idnits 2.17.1 draft-unyte-netconf-udp-pub-channel-01.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 date (March 27, 2020) is 1484 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) -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 884 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4347 (Obsoleted by RFC 6347) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5246 (Obsoleted by RFC 8446) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6347 (Obsoleted by RFC 9147) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7049 (Obsoleted by RFC 8949) == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-ietf-netconf-https-notif-02 Summary: 4 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 NETCONF G. Zheng 3 Internet-Draft T. Zhou 4 Intended status: Standards Track Huawei 5 Expires: September 28, 2020 A. Clemm 6 Futurewei 7 T. Graf 8 Swisscom 9 P. Francois 10 INSA-Lyon 11 P. Lucente 12 NTT 13 March 27, 2020 15 UDP based Publication Channel for Streaming Telemetry 16 draft-unyte-netconf-udp-pub-channel-01 18 Abstract 20 This document describes a UDP-based publication channel for streaming 21 telemetry use to collect data from devices. A new shim header is 22 proposed to facilitate the distributed data collection mechanism 23 which directly pushes data from line cards to the collector. Because 24 of the lightweight UDP encapsulation, higher frequency and better 25 transit performance can be achieved. 27 Requirements Language 29 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 30 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 31 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 33 Status of This Memo 35 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 36 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 38 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 39 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 40 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 41 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 43 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 44 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 45 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 46 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 48 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 28, 2020. 50 Copyright Notice 52 Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 53 document authors. All rights reserved. 55 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 56 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 57 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 58 publication of this document. Please review these documents 59 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 60 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 61 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 62 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 63 described in the Simplified BSD License. 65 Table of Contents 67 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 68 2. Terminologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 3. Transport Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 70 3.1. Dynamic Subscription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 71 3.2. Configured Subscription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 72 4. UDP Transport for Publication Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 73 4.1. Design Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 74 4.2. Data Format of the UPC Message Header . . . . . . . . . . 7 75 4.3. Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 76 4.3.1. Fragmentation Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 77 4.4. Data Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 78 5. Using DTLS to Secure UPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 79 5.1. Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 80 5.2. Port Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 81 5.3. DTLS Session Initiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 82 5.4. Sending Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 83 5.5. Closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 84 6. Congestion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 85 7. A YANG Data Model for Management of UPC . . . . . . . . . . . 13 86 8. YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 87 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 88 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 89 11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 90 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 91 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 92 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 93 12.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 94 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 96 1. Introduction 98 Streaming telemetry refers to sending a continuous stream of 99 operational data from a device to a remote receiver. This provides 100 an ability to monitor a network from remote and to provide network 101 analytics. Devices generate telemetry data and push that data to a 102 collector for further analysis. By streaming the data, much better 103 performance, finer-grained sampling, monitoring accuracy, and 104 bandwidth utilization can be achieved than with polling-based 105 alternatives. 107 Sub-Notif [RFC8639] defines a mechanism that allows a collector to 108 subscribe to updates of YANG-defined data that is maintained in a 109 YANG [RFC7950] datastore. The mechanism separates the management and 110 control of subscriptions from the transport that is used to actually 111 stream and deliver the data. Three transports, NETCONF transport 112 [RFC8640], RESTCONF transport [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf-notif] and 113 HTTPS transport [I-D.ietf-netconf-https-notif], have been defined so 114 far for the notification messages. 116 While powerful in its features and general in its architecture, in 117 its current form the mechanism needs to be extended to stream 118 telemetry data at high velocity from devices that feature a 119 distributed architecture. The transports that have been defined so 120 far, NETCONF and HTTP, are ultimately based on TCP and lack the 121 efficiency needed to stream data continuously at high velocity. A 122 lighter-weight, more efficient transport, e.g. a transport based on 123 UDP is needed. 125 o Firstly, data collector will suffer a lot of TCP connections from, 126 for example, many line cards equipped on different devices. 128 o Secondly, as no connection state needs to be maintained, UDP 129 encapsulation can be easily implemented by hardware which will 130 further improve the performance. 132 o Thirdly, because of the lightweight UDP encapsulation, higher 133 frequency and better transit performance can be achieved, which is 134 important for streaming telemetry. 136 This document specifies a higher-performance transport option for 137 Sub-Notif that leverages UDP. Specifically, it facilitates the 138 distributed data collection mechanism described in 139 [I-D.zhou-netconf-multi-stream-originators]. In the case of data 140 originating from multiple line cards, the centralized design requires 141 data to be internally forwarded from those line cards to the push 142 server, presumably on a main board, which then combines the 143 individual data items into a single consolidated stream. The 144 centralized data collection mechanism can result in a performance 145 bottleneck, especially when large amounts of data are involved. What 146 is needed instead is the support for a distributed mechanism that 147 allows to directly push multiple individual substreams, e.g. one from 148 each line card, without needing to first pass them through an 149 additional processing stage for internal consolidation, but still 150 allowing those substreams to be managed and controlled via a single 151 subscription. The proposed UDP based Publication Channel (UPC) 152 natively supports the distributed data collection mechanism. 154 The transport described in this document can be used for transmitting 155 notification messages over both IPv4 and IPv6 [RFC8200]. 157 While this document will focus on the data publication channel, the 158 subscription can be used in conjunction with the mechanism proposed 159 in [RFC8639] with extensions 160 [I-D.zhou-netconf-multi-stream-originators]. 162 2. Terminologies 164 Streaming Telemetry: refers to sending a continuous stream of 165 operational data from a device to a remote receiver. This provides 166 an ability to monitor a network from remote and to provide network 167 analytics. 169 3. Transport Mechanisms 171 For a complete pub-sub mechanism, this section will describe how the 172 UPC is used to interact with the Subscription Channel relying on 173 NETCONF or RESTCONF. 175 3.1. Dynamic Subscription 177 Dynamic subscriptions for Sub-Notif are configured and managed via 178 signaling messages transported over NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF 179 [RFC8040]. The Sub-Notif defined RPCs which are sent and responded 180 via the Subscription Channel (a), between the Subscriber and the 181 Subscription Server of the Publisher. In this case, only one 182 Receiver is associated with the Subscriber. In the Publisher, there 183 may be multiple data originators. Notification messages are pushed 184 on separate channels (b), from different data originators to the 185 Receiver. 187 +--------------+ +--------------+ 188 | Collector | | Publisher | 189 | | | | 190 | (a) (b) | | (a) (b) | 191 +--+------+----+ +--+-------+---+ 192 | | | | 193 | | RPC:establish-subscription | | 194 +----------------------------------------> | 195 | | RPC Reply: OK | | 196 <----------------------------------------+ | 197 | | UPC:notifications | | 198 | <-----------------------------------------+ 199 | | | | 200 | | RPC:modify-subscription | | 201 +----------------------------------------> | 202 | | RPC Reply: OK | | 203 <----------------------------------------+ | 204 | | UPC:notifications | | 205 | <-----------------------------------------+ 206 | | | | 207 | | RPC:delete-subscription | | 208 +----------------------------------------> | 209 | | RPC Reply: OK | | 210 <----------------------------------------+ | 211 | | | | 212 | | | | 213 + + + + 215 Fig. 2 Call Flow For Dynamic Subscription 217 In the case of dynamic subscription, the Receiver and the Subscriber 218 SHOULD be colocated. So UPC can use the source IP address of the 219 Subscription Channel as it's destination IP address. The Receiver 220 MUST support listening messages at the IANA-assigned PORT-X or PORT- 221 Y, but MAY be configured to listen at a different port. 223 For dynamic subscription, the Publication Channels MUST share fate 224 with the subscription session. In other words, when the delete- 225 subscription is received or the subscription session is broken, all 226 the associated Publication Channels MUST be closed. 228 3.2. Configured Subscription 230 For a Configured Subscription, there is no guarantee that the 231 Subscriber is currently in place with the associated Receiver(s). As 232 defined in Sub-Notif, the subscription configuration contains the 233 location information of all the receivers, including the IP address 234 and the port number. So that the data originator can actively send 235 generated messages to the corresponding Receivers via the UPC. 237 The first message MUST be a separate subscription-started 238 notification to indicate the Receiver that the pushing is started. 239 Then, the notifications can be sent immediately without any wait. 241 All the subscription state notifications, as defined in [RFC8639], 242 MUST be encapsulated to be separated notification messages. 244 +--------------+ +--------------+ 245 | Collector | | Publisher | 246 | | | | 247 | (a) (b) | | (a) (b) | 248 +--+------+----+ +--+-------+---+ 249 | | | | 250 | | Capability Exchange | | 251 <----------------------------------------> | 252 | | | | 253 | | Edit config(create) | | 254 +----------------------------------------> | 255 | | RPC Reply: OK | | 256 <----------------------------------------+ | 257 | | UPC:subscription started | | 258 | <-----------------------------------------+ 259 | | UPC:notifications | | 260 | <-----------------------------------------+ 261 | | | | 262 | | Edit config(delete) | | 263 +----------------------------------------> | 264 | | RPC Reply: OK | | 265 <----------------------------------------+ | 266 | | UPC:subscription terminated | | 267 | <-----------------------------------------+ 268 | | | | 269 | | | | 270 + + + + 272 Fig. 3 Call Flow For Configured Subscription 274 4. UDP Transport for Publication Channel 276 4.1. Design Overview 278 As specified in Sub-Notif, the telemetry data is encapsulated in the 279 NETCONF/RESTCONF notification message, which is then encapsulated and 280 carried in the transport protocols, e.g. TLS, HTTP2. The following 281 figure shows the overview of the typical UPC message structure. 283 o The Message Header contains information that can facilitate the 284 message transmission before de-serializing the notification 285 message. 287 o Notification Message is the encoded content that the publication 288 channel transports. The common encoding method includes GPB [1], 289 CBOR [RFC7049], JSON, and XML. 290 [I-D.ietf-netconf-notification-messages] describes the structure 291 of the Notification Message for both single notification and 292 multiple bundled notifications. 294 +-------+ +--------------+ +--------------+ 295 | UDP | | Message | | Notification | 296 | | | Header | | Message | 297 +-------+ +--------------+ +--------------+ 299 Fig. 4 UDP Publication Message Overview 301 4.2. Data Format of the UPC Message Header 303 The UPC Message Header contains information that can facilitate the 304 message transmission before de-serializing the notification message. 305 The data format is shown as follows. 307 0 1 2 3 308 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 309 +-------+---------------+-------+-------------------------------+ 310 | Vers. | Header Length | ET | Message Length | 311 +-------+---------------+-------+-------------------------------+ 312 | Message-Generator-ID | 313 +---------------------------------------------------------------+ 314 | Message ID | 315 +---------------------------------------------------------------+ 316 ~ Options ~ 317 +---------------------------------------------------------------+ 319 Fig. 3 UPC Message Header Format 321 The Message Header contains the following field: 323 o Vers.: represents the PDU (Protocol Data Unit) encoding version. 324 The initial version value is 0. 326 o Header Length: is the length of the message header, measured in 327 octets, including both the fixed header and the options. 329 o ET: is a 4 bits identifier to indicate the encoding type used for 330 the Notification Message. 16 types of encoding can be expressed: 332 * 0: GPB; 334 * 1: CBOR; 336 * 2: JSON; 338 * 3: XML; 340 * others are reserved. 342 o Message Length: is the total length of the message within one UDP 343 datagram, measured in octets, including the message header. 345 o Message-Generator-ID: is a 32-bit identifier of the process which 346 created the notification message. This allows disambiguation of 347 an information source, such as the identification of different 348 line cards sending the notification messages. The source IP 349 address of the UDP datagrams SHOULD NOT be interpreted as the 350 identifier for the host that originated the UPC message. The 351 entity sending the UPC message could be merely a relay. 353 o The Message ID is generated continuously by the message generator. 354 Different subscribers share the same Message ID sequence. 356 o Options: is a variable-length field in the TLV format. When the 357 Header Length is larger than 12 octets, which is the length of the 358 fixed header, Options TLVs follows directly after the fixed 359 message header(i.e., Message ID). The details of the Options are 360 described in the respective sections below. 362 4.3. Options 364 All the options are defined with the following format: 366 0 1 2 3 367 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 368 +---------------+---------------+ 369 | Type | Length | 370 +---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+ 371 ~ Value ~ 372 +---------------------------------------------------------------+ 374 Fig. 5 Fragmentation Option Format 376 o Type: 1 octet of the value Type; 377 o Length: 1 octet of the TLV Length, including the Type and Length; 379 o Value: 0 or more octets of TLV Value. 381 4.3.1. Fragmentation Option 383 UDP palyload has a theoretical length limitation to 65535. Other 384 encapsulation headers will make the actual payload even shorter. 385 Binary encodings like GPB and CBOR can make the message compact. So 386 that the message can be encapsulated within one UDP packet, and 387 fragmentation will not easily happen. However, text encodings like 388 JSON and XML can easily make the message exceed the UDP length 389 limitation. 391 On the other hand, IPv4 and IPv6 will fragment when the IP packet 392 exceeds the Maximum Transmission Unit(MTU). Fragmented IP packets 393 have risk to be dropped by the intermediate network devices. 395 UPC provides a configurable max-fragmentation-size to control the 396 size of each message. 398 0 1 2 3 399 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 400 +---------------+---------------+ 401 | Type | Length | 402 +---------------+---------------+-----------------------------+-+ 403 | Fragment Number |L| 404 +-------------------------------------------------------------+-+ 406 Fig. 6 Fragmentation Option Format 408 The Fragmentation Option is available when the message content is 409 fragmented into multiple pieces. Different fragments of one message 410 share the same Message ID. This option contains: 412 Type: indicates Fragmentation Option. The Type value is to be 413 asigned. 415 Length: is a fixed value of 6 octets. 417 Fragment Number: indicates the sequence number of the current 418 fragment. 420 L: is a flag to indicate whether the current fragment is the last 421 one. When 0 is set, current fragment is not the last one, hence more 422 fragments are expected. When 1 is set, current fragment is the last 423 one. 425 4.4. Data Encoding 427 Subscribed data can be encoded in GPB, CBOR, XML or JSON format. It 428 is conceivable that additional encodings may be supported as options 429 in the future. This can be accomplished by augmenting the 430 subscription data model with additional identity statements used to 431 refer to requested encodings. 433 Implementation may support different encoding method per 434 subscription. When bundled notifications is supported between the 435 publisher and the receiver, only subscribed notifications with the 436 same encoding can be bundled as one message. 438 5. Using DTLS to Secure UPC 440 The Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) protocol [RFC6347] is 441 designed to meet the requirements of applications that need secure 442 datagram transport. 444 DTLS can be used as a secure transport to counter all the primary 445 threats to UDP based Publication Channel: 447 o Confidentiality to counter disclosure of the message contents. 449 o Integrity checking to counter modifications to a message on a hop- 450 by-hop basis. 452 o Server or mutual authentication to counter masquerade. 454 In addition, DTLS also provides: 456 o A cookie exchange mechanism during handshake to counter Denial of 457 Service attacks. 459 o A sequence number in the header to counter replay attacks. 461 5.1. Transport 463 As shown in Figure 7, the DTLS is layered next to the UDP transport 464 is to provide reusable security and authentication functions over 465 UDP. No DTLS extension is required to enable UPC messages over DTLS. 467 +-----------------------------+ 468 | UPC Message | 469 +-----------------------------+ 470 | DTLS | 471 +-----------------------------+ 472 | UDP | 473 +-----------------------------+ 474 | IP | 475 +-----------------------------+ 477 Fig. 7: Protocol Stack for DTLS secured UPC 479 The application implementer will map a unique combination of the 480 remote address, remote port number, local address, and local port 481 number to a session. 483 Each UPC message is delivered by the DTLS record protocol, which 484 assigns a sequence number to each DTLS record. Although the DTLS 485 implementer may adopt a queue mechanism to resolve reordering, it may 486 not assure that all the messages are delivered in order when mapping 487 on the UDP transport. 489 Since UDP is an unreliable transport, with DTLS, an originator or 490 relay may not realize that a collector has gone down or lost its DTLS 491 connection state, so messages may be lost. 493 The DTLS record has its own sequence number, the encryption and 494 decryption will done by DTLS layer, UPC Message layer will not 495 concern this. 497 5.2. Port Assignment 499 The Publisher is always a DTLS client, and the Receiver is always a 500 DTLS server. The Receivers MUST support accepting UPC Messages on 501 the UDP port PORT-Y, but MAY be configurable to listen on a different 502 port. The Publisher MUST support sending UPC messages to the UDP 503 port PORT-Y, but MAY be configurable to send messages to a different 504 port. The Publisher MAY use any source UDP port for transmitting 505 messages. 507 5.3. DTLS Session Initiation 509 The Publisher initiates a DTLS connection by sending a DTLS Client 510 Hello to the Receiver. Implementations MUST support the denial of 511 service countermeasures defined by DTLS. When these countermeasures 512 are used, the Receiver responds with a DTLS Hello Verify Request 513 containing a cookie. The Publisher responds with a DTLS Client Hello 514 containing the received cookie, which initiates the DTLS handshake. 516 The Publisher MUST NOT send any UPC messages before the DTLS 517 handshake has successfully completed. 519 Implementations MUST support DTLS 1.0 [RFC4347] and MUST support the 520 mandatory to implement cipher suite, which is 521 TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA [RFC5246] as specified in DTLS 1.0. If 522 additional cipher suites are supported, then implementations MUST NOT 523 negotiate a cipher suite that employs NULL integrity or 524 authentication algorithms. 526 Where privacy is REQUIRED, then implementations must either negotiate 527 a cipher suite that employs a non-NULL encryption algorithm or else 528 achieve privacy by other means, such as a physically secured network. 530 5.4. Sending Data 532 All UPC messages MUST be sent as DTLS "application_data". It is 533 possible that multiple UPC messages be contained in one DTLS record, 534 or that a publication message be transferred in multiple DTLS 535 records. The application data is defined with the following ABNF 536 [RFC5234] expression: 538 APPLICATION-DATA = 1*UPC-FRAME 540 UPC-FRAME = MSG-LEN SP UPC-MSG 542 MSG-LEN = NONZERO-DIGIT *DIGIT 544 SP = %d32 546 NONZERO-DIGIT = %d49-57 548 DIGIT = %d48 / NONZERO-DIGIT 550 UPC-MSG is defined in section 5.2. 552 5.5. Closure 554 A Publisher MUST close the associated DTLS connection if the 555 connection is not expected to deliver any UPC Messages later. It 556 MUST send a DTLS close_notify alert before closing the connection. A 557 Publisher (DTLS client) MAY choose to not wait for the Receiver's 558 close_notify alert and simply close the DTLS connection. Once the 559 Receiver gets a close_notify from the Publisher, it MUST reply with a 560 close_notify. 562 When no data is received from a DTLS connection for a long time 563 (where the application decides what "long" means), Receiver MAY close 564 the connection. The Receiver (DTLS server) MUST attempt to initiate 565 an exchange of close_notify alerts with the Publisher before closing 566 the connection. Receivers that are unprepared to receive any more 567 data MAY close the connection after sending the close_notify alert. 569 Although closure alerts are a component of TLS and so of DTLS, they, 570 like all alerts, are not retransmitted by DTLS and so may be lost 571 over an unreliable network. 573 6. Congestion Control 575 Congestion control mechanisms that respond to congestion by reducing 576 traffic rates and establish a degree of fairness between flows that 577 share the same path are vital to the stable operation of the Internet 578 [RFC2914]. While efficient, UDP has no build-in congestion control 579 mechanism. Because streaming telemetry can generate unlimited 580 amounts of data, transferring this data over UDP is generally 581 problematic. It is not recommended to use the UDP based publication 582 channel over congestion-sensitive network paths. The only 583 environments where the UDP based publication channel may be used are 584 managed networks. The deployments require the network path has been 585 explicitly provisioned for the UDP based publication channel through 586 traffic engineering mechanisms, such as rate limiting or capacity 587 reservations. The UPC message contains continuous Message ID which 588 can be used to deduce the congestion based on the packet loss 589 detected by the collector. Hence the collector can notice the device 590 to use a lower exporting rate. The interaction to control the 591 exporting rate on the device is out of the scope of this document. 593 7. A YANG Data Model for Management of UPC 595 The YANG model defined in Section 9 has two leafs augmented into one 596 place of Sub-Notif [RFC8639], plus one identities. 598 module: ietf-upc-subscribed-notifications 599 augment /sn:subscriptions/sn:subscription/sn:receivers/sn:receiver: 600 +--rw address? inet:ip-address 601 +--rw port? inet:port-number 602 +--rw enable-fragmentation? boolean 603 +--rw max-fragmentation-size? uint32 605 8. YANG Module 607 file "ietf-upc-subscribed-notifications@2020-03-26.yang" 608 module ietf-upc-subscribed-notifications { 609 yang-version 1.1; 610 namespace 611 "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-upc-subscribed-notifications"; 613 prefix upcsn; 614 import ietf-subscribed-notifications { 615 prefix sn; 616 reference 617 "RFC 8639: Subscription to YANG Notifications"; 618 } 619 import ietf-inet-types { 620 prefix inet; 621 reference 622 "RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types"; 623 } 625 organization "IETF NETCONF (Network Configuration) Working Group"; 626 contact 627 "WG Web: 628 WG List: 630 Editor: Guangying Zheng 631 633 Editor: Tianran Zhou 634 636 Editor: Alexander Clemm 637 "; 639 description 640 "Defines UDP Publish Channel as a supported transport for subscribed 641 event notifications. 643 Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as authors 644 of the code. All rights reserved. 646 Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without 647 modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject to the license 648 terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License set forth in Section 649 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 650 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). 652 This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX; see the RFC 654 itself for full legal notices."; 656 revision 2020-03-26 { 657 description 658 "Initial version"; 659 reference 660 "RFC XXXX: UDP based Publication Channel for Streaming Telemetry"; 661 } 663 identity upc { 664 base sn:transport; 665 description 666 "UPC is used as transport for notification messages and state 667 change notifications."; 668 } 670 identity encode-cbor { 671 base sn:encoding; 672 description 673 "Encode data using CBOR as described in RFC 7049."; 674 reference 675 "RFC 7049: Concise Binary Object Representation"; 676 } 678 identity encode-gpb { 679 base sn:encoding; 680 description 681 "Encode data using GPB."; 682 } 684 grouping target-receiver { 685 description 686 "Provides a reusable description of a UPC target receiver."; 687 leaf address { 688 type inet:ip-address; 689 description 690 "IP address of target upc receiver, which can be IPv4 address or 691 IPV6 address."; 692 } 693 leaf port { 694 type inet:port-number; 695 description 696 "Port number of target UPC receiver, if not specify, system 697 should use default port number."; 698 } 700 leaf enable-fragmentation { 701 type boolean; 702 default false; 703 description 704 "The switch for the fragmentation feature. When disabled, the 705 publisher will not allow fragmentation for a very large data"; 706 } 707 leaf max-fragmentation-size { 708 when "../enable-fragmentation = true"; 709 type uint32; 710 description "UPC provides a configurable max-fragmentation-size 711 to control the size of each message."; 712 } 713 } 715 augment "/sn:subscriptions/sn:subscription/sn:receivers/sn:receiver" { 716 description 717 "This augmentation allows UPC specific parameters to be 718 exposed for a subscription."; 719 uses target-receiver; 720 } 721 } 722 724 9. IANA Considerations 726 This RFC requests that IANA assigns three UDP port numbers in the 727 "Registered Port Numbers" range with the service names "upc" and 728 "upc-dtls". These ports will be the default ports for the UDP based 729 Publication Channel for NETCONF and RESTCONF. Below is the 730 registration template following the rules in [RFC6335]. 732 Service Name: upc 734 Transport Protocol(s): UDP 736 Assignee: IESG 738 Contact: IETF Chair 740 Description: UDP based Publication Channel 742 Reference: RFC XXXX 744 Port Number: PORT-X 746 Service Name: upc-dtls 748 Transport Protocol(s): UDP 750 Assignee: IESG 752 Contact: IETF Chair 754 Description: UDP based Publication Channel (DTLS) 755 Reference: RFC XXXX 757 Port Number: PORT-Y 759 IANA is requested to assign a new URI from the IETF XML Registry 760 [RFC3688]. The following URI is suggested: 762 URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-upc-subscribed-notifications 763 Registrant Contact: The IESG. 764 XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace. 766 This document also requests a new YANG module name in the YANG Module 767 Names registry [RFC7950] with the following suggestion: 769 name: ietf-upc-subscribed-notifications 770 namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-upc-subscribed-notifications 771 prefix: upcsn 772 reference: RFC XXXX 774 10. Security Considerations 776 TBD 778 11. Acknowledgements 780 The authors of this documents would like to thank Eric Voit, Tim 781 Jenkins, and Huiyang Yang for the initial comments. 783 12. References 785 12.1. Normative References 787 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 788 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 789 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 790 . 792 [RFC2914] Floyd, S., "Congestion Control Principles", BCP 41, 793 RFC 2914, DOI 10.17487/RFC2914, September 2000, 794 . 796 [RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, 797 DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004, 798 . 800 [RFC4347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer 801 Security", RFC 4347, DOI 10.17487/RFC4347, April 2006, 802 . 804 [RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax 805 Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, 806 DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008, 807 . 809 [RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security 810 (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, 811 DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008, 812 . 814 [RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., 815 and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol 816 (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011, 817 . 819 [RFC6335] Cotton, M., Eggert, L., Touch, J., Westerlund, M., and S. 820 Cheshire, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) 821 Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and 822 Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", BCP 165, 823 RFC 6335, DOI 10.17487/RFC6335, August 2011, 824 . 826 [RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer 827 Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347, 828 January 2012, . 830 [RFC7049] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object 831 Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, DOI 10.17487/RFC7049, 832 October 2013, . 834 [RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language", 835 RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016, 836 . 838 [RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF 839 Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017, 840 . 842 [RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 843 (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, 844 DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, 845 . 847 [RFC8639] Voit, E., Clemm, A., Gonzalez Prieto, A., Nilsen-Nygaard, 848 E., and A. Tripathy, "Subscription to YANG Notifications", 849 RFC 8639, DOI 10.17487/RFC8639, September 2019, 850 . 852 [RFC8640] Voit, E., Clemm, A., Gonzalez Prieto, A., Nilsen-Nygaard, 853 E., and A. Tripathy, "Dynamic Subscription to YANG Events 854 and Datastores over NETCONF", RFC 8640, 855 DOI 10.17487/RFC8640, September 2019, 856 . 858 12.2. Informative References 860 [I-D.ietf-netconf-https-notif] 861 Jethanandani, M. and K. Watsen, "An HTTPS-based Transport 862 for Configured Subscriptions", draft-ietf-netconf-https- 863 notif-02 (work in progress), March 2020. 865 [I-D.ietf-netconf-notification-messages] 866 Voit, E., Jenkins, T., Birkholz, H., Bierman, A., and A. 867 Clemm, "Notification Message Headers and Bundles", draft- 868 ietf-netconf-notification-messages-08 (work in progress), 869 November 2019. 871 [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf-notif] 872 Voit, E., Rahman, R., Nilsen-Nygaard, E., Clemm, A., and 873 A. Bierman, "Dynamic subscription to YANG Events and 874 Datastores over RESTCONF", draft-ietf-netconf-restconf- 875 notif-15 (work in progress), June 2019. 877 [I-D.zhou-netconf-multi-stream-originators] 878 Zhou, T., Zheng, G., Voit, E., and A. Clemm, "Subscription 879 to Multiple Stream Originators", draft-zhou-netconf-multi- 880 stream-originators-10 (work in progress), November 2019. 882 12.3. URIs 884 [1] https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/ 886 Authors' Addresses 888 Guangying Zheng 889 Huawei 890 101 Yu-Hua-Tai Software Road 891 Nanjing, Jiangsu 892 China 894 Email: zhengguangying@huawei.com 895 Tianran Zhou 896 Huawei 897 156 Beiqing Rd., Haidian District 898 Beijing 899 China 901 Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com 903 Alexander Clemm 904 Futurewei 905 2330 Central Expressway 906 Santa Clara, California 907 USA 909 Email: alex@futurewei.com 911 Thomas Graf 912 Swisscom 913 Binzring 17 914 Zuerich 8045 915 Switzerland 917 Email: thomas.graf@swisscom.com 919 Pierre Francois 920 INSA-Lyon 921 Lyon 922 France 924 Email: pierre.francois@insa-lyon.fr 926 Paolo Lucente 927 NTT 928 Siriusdreef 70-72 929 Hoofddorp, WT 2132 930 NL 932 Email: paolo@ntt.net