idnits 2.17.1
draft-mahesh-netconf-persistent-00.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 doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC
2119 boilerplate text.
-- The document date (October 27, 2014) is 3469 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: 'RFC6243' is defined on line 164, 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 M. Jethanandani
3 Internet-Draft Ciena Corporation
4 Intended status: Standards Track October 27, 2014
5 Expires: April 30, 2015
7 NETCONF and persistent responses
8 draft-mahesh-netconf-persistent-00
10 Abstract
12 This document outlines a solution for NETCONF operations that might
13 be initiated with a single request but require multiple responses to
14 be received, with an ability to terminate the operation at any time.
16 Status of This Memo
18 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
19 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
21 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
22 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
23 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
24 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
26 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
27 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
28 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
29 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
31 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 30, 2015.
33 Copyright Notice
35 Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
36 document authors. All rights reserved.
38 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
39 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
40 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
41 publication of this document. Please review these documents
42 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
43 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
44 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
45 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
46 described in the Simplified BSD License.
48 1. Introduction
50 NETCONF [RFC6241] protocol is being positioned as a replacement for
51 Command Line Interface (CLI) and Simple Network Management Protocol
52 (SNMP). It is therefore expected that NETCONF will provide all the
53 capabilities that CLI and SNMP offer today and more.
55 One of the operations that CLI offers today is the ability to issue
56 an operation that might result in multiple responses being returned,
57 till such time that a terminaing condition is encountered or when the
58 operation is cancelled. An example of such an operation is when the
59 ping or a traceroute command is issued. In the former case, the
60 operation can continue sending responses back till it is cancelled,
61 while in the latter case there is usually a terminating condition
62 that stops the responses. NETCONF protocol as defined today sends a
63 single Remote Procedure Call (RPC) request and expects a single reply
64 to that request. The "persistent" operation defined above expects
65 multiple responses for a single request, till such time a terminating
66 condition is encountered.
68 This problem should not be confused with "bulk responses" where one
69 might be dealing with fragments of the same response. It is not
70 enough to have the server collect all the possible responses before
71 responding because in some cases there may not be a response,
72 indicating a failure and it will hold up the NETCONF session till a
73 response is received.
75 Section 2 suggest at least one solution to this problem.
77 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
78 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
79 document are to be interpreted as described in Key words for use in
80 RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels [RFC2119].
82 1.1. Terminology
84 +---------+------------------------------------+
85 | Acronym | Meaning |
86 +---------+------------------------------------+
87 | CLI | Command Line Interface |
88 | | |
89 | RPC | Remote Procedure Call |
90 | | |
91 | SNMP | Simple Network Management Protocol |
92 +---------+------------------------------------+
94 2. Solution
96 The proper solution should address the requirement of multiple
97 responses, fragmented responses and an ability to terminate the
98 request without terminating the NETCONF session. This can be best
99 achieved at the messaging layer in NETCONF, where a single request
100 can result in multiple responses being received and way to associate
101 the multiple responses with the original request.
103 One of the suggested solutions would look like this. A request goes
104 out with the operation to perform.
106
108
110 And a reply can come back with either a as it happens
111 today or a series of "linked replies" which would look like this.
113
116
118
121
123 with the last reply looking like this.
125
128
130 When the client wants to terminate the task, it issues an to terminate the condition. Note, NETCONF currently does not
132 support this particular operation.
134
136
138 And a reply comes back acknowledging that the task was terminated.
140
141
143
145 3. IANA Considerations
147 4. Security Considerations
149 5. Acknowledgements
151 6. References
153 6.1. Normative References
155 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
156 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
158 [RFC6241] Enns, R., Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., and A.
159 Bierman, "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC
160 6241, June 2011.
162 6.2. Informative References
164 [RFC6243] Bierman, A. and B. Lengyel, "With-defaults Capability for
165 NETCONF", RFC 6243, June 2011.
167 Author's Address
169 Mahesh Jethanandani
170 Ciena Corporation
171 3939 North 1st Street
172 San Jose, CA 95134
173 USA
175 Phone: 408.904.2160
176 Fax: 408.436.5582
177 Email: mjethanandani@gmail.com