I2RS working group S. Hares Internet-Draft Huawei Intended status: Standards Track A. Beirman Expires: November 6, 2016 YumaWorks A. Dass Ericsson May 5, 2016 I2RS protocol strawman draft-hares-i2rs-protocol-strawman-02.txt Abstract This strawman proposal for the I2RS protocol supports I2RS requirements for ephemeral data store, management data flows, and protocol security. It proposes additions to the NETCONF, RESTCONF, and YANG for these requirements. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." This Internet-Draft will expire on November 6, 2016. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 1] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Definitions Related to Ephemeral Configuration . . . . . . . 5 2.1. I2RS Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2. Operational State definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.3. Requirements language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Summary of Protocol Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1. Ephemeral Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1.1. Overview of Ephemeral Data Store . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1.2. I2RS Agent Caching of Ephemeral Data . . . . . . . . 9 3.1.3. Ephemeral Requirements for NETCONF/RESTCONF . . . . . 9 3.2. Protocol Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.2.1. Summary of Protocol Security Changes . . . . . . . . 14 3.2.2. I2RS Protocol Security Requirements . . . . . . . . . 16 3.3. Data Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.3.1. Data Flows From the I2RS Agent . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.3.2. Data Flows to I2RS agent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.3.3. OAM Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.3.4. IPFIX as Transport for traffic monitoring . . . . . . 20 3.3.5. Data Flow Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.4. Error handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.4.1. Normal validation checks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.4.2. No Validation for rpcs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4. Yang Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 5. Transport Protocol Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 5.1. Secure Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 5.2. Insecure Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 6. NETCONF protocol extensions for the ephemeral datastore . . . 27 6.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6.2. Dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6.3. Capability identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6.4. New Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6.5. Modification to existing operations . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6.5.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6.5.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6.5.3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 6.5.4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 6.5.5. and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 6.5.6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 6.5.7. and . . . . . . . . . 31 6.6. Interactions with Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 6.6.1. writable-running and candidate datastore . . . . . . 31 6.6.2. confirmed commmit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 6.6.3. rollback-on-error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 2] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 6.6.4. validate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 6.6.5. Distinct Startup Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 6.6.6. URL capability and XPATH capability . . . . . . . . . 33 7. RESTCONF protocol extensions for the ephemeral datastore . . 33 7.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 7.2. Dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 7.3. Capability identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 7.4. New Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 7.5. modification to data resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 7.6. Modification to existing operations . . . . . . . . . . . 34 7.6.1. OPTIONS changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 7.6.2. HEAD changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 7.6.3. GET changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 7.6.4. POST changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 7.6.5. PUT changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 7.6.6. PATCH changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 7.6.7. DELETE changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 7.6.8. Query Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 7.7. Interactions with Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 7.8. Interactions with Error Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 8. Simple Thermostat Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 8.1. YANG data model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 8.2. NETCONF Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 8.3. RESTCONF Initial Write . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 9. Simple Route Add . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 9.1. Portions of I2RS YANG data model . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 9.2. NETCONF Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 9.3. RESTCONF Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 12. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 13. Major Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 14.1. Normative References: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 1. Introduction This is a strawman proposal for the first version of the I2RS protocol. This draft is input to a NETCONF Working Group which standardizes extensions to the NETCONF and RESTCONF protocol, and to the NETMOD Working Group which standardizes extensions to YANG. The I2RS protocol is a higher level protocol comprised of a set of existing protocols which have been extended to work together to support a new interface to the routing system. The I2RS protocol is a "reuse" management protocol which creates new management protocols Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 3] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 by reusing existing protocols and extending these protocols for new uses. The first version of the I2RS protocols is comprised of extensions of the NETCONF [RFC6241] and RESTCONF [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf]. This strawman proposal supports I2RS requirements for ephemeral data store, management data flows, and protocol security. It proposes extensions to the following: o YANG 1.1 [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis], o NETCONF [RFC6241], o RESTCONF [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf] o Network Access Control Model [RFC6536] This protocol strawman utilizes the following existing proposed features for NETCONF and RESTCONF o Call Home [I-D.ietf-netconf-call-home], o Server Configuratino Module [I-D.ietf-netconf-server-model], o Module library [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-library], o Publication/Subscription via Push [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push], o Patch [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-patch], o syslog yang module (both [RFC5424] and [I-D.ietf-netmod-syslog-model] Section 2 provides definitions for terms in this document. Section 3 summarizes the changes to configuration data store, NETCONF, RESTCONF, and YANG. Section 4 details the changes to Yang. Section 5 summarizes the changes to transport support for RESTCONF and NETCONF. Section 6 details the changes to NETCONF. Section 7 details the changes to RESTCONF. Section 8 provides a simple example of I2RS protocol support for the ephemeral data store using a simple temperature model. Section 9 provides a simple example of the I2RS protocol with an ephemeral route updating an existing route. Section 10 provides information on the security considerations for the I2RS protocol. Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 4] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 2. Definitions Related to Ephemeral Configuration This section reviews definitions from I2RS architecture [I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture] and NETCONF operational state [I-D.ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs] before using these to construct a definition of the ephemeral data store. 2.1. I2RS Definitions The I2RS architecture [I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture] defines the following terms: ephemeral data: is data which does not persist across a reboot (software or hardware) or a power on/off condition. Ephemeral data can be configured data or data recorded from operations of the router. Ephemeral configuration data also has the property that a system cannot roll back to a previous ephemeral configuration state. local configuration: is the data on a routing system which does persist across a reboot (software or hardware) and a power on/off condition. Local configuration has the ability to roll back to a pervious configuration state. operator-applied policy: is a policy that an operator sets that determines how ephemeral configuration interacts with local configuration. One could consider these policy knobs that the operator sets to determine how the I2RS agent will act. Two policy knobs are necessary: * policy knob 1: Ephemeral configuration overwrites local configuration, * policy knob 2: Updated configuration overwrites ephemeral configuration Three possible setting for the above knobs are: Policy knob 1=false and policy knob 2=true: I2RS software is installed, but the operator does not want it to overwrite write any configuration variables. This might be valid if I2RS is only suppose to monitor data on this node. Policy knob 1=true and policy Knob 2=false: This is the normal case for the I2RS Agent where the ephemeral configuration data overwrites the local configuration data, and the ephemeral data stays even when the local configuration value changes. When the Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 5] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 ephemeral data is removed by the I2RS agent, the most recent local configuration value is set. Policy knob 1=true and Policy Knob 2=true: This case can occur if the ephemeral write is only suppose to take place until the next configuration cycle from a centralized system. Suppose the local configuration is get by the centralized system at 11:00pm each night. The I2RS Client writes temporary changes to the routing system via the I2RS agent ephemeral write. At 11:00pm, the local configuration update overwrite the ephemeral. The I2RS Agent notifies the I2RS Client which is tracking which of the ephemeral changes are being overwritten. 2.2. Operational State definitions The [I-D.ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs] defines the following to augment [RFC6244] to define how configuration state and operational state are different. Applied Configuration: This data represents the configuration state that the server is actually in. Derived State: This data represents information which is generated as part of the server's own interactions. Intended Configuration: This data is the configuration state that the network operator intends the server to be in, and that has been accepted by the server as valid configuration. Operational State: is the current state of the system as known to the various components of the system (e.g., control plane daemons, operating system kernels, line cards). The operational state includes both applied configuration and derived state. In each of these definitions, the "server" is the routing system. The [I-D.ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs] defines two actions that update the intended and the applied configuration: Asynchronous Configuration Operation: the server MUST update its intended configuration before replying to the client indicating whether the request will be processed. The server's applied configuration state is updated after the configuration change has been fully effected to all impacted components in the server. Synchronous Configuration Operation: the server MUST fully attempt to apply the configuration change to all impacted components in Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 6] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 the server, updating both its intended configuration and the applied configuration, before replying to the client. In a system without ephemeral data, the structure of the routing systems local intended configuration, applied configuration, and derived state is shown in figure 1. | Synchronous | or Asychronous updsate | =========================== | local | | intended configuration | =========================== || read/write -----------------||------------------- || read only +-------------||------+ | operational || | | state || | | =========||== | | | Applied | | config | | config | | true | ============= | ****************************** config | _____________ | false | | derived | | | | state | | | |___________| | +---------------------+ Figure 1 2.3. Requirements language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 3. Summary of Protocol Changes This section provides a summary of requirements for changes to support the I2RS protocol features of ephemeral data, a secure protocol, management data flows, and I2RS error handling. Management data flows may be large data flows for notifications, events, and protocol events. Management flows could also be tracing the routing system's operation or OAM operations. Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 7] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 3.1. Ephemeral Data This section provides an overview of the ephemeral data store, I2RS agent caching support, and ephemeral requirements (from [I-D.ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state]). 3.1.1. Overview of Ephemeral Data Store This section augments the [I-D.ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs] with definitions for ephemeral state. NETCONF provides the concept of a data store, but RESTCONF only defines the concept of a "context". The logical description of ephemeral additions to the NETCONF data store below still fits the general concepts of the RESTCONF context. This approach to the ephemeral datastore is two panes-of-glass model one pane of glass is the "local configuration" within the Intended configuration and the other pane of glass is the "ephemeral data". The two panes of glass are pressed together to create the intended configuration which then applied to the routing node and generates derived state as shown in figure 2. The applied configuration is the result of the the intent configuration (normal and ephemeral). Similarly, the derived data is a result of the applied configuration (normal and ephemeral). Therefore derived state may be defined in local configuration or ephemeral portions of a data model (or data models). The ephemeral data store has the following general qualities: 1. Ephemeral state is not unique to I2RS work. 2. The ephemeral datastore is never locked. 3. The ephemeral portion of the intended configuration, applied state, and derived state does not persist over a reboot, 4. an ephemeral node cannot roll-back to its previous value, 5. Since ephemeral data store is just data that does not presist over a reboot, then in theory any node or group of nodes in a YANG data model could be ephemeral. The YANG data module must indicate what portion of the data model (if any) is ephemeral. * A YANG data module could be all ephemeral (e.g. [I-D.ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model]) with no directly associated configuration models, Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 8] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 * A YANG model could be all ephemeral but associated with a configuration model (E.g. [I-D.hares-i2rs-bgp-dm], * or a single data node or data tree could be made ephemeral. 6. The management protocol (NETCONF/RESTCONF) needs to signal which poritons of a data model(node, tree, or data model) are ephemeral in the module library [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-library]. | Synchronous | or Asychronous updsate | ================================ | Local | Ephemeral |=====I2RS Agent | configuration | Confguration | |''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''| | Intended configuration | =============||================= || read/write -||------------------- || read only +-------------||-------------+ | operational || | | state || | | =========||========== | | | Local * ephemeral| | | | config * config | | config | | Applied config | | true | ===================== | **************************************** config | ______________________ | false | | local * ephemeral | | | | state * state | | | | derived state | | | |_____________________ | +----------------------------+ Figure 2 3.1.2. I2RS Agent Caching of Ephemeral Data I2RS does not support caching of ephemeral data the I2RS Agents. Future I2RS work may support caching of data in the I2RS Agents. 3.1.3. Ephemeral Requirements for NETCONF/RESTCONF [I-D.ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state] defines the following requirements for ephemeral datastore: Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 9] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 o Ephemeral-REQ-01: I2RS requires ephemeral state which does not persist across a reboot, o Ephemeral-REQ-02: Non-ephemeral state MUST NOT refer to ephemeral state for constraint purposes; it SHALL be considered a validation error if it does. o Ephemeral-REQ-03: Ephemeral state must be able to uitlize temporary operational state (eg. MPLS LSP-ID) as a constraint. o Ephemeral-REQ-04: Ephemeral state MAY refer to non-ephemeral state for purpose of implementing constraints. The designer of ephemeral state modules are advised that such constraints may impact the speed of processing ephemeral state commits and should avoid them when speed is essential. o Ephemeral-REQ-05: The ability to add on an object (or a hierarchy of objects) that have the propoerty of being ephemeral. o Ephemeral-REQ-06: YANG MUST have a way of indicating in a data model that nodes have the following properties: ephemera, writeable/nonwritable, status/configuration, and secure/non-secure transport. Proposed changes to Yang for I2RS protocol version 1 are: * i2rs-version 1; * ephemeral true; * ephemeral-validation nocheck; * protocol [RESTCONF | NETCONF] * protocol-transport [ssh, tls, tcp] * i2rs-transport-nonsecure ok; o Ephemeral-REQ-07: The minimal changes to NETCONF for I2RS protocol version 1 are: * protocol version support - "i2rs-version 1;". * ephemeral model scope allowed - ephemeral modules, mixed config module (ephemeral and config), mixed derived state (ephemeral and config). * multiple message support - "all or nothing" (see Ephemeral-REQ- 13). This mean ephemeral data stores only support "roll-back- Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 10] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 on-error" for messages, URL capability, and XPATH cpability in source or target. * pane of glass support - "single ephemeral only". * protocol support - "NETCONF" [RFC6241], "RESTCONF [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf], yang pub-sub push [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push], yang module library [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-library], call-home [I-D.ietf-netconf-call-home], and server modules [I-D.ietf-netconf-server-model] (server module must be augmented to support mutual authentication). * encoding support - XML or JSON, * transports protocols supported: "SSH","TLS","TCP" (non-secure) * mandatory transports supported: "TLS", "TCP" (non-secure) * ability to select insecure transport for portion of data model. * dependencies include: 1. Yang data models, sub-modules, or modules must be flagged with ephemeral data store flag, 2. Yang modules must support notification of write conflicts. 3. yang modules syntax changes described in section 3.4. 4. Yang modules must support the following NETCONF/RESTCONF features: 1. The yang module library feature [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-library], 2. Publication-Subscription model found in [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push] 3. Server initiated connection to a client [I-D.ietf-netconf-call-home] 4. data models to configure RESTCONF/NETCONF servers [I-D.ietf-netconf-server-model], * modified NETCONF operations for ephemeral are , , , , , , Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 11] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 * unsupported NETCONF operation for ephemeral are: and plus interactions with writable-running, candidate data store, confirmed commit, and distinct start-up. o Ephemeral-REQ-08: The minimal changes to RESTCONF for the I2RS protocol version 1 are: * I2rs protocol version support - "i2rs-version 1" * ephemeral model scope allowed - ephemeral modules, mixed config module (ephemeral and config), mixed derived state (ephemeral and config) * multiple message support - "all or nothing". This mean ephemeral data stores only support "roll-back-on-error" for messages, URL capability, and XPATH cpability in source or target. * pane of glass support - "single ephemeral only", * RESTCONF protocol features support required - "RESTCONF [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf], yang pub-sub push [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push], yang module library [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-library], call-home [I-D.ietf-netconf-call-home], and server modules [I-D.ietf-netconf-server-model] (server module must be augmented to support mutual authentication). * encoding support - XML or JSON, * transports protocols supported: "HTTP 1.1 over TLS" * mandatory transports supported: "TLS", TCP (non-secure) * ability to select transports data model is available. Insecure portions of data model must be able to selet an insecure transport. * dependencies are the following: + yang changes (see above) supported, + support notification of changes or write conflicts (see Ephemeral-REQ-09 to Ephemeral-REQ-12), + support I2RS publication-subscription requirements specified in [I-D.ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements] and implemented in [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push], Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 12] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 + yang patch feature specified in [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-patch], + yang module library specified in [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-library]. * modifications to context: Support ephemeral data in ephemeral data context that supports "edit-collision" features that include timestamp, Entity tag, and the ability to compare I2RS priorities (see Ephemeral-REQ-09 to Ephemeral-REQ-12). * modification to existing RESTCONF operations: + OPTIONS - provide indication if ephemeral is in data modules, + HEAD - be able to get HEAD of ephemeral module, config module, or the head of groups of ephemeral, or groups of config. + GET, POST, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, QUERY parameters - must be able to handle "context=ephemeral", + Ephemeral data modules must be able to support publication of notification or errors as event stream, and allow subscription to portions of the event stream (see [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push]), o Ephemeral-REQ-09: I2RS clients MUST have identifiers and secondsary identifiers. I2RS Agents shall have identifiers. o Ephemeral-REQ-10: Data nodes MAY store I2RS client identity rather than the effective priority of the I2RS client writing the data at the time the data node is stored. I2RS Clients MUST have one priority at a TIME. I2RS Client's priority MAY change dyanmically as long as the requirements in Ephemeral-REQ-11, Ephemeral-REQ-12, and Ephemeral-REQ-13 are fulfilled. o Ephemeral-REQ-11: When a collision occurs as two I2RS clients are trying to write the same data node, this collision is considered an error and priorities are created to give a deterministic result. The I2RS client with the highest priority wins the ability to write the data. When there is a collision, a notification MUST be sent to the original client to give the original client a chance to deal with the issues surrounding the collision. The original client may need to fix their state. Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 13] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 o Ephemeral-REQ-12: The requirement to support multi-headed control is required to collisions and the priority resolution of collisions. Multi-headed control is not tied to ephemeral state. o Ephemeral-REQ-13: If two clients have the same priority, the I2RS architecture says the first one wins. The I2RS protocol has this requirement to prevent oscillation between clients. If the last one wins, you may oscillate. o Ephemeral-REQ-14: Section 7.9 of [I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture] states the I2RS architecture does not include multi-message atomicity and roll-back mechanisms. It also notes performing multiple operatinos in one or more messages can cause errors within the set of operations inmany ways. No multi-message commands SHOULD cause errors to be inserted in the I2RS ephemeral data store. (Editor's note: This section provides a complete list of the ephemeral data store requirements. This section may be removed as it is covered in [I-D.ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state], and only provided here for convenience of the reader.) 3.2. Protocol Security The I2RS protocol requires the ability to run over secure transport connections for the I2RS protocol to run over. Each secure transport must provide data confidentiality, data integrity, and replay prevention. NETCONF running over TLS or SSH over TCP, and RESTCONF running over HTTP 1.1 over TLS over TCP provide these features. However, the I2RS protocol requires extensions to this protocol security. This section provides an overview these changes. 3.2.1. Summary of Protocol Security Changes The I2RS protocol requires the following new security features: o mutual identification of I2RS Client and Agents via unique identifiers, o the I2RS client identifier to be associated with a priority and a secondary identity o data access (read/write) for each data model to be associated with I2RS client roles, o the ability to send some data over an insecure section as specified in a data model. Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 14] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 This section describes these new features. 3.2.1.1. Multiple secure transports The I2RS protocol MAY operate over a set of secure transports (1 to many transports) which provide data confidentiality, data integrity, and replay prevention. The key management that distributes keys MUST guarantee that only the entities having sufficient privileges can get the keys to encrypt/decrypt the sensitive data. NETCONF's operatoring over TLS or SSH protocols, both of which run over TCP, provide such a secure transport as does RESTCONF operating over HTTP 1.1 operating over TLS which runs over TCP also fits this description. 3.2.1.2. Mutual Identification I2RS protocol security requires mutual identification of I2RS client and agent via a unique identifier. The identity of each I2RS client must be represented by at least one unique I2RS client identifier, and the identity of an I2RS Agent must be represented by at least one unique I2RS agent identifier. The I2RS protocol must perform mutual identification of the I2RS client and the I2RS agent. The I2RS client-agent security association is valid for a single transport session or a set of parallel transport sessions. The I2RS client- agent security association does not need to have an active transport session to remain active. The I2RS agent and client unique identifiers are created and distributed outside the I2RS protocol. 3.2.1.3. I2RS Client has Identifier + Priority + Secondary Identifier Each I2RS client identifier will have one priority and one secondary identifier during a particular I2RS transaction (read/write sequence), but the priority and the secondary identity associated with a I2RS client identity may change during a I2RS client-agent association. 3.2.1.4. I2RS Role Based Access Certain data within routing elements is sensitive and read/write operations on such data SHOULD be controlled as to which I2RS client can access the data for read/write based on the I2RS client's roles in order to protect its confidentiality. A I2RS Client's role describe which data models and which data within those data models the I2RS client can have read access, write access, or both (read/ write). Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 15] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 3.2.1.5. Insecure Transport An I2RS data model with ephemeral state MAY require the passage of I2RS data will require the some data to be be sent from the I2RS agent to a I2RS client via an insecure transport. Examples of this transport could be the I2RS agent agent opening up a TCP connection to an I2RS Client via TCP. The yang data model specifying this MUST indicate what data is able to be passed over an insecure transport connection. Insecure transport must still support traceability and publication/subscription of the insecure data. 3.2.2. I2RS Protocol Security Requirements [I-D.ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements] specifies the following requirements: o SEC-REQ-01: All I2RS clients and I2RS agents MUST have an identity, and at least one unique identifier that uniquely identifies each party in the I2RS protocol context. o SEC-REQ-02: The I2RS protocol MUST utilize these identifiers for mutual identification of the I2RS client and I2RS agent. o SEC-REQ-03: An I2RS agent, upon receiving an I2RS message from a I2RS client, MUST confirm that the I2RS client has a valid identifier. o SEC-REQ-04: The I2RS client, upon receiving an I2RS message from an I2RS agent, MUST confirm the I2RS agent has a valid identifier. o SEC-REQ-05: Identifier distribution and the loading of these identifiers into I2RS agent and I2RS Client SHOULD occur outside the I2RS protocol. o SEC-REQ-06: The I2RS protocol SHOULD assume some mechanism (IETF or private) will distribute or load identifiers so that the I2RS client/agent has these identifiers prior to the I2RS protocol establishing a connection between I2RS client and I2RS agent. o SEC-REQ-07: Each Identifier MUST have just one priority. o SEC-REQ-08: Each Identifier is associated with one secondary identifier during a particular I2RS transaction (e.g. read/write sequence), but the secondary identifier may vary during the time a connection between the I2RS client and I2RS agent is active. Since a single I2RS client may be use by multiple applications, the secondary identifier may vary as the I2RS client is utilize by Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 16] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 different application each of whom have a unique secondary identity and identifier. o SEC-REQ-09: The I2RS protocol MUST be able to transfer data over a secure transport and optionally MAY be able to transfer data over a non-secure transport. A secure transport MUST provide data confidentiality, data integrity, and replay prevention. o SEC-REQ-10: A secure transport MUST be associated with a key management solution that can guarantee that only the entities having sufficient privileges can get the keys to encrypt/decrypt the sensitive data. Per BCP107 [RFC4107] this key management system SHOULD be automatic, but MAY be manual in the following scenarios: * a) The environment has limited bandwidth or high round-trip times. * b) The information being protected has low value. * c) The total volume of traffic over the entire lifetime of the long-term session key will be very low. * d) The scale of the deployment is limited. o SEC-REQ-11: The I2RS protocol MUST be able to support multiple secure transport sessions providing protocol and data communication between an I2RS Agent and an I2RS client. However, a single I2RS Agent to I2RS client connection MAY elect to use a single secure transport session or a single non-secure transport session. o SEC-REQ-12: The I2RS Client and I2RS Agent protocol SHOULD implement mechanisms that mitigate DoS attacks. o SEC-REQ-13: In a critical infrastructure, certain data within routing elements is sensitive and read/write operations on such data SHOULD be controlled in order to protect its confidentiality. To achieve this, access control to sensitive data needs to be provided, and the confidentiality protection on such data during transportation needs to be enforced. o SEC-REQ-14: An integrity protection mechanism for I2RS SHOULD be able to ensure the following: 1. the data being protected is not modified without detection during its transportation, Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 17] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 2. the data is actually from where it is expected to come from, and 3. the data is not repeated from some earlier interaction of the protocol. (That is, when both confidentiality and integrity of data is properly protected, it is possible to ensure that encrypted data is not modified or replayed without detection.) o SEC-REQ-15: The integrity that the message data is not repeated means that I2RS client to I2RS agent transport SHOULD protect against replay attack o SEC-REQ-16: The I2RS message traceability and notification requirements requirements found in [I-D.ietf-i2rs-traceability] and [I-D.ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements] SHOULD be supported in communication channel that is non-secure to trace or notify about potential security issues. o SEC-REQ-17: The rules around what role is permitted to access and manipulate what information plus a secure transport (which protects the data in transit) SHOULD ensure that data of any level of sensitivity is reasonably protected from being observed by those without permission to view it, so that privacy requirements are met. o SEC-REQ-18: Role security MUST work when multiple transport connections are being used between the I2RS client and I2RS agent as the I2RS architecture [I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture] states. These transport message streams may start/stop without affecting the existence of the client/agent data exchange. TCP supports a single stream of data. SCTP [RFC4960] provides security for multiple streams plus end-to-end transport of data. o SEC-REQ-19: I2RS clients MAY be used by multiple applications to configure routing via I2RS agents, receive status reports, turn on the I2RS audit stream, or turn on I2RS traceability. Application software using I2RS client functions may host multiple secure identities, but each connection will use only one identifier with one priority. Therefore, the security of each I2RS Client to I2RS Agent connection is unique. o Sec-REQ-20: If an I2RS agents or an I2RS client is tightly correlated with a person, then the I2RS protocol and data models should provide additional security that protects the person's privacy. Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 18] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 (Editor's note: Since [I-D.ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements] specifies these requirements, this section may be dropped. It is included in this version for the convenience of the reader.) 3.3. Data Flow The data flow requirements are in [I-D.hares-i2rs-dataflow-req]. Large amounts of data can flow from the I2RS agent to the I2RS client, or from the I2RS client to the I2RS Agent. OAM functions in a router can require large data flows plus system resources (cpu, memory, data storage). Future versions of the I2RS protocol (after protocol version 1) should be able to support IPFIX protocol as one of ways an I2RS Agent send data. This section describes the changes to NETCONF/RESTCONF to support these new features. Data flow requirements specify that the transports used between an I2RS client and I2RS agent be negotiated. This negotiation between I2RS client and I2RS agent can be simple. The I2RS client could query the I2RS Agent over a mandatory protocol (E.g. NETCONF over TLS over TCP on standard port) for other mandatory parameters for I2RS Client can use to communicate or I2RS Agent outbound communication via call-home ([I-D.ietf-netconf-call-home]. The I2RS Data flow requirements specify that the following should be able to be negotiated: o I2RS protocol encodings (XML or JSON) (I2RS-DF-REQ-02), o secure transports from mandatory list (I2RS-DF-REQ-03), o alternate transports during outages or attacks (I2RS-DF-REQ-04) with different resource contraints (I2RS-DF-REQ-06) o ports the secure transports or alternate transports use (I2RS-DF- REQ-06), o insecure transports from mandatory list based on the requirements of supported yang data models (I2RS-DF-REQ-04, I2RS-DF-REQ-09), 3.3.1. Data Flows From the I2RS Agent Large data flows can be required by the I2RS agent to publish large data for protocol state, virtual topologies, events, and notifications from a routing system. [I-D.ietf-i2rs-pub-sub-requirements] specify the I2RS requirements for publication of large data flows from the I2RS Agent via a publication/subscription (aka pub-sub) mechanism. The pub-sub Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 19] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 mechanisms has been specified for the "push" service in [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push]. Large data flows can also be required to trace the actions of a routing system. These requirements are listed in the [I-D.ietf-i2rs-traceability]. These traceability requirements specify mandatory fields in the trace log including an end of message marker for a record plus handling of the trace logs. This handling includes creation of trace logs, limits on trace logs, trace log rotation, and trace log retrieval by syslog [RFC5424], the pub-sub mechanism or a large data push. This large data push can be a pull in a large write. Large data flows from the I2RS client also mean that some of the data flows from the I2RS Agent may be prioritized over other data flows (I2RS-DF-REQ-07). This priorization will be based on what the data is, what the operator-applied policy knobs are for reporting, and the current resource constraints (I2RS-DF-REQ-05). 3.3.2. Data Flows to I2RS agent I2RS protocol may write specific data such as routes or flow-filters in a specific rpc actions. Writing large numbers of flow filters or routes may require a great deal of processing by the I2RS agent and the remote I2RS client. In some cases, I2RS client may the I2RS agent to trust the validation the I2RS client does for an rpc that writes a route (or routes) or a flow filter (or flow filters). This trust in the I2RS client validation speeds up the processing of the rpc at risk of invalid data (see I2RS-DF-REQ-01). 3.3.3. OAM Constraints OAM actions in a router may require extra processing, extra memory or data storage, or extra data flows to/from the I2RS agent. The OAM functions SHOULD not impact the routing functions so it cannot perform its main task of guiding the traffic. OAM functions must be able to be limited in terms of processing power, memory, data storage, or data flows to/from network (I2RS-DF-REQ-05). 3.3.4. IPFIX as Transport for traffic monitoring Due to the potentially large data flow the traffic measurment statistics generate, these statistics are best handled by publication techniques within NETCONF or a separate protocol such as IPFIX. In the future version of the I2RS protocol may desire to support a data stream outbound from the I2RS Agent to an I2RS client via the IPFIX protocol. Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 20] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 3.3.5. Data Flow Requirements The following are the data flow related requirements from [I-D.hares-i2rs-dataflow-req] for I2RS protocol version 1: I2RS-DF-REQ-01:No Validation RPCs I2RS generic interfaces in I2RS protocol independent modules or I2RS protocol dependent modules should be able to optionally create rpcs which store configuration data in the I2RS ephemeral data store without the normal configuration checking. The only thing check will be the syntax within the protocol packets. The data models allowing must provide a "no-checking flag" at the level the rpc stores the data. For example, the I2RS RIB could create a rpc for a route-add that allowed a flag that indicates validation status ("full or no- checks") I2RS-DF-REQ-02: XML and JSON: encoding formats SHOULD be supported in RESTCONF and NETCONF. I2RS-DF-REQ-03: Transport Protocols: MAY be negotiated between I2RS client and I2RS agent from a list of mandatory transports and optional transports. I2RS-DF-REQ-04: Insecure Transport: For a few select data models, the communication between the I2RS client and I2RS agent MAY run over an insecure transports. The I2RS client and I2RS agent should negotiate this insecure protocol, and the portion of the data model which can be sent via the insecure transport SHOULD be marked in YANG data model with "i2rs-insecure-transport ok". I2RS-DF-REQ-05: Resource Contraints on the I2RS Agent: should have the ability to constraints for OAM functions operating to limit CPU processing, data rate across a transport, the rate of publication of data in a subscription, and logging rates. I2RS-DF-REQ-06: Alternative Transport protocols or ports: The I2RS should be able to support an OAM actions that select alternate transports from available list of transports, and to support selection of alternate ports for these protocols. The alternate transports may have constraints specified for security levels, sizes of messages, or data flow priorities. I2RS-DF-REQ-07: Priorization of Data Flows: The I2RS Agent should be able to prioritize some of the management data flows in the I2RS Agent-I2RS Client data flows. This prioriziation can for data schedule for publication, data flows within a single transport, or data flows flows within a single transport, or between multiple data flow streams an I2RS Agent is sending. This Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 21] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 priorization may be for the data flows the I2RS Agent is receiving. DF-REQ-08: Yang indicates rpc with no validation: Yang MUST have a way to indicate rpc can write without validating data except for syntax of data because I2RS client has validated data. ephemeral-validation nocheck;" DF-REQ-09: Yang for Data sent over insecure transport : Yang MUST have a way to indicate in a data model that insecure transmission is ok. i2rs-transport-insecure ok;" (Editor's note: This section provides a complete list of the ephemeral data store requirements. This section may be removed as it is covered in [I-D.hares-i2rs-dataflow-req], and only provided here for convenience of the reader.) 3.4. Error handling This section reviews I2RS normal error handling and error handling for rpc with no validation checks. 3.4.1. Normal validation checks An I2RS agent validates an I2RS client's information by examining the following: o message syntax validation, o syntax validation for nodes of data model, o referential checks (leafref checks MUST clauses, and instance indentifier), o checks groups of data within a data model or groups of data across data models, o write access to data, o if write access and values already exist, if I2RS client write access is higher than existing priority. Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 22] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 3.4.1.1. Multiple I2RS Clients Write Same Node Multiple I2RS clients writing to the same variable is considered an "error condition" in the I2RS architecture [I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture], but an I2RS Agent must handle this error condition. Upon multiple I2RS clients writing, the ephemeral data store allows for priority pre-emption of the write operation. Priority pre-emption means each I2RS client of the ephemeral I2RS agent (netconf server) is associated with a priority. Priority pre- emption occurs when a I2RS client with a higher priority writes a node which has been written by an I2RS client (with the lower priority). At this point, the I2RS agent (netconf server) allows the write and provides a notification indication to the notification publication/subscription service. The I2RS protocol security requires that each I2RS client has a identity that has a unique identifier which has one priority and one secondary identitifer associated it during a write sequence (singel write or multiple group actions (see below). An I2RS client's unique identifier is distributed along with valid roles and a valid priority via exterior mechanisms (AAA, administrative interface) to the I2RS agent. The secondary identifier is passed as an opaque meta value in the I2RS Client write. The exterior mechanism may change the the valid roles and priority associated with an I2RS client's identifier. If a change occurs after the I2RS client data has written information, the I2RS agent must revaluate the writes associate with this I2RS client (including rpcs). The I2RS agent may schedule this evaluation, but it should provide the following notifications to the I2RS client: I2RS agent had received change of priority for I2RS client, I2RS agent is beginning reevaluation of writes or rpcs associated with the client due to priority change, I2RS agent has completed the revaluation due to priority change. 3.4.1.2. Multiple Action Messages An I2RS agent receiving multiple action to write data within a message from an I2RS client must validate the data and check to make sure this I2RS client has permission and priority to change all the values. If one of the values in the multiple action messages fails one of these tests, then error handling must decide what to do with the rest of the values. Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 23] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 Error handling in I2RS protocol version 1 simply remove all changed nodes and restores the previous values (all-or-nothing). In this case, the short term ephemeral values are kept until the message is processed. Error handling on writes of the ephemeral datastore could be different for nodes that are grouped versus orthogonal. Group nodes may need to be all changed or all removed (all-or-nothing). In contrast, writing orthogonal data nodes in the same data module or between data models need to be added or deleted in sync, but the writes do not have to be "all-or-nothing." 3.4.1.2.1. Grouping and Error handling Yang 1.1 provide the ability to group data in groupings, leafref lists, lists, and containers. Grouping of data within a model links to data that is logically associated with one another. Data models may logical group data across models. One example of such an association is the association of a static route with an interface. The concepts of groupings apply to both ephemeral and non-ephemeral nodes within a data model. 3.4.1.2.2. Why All-or-Nothing NETCONF does not support a mandated sequencing of edit functions or write functions. Without this mandated sequences, NETCONF cannot support partial edits. RESTCONF has a complete set of operations per message. The RESTCONF patch [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-patch] could support partial edit functions per messages. Since version 1 of I2RS protocol desires to support NETCONF and RESTCONF equally, the partial 3.4.1.2.3. Future Error Handling of Multiple Write Messages The [I-D.ietf-i2rs-architecture] specifies three types of error handling for a partial write operation of orthogonal data: o stop-on-error - means that the configuration process stops when a write to the configuration detects an error due to write conflict. o continue-on-error - means the configuration process continues when a write to the configuration detects an error due to write process, and error reports are transmitted back to the client writing the error. Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 24] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 o all-or-nothing - means that all of the configuration process is correctly applied or no configuration process is applied. (Inherent in all-or-nothing is the concept of checking all changes before applying.) Grouped data must only use "all-or-nothing." Future I2RS protocol versions will mandate "stop-on-error" handling or "continue-on-error" handling of multiple orthongal actions if a RESTCONF "patch" like facility is defined for NETCONF. 3.4.2. No Validation for rpcs In some circumstances, the I2RS client-agent communication may be considered almost perfect (99.999%), and the speed of update critical. In such cases, the operator may choose to have the I2RS client do all the validation within a group and between groups prior to downloading the data, and the I2RS agent to simply upload the data. The "no validation" feature requires: o operator-applied policy knob enabling this feature; o rpc in a data model with the yang "ephemeral-validation no-check;" 4. Yang Changes The data modules supporting the ephemeral datastore can use the Yang module library to describe their datastore. Figure 5 shows the module library data structure as found [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-library]. The Proposed changes to Yang for I2RS protocol version 1 are: o i2rs:version 1; o i2rs:transport-nonsecure ok; o i2rs:ephemeral-validation nocheck; o ephemeral true; o encoding [XML | JSON] o protocol [RESTCONF | NETCONF] o protocol-transport [ssh, tls, tcp] Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 25] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 o transport-ports [ports] Since ephemeral data store, encoding methods, protocols, protocol transport, and transport ports are features of the general protocols, these are not tagged with the "i2rs:" key word. 5. Transport Protocol Changes 5.1. Secure Protocols NETCONF's XML-based protocol ([RFC6241]) can operate over the following secure and encrypted transport layer protocols: SSH as defined in [RFC6242], TLS with X.509 authentication [RFC7589] RESTCONF's XML-based or JSON [RFC7158] data encodings of Yang functions are passed over HTTOS with (GET, POST, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, OPTIONS, and HEAD). 5.2. Insecure Protocol The ephemeral database may support insecure protocols for information which is ephemeral state which does not engage in configuration. The insecure protocol must be defined in conjunction with a data model or a subdata model. [RFC6536] with extensions supporting ephemeral, non-secure transport, and rpcs with no validation checks might look like: extension ephemeral { description "if present in a data definition statement then the object is considered OK for editing as ephemeral data." } extension non-secure-ok { description "if present in data definition statement then the object is considered OK for non-secure transport." } extension ephemeral-validation-nocheck { description "if present in rpc definition the data received in the rpc is considered to not require validation checks. } Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 26] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 6. NETCONF protocol extensions for the ephemeral datastore capability-name: ephemeral-datastore 6.1. Overview This capability defines the NETCONF protocol extensions for the ephemeral state. The ephemeral state has the following features: o the ephemeral data store is a part of the intended configuration datastore, applied configuration datastore, and the derived state store whose components are not survive a reboot. o The ephemeral capability is signalled as a capability of a leaf, grouping, a sub-module, or module that is stored as a feature of the module in the netconf yang module library ([I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-library]) used by Yang 1.1 and RESTCONF and NETCONF. o ephemeral data will be noted by an "ephemeral" statement in for a leaf, grouping, sub-module, or module. o The ephemeral datastore is never locked. o The ephemeral data store is one pane of glass that overrides the local configuration (which is considered one pane of glass) in the intended config based on operator-applied policy knobs (see section 2.1). o Ephemeral data can occur as part of protocol or protocol independent modules. However, ephemeral data nodes cannot have non-ephemeral data nodes within the subtree. Ephemeral sub- modules cannot have non-ephemeral data nodes within the module. Ephemeral modules cannot have non-ephemeral sub-modules or nodes within the module. Yang 1.1 [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis] augmented by ephemeral state must enforce this restriction. Similarly, the Yang mount schema [I-D.ietf-netmod-schema-mount] must check for this restriction. o Ephemeral writes should enforce the normal validation checks, priority pre-emption error handling if multiple I2RS clients write the same data, and "all-or-nothing" error handling for multiple actions in a write for data in groupings or orthogonal data (see section 3.4). The I2RS agent should send the I2RS client requesting write the notification of any type of error during the write process: failure of normal validation, priority pre-emption causing failure to write, multiple actions causing failure to sustain write (aka all-or-nothing roll-back). If the I2RS agent Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 27] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 allows a priority pre-emption of the write of data model value by an I2RS client (e.g. client 1) of another I2RS client (e.g. client 2), then the I2RS agent must send a notification of the I2RS pre- emption to the previous I2RS client (e.g. client 2). o Ephemeral writes as part of an rpc should allow the rpc to skip normal validation checks if data model specifies "ephemeral- validation nocheck;". The rpc which skips the normal validation MUST resolve the pre-emption write error handling for any data being written without normal validation check, and MUST only all the data within a grouping rather than orthogonal data. 6.2. Dependencies The following are the dependencies for ephemeral support: o The Yang definitions specified in section 6. o The Yang modules must support the event notification write and read errors as well as data model errors. o The following features must be supported by NETCONF * Call Home [I-D.ietf-netconf-call-home], * Server Configuratino Module [I-D.ietf-netconf-server-model], * Module library [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-library], * Publication/Subscription via Push [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push], * Patch [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-patch], * syslog yang module (both [RFC5424] and [I-D.ietf-netmod-syslog-model] 6.3. Capability identifier The ephemeral-datastore capability is identified by the following capability string: (capability uri) 6.4. New Operations None Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 28] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 6.5. Modification to existing operations The capability for :ephemeral-datastore modifies the target for existing operations. 6.5.1. The :ephemeral-datastore capability modifies the to accept the as a target for source, and allows the filters focused on a particular module, submodule, or node. The positive and negative responses remain the same. Example - retrieve users subtree from ephemeral database 6.5.2. The :ephemeral-datastore capability modifies the to accept the as a target for source with filters. The operations of merge, replace, create, delete, and remove are available, but each of these operations is modified by the priority write as follows: parameter is replaced by The current data is modified by the new data in a merge fashion only if existing data either does not exist, or is owned by a lower priority client. If any data is replaced, this event is passed to the notification function within the pub/sub and traceability. is replaced by for ephemeral datastore which replaces data if the existing data is owned by a lower priority client. If data any data is replaced, this event is passed to the notification function within pub/sub and Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 29] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 traceability for notification to the previous client. The success or failure of the event is passed to traceabilty. - the creation of the data node works as in [RFC6241] except that the success or failure is passed to pub/sub and traceability functions. - the deletion of the data node works as in [RFC6241] except event that the success or the error event is passed to the notiication services in the pub/sub and traceability functions. - the remove of the data node works as in [RFC6241] except that all results are forwarded to traceabilty. The existing parameters are modified as follows: - add a target of :emphemeral-datastore -allows only or - the I2RS agent agent supports only the a"all-or- nothing" equivalent to a "rollback-on-error" function. positive response - the is sent for a positive response within an . negative response - the is sent for a negative response within an . Note a negative respones may evoke a publication of an event. 6.5.3. Copy config allows for the complete replacement of all the ephemeral nodes within a target. The alternation is that source is the :ephemeral datastore with the filtering to match the datastore. The following existing parameters are modified as follows: - add a target of :emphemeral-datastore - the I2RS agent agent supports only the a"all-or- nothing" equivalent to a "rollback-on-error" function. positive response - the is sent for a positive response within an . negative response - the is sent for a negative response within an . Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 30] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 6.5.4. The delete will delete all ephemeral nodes out of a datastore. The target parameter must be changed to allow :ephemeral-datastore. and filters. 6.5.5. and Lock and unlock are not supported with a target of :ephemeral- datastore. 6.5.6. The is altered to allow a target of :ephemeral-datastore and with the filters. 6.5.7. and The close session is modified to take a target of :ephemeral- datastore, Since no locks are set, none should be released. The kill session is modified to take a target of "ephemeral- datastore. Since no locks are set, none should be released. 6.6. Interactions with Capabilities [RFC6241] defines NETCONF capabilities for writeable-running datastore, candidate config data store, confirmed commit, rollback- on-error, validate, distinct start-up, URL capability, and XPATH capability. I2RS ephemeral state does not impact the writeable- running data store or the candiate config datastore. 6.6.1. writable-running and candidate datastore The writeable-running and the candidate datastore cannot be used in conjunction with the ephemeral data store. Ephemeral database overlays an intended configuration, and does not impact the writable- running or candidate data store. 6.6.2. confirmed commmit Confirmed commit capability is not supported for the ephemeral datastore. Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 31] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 6.6.3. rollback-on-error The rollback-on-error when included with ephemeral state allows the error handling to be "all-or-nothing" (roll-back-on-error). 6.6.4. validate The validation function operates normally with one addition with one addition for any data handled by an rpc with "ephemeral-validation nocheck". The rpc specifying ephemeral-validation nocheck MUST specify within the ephemeral data written by the rpc function the following grouping: grouping ephemeral-validation-notcheck { leaf rpc { type string rpc-id; description "rpc wrote the non-check data"; } leaf rpc-seq { type uint32 rpc-id; description "sequence number of rpc that wrote non-check data"; } leaf client-id { type uint64 client-id; description "client identifier that wrote non-checking rpc;" } description "Tracking on rpc with no validation checking so validation failure can send note to client."; }; If the data validation finds an error in a component that was non- check, the notification should include the data module, submodule (if valid). (Editor's note: Initial experiments on this type of rpc for I2RS RIB routes and I2RS FB-RIB filters will be done before IETF 96. Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 32] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 6.6.5. Distinct Startup Capability This NETCONF capability appears to operate to load write-able running config, running-config, or candidate datastore. The ephemeral state does not change the environment based on this command. 6.6.6. URL capability and XPATH capability The URL capabilities specify a in the and . The initial suggestion to allow both of these features to work with ephemeral datastore. 7. RESTCONF protocol extensions for the ephemeral datastore capability-name: ephemeral-datastore 7.1. Overview This capability defines the RESTCONF protocol extensions for the ephemeral state. The ephemeral state has the features described in the previous section on NETCONF. 7.2. Dependencies The ephemeral capabilities have the following dependencies: o The Yang definitions specified in section 6. o The Yang modules must support the event notification write and read errors as well as data model errors. o The following features must be supported by RESTCONF * Call Home [I-D.ietf-netconf-call-home], * Server Configuratino Module [I-D.ietf-netconf-server-model], * Module library [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-library], * Publication/Subscription via Push [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push], * Patch [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-patch], * syslog yang module (both [RFC5424] and [I-D.ietf-netmod-syslog-model] Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 33] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 7.3. Capability identifier The ephemeral-datastore capability is identified by the following capability string: (capability uri) 7.4. New Operations none 7.5. modification to data resources RESTCONF must be able to support the ephemeral datstore as a context with its rules as part of the "{+restconf}/data" subtree. The "edit collision" features in RESTCONF must be able to provide notification to I2RS read functions or to rpc functions. The "timestamp" with a last modified features must support the traceability function. The "Entity Tag" could support saving a client-priority tuple as a opaque string, but it is important that that additions be made to restore client-priority so it can be compared with strimgs can be done to determine the comparison of two I2RS client-priorities. 7.6. Modification to existing operations The current operations in RESTCONF are: OPTIONS, HEAD, GET, POST, PUT, PATCH, and DELETE. This section describes the modification to these exiting operations. 7.6.1. OPTIONS changes The options methods should be augmented by the [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-library] information that will provide an indication of what ephemeral state exists in a data modules, or a data modules sub-modules or nodes. 7.6.2. HEAD changes The HEAD in retrieving the headers of a resources. It would be useful to changes these headers to indicate the datastore a node or submodule or module is in (ephemeral or normal), and allow filtering on ephemeral nodes or trees, submodules or module. 7.6.3. GET changes GET must be able to read from the URL and a context ("?context=ephemeral"). Similarly, it is important the Get be able to determine if the context=ephemeral. Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 34] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 7.6.4. POST changes POST must simply be able to create resources in ephemeral datastores ("context=ephemeral") and invoke operations defined in ephemeral data models. 7.6.5. PUT changes PUT must be able to reference an ephemeral module, sub-module, and nodes ("?context=ephemeral"). 7.6.6. PATCH changes Plain PATCH must be able to update or create child resources in an ephemeral context ("?context=ephemeral") The PATCH for the ephemeral state must be change to provide a merge or update of the original data only if the client's using the patch has a higher priority than an existing datastore's client, or if PATCH requests to create a new node, sub-module or module in the datastore. 7.6.7. DELETE changes The phrase "?context=ephemeral" following an element will specify the ephemeral data store when deleting an entry. 7.6.8. Query Parameters The query parameters (content, depth, fields, insert, point, start- time, stop-time, and with-defaults (report-all, trim, explicit, report-all-tagged) must support ephemeral context ("?context=ephemeral") described above. 7.7. Interactions with Notifications The ephemeral database must support the ability to publish notifications as events and the I2RS clients being able to receiving notifications as Event stream. The event error stream processing should support the publication/subscription mechanisms for ephemeral state defined in [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push]. 7.8. Interactions with Error Reporting The ephemeral database must support in RESTCONF must also support passing error information regarding ephemeral data access over to RESTCONF equivalent of the and traceability client. Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 35] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 8. Simple Thermostat Model In this discussion of ephemeral configuration, this draft utilizes a simple thermostat model with the YANG configuration found in figure 6. The desired-temp is local configuration node that has an ephemeral The actual temperature is a derived state node that records the actual temperature of the room. Figure 6 shows two I2RS clients. I2RS client 1 has one connection to write the ephemeral copy of the desired temperature at priority 1. I2RS client 2 writes to the intended configuration with priority 10. I2RS client 1 has a second connetion to read the actual temperature, and I2RS client 2 also has a second connection to read the actual temperature. The NETCONF example shows a simple write of the ephemeral state value over the local configuration Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 36] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 ........... ................... ........... :Candidate :---:running config :--: start-up : : : :desired-temp (cfg): : : ........... .................. ........... | | ========== | | I2RS | | +-|Client 1| | | |========= .........|..................... | Intended . '''''''|''''''''''''''''''' . | ========= Config . 'local config|ephemeral '<--| |I2RS | . 'desired-temp|desired-temp'<----|Client 2| . ''''''''''''|'''''''''''''' . ========== ..............|................ | read-write data -------------------|---------------------------------------- | read only data | ======|====== --------------- | Actual |-----|I2RS client 1| Config true | Config | --------------- | desired- | | | temp |============== ============= | || ******************************** | || config false | derived |------+ || | state | =============== | actual- |=======|I2RS Client 2 | | temp | =============== ------------- Policy Knob 1:Ephemeral overwrites local config (TRUE) Policy Knob 2:Updated local config overwrite ephemeral (FALSE) Figure 6 - Two I2RS clients 8.1. YANG data model Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 37] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 module thermostat { .. leaf desired-temp { type int32; config true; ephemeral true; units "degrees Celsius"; description "The desired temperature"; } .... leaf actual-temp { type int32; config false; units "degrees Celsius"; description "The measured temperature is derived state. } } Figure 6 - Simple thermostat YANG Model The changes in each step are shown in the figure 7. In step 1, the running configuration desired-temp is change to 68 degress. In step 2, the intended configuration value for desired-temp is updated, and asynchronously the applied configuration is updated in step 4. The actual temperature begins to rise to meet the desired temperature, and reaches it in step 4. In step 5, I2RS client 1 update the intended configuration with a desired-temp=70. In step 6 this value is updated to the applied configuration, and the actual temperature begins to rise (actual-temp = 69). In step 7, the actual temperature has reached 70 degrees. In step 8, I2RS Client 1 removes the ephemeral state from the intended configuration and the local configuration value is reasserted. In step 9, the intended desired- temp is synchronously moved to applied configuration and the actual temperature drops. Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 38] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 Step Running Intended Config Applied Config Derived state ====================================================== 1 desired- actual- temp=68 temp=65 ------------------------------------------------------ 2 desired- from running actual- temp=68 desired-temp temp=65 temp = 68 ------------------------------------------------------ 3 Desired Desired Desired Actual- temp=68 temp=68 temp=68 temp=67 ------------------------------------------------------- 4 Desired Desired Desired Actual- temp=68 temp=68 temp=68 temp=68 ------------------------------------------------------ from I2RS client 1 5 Desired Desired Desired Actual- temp=68 temp=70 temp=68 temp=68 ------------------------------------------------------ 6 Desired Desired Desired Actual- temp=68 temp=70 temp=70 temp=69 ------------------------------------------------------ 7 Desired Desired Desired Actual- temp=68 temp=70 temp=70 temp=70 ------------------------------------------------------ I2RS client 1 removes state 8 Desired Desired Desired Actual- temp=68 temp=68 temp=70 temp=70 ----------------------------------------------------- 9 Desired Desired Desired Actual- temp=68 temp=68 temp=68 temp=68 ====================================================== Figure 7 I2RS Client 1 handle the normal lowering and raising of the temperature during different time periods in the day. I2RS Client 2 has the ability for individuals to request the room warms up rapidly to a maximum of 72 degrees. Figure 8 shows a simple example of the two clients interaction. Steps 1-6 are the same as in figure 7. In step 7, I2RS Client 2 sets the desired-temp in the intended configuration to 72. In step 8, this intended configuration is passed to the applied configuration and the actual temperature reaches 72. Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 39] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 In step 9, I2RS client 2 removes its state. The I2RS Client 1 is notified of the removal, and the I2RS Client 1 re-write the desired value of 70 degrees (desired-temp=70), and this is passed to the applied state. The actual temperature drops to 70 degress (actual- temp=70). In step 10, I2RS Client 1 removes its ephemeral state and desired-temp reverts to the local configuration value (desired=temp=68). This value is installed in applied temperature and the actual temperature goes to 68 (actual-temp=68.) Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 40] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 Step Running Intended Config Applied Config Derived state ====================================================== 1 desired- actual- temp=68 temp=65 ------------------------------------------------------ 2 Desired from running actual- temp=68 desired-temp temp=65 temp = 68 ------------------------------------------------------ 3 Desired Desired Desired Actual- temp=68 temp=68 temp=68 temp=67 ------------------------------------------------------- 4 Desired Desired Desired Actual- temp=68 temp=68 temp=68 temp=68 ------------------------------------------------------ from I2rs client 1 5 Desired Desired Desired Actual- temp=68 temp=70 temp=68 temp=68 ------------------------------------------------------ 6 Desired Desired Desired Actual- temp=68 temp=70 temp=70 temp=69 ------------------------------------------------------ I2RS Client 2 sets 7 Desired Desired Desired Actual- temp=68 temp=72 temp=70 temp=70 ------------------------------------------------------ 8 Desired Desired Desired Actual- temp=68 temp=72 temp=72 temp=72 ----------------------------------------------------- I2RS client 2 removes state reverts to I2RS client 1 9 Desired Desired Desired Actual- temp=68 temp=70 temp=70 temp=70 ----------------------------------------------------- I2RS client 1 removes state 10 Desired Desired Desired Actual- temp=68 temp=68 temp=68 temp=68 ====================================================== Figure 8 Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 41] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 8.2. NETCONF Changes The NETCONF way of writing the ephemeral data to the intended configuratino would be true . [RFC5424] Gerhards, R., "The Syslog Protocol", RFC 5424, DOI 10.17487/RFC5424, March 2009, . Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 50] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 [RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011, . [RFC6244] Shafer, P., "An Architecture for Network Management Using NETCONF and YANG", RFC 6244, DOI 10.17487/RFC6244, June 2011, . [RFC7158] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data Interchange Format", RFC 7158, DOI 10.17487/RFC7158, March 2014, . [RFC7589] Badra, M., Luchuk, A., and J. Schoenwaelder, "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Transport Layer Security (TLS) with Mutual X.509 Authentication", RFC 7589, DOI 10.17487/RFC7589, June 2015, . 14.2. Informative References [I-D.hares-i2nsf-mgtflow-reqs] Hares, S., "I2NSF Management Traffic Flow Requirement", draft-hares-i2nsf-mgtflow-reqs-01 (work in progress), March 2016. [I-D.hares-i2rs-bgp-dm] Wang, L., Hares, S., and S. Zhuang, "An I2RS BGP Data Modell", draft-hares-i2rs-bgp-dm-00 (work in progress), October 2014. [RFC4107] Bellovin, S. and R. Housley, "Guidelines for Cryptographic Key Management", BCP 107, RFC 4107, DOI 10.17487/RFC4107, June 2005, . [RFC4960] Stewart, R., Ed., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC 4960, DOI 10.17487/RFC4960, September 2007, . [RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020, DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010, . [RFC6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC6242, June 2011, . Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 51] Internet-Draft I2RS Protocol Strawman May 2016 [RFC6536] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) Access Control Model", RFC 6536, DOI 10.17487/RFC6536, March 2012, . Authors' Addresses Susan Hares Huawei Saline US Email: shares@ndzh.com Andy Bierman YumaWorks Email: andy@yumaworks.com Amit Daas Ericsson Email: amit.dass@ericsson.com Hares, et al. Expires November 6, 2016 [Page 52]