< draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-09.txt		draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-10.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: December 19, 2021 J. Tantsura		Expires: January 13, 2022 J. Tantsura
	Apstra		Apstra
	A. Bierman		A. Bierman
	YumaWorks		YumaWorks
	June 17, 2021		July 12, 2021
	Comparison of NMDA datastores		Comparison of NMDA datastores
	draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-09		draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-10
	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 December 19, 2021.		This Internet-Draft will expire on January 13, 2022.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2021 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 23 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 23 ¶
	5. YANG Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		5. YANG Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	6. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		6. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	7. Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		7. Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	8.1. Updates to the IETF XML Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		8.1. Updates to the IETF XML Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	8.2. Updates to the YANG Module Names Registry . . . . . . . . 15		8.2. Updates to the YANG Module Names Registry . . . . . . . . 15
	9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	Appendix A. Possible Future Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		Appendix A. Possible Future Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	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
	introduced include <intended>, which contains validated configuration		introduced include <intended>, which contains validated configuration
	skipping to change at page 6, line 40 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 40 ¶
	+--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@2021-06-17.yang"		<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-nmda-compare@2021-07-12.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 cmp;		prefix cmp;
	import ietf-yang-types {		import ietf-yang-types {
	prefix yang;		prefix yang;
	reference "RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types";		reference "RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types";
	skipping to change at page 7, line 49 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 49 ¶
	authors of the code. All rights reserved.		authors of the code. All rights reserved.
	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		This version of this YANG module is part of
	draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-09; see the RFC itself for full		draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-10; see the RFC itself for full
	legal notices.		legal notices.
	NOTE TO RFC EDITOR: Please replace above reference to		NOTE TO RFC EDITOR: Please replace above reference to
	draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-09 with RFC number when published		draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-10 with RFC number when published
	(i.e. RFC xxxx).";		(i.e. RFC xxxx).";
	revision 2021-06-17 {		revision 2021-07-12 {
	description		description
	"Initial revision.		"Initial revision.
	NOTE TO RFC EDITOR:		NOTE TO RFC EDITOR:
	(1)Please replace the above revision date to		(1)Please replace the above revision date to
	the date of RFC publication when published.		the date of RFC publication when published.
	(2) Please replace the date in the file name		(2) Please replace the date in the file name
	(ietf-nmda-compare@2021-06-17.yang) to the date of RFC		(ietf-nmda-compare@2021-07-12.yang) to the date of RFC
	publication.		publication.
	(3) Please replace the following reference to		(3) Please replace the following reference to
	draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-09 with RFC number when published		draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-10 with RFC number when published
	(i.e. RFC xxxx).";		(i.e. RFC xxxx).";
	reference		reference
	"draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-09: Comparison of NMDA		"draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-10: Comparison of NMDA
	datastores";		datastores";
	}		}
	/* RPC */		/* RPC */
	rpc compare {		rpc compare {
	description		description
	"NMDA datastore compare operation.";		"NMDA datastore compare operation.";
	input {		input {
	leaf source {		leaf source {
	type identityref {		type identityref {
	skipping to change at page 13, line 44 ¶		skipping to change at page 13, line 44 ¶
	</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-data+json
	{ "ietf-nmda-compare:input" {		{ "ietf-nmda-compare:input" {
	"source" : "ietf-datastores:operational",		"source" : "ietf-datastores:operational",
	"target" : "ietf-datastores:intended",		"target" : "ietf-datastores:intended",
	"report-origin" : null,		"report-origin" : null,
	"xpath-filter" : "/ietf-interfaces:interfaces"		"xpath-filter" : "/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-data+json
	{ "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 intended (source) and operational",		"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",
	skipping to change at page 15, line 9 ¶		skipping to change at page 15, line 9 ¶
	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, or to any number of		number of requests that is served to a client, or to any number of
	clients, in any one time interval, rejecting requests made at a		clients, in any one time interval, rejecting requests made at a
	higher frequency than the implementation can reasonably sustain.		higher frequency than the implementation can reasonably sustain.
			While useful, tools such as YANG Data Models that allow for the
			monitoring of server resources, system performance, and statistics
			about RPCs and RPC rates are outside the scope of this document.
			When defined, any such model should be general in nature and not
			limited to the RPC operation defined in this document.
	8. IANA Considerations		8. IANA Considerations
	8.1. Updates to the IETF XML Registry		8.1. Updates to the IETF XML Registry
	This document registers one URI in the IETF XML registry [RFC3688].		This document registers one URI in the IETF XML registry [RFC3688].
	Following the format in [RFC3688], the following registration is		Following the format in [RFC3688], the following registration is
	requested:		requested:
	URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-nmda-compare		URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-nmda-compare
	skipping to change at page 15, line 35 ¶		skipping to change at page 15, line 41 ¶
	This document registers a YANG module in the YANG Module Names		This document registers a YANG module in the YANG Module Names
	registry [RFC6020]. Following the format in [RFC6020], the following		registry [RFC6020]. Following the format in [RFC6020], 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: cmp		prefix: cmp
	reference: draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-09 (RFC form)		reference: draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-10 (RFC form)
	9. Security Considerations		9. 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
	is HTTPS, and the mandatory-to-implement secure transport is TLS		is HTTPS, and the mandatory-to-implement secure transport is TLS
	[RFC8446].		[RFC8446].
End of changes. 16 change blocks.
	15 lines changed or deleted		21 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/