idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-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 == Line 225 has weird spacing: '...atch-id str...' -- The document date (September 15, 2020) is 1318 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: 'RFC6991' is defined on line 706, but no explicit reference was found in the text Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group A. Clemm 3 Internet-Draft Y. Qu 4 Intended status: Standards Track Futurewei 5 Expires: March 19, 2021 J. Tantsura 6 Apstra 7 A. Bierman 8 YumaWorks 9 September 15, 2020 11 Comparison of NMDA datastores 12 draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-05 14 Abstract 16 This document defines an RPC operation to compare management 17 datastores that comply with the NMDA architecture. 19 Status of This Memo 21 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 22 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 24 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 25 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 26 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 27 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 29 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 30 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 31 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 32 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 34 This Internet-Draft will expire on March 19, 2021. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 39 document authors. All rights reserved. 41 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 42 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 43 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 44 publication of this document. Please review these documents 45 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 46 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 47 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 48 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 49 described in the Simplified BSD License. 51 Table of Contents 53 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 54 2. Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 3. Definitions and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 4. Data Model Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 5. YANG Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 58 6. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 59 7. Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 60 8. Possible Future Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 61 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 62 9.1. Updates to the IETF XML Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 63 9.2. Updates to the YANG Module Names Registry . . . . . . . . 14 64 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 65 11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 66 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 67 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 68 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 69 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 71 1. Introduction 73 The revised Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) 74 [RFC8342] introduces a set of new datastores that each hold YANG- 75 defined data [RFC7950] and represent a different "viewpoint" on the 76 data that is maintained by a server. New YANG datastores that are 77 introduced include , which contains validated configuration 78 data that a client application intends to be in effect, and 79 , which contains at least conceptually operational state 80 data (such as statistics) as well as configuration data that is 81 actually in effect. 83 NMDA introduces in effect a concept of "lifecycle" for management 84 data, allowing to clearly distinguish between data that is part of a 85 configuration that was supplied by a user, configuration data that 86 has actually been successfully applied and that is part of the 87 operational state, and overall operational state that includes both 88 applied configuration data as well as status and statistics. 90 As a result, data from the same management model can be reflected in 91 multiple datastores. Clients need to specify the target datastore to 92 be specific about which viewpoint of the data they want to access. 93 This way, an application can differentiate whether they are (for 94 example) interested in the configuration that has been applied and is 95 actually in effect, or in the configuration that was supplied by a 96 client and that is supposed to be in effect. 98 Due to the fact that data can propagate from one datastore to 99 another, it is possibly for differences between datastores to occur. 100 Some of this is entirely expected, as there may be a time lag between 101 when a configuration is given to the device and reflected in 102 , until when it actually takes effect and is reflected in 103 . However, there may be cases when a configuration item 104 that was to be applied may not actually take effect at all or needs 105 an unusually long time to do so. This can be the case due to certain 106 conditions not being met, resource dependencies not being resolved, 107 or even implementation errors in corner conditions. 109 When configuration that is in effect is different from configuration 110 that was applied, many issues can result. It becomes more difficult 111 to operate the network properly due to limited visibility of actual 112 status which makes it more difficult to analyze and understand what 113 is going on in the network. Services may be negatively affected (for 114 example, breaking a service instance resulting in service is not 115 properly delivered to a customer) and network resources be 116 misallocated. 118 Applications can potentially analyze any differences between two 119 datastores by retrieving the contents from both datastores and 120 comparing them. However, in many cases this will be at the same time 121 costly and extremely wasteful. 123 This document introduces a YANG data model which defines RPCs, 124 intended to be used in conjunction with NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF 125 [RFC8040], that allow a client to request a server to compare two 126 NMDA datastores and report any differences. 128 2. Key Words 130 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 131 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 132 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 133 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 134 capitals, as shown here. 136 3. Definitions and Acronyms 138 NMDA: Network Management Datastore Architecture 140 RPC: Remote Procedure Call 142 4. Data Model Overview 144 At the core of the solution is a new management operation, , 145 that allows to compare two datastores for the same data. The 146 operation checks whether there are any differences in values or in 147 data nodes that are contained in either datastore, and returns any 148 differences as output. The output is returned in the format 149 specified in YANG-Patch [RFC8072]. 151 The YANG data model defines the operation as a new RPC. 152 The operation takes the following input parameters: 154 o source: The source identifies the datastore that will serve as 155 reference for the comparison, for example . 157 o target: The target identifies the datastore to compare against the 158 source. 160 o filter-spec: This is a choice between different filter constructs 161 to identify the portions of the datastore to be retrieved. It 162 acts as a node selector that specifies which data nodes are within 163 the scope of the comparison and which nodes are outside the scope. 164 This allows a comparison operation to be applied only to a 165 specific portion of the datastore that is of interest, such as a 166 particular subtree. (The filter dow not contain expressions that 167 would match values data nodes, as this is not required by most use 168 cases and would complicate the scheme, from implementation to 169 dealing with race conditions.) 171 o all: When set, this parameter indicates that all differences 172 should be included, including differences pertaining to schema 173 nodes that exist in only one of the datastores. When this 174 parameter is not included, a prefiltering step is automatically 175 applied to exclude data from the comparison that does not pertain 176 to both datastores: if the same schema node is not present in both 177 datastores, then all instances of that schema node and all its 178 descendants are excluded from the comparison. This allows client 179 applications to focus on the differences that constitute true 180 mismatches of instance data without needing to specify more 181 complex filter constructs. 183 o exclude-origin: When set, this parameter indicates that origin 184 metadata should not not be included as part of RPC output. When 185 this parameter is omitted, origin metadata in comparisons that 186 involve is by default included. 188 The operation provides the following output parameter: 190 o differences: This parameter contains the list of differences. 191 Those differences are encoded per YANG-Patch data model defined in 192 RFC8072. The YANG-Patch data model is augmented to indicate the 193 value of source datastore nodes in addition to the patch itself 194 that would need to be applied to the source to produce the target. 195 When the target datastore is , "origin" metadata is 196 included as part of the patch. Including origin metadata can help 197 in some cases explain the cause of a difference, for example when 198 a data node is part of but the origin of the same data 199 node in is reported as "system". 201 The data model is defined in the ietf-nmda-compare YANG module. Its 202 structure is shown in the following figure. The notation syntax 203 follows [RFC8340]. 205 module: ietf-nmda-compare 206 rpcs: 207 +---x compare 208 +---w input 209 | +---w source identityref 210 | +---w target identityref 211 | +---w all? empty 212 | +---w exclude-origin? empty 213 | +---w (filter-spec)? 214 | +--:(subtree-filter) 215 | | +---w subtree-filter? 216 | +--:(xpath-filter) 217 | +---w xpath-filter? yang:xpath1.0 {nc:xpath}? 218 +--ro output 219 +--ro (compare-response)? 220 +--:(no-matches) 221 | +--ro no-matches? empty 222 +--:(differences) 223 +--ro differences 224 +--ro yang-patch 225 +--ro patch-id string 226 +--ro comment? string 227 +--ro edit* [edit-id] 228 +--ro edit-id string 229 +--ro operation enumeration 230 +--ro target target-resource-offset 231 +--ro point? target-resource-offset 232 +--ro where? enumeration 233 +--ro value? 234 +--ro source-value? 236 Structure of ietf-nmda-compare 238 5. YANG Data Model 240 file "ietf-nmda-compare@2020-09-15.yang" 241 module ietf-nmda-compare { 243 yang-version 1.1; 244 namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-nmda-compare"; 246 prefix cmp; 248 import ietf-yang-types { 249 prefix yang; 250 reference "RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types"; 251 } 252 import ietf-datastores { 253 prefix ds; 254 reference "RFC 8342: Network Management Datastore 255 Architecture (NMDA)"; 256 } 257 import ietf-yang-patch { 258 prefix ypatch; 259 reference "RFC 8072: YANG Patch Media Type"; 260 } 261 import ietf-netconf { 262 prefix nc; 263 reference "RFC6241: Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)"; 264 } 266 organization "IETF"; 267 contact 268 "WG Web: 269 WG List: 271 Author: Alexander Clemm 272 274 Author: Yingzhen Qu 275 277 Author: Jeff Tantsura 278 280 Author: Andy Bierman 281 "; 283 description 284 "The YANG data model defines a new operation, , that 285 can be used to compare NMDA datastores. 287 The key words 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', 'REQUIRED', 'SHALL', 'SHALL 288 NOT', 'SHOULD', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED', 'NOT RECOMMENDED', 289 'MAY', and 'OPTIONAL' in this document are to be interpreted as 290 described in BCP 14 (RFC 2119) (RFC 8174) when, and only when, 291 they appear in all capitals, as shown here. 293 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as 294 authors of the code. All rights reserved. 296 Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or 297 without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject to 298 the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License set 299 forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions 300 Relating to IETF Documents 301 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). 303 This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX; see the 304 RFC itself for full legal notices."; 306 revision 2020-09-15 { 307 description 308 "Initial revision"; 309 reference 310 "RFC XXXX: Comparison of NMDA datastores"; 311 } 313 /* RPC */ 314 rpc compare { 315 description 316 "NMDA compare operation."; 317 input { 318 leaf source { 319 type identityref { 320 base ds:datastore; 321 } 322 mandatory true; 323 description 324 "The source datastore to be compared."; 325 } 326 leaf target { 327 type identityref { 328 base ds:datastore; 329 } 330 mandatory true; 331 description 332 "The target datastore to be compared."; 333 } 334 leaf all { 335 type empty; 336 description 337 "When this leaf is provided, all data nodes are compared, 338 whether their schema node pertains to both datastores or 339 not. When this leaf is omitted, a prefiltering step is 340 automatically applied that excludes data nodes from the 341 comparison that can occur in only one datastore but not 342 the other. Specifically, if one of the datastores 343 (source or target) contains only configuration data and 344 the other datastore is , data nodes for 345 which config is false are excluded from the comparison."; 346 } 347 leaf exclude-origin { 348 type empty; 349 description 350 "When this leaf is provided, origin metadata is not 351 included as part of RPC output. When this leaf is 352 omitted, origin metadata in comparisons that involve 353 is by default included."; 354 } 355 choice filter-spec { 356 description 357 "Identifies the portions of the datastores to be 358 compared."; 359 anydata subtree-filter { 360 description 361 "This parameter identifies the portions of the 362 target datastore to retrieve."; 363 reference "RFC 6241, Section 6."; 364 } 365 leaf xpath-filter { 366 if-feature nc:xpath; 367 type yang:xpath1.0; 368 description 369 "This parameter contains an XPath expression 370 identifying the portions of the target 371 datastore to retrieve."; 372 reference "RFC 6021: Common YANG Data Types"; 373 } 374 } 375 } 376 output { 377 choice compare-response { 378 description 379 "Comparison results."; 380 leaf no-matches { 381 type empty; 382 description 383 "This leaf indicates that the filter did not match 384 anything and nothing was compared."; 385 } 386 container differences { 387 description 388 "The list of differences, encoded per RFC8072 with an 389 augmentation to include source values where 390 applicable."; 391 uses ypatch:yang-patch { 392 augment "yang-patch/edit" { 393 description 394 "Provide the value of the source of the patch, 395 respectively of the comparison, in addition to 396 the target value, where applicable."; 397 anydata source-value { 398 when "../operation = 'delete'" 399 + "or ../operation = 'merge'" 400 + "or ../operation = 'move'" 401 + "or ../operation = 'replace'" 402 + "or ../operation = 'remove'"; 403 description 404 "The anydata 'value' is only used for 'delete', 405 'move', 'merge', 'replace', and 'remove' 406 operations."; 407 } 408 reference "RFC 8072: YANG Patch Media Type"; 409 } 410 } 411 } 412 } 413 } 414 } 415 } 416 418 6. Example 420 The following example compares the difference between 421 and for a subtree under "interfaces". The subtree 422 contains a subset of objects that are defined in a YANG data model 423 for the management of interfaces defined in [RFC8343]. The excerpt 424 of the data model whose instantiation is basis of the comparison is 425 as follows: 427 container interfaces { 428 description 429 "Interface parameters."; 430 list interface { 431 key "name"; 432 leaf name { 433 type string; 434 description 435 "The name of the interface". 436 } 437 leaf description { 438 type string; 439 description 440 "A textual description of the interface."; 441 } 442 leaf enabled { 443 type boolean; 444 default "true"; 445 description 446 "This leaf contains the configured, desired state of the 447 interface.";" 448 } 449 } 450 } 452 The contents of and datastores: 454 //INTENDED 455 456 457 eth0 458 false 459 ip interface 460 461 463 //OPERATIONAL 464 467 468 eth0 469 true 471 472 473 does not contain object "description" that is contained 474 in . Another object, "enabled", has differences in values, 475 being "true" in and "false" in . A third 476 object, "name", is the same in both cases. The origin of the objects 477 in is "learned", which may help explain the 478 discrepancies. 480 RPC request to compare (source of the comparison) with 481 (target of the comparison): 483 485 487 ds:operational 488 ds:intended 489 491 /if:interfaces 492 493 494 496 RPC reply, when a difference is detected: 498 501 504 505 interface status 506 507 diff between operational (source) and intended (target) 508 509 510 1 511 replace 512 /ietf-interfaces:interface=eth0/enabled 513 514 false 515 516 517 true 518 519 2 520 create 521 /ietf-interfaces:interface=eth0/description 522 523 ip interface 524 525 526 527 528 530 The same request in RESTCONF (using JSON format): 532 POST /restconf/operations/ietf-nmda-compare:compare HTTP/1.1 533 Host: example.com 534 Content-Type: application/yang-data+json 535 Accept: application/yang-d 536 { "ietf-nmda-compare:input" { 537 "source" : "ietf-datastores:operational" 538 "target" : "ietf-datastores:intended" 539 "xpath-filter" : \ 540 "/ietf-interfaces:interfaces" 541 } 542 } 544 The same response in RESTCONF (using JSON format): 546 HTTP/1.1 200 OK 547 Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2019 20:56:30 GMT 548 Server: example-server 549 Content-Type: application/yang-d 550 { "ietf-nmda-compare:output" : { 551 "differences" : { 552 "ietf-yang-patch:yang-patch" : { 553 "patch-id" : "interface status", 554 "comment" : "diff between intended (source) and operational", 555 "edit" : [ 556 { 557 "edit-id" : "1", 558 "operation" : "replace", 559 "target" : "/ietf-interfaces:interface=eth0/enabled", 560 "value" : { 561 "ietf-interfaces:interface/enabled" : "false" 562 }, 563 "source-value" : { 564 "ietf-interfaces:interface/enabled" : "true", 565 "@ietf-interfaces:interface/enabled" : { 566 "ietf-origin:origin" : "ietf-origin:learned" 567 } 568 } 569 "edit-id" : "2", 570 "operation" : "create", 571 "target" : "/ietf-interfaces:interface=eth0/description", 572 "value" : { 573 "ietf-interface:interface/description" : "ip interface" 574 } 575 } 576 ] 577 } 578 } 579 } 580 } 582 7. Performance Considerations 584 The compare operation can be computationally expensive. While 585 responsible client applications are expected to use the operation 586 responsibly and sparingly only when warranted, implementations need 587 to be aware of the fact that excessive invocation of this operation 588 will burden system resources and need to ensure that system 589 performance will not be adversely impacted. One possibility for an 590 implementation to mitigate against such a possibility is to limit the 591 number of requests that is served to a client, or to any number of 592 clients, in any one time interval, rejecting requests made at a 593 higher frequency than the implementation can reasonably sustain. 595 8. Possible Future Extensions 597 It is conceivable to extend the compare operation with a number of 598 possible additional features in the future. 600 Specifically, it is possible to define an extension with an optional 601 feature for dampening. This will allow clients to specify a minimum 602 time period for which a difference must persist for it to be 603 reported. This will enable clients to distinguish between 604 differences that are only fleeting from ones that are not and that 605 may represent a real operational issue and inconsistency within the 606 device. 608 For this purpose, an additional input parameter can be added to 609 specify the dampening period. Only differences that pertain for at 610 least the dampening time are reported. A value of 0 or omission of 611 the parameter indicates no dampening. Reporting of differences MAY 612 correspondingly be delayed by the dampening period from the time the 613 request is received. 615 To implement this feature, a server implementation might run a 616 comparison when the RPC is first invoked and temporarily store the 617 result. Subsequently, it could wait until after the end of the 618 dampening period to check whether the same differences are still 619 observed. The differences that still persist are then returned. 621 9. IANA Considerations 623 9.1. Updates to the IETF XML Registry 625 This document registers one URI in the IETF XML registry [RFC3688]. 626 Following the format in [RFC3688], the following registration is 627 requested: 629 URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-nmda-compare 631 Registrant Contact: The IESG. 633 XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace. 635 9.2. Updates to the YANG Module Names Registry 637 This document registers a YANG module in the YANG Module Names 638 registry [RFC7950]. Following the format in [RFC7950], the following 639 registration is requested: 641 name: ietf-nmda-compare 642 namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-nmda-compare 644 prefix: cmp 646 reference: RFC XXXX 648 10. Security Considerations 650 The YANG module specified in this document defines a schema for data 651 that is designed to be accessed via network management protocols such 652 as NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040]. The lowest NETCONF layer 653 is the secure transport layer, and the mandatory-to-implement secure 654 transport is Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC6242]. The lowest RESTCONF layer 655 is HTTPS, and the mandatory-to-implement secure transport is TLS 656 [RFC8446]. 658 The NETCONF access control model [RFC8341] provides the means to 659 restrict access for particular NETCONF or RESTCONF users to a 660 preconfigured subset of all available NETCONF or RESTCONF protocol 661 operations and content. 663 The RPC operation defined in this YANG module, "compare", may be 664 considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. It 665 is thus important to control access to this operation. This is the 666 sensitivity/vulnerability of RPC operation "compare": 668 Comparing datastores for differences requires a certain amount of 669 processing resources at the server. An attacker could attempt to 670 attack a server by making a high volume of comparison requests. 671 Server implementations can guard against such scenarios in several 672 ways. For one, they can implement the NETCONF access control model 673 in order to require proper authorization for requests to be made. 674 Second, server implementations can limit the number of requests that 675 they serve to a client in any one time interval, rejecting requests 676 made at a higher frequency than the implementation can reasonably 677 sustain. 679 11. Acknowledgments 681 We thank Rob Wilton, Martin Bjorklund, Mahesh Jethanandani, Lou 682 Berger, Kent Watsen, Phil Shafer, Ladislav Lhotka, Tim Carey, and 683 Reshad Rahman for valuable feedback and suggestions. 685 12. References 686 12.1. Normative References 688 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 689 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 690 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 691 . 693 [RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, 694 DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004, 695 . 697 [RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., 698 and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol 699 (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011, 700 . 702 [RFC6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure 703 Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC6242, June 2011, 704 . 706 [RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types", 707 RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013, 708 . 710 [RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language", 711 RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016, 712 . 714 [RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF 715 Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017, 716 . 718 [RFC8072] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "YANG Patch 719 Media Type", RFC 8072, DOI 10.17487/RFC8072, February 720 2017, . 722 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 723 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 724 May 2017, . 726 [RFC8340] Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams", 727 BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018, 728 . 730 [RFC8341] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration 731 Access Control Model", STD 91, RFC 8341, 732 DOI 10.17487/RFC8341, March 2018, 733 . 735 [RFC8342] Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K., 736 and R. Wilton, "Network Management Datastore Architecture 737 (NMDA)", RFC 8342, DOI 10.17487/RFC8342, March 2018, 738 . 740 [RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol 741 Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018, 742 . 744 12.2. Informative References 746 [RFC8343] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface 747 Management", RFC 8343, DOI 10.17487/RFC8343, March 2018, 748 . 750 Authors' Addresses 752 Alexander Clemm 753 Futurewei 754 2330 Central Expressway 755 Santa Clara, CA 95050 756 USA 758 Email: ludwig@clemm.org 760 Yingzhen Qu 761 Futurewei 762 2330 Central Expressway 763 Santa Clara, CA 95050 764 USA 766 Email: yqu@futurewei.com 768 Jeff Tantsura 769 Apstra 771 Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com 773 Andy Bierman 774 YumaWorks 776 Email: andy@yumaworks.com