idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-05.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). -- The document date (March 21, 2016) is 2957 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture' is mentioned on line 592, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC6241' is mentioned on line 645, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf' is mentioned on line 619, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-patch' is mentioned on line 629, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-library' is mentioned on line 624, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push' is mentioned on line 634, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'I-D.ietf-i2rs-traceability' is mentioned on line 613, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'I-D.ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements' is mentioned on line 603, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'I-D.ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements' is mentioned on line 598, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'I-D.ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model' is mentioned on line 608, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-metadata' is mentioned on line 640, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 652, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC6536' is defined on line 662, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 6536 (Obsoleted by RFC 8341) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 15 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 I2RS working group J. Haas 3 Internet-Draft Juniper 4 Intended status: Standards Track S. Hares 5 Expires: September 22, 2016 Huawei 6 March 21, 2016 8 I2RS Ephemeral State Requirements 9 draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-05 11 Abstract 13 This document covers requests to the netmod and netconf Working 14 Groups for functionality to support the ephemeral state requirements 15 to implement the I2RS architecture. 17 Status of This Memo 19 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 20 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 22 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 23 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 24 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 25 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 27 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 28 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 29 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 30 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 32 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 22, 2016. 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 37 document authors. All rights reserved. 39 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 40 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 41 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 42 publication of this document. Please review these documents 43 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 44 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 45 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 46 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 47 described in the Simplified BSD License. 49 Table of Contents 51 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 52 2. Review of Requirements from I2RS architecture document . . . 3 53 3. Ephemeral State Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 54 3.1. Persistence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 55 3.2. Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 56 3.3. Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 57 3.4. changes to YANG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 58 3.4.1. Suggested Yang changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 59 3.4.2. Changes to Yang Under debate . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 3.5. Minimal Changes to NETCONF for I2RS Protocol (v1) . . . . 6 61 3.5.1. dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 62 3.5.2. New operations (under debate) . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 63 3.5.3. modified operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 64 3.5.4. no supported operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 65 3.5.5. interactions with capabilities (Some Debate) . . . . 7 66 3.6. Changes to RESTCONF for I2RS Protocol (v1) . . . . . . . 7 67 3.6.1. dependencies for RESTCONF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 68 3.6.2. modification to context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 69 3.6.3. modification to existing operations . . . . . . . . . 8 70 3.7. Requirements regarding Identity, Secondary-Identity and 71 Priority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 72 3.7.1. Identity Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 73 3.7.2. Priority Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 74 3.7.3. Transactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 75 3.7.4. Subscriptions to Changed State Requirements . . . . . 10 76 4. Previously Considered Ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 77 4.1. A Separate Ephemeral Datastore . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 78 4.2. Panes of Glass/Overlay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 79 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 80 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 81 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 82 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 83 8.1. Normative References: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 84 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 85 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 87 1. Introduction 89 The Interface to the Routing System (I2RS) Working Group is chartered 90 with providing architecture and mechanisms to inject into and 91 retrieve information from the routing system. The I2RS Architecture 92 document [I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture] abstractly documents a number 93 of requirements for implementing the I2RS requirements. 95 The I2RS Working Group has chosen to use the YANG data modeling 96 language [RFC6020] as the basis to implement its mechanisms. 98 Additionally, the I2RS Working group has chosen to use the NETCONF 99 [RFC6241] and its similar but lighter-weight relative RESTCONF 100 [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf] as the protocols for carrying I2RS. 102 While YANG, NETCONF and RESTCONF are a good starting basis for I2RS, 103 there are some things needed from each of them in order for I2RS to 104 be implemented. 106 2. Review of Requirements from I2RS architecture document 108 The following are ten requirements that [I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture] 109 contains which are important high level requirements: 111 1. The I2RS protocol SHOULD support highly reliable notifications 112 (but not perfectly reliable notifications) from an I2RS agent to 113 an I2RS client. 115 2. The I2RS protocol SHOULD support a high bandwidth, asynchronous 116 interface, with real-time guarantees on getting data from an 117 I2RS agent by an I2RS client. 119 3. The I2RS protocol will operate on data models which may be 120 protocol independent or protocol dependent. 122 4. I2RS Agent needs to record the client identity when a node is 123 created or modified. The I2RS Agent needs to be able to read 124 the client identity of a node and use the client identity's 125 associated priority to resolve conflicts. The secondary 126 identity is useful for traceability and may also be recorded. 128 5. Client identity will have only one priority for the client 129 identity. A collision on writes is considered an error, but 130 priority is utilized to compare requests from two different 131 clients in order to modify an existing node entry. Only an 132 entry from a client which is higher priority can modify an 133 existing entry (First entry wins). Priority only has meaning at 134 the time of use. 136 6. The Agent identity and the Client identity should be passed 137 outside of the I2RS protocol in a authentication and 138 authorization protocol (AAA). Client priority may be passed in 139 the AAA protocol. The values of identities are originally set 140 by operators, and not standardized. 142 7. An I2RS Client and I2RS Agent mutually authenticate each other 143 based on pre-established authenticated identities. 145 8. Secondary identity data is read-only meta-data that is recorded 146 by the I2RS agent associated with a data model's node is 147 written, updated or deleted. Just like the primary identity, 148 the secondary identity is only recorded when the data node is 149 written or updated or deleted 151 9. I2RS agent can have a lower priority I2RS client attempting to 152 modify a higher priority client's entry in a data model. The 153 filtering out of lower priority clients attempting to write or 154 modify a higher priority client's entry in a data model SHOULD 155 be effectively handled and not put an undue strain on the I2RS 156 agent. Note: Jeff's suggests that priority is kept at the NACM 157 at the client level (rather than the path level or the group 158 level) will allow these lower priority clients to be filtered 159 out using an extended NACM approach. This is only a suggestion 160 of a method to provide the requirement 9. 162 10. The I2RS protocol MUST support the use of a secure transport. 163 However, certain functions such as notifications MAY use a non- 164 secure transport. Each model or service (notification, logging) 165 must define within the model or service the valid uses of a non- 166 secure transport. 168 3. Ephemeral State Requirements 170 3.1. Persistence 172 Ephemeral-REQ-01: I2RS requires ephemeral state; i.e. state that does 173 not persist across reboots. If state must be restored, it should be 174 done solely by replay actions from the I2RS client via the I2RS 175 agent. 177 While at first glance this may seem equivalent to the writable- 178 running datastore in NETCONF, running-config can be copied to a 179 persistent data store, like startup config. I2RS ephemeral state 180 MUST NOT be persisted. 182 3.2. Constraints 184 Ephemeral-REQ-02: Non-ephemeral state MUST NOT refer to ephemeral 185 state for constraint purposes; it SHALL be considered a validation 186 error if it does. 188 Ephemeral-REQ-03: Ephemeral state must be able to utilized temporary 189 operational state which (MPLS LSP-ID or a BGP IN-RIB) as a 190 constraints. 192 Ephemeral-REQ-04: Ephemeral state MAY refer to non-ephemeral state 193 for purposes of implementing constraints. The designer of ephemeral 194 state modules are advised that such constraints may impact the speed 195 of processing ephemeral state commits and should avoid them when 196 speed is essential. 198 3.3. Hierarchy 200 Ephemeral-REQ-05: The ability to add on an object (or a hierarchy of 201 objects) that have the property of being ephemeral. An object needs 202 to be able to have (both) the property of being writable and the 203 property of the data being ephemeral (or non-ephemeral). 205 3.4. changes to YANG 207 Ephemeral-REQ-06: Yang MUST have a way to indicate in a data model 208 that nodes have the following properties: ephemeral, writable/not- 209 writable, status/configuration, and secure/non-secure transport. 211 3.4.1. Suggested Yang changes 213 The minimal changes to Yang are: 215 1. protocol version support - "version 1", 217 2. ephemeral true; (key word) 219 3. data models indicate which supported - "NETCONF", "RESTCONF", 220 "NETCONF pub-sub push", 222 4. encoding support - XML or JSON 224 5. data models indicate which transports protocol supported: "TCP", 225 "SSH", "TLS", non-secure, and othrs. 227 6. configuration for non-secure transport 229 1. i2rs:nonsecure-ok; 231 3.4.2. Changes to Yang Under debate 233 (under debate) "ephemeral-validation syntax, no-reference, full" - 234 for modules or rpc allowing flexible validation. 236 3.5. Minimal Changes to NETCONF for I2RS Protocol (v1) 238 Ephemeral-REQ-07: The conceptual changes to NETCONF/RESTCONF are: 240 o protocol version support - "version 1", 242 o ephemeral model scope - ephemeral modules, mixed config module 243 (ephemeral and config), mixed derived state (ephemeral and 244 config). 246 o multiple message support - "all or nothing", 248 o pane of glass support - "single only". 250 o protocol supported - "NETCONF", "RESTCONF", "NETCONF pub-sub 251 push", 253 o encoding support - XML or JSON 255 o transports protocol supported: "TCP", "SSH", "TLS", non-secure, 256 and others. 258 o ability to select transports data model is available for. 259 Insecure portions must be able to select a insecure transport. 261 3.5.1. dependencies 263 The dependencies for ephemeral support are: yang changes (see below), 264 yang modules support notificatino of write-conflicts, and pub/sub 265 push support. 267 3.5.2. New operations (under debate) 269 The new operations were a bulk-write. This feature along with the 270 flexible validation is under debate. 272 3.5.3. modified operations 274 , , 275 , are altered to abide by ephemeral 276 data store rules. 278 3.5.4. no supported operations 280 and are not supported for a target of ephemeral. 282 3.5.5. interactions with capabilities (Some Debate) 284 Ephemeral data stores do not support inteaction with writable- 285 running, candidate datastore, confirmed commit, distinct start-up 286 capbility, 288 Ephemeral data stores only support a "roll-back-on error" (I2RS all- 289 or-nothing), URL capability and XPATH capbility in source or target. 291 (Debate) Validate function - is either full (NETCONF/RESTCONF) or 292 optionally (syntax, no-referential, full) 294 3.6. Changes to RESTCONF for I2RS Protocol (v1) 296 Ephemeral-REQ-08: The conceptual changes to NETCONF/RESTCONF are: 298 o protocol version support - "version 1", 300 o ephemeral model scope - ephemeral modules, mixed config module 301 (ephemeral and config), mixed derived state (ephemeral and 302 config). 304 o multiple message support - "all or nothing", 306 o pane of glass support - "single only". 308 o protocol supported - "NETCONF", "RESTCONF", "NETCONF pub-sub 309 push", 311 o encoding support - XML or JSON 313 o transports protocol supported: "TCP", "SSH", "TLS", non-secure, 314 and others. 316 o ability to select transports data model is available for. 317 Insecure portions must be able to select a insecure transport. 319 3.6.1. dependencies for RESTCONF 321 1. Yang data models, sub-modules, or modules must be flaged with 322 ephemeral data store flag, 324 2. Yang modules must suport notification of write conflicts. 326 3. Yang modules must suport the following: 328 1. the yang-patch features as specified in 329 [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-patch]. 331 2. The yang module library feature 332 [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-library], 334 3. the equivalent of the netconf pub/subscription push service 335 found in [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push] 337 3.6.2. modification to context 339 RESTCONF must be able to support ephemeral data with an ephemeral 340 context that supports "edit-collision" features that include 341 timestamp, Entity tag, and the ability to compare I2RS client- 342 priorities. 344 3.6.3. modification to existing operations 346 The following modification to the existing operations are required: 348 1. OPTIONS - provide indication of ephemeral in modules, 350 2. HEAD - able to get HEAD of ephemeral or config module or the head 351 of groups of ephemeral or configuratinon nodes in a module. 353 3. GET,Post,PUt, Patch, Delete, Query Parmeters - must be able to 354 handle a context="Ephemeral". 356 4. Ephemeral database must support publication notifications or 357 errors as event stream, and subscribing to portions of that event 358 stream. (see [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push] 360 3.7. Requirements regarding Identity, Secondary-Identity and Priority 362 3.7.1. Identity Requirements 364 Ephemeral-REQ-09:Clients shall have identifiers, and secondary 365 identifiers. 367 Explanation: 369 I2RS requires clients to have an identifier. This identifier will be 370 used by the Agent authentication mechanism over the appropriate 371 protocol. 373 The Secondary identities can be carried as part of RPC or meta-data. 374 The primary purpose of the secondary identity is for traceability 375 information which logs (who modifies certain nodes). This secondary 376 identity is an opaque value. [I-D.ietf-i2rs-traceability] provides 377 an example of how the secondary identity can be used for 378 traceability. 380 3.7.2. Priority Requirements 382 To support Multi-Headed Control, I2RS requires that there be a 383 decidable means of arbitrating the correct state of data when 384 multiple clients attempt to manipulate the same piece of data. This 385 is done via a priority mechanism with the highest priority winning. 386 This priority is per-client. 388 Ephemeral-REQ-09: The data nodes MAY store I2RS client identity and 389 not the effective priority at the time the data node is stored. The 390 I2RS Client MUST have one priority at a time. The priority MAY be 391 dynamically changed by AAA, but the exact actions are part of the 392 protocol definition as long as Collisions are handled as described in 393 Ephemeral-REQ-10, Ephemeral-REQ-11, and Ephemeral-REQ-12. 395 Ephemeral-REQ-10: When a collision occurs as two clients are trying 396 to write the same data node, this collision is considered an error 397 and priorities were created to give a deterministic result. When 398 there is a collision, a notification MUST BE sent to the original 399 client to give the original client a chance to deal with the issues 400 surrounding the collision. The original client may need to fix their 401 state. 403 Ephemeral-REQ-11: The requirement to support multi-headed control is 404 required for collisions and the priority resolution of collisions. 405 Multi-headed control is not tied to ephemeral state. I2RS is not 406 mandating how AAA supports priority. Mechanisms which prevent 407 collisions of two clients trying the same node of data are the focus. 409 Ephemeral-REQ-12: If two clients have the same priority, the 410 architecture says the first one wins. The I2RS protocol has this 411 requirement to prevent was the oscillation between clients. If one 412 uses the last wins scenario, you may oscillate. That was our 413 opinion, but a design which prevents oscillation is the key point. 415 Hints for Implementation 417 Ephemeral configuration state nodes that are created or altered by 418 users that match a rule carrying i2rs-priority will have those nodes 419 annotated with metadata. Additionally, during commit processing, if 420 nodes are found where i2rs-priority is already present, and the 421 priority is better than the transaction's user's priority for that 422 node, the commit should fail. An appropriate error should be 423 returned to the user stating the nodes where the user had 424 insufficient priority to override the state. 426 3.7.3. Transactions 428 Ephemeral-REQ-13: Section 7.9 of the [I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture] 429 states the I2RS architecture does not include multi-message atomicity 430 and roll-back mechanisms. I2RS notes multiple operations in one or 431 more messages handling can handle errors within the set of operations 432 in many ways. No multi-message commands SHOULD cause errors to be 433 inserted into the I2RS ephemeral data-store. 435 Explanation: 437 I2RS suggests the following are some of the potential error handling 438 techniques for multiple message sent to the I2RS client: 440 1. Perform all or none: All operations succeed or none of them will 441 be applied. This useful when there are mutual dependencies. 443 2. Perform until error: Operations are applied in order, and when 444 error occurs the processing stops. This is useful when 445 dependencies exist between multiple-message operations, and order 446 is important. 448 3. Perform all storing errors: Perform all actions storing error 449 indications for errors. This method can be used when there are 450 no dependencies between operations, and the client wants to sort 451 it out. 453 Is important to reliability of the datastore that none of these error 454 handling for multiple operations in one more multiple messages cause 455 errors into be insert the I2RS ephemeral data-store. 457 Discussion of Current NETCONF/RESTCONF versus 459 RESTCONF does an atomic action within a http session, and NETCONF has 460 atomic actions within a commit. These features may be used to 461 perform these features. 463 I2RS processing is dependent on the I2RS model. The I2RS model must 464 consider the dependencies within multiple operations work within a 465 model. 467 3.7.4. Subscriptions to Changed State Requirements 469 I2RS clients require the ability to monitor changes to ephemeral 470 state. While subscriptions are well defined for receiving 471 notifications, the need to create a notification set for all 472 ephemeral configuration state may be overly burdensome to the user. 474 There is thus a need for a general subscription mechanism that can 475 provide notification of changed state, with sufficient information to 476 permit the client to retrieve the impacted nodes. This should be 477 doable without requiring the notifications to be created as part of 478 every single I2RS module. 480 The following requirements from the 481 [I-D.ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements] apply to ephemeral state: 483 o PubSub-REQ-1: The I2RS interface SHOULD support user subscriptions 484 to data with the following parameters: push of data synchronously 485 or asynchronously via registered subscriptions. 487 o PubSSub-REQ-2: Real time for notifications SHOULD be defined by 488 the data models. 490 o PubSub-REQ-3: Security of the pub/sub data stream SHOULD be able 491 to be model dependent. 493 o PubSub-REQ-4: The Pub/Sub mechanism SHOULD allow subscription to 494 critical Node Events. Examples of critical node events are BGP 495 peers down or ISIS protocol overload bits. 497 o PubSub-REQ-5:I2RS telemetry data for certain protocols (E.g. BGP) 498 will require a hierarchy of filters or XPATHs. The I2RS protocol 499 design MUST balance security against the throughput of the 500 telemetry data. 502 o PubSub-REQ-6: I2RS Filters SHOULD be able to be dynamic. 504 o Pub-Sub-REQ-7: I2rs protocol MUST be able to allow I2RS agent to 505 set limits on the data models it will support for pub/sub and 506 within data models to support knobs for maximum frequency or 507 resolution of pub/sub data. 509 4. Previously Considered Ideas 511 4.1. A Separate Ephemeral Datastore 513 The primary advantage of a fully separate datastore is that the 514 semantics of its contents are always clearly ephemeral. It also 515 provides strong segregation of I2RS configuration and operational 516 state from the rest of the system within the network element. 518 The most obvious disadvantage of such a fully separate datastore is 519 that interaction with the network element's operational or 520 configuration state becomes significantly more difficult. As an 521 example, a BGP I2RS use case would be the dynamic instantiation of a 522 BGP peer. While it is readily possible to re-use any defined 523 groupings from an IETF-standardized BGP module in such an I2RS 524 ephemeral datastore's modules, one cannot currently reference state 525 from one datastore to anothe 527 For example, XPath queries are done in the context document of the 528 datastore in question and thus it is impossible for an I2RS model to 529 fulfil a "must" or "when" requirement in the BGP module in the 530 standard data stores. To implement such a mechanism would require 531 appropriate semantics for XPath. 533 4.2. Panes of Glass/Overlay 535 I2RS ephemeral configuration state is generally expected to be 536 disjoint from persistent configuration. In some cases, extending 537 persistent configuration with ephemeral attributes is expected to be 538 useful. A case that is considered potentially useful but problematic 539 was explored was the ability to "overlay" persistent configuration 540 with ephemeral configuration. 542 In this overlay scenario, persistent configuration that was not 543 shadowed by ephemeral configuration could be "read through". 545 There were two perceived disadvantages to this mechanism: 547 The general complexity with managing the overlay mechanism itself. 549 Consistency issues with validation should the ephemeral state be 550 lost, perhaps on reboot. In such a case, the previously shadowed 551 persistent state may no longer validate. 553 5. IANA Considerations 555 There are no IANA requirements for this document. 557 6. Security Considerations 559 The security requirements for the I2RS protocol are covered in 560 [I-D.ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements] document. 562 7. Acknowledgements 564 This document is an attempt to distill lengthy conversations on the 565 I2RS mailing list for an architecture that was for a long period of 566 time a moving target. Some individuals in particular warrant 567 specific mention for their extensive help in providing the basis for 568 this document: 570 o Alia Atlas 572 o Andy Bierman 574 o Martin Bjorklund 576 o Dean Bogdanavich 578 o Rex Fernando 580 o Joel Halpern 582 o Thomas Nadeau 584 o Juergen Schoenwaelder 586 o Kent Watsen 588 8. References 590 8.1. Normative References: 592 [I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture] 593 Atlas, A., Halpern, J., Hares, S., Ward, D., and T. 594 Nadeau, "An Architecture for the Interface to the Routing 595 System", draft-ietf-i2rs-architecture-13 (work in 596 progress), February 2016. 598 [I-D.ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements] 599 Hares, S., Migault, D., and J. Halpern, "I2RS Security 600 Related Requirements", draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security- 601 requirements-03 (work in progress), March 2016. 603 [I-D.ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements] 604 Voit, E., Clemm, A., and A. Prieto, "Requirements for 605 Subscription to YANG Datastores", draft-ietf-i2rs-pub-sub- 606 requirements-05 (work in progress), February 2016. 608 [I-D.ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model] 609 Bahadur, N., Kini, S., and J. Medved, "Routing Information 610 Base Info Model", draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-08 (work 611 in progress), October 2015. 613 [I-D.ietf-i2rs-traceability] 614 Clarke, J., Salgueiro, G., and C. Pignataro, "Interface to 615 the Routing System (I2RS) Traceability: Framework and 616 Information Model", draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability-07 (work 617 in progress), February 2016. 619 [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf] 620 Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF 621 Protocol", draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-10 (work in 622 progress), March 2016. 624 [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-library] 625 Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "YANG Module 626 Library", draft-ietf-netconf-yang-library-04 (work in 627 progress), February 2016. 629 [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-patch] 630 Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "YANG Patch 631 Media Type", draft-ietf-netconf-yang-patch-08 (work in 632 progress), March 2016. 634 [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push] 635 Clemm, A., Prieto, A., Voit, E., Tripathy, A., and E. 636 Einar, "Subscribing to YANG datastore push updates", 637 draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push-01 (work in progress), 638 February 2016. 640 [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-metadata] 641 Lhotka, L., "Defining and Using Metadata with YANG", 642 draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-06 (work in progress), 643 March 2016. 645 [RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., 646 and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol 647 (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011, 648 . 650 8.2. Informative References 652 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 653 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 654 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 655 . 657 [RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for 658 the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020, 659 DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010, 660 . 662 [RFC6536] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration 663 Protocol (NETCONF) Access Control Model", RFC 6536, 664 DOI 10.17487/RFC6536, March 2012, 665 . 667 Authors' Addresses 669 Jeff Haas 670 Juniper 672 Email: jhaas@juniper.net 674 Susan Hares 675 Huawei 676 Saline 677 US 679 Email: shares@ndzh.com