idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-netconf-beep-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There are 28 instances of lines with control characters in the document. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (October 7, 2003) is 7507 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) == Unused Reference: '7' is defined on line 415, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '8' is defined on line 419, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of draft-ietf-netconf-prot-00 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2222 (ref. '4') (Obsoleted by RFC 4422, RFC 4752) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2246 (ref. '5') (Obsoleted by RFC 4346) Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group E. Lear 3 Internet-Draft K. Crozier 4 Expires: April 6, 2004 Cisco Systems 5 October 7, 2003 7 BEEP Application Protocol Mapping for NETCONF 8 draft-ietf-netconf-beep-00 10 Status of this Memo 12 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 13 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 15 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 16 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other 17 groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 19 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 20 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 21 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 22 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 24 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http:// 25 www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 27 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 28 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 30 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 6, 2004. 32 Copyright Notice 34 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. 36 Abstract 38 This document specifies an application protocol mapping for the 39 NETCONF protocol over the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol (BEEP). 41 Table of Contents 43 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 44 1.1 Why BEEP? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 45 2. BEEP Transport Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 46 2.1 NETCONF Session Initiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 47 2.2 NETCONF RPC Execution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 48 2.3 NETCONF and . . . . . . . . . . . 5 49 2.4 NETCONF Session Teardown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 50 2.5 BEEP Profiles for NETCONF Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 51 2.5.1 Management Channel Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 52 2.5.2 Operations Channel Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 53 2.5.3 Notification Channel Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 54 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 55 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 56 5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 57 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 58 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 59 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 60 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 15 62 1. Introduction 64 The NETCONF protocol [1] defines a simple mechanism through which a 65 network device can be managed. NETCONF is designed to be usable over 66 a variety of application protocols. This document specifies an 67 application protocol mapping for NETCONF over the Blocks Extensible 68 Exchange Protocol (BEEP) [2] . 70 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 71 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 72 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [3]. 74 1.1 Why BEEP? 76 Use of BEEP is natural as an application protocol for transport of 77 XML. As a peer to peer protocol, BEEP provides an easy way to 78 implement NETCONF, no matter which side of the connection was the 79 initiator. This "bidirectionality" allows for either side to play 80 the role of the manager with no protocol changes. Either side can 81 open a channel. Either side could initiate an RPC. This is 82 particularly important to support operational models that involve 83 small devices connecting to a manager, and those devices that must 84 reverse the management connection in the face of firewalls and NATs. 86 The SASL profile used by BEEP allows for a simple and direct mapping 87 to the existing security model for CLI. 89 2. BEEP Transport Mapping 91 All NETCONF over BEEP implementations MUST implement the profile and 92 functional mapping between NETCONF and BEEP as described below. 94 2.1 NETCONF Session Initiation 96 Managers may be either BEEP listeners or initiators. Similarly, 97 agents may be either listeners or initiators. Thus the initial 98 exchange takes place without regard to whether a manager or the agent 99 is the initiator. After the transport connection is established, as 100 greetings are exchanged, they should each announce their support for 101 TLS [5] and optionally SASL [4] (see below), as well as for the 102 SYSLOG profile [6]. Once greetings are exchanged, if TLS is to be 103 used and available by both parties, the listener STARTs a channel 104 with the TLS profile. 106 Once TLS has been started, a new greeting is sent by both initiator 107 and listener, as required by the BEEP RFC. 109 At this point, if SASL is desired, the initiator starts BEEP channel 110 1 to perform a SASL exchange to authenticate itself. When SASL is 111 completed, the channel MUST be closed. 113 Once authentication has occurred, there is no need to distinguish 114 between initiator and listener. We now distinguish between manager 115 and agent. 117 The manager now establishes an NETCONF management channel for the 118 purpose of exchanging capabilities, monitoring progress, and aborting 119 remote procedure calls. As initiators assign odd channels and 120 listeners assign even channels, the management channel is BEEP 121 channel 1 or 2, depending on whether the manager is the initiator or 122 the listener. 124 The manager next establishes the NETCONF operational channel for the 125 purpose of issuing RPC requests. This channel is BEEP channel 3 or 126 4. 128 Finally, if either manager or agent wishes to send or receive 129 notifications, it may issue a start on the next available channel if 130 the other side has sent the send or receive NETCONF capability. 132 At this point, the NETCONF session is established. 134 2.2 NETCONF RPC Execution 136 To issue an RPC, the manager transmits on the operational channel a 137 BEEP MSG containing the RPC and its arguments. In accordance with 138 the BEEP standard, RPC requests may be split across multiple BEEP 139 frames. 141 Once received and processed, the agent responds with BEEP RPYs on the 142 same channel with the response to the RPC. In accordance with the 143 BEEP standard, responses may be split across multiple BEEP frames. 145 2.3 NETCONF and 147 and requests are issued by the manager on 148 the NETCONF management channel, and the agent responds with BEEP RPYs 149 on that same channel. 151 2.4 NETCONF Session Teardown 153 Either side may initiate the termination of an NETCONF session. In 154 This is done by issuing a BEEP close on the operational channel after 155 the current RPC has completed. The same is done with any 156 notification channels by the end that transmits notifications. 157 Finally, BEEP channel 0 is closed. 159 2.5 BEEP Profiles for NETCONF Channels 161 There are two profiles, the management channel profile and the 162 operations channel profile. These are not to be confused with the 163 BEEP control channel. 165 The operations channel will have two commands, and . 166 The management channel will have one additional operation with 167 . 169 2.5.1 Management Channel Profile 171 179 193 195 197 199 %BEEP; 201 213 228 229 230 231 --> 233 237 238 241 245 246 250 254 255 258 260 2.5.2 Operations Channel Profile 262 270 284 286 288 290 %BEEP; 292 303 316 317 319 --> 321 325 326 329 333 334 338 340 2.5.3 Notification Channel Profile 342 The NETCONF notification channel profile is defined in RFC 3195 [6]. 344 3. Security Considerations 346 Configuration information is by its very nature sensitive. Its 347 transmission in the clear and without integrity checking leaves 348 devices open to classic so-called "person in the middle" attacks. 349 Configuration information often times contains passwords, user names, 350 service descriptions, and topological information, all of which are 351 sensitive. A NETCONF application protocol, therefore, must minimally 352 support options for both confidentiality and authentication. 354 BEEP makes use of both transport layer security and SASL. We require 355 that TLS be used in BEEP as described by the BEEP standard. 356 Client-side certificates are strongly desirable, but an SASL 357 authentication is the bare minimum. SASL allows for the use of 358 protocols such as RADIUS [9], so that authentication can occur off 359 the box. 361 SASL authentication will occur on the first channel creation, and 362 prior to issuance of any protocol operations. No further 363 authentication may occur during the same session. This avoids a 364 situation where rights are different between different channels. If 365 an implementation wishes to support multiple accesses by different 366 individuals with different rights, then multiple sessions are 367 required. 369 Different environments may well allow different rights prior to and 370 then after authentication. Thus, an authorization model is not 371 specified in this document. When an operation is not properly 372 authorized then a simple "permission denied" is sufficient. Note that 373 authorization information may be exchanged in the form of 374 configuration information, which is all the more reason to ensure the 375 security of the connection. 377 4. IANA Considerations 379 The IANA will assign a TCP port for NETCONF. 381 5. Acknowledgments 383 This work is the product of the NETCONF IETF working group, and many 384 people have contributed to the NETCONF discussion. Most notably, Rob 385 Ens, Phil Schafer, Andy Bierman, Wes Hardiger, Ted Goddard, and 386 Margaret Wasserman all contributed in some fashion to this work, 387 which was originally to be found in the NETCONF base protocol 388 specification. Thanks also to Weijing Chen, Keith Allen, Juergen 389 Schoenwaelder, and Eamon O'Tuathail for their very constructive 390 participation. 392 Normative References 394 [1] Enns, R., "NETCONF Configuration Protocol", 395 draft-ietf-netconf-prot-00 (work in progress), August 2003. 397 [2] Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core", RFC 398 3080, March 2001. 400 [3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement 401 Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 403 [4] Myers, J., "Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL)", 404 RFC 2222, October 1997. 406 [5] Dierks, T., Allen, C., Treese, W., Karlton, P., Freier, A. and 407 P. Kocher, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0", RFC 2246, January 408 1999. 410 [6] New, D. and M. Rose, "Reliable Delivery for syslog", RFC 3195, 411 November 2001. 413 Informative References 415 [7] Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C. and E. Maler, 416 "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Second Edition)", W3C REC 417 REC-xml-20001006, October 2000. 419 [8] Hollenbeck, S., Rose, M. and L. Masinter, "Guidelines for the 420 Use of Extensible Markup Language (XML) within IETF Protocols", 421 BCP 70, RFC 3470, January 2003. 423 [9] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A. and W. Simpson, "Remote 424 Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 2865, June 425 2000. 427 Authors' Addresses 429 Eliot Lear 430 Cisco Systems 431 170 W. Tasman Dr. 432 San Jose, CA 95134-1706 433 US 435 EMail: lear@cisco.com 437 Ken Crozier 438 Cisco Systems 439 170 W. Tasman Dr. 440 San Jose, CA 95134-1706 441 US 443 EMail: kcrozier@cisco.com 445 Intellectual Property Statement 447 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 448 intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to 449 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 450 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 451 might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it 452 has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the 453 IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and 454 standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of 455 claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of 456 licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to 457 obtain a general license or permission for the use of such 458 proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can 459 be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. 461 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 462 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 463 rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice 464 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive 465 Director. 467 Full Copyright Statement 469 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. 471 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 472 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 473 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 474 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 475 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 476 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 477 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 478 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 479 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 480 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 481 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 482 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 483 English. 485 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 486 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees. 488 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 489 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 490 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 491 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 492 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 493 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 495 Acknowledgment 497 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 498 Internet Society.