to change at page 15, line 44 ¶
	ways. For one, they can implement the NETCONF access control model	ways. For one, they can implement the NETCONF access control model
	in order to require proper authorization for requests to be made.	in order to require proper authorization for requests to be made.
	Second, server implementations can limit the number of requests that	Second, server implementations can limit the number of requests that
	they serve to a client in any one time interval, rejecting requests	they serve to a client in any one time interval, rejecting requests
	made at a higher frequency than the implementation can reasonably	made at a higher frequency than the implementation can reasonably
	sustain.	sustain.

	11. Acknowledgments	11. Acknowledgments

	We thank Rob Wilton, Martin Bjorklund, Mahesh Jethanandani, Lou	We thank Rob Wilton, Martin Bjorklund, Mahesh Jethanandani, Lou

	Berger, Kent Watsen, Phil Shafer, Ladislav Lhotka, and Tim Carey for	Berger, Kent Watsen, Phil Shafer, Ladislav Lhotka, Tim Carey, and
	valuable feedback and suggestions.	Reshad Rahman for valuable feedback and suggestions.

	12. References	12. References


	12.1. Normative References	12.1. Normative References

	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,	DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

	[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,	[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,	DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.

	[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,	[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
	and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol	and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
	(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,	(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.

	[RFC6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure	[RFC6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure
	Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC6242, June 2011,	Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC6242, June 2011,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6242>.	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6242>.


		[RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types",
		RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013,
		<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6991>.

	[RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",	[RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
	RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,	RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.

	[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF	[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
	Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,	Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.	<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.

	[RFC8072] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "YANG Patch	[RFC8072] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "YANG Patch
	Media Type", RFC 8072, DOI 10.17487/RFC8072, February	Media Type", RFC 8072, DOI 10.17487/RFC8072, February

End of changes. 39 change blocks.
	56 lines changed or deleted	66 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/