Internet DRAFT - draft-boucadair-nmop-rfc3535-20years-later

draft-boucadair-nmop-rfc3535-20years-later







Network Working Group                                       M. Boucadair
Internet-Draft                                                    Orange
Intended status: Informational                          20 November 2023
Expires: 23 May 2024


                        RFC 3535, 20 Years Later
             draft-boucadair-nmop-rfc3535-20years-later-00

Abstract

   The IAB has organized an important workshop to establish a dialog
   between network operators and protocol developers, and to guide the
   IETF focus on work regarding network management.  The outcome of that
   workshop was documented in the "IAB Network Management Workshop" (RFC
   3535) which was instrumental for developing NETCONF and YANG, in
   particular.

   20 years later, it is time to evaluate what has been achieved since
   then and identify the operational barriers for making these
   technologies widely implemented.  Also, this document intends to
   capture new requirements for network management operations.

Discussion Venues

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/boucadair/rfc3535-20years-later.

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 https://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 23 May 2024.





Boucadair                  Expires 23 May 2024                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft          RFC 3535, 20 Years Later           November 2023


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2023 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 (https://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 Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Summary of Technology Advences Since RFC 3535 . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Assessment of RFC 3535 Recommendations  . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Some Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  Fragmented Ecosystem  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  Need for Profiling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.3.  Lack of Agile Process for YANG Modules  . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.4.  Integration Complexity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.5.  YANG-formatted Data Manipulation  . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.6.  Another Item  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.7.  Another Item  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Perspectives & Recommendations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   The IAB has organized a workshop (June 4-June 6, 2002) to establish a
   dialog between network operators and protocol developers, and to
   guide the IETF focus on work regarding network management.  The
   outcome of that workshop was documented in the "IAB Network
   Management Workshop" [RFC3535] which was instrumental for developing
   NETCONF [RFC6241], YANG [RFC6020][RFC7950], and RESTCONF [RFC8040].









Boucadair                  Expires 23 May 2024                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft          RFC 3535, 20 Years Later           November 2023


   20 years later, new requirements on network management operations are
   emerging from the operators.  This document intends to capture these
   requirements that reflect the progress in this area.  The document
   also provide an assessment of the RFC3535 recommendations and to what
   extend that roadmap was driving network management efforts within the
   IETF.

   Early version of the document includes *many placeholders on purpose*
   as the intent is to collect inputs from interested parties.  Items
   listed in Section 4 are provided to exemplify candidate items to
   discuss in that section.

2.  Summary of Technology Advences Since RFC 3535

   To be further elaborated:

   *  NETCONF

   *  YANG

   *  RESTCONF

   *  SDN & Programmable Networks

   *  Automation

   *  Virtualization

   *  Containerization

   *  Intent-based

   *  Network APIs

   *  Telemetry

   See also "An Overview of the IETF Network Management Standards"
   [RFC6632].

3.  Assessment of RFC 3535 Recommendations

   Section 6 of [RFC3535] includes the following recommendations:

   1.  The workshop recommends that the IETF stop forcing working groups
       to provide writable MIB modules.  It should be the decision of
       the working group whether they want to provide writable objects
       or not.




Boucadair                  Expires 23 May 2024                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft          RFC 3535, 20 Years Later           November 2023


       *Status Update*: In 2014, the IESG published a statement Writable
       MIB Module, which states that: > SNMP MIB modules creating and
       modifying configuration state should only be produced by working
       groups in cases of clear utility and consensus to use SNMP write
       operations for configuration, and in consultation with the OPS
       ADs/MIB doctors.

   2.  The workshop recommends that a group be formed to investigate why
       current MIB modules do not contain all the objects needed by
       operators to monitor their networks.

       *Status Update*: xxx

   3.  The workshop recommends that a group be formed to investigate why
       the current SNMP protocol does not satisfy all the monitoring
       requirements of operators.

       *Status Update*: xxx

   4.  The workshop recommends, with strong consensus from both protocol
       developers and operators, that the IETF focus resources on the
       standardization of configuration management mechanisms.

       *Status Update*: NETCONF, RESTCONF, CORECONF, YANG.

   5.  The workshop recommends, with strong consensus from the operators
       and rough consensus from the protocol developers, that the IETF/
       IRTF should spend resources on the development and
       standardization of XML-based device configuration and management
       technologies (such as common XML configuration schemas, exchange
       protocols and so on).

       *Status Update*: OK.  This recommendation was also mirrored in
       other documents such as [RFC5706].

   6.  The workshop recommends, with strong consensus from the operators
       and rough consensus from the protocol developers, that the IETF/
       IRTF should not spend resources on developing HTML-based or HTTP-
       based methods for configuration management.

       *Status Update*: The IETF deviated from this recommendation,
       e.g., RESTCONF [RFC8040] or CoAP Management Interface (CORECONF)
       [I-D.ietf-core-comi].








Boucadair                  Expires 23 May 2024                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft          RFC 3535, 20 Years Later           November 2023


   7.  The workshop recommends, with rough consensus from the operators
       and strong consensus from the protocol developers, that the IETF
       should continue to spend resources on the evolution of the SMI/
       SPPI data definition languages as being done in the SMIng working
       group.

       *Status Update*: SMIng WG was concluded in 2003-04-04.

   8.  The workshop recommends, with split consensus from the operators
       and rough consensus from the protocol developers, that the IETF
       should spend resources on fixing the MIB development and
       standardization processs.

       *Status Update*: The IETF dedicated some resources to fix some
       SNMP shortcomings with a focus on security (e.g., Transport Layer
       Security (TLS) Transport Model for the SNMP [RFC6353] or
       [RFC9456], HMAC-SHA-2 Authentication Protocols in User-Based
       Security Model (USM) for SNMPv3 [RFC7860]).

   Section 6 of [RFC3535] also includes the following but without
   tagging them as recommendations:

   1.  The workshop had split consensus from the operators and rough
       consensus from the protocol developers, that the IETF should not
       focus resources on CIM extensions.

       *Status Update*: The IETF didn't dedicate any resources on CIM
       extensions.

   2.  The workshop had rough consensus from the protocol developers
       that the IETF should not spend resources on COPS-PR development.
       So far, the operators have only very limited experience with
       COPS-PR.  In general, however, they felt that further development
       of COPS-PR might be a waste of resources as they assume that
       COPS-PR does not really address their requirements.

       *Status Update*: The IETF has reclassified COPS Usage for Policy
       Provisioning [RFC3084] to Historic status.

   3.  The workshop had rough consensus from the protocol developers
       that the IETF should not spend resources on SPPI PIB definitions.
       The operators had rough consensus that they do not care about
       SPPI PIBs.

       *Status Update*: The IETF has reclassified Structure of Policy
       Provisioning Information [RFC3159], as well as three Policy
       Information Bases ([RFC3317], [RFC3318], and [RFC3571]) to
       Historic status.



Boucadair                  Expires 23 May 2024                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft          RFC 3535, 20 Years Later           November 2023


4.  Some Observations

4.1.  Fragmented Ecosystem

   The current YANG device models ecosystem is fragmented: some
   standards models are defined in the IETF while similar ones are
   defined in other fora such as Openconfig.  Unlike service and network
   models, IETF-defined device models are not widely implemented.  There
   is a need to rationalize this space and avoid redundant efforts.

4.2.  Need for Profiling

   Many NETCONF-related tools are (being) specified by the IETF, but
   these tools are not widely supported (e.g., Push).  Editing a profile
   document with a set of recommendations about core/key features with
   the appropriate justification will help the emergence of more
   implementations that meet the operators’ needs.  Examples of such
   profile documents are RFCs that were published by the behave WG
   [BCP127].

   Likewise, reassess the value of some IETF proposals vs. competing/
   emerging solution would be useful.

4.3.  Lack of Agile Process for YANG Modules

   RFCs might not be suited for documenting YANG modules.  In the
   meantime, there is a need for "reference models" and "sufficiently
   stable models".  An hybrid approach might be investigated for
   documenting IETF- endorsed YANG modules, such as considering an RFC
   to describe the initial module sketch and objectives and an official
   IETF repository for maintaining intermediate YANG versions.

4.4.  Integration Complexity

   TBC.

4.5.  YANG-formatted Data Manipulation

   TBC.

4.6.  Another Item

   TBC.

4.7.  Another Item

   TBC.




Boucadair                  Expires 23 May 2024                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft          RFC 3535, 20 Years Later           November 2023


5.  Perspectives & Recommendations

   TBC

6.  Security Considerations

   TBC

7.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.

8.  Informative References

   [BCP127]   Audet, F., Ed. and C. Jennings, "Network Address
              Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast
              UDP", BCP 127, RFC 4787, January 2007.

              Perreault, S., Ed., Yamagata, I., Miyakawa, S., Nakagawa,
              A., and H. Ashida, "Common Requirements for Carrier-Grade
              NATs (CGNs)", BCP 127, RFC 6888, April 2013.

              Penno, R., Perreault, S., Boucadair, M., Ed., Sivakumar,
              S., and K. Naito, "Updates to Network Address Translation
              (NAT) Behavioral Requirements", BCP 127, RFC 7857, April
              2016.

   [I-D.ietf-core-comi]
              Veillette, M., Van der Stok, P., Pelov, A., Bierman, A.,
              and C. Bormann, "CoAP Management Interface (CORECONF)",
              Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-core-comi-16,
              4 September 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
              draft-ietf-core-comi-16>.

   [RFC3084]  Chan, K., Seligson, J., Durham, D., Gai, S., McCloghrie,
              K., Herzog, S., Reichmeyer, F., Yavatkar, R., and A.
              Smith, "COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning (COPS-PR)",
              RFC 3084, DOI 10.17487/RFC3084, March 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3084>.

   [RFC3159]  McCloghrie, K., Fine, M., Seligson, J., Chan, K., Hahn,
              S., Sahita, R., Smith, A., and F. Reichmeyer, "Structure
              of Policy Provisioning Information (SPPI)", RFC 3159,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3159, August 2001,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3159>.






Boucadair                  Expires 23 May 2024                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft          RFC 3535, 20 Years Later           November 2023


   [RFC3317]  Chan, K., Sahita, R., Hahn, S., and K. McCloghrie,
              "Differentiated Services Quality of Service Policy
              Information Base", RFC 3317, DOI 10.17487/RFC3317, March
              2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3317>.

   [RFC3318]  Sahita, R., Ed., Hahn, S., Chan, K., and K. McCloghrie,
              "Framework Policy Information Base", RFC 3318,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3318, March 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3318>.

   [RFC3535]  Schoenwaelder, J., "Overview of the 2002 IAB Network
              Management Workshop", RFC 3535, DOI 10.17487/RFC3535, May
              2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3535>.

   [RFC3571]  Rawlins, D., Kulkarni, A., Ho Chan, K., Bokaemper, M., and
              D. Dutt, "Framework Policy Information Base for Usage
              Feedback", RFC 3571, DOI 10.17487/RFC3571, August 2003,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3571>.

   [RFC5706]  Harrington, D., "Guidelines for Considering Operations and
              Management of New Protocols and Protocol Extensions",
              RFC 5706, DOI 10.17487/RFC5706, November 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5706>.

   [RFC6020]  Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
              the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6020>.

   [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,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6241>.

   [RFC6353]  Hardaker, W., "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport
              Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)",
              STD 78, RFC 6353, DOI 10.17487/RFC6353, July 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6353>.

   [RFC6632]  Ersue, M., Ed. and B. Claise, "An Overview of the IETF
              Network Management Standards", RFC 6632,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6632, June 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6632>.

   [RFC7860]  Merkle, J., Ed. and M. Lochter, "HMAC-SHA-2 Authentication
              Protocols in User-Based Security Model (USM) for SNMPv3",
              RFC 7860, DOI 10.17487/RFC7860, April 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7860>.



Boucadair                  Expires 23 May 2024                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft          RFC 3535, 20 Years Later           November 2023


   [RFC7950]  Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
              RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7950>.

   [RFC8040]  Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
              Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8040>.

   [RFC9456]  Vaughn, K., Ed., "Updates to the TLS Transport Model for
              SNMP", RFC 9456, DOI 10.17487/RFC9456, November 2023,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9456>.

Acknowledgments

   TODO acknowledge.

Author's Address

   Mohamed Boucadair
   Orange
   Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com






























Boucadair                  Expires 23 May 2024                  [Page 9]