The RFC Archive
 The RFC Archive   RFC 8527   « Jump to any RFC number directly 
 RFC Home
Full RFC Index
Recent RFCs
RFC Standards
Best Current Practice
RFC Errata
1 April RFC



IETF RFC 8527



Last modified on Thursday, March 7th, 2019

Permanent link to RFC 8527
Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 8527
Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 8527







Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                      M. Bjorklund
Request for Comments: 8527                                Tail-f Systems
Updates: 8040                                           J. Schoenwaelder
Category: Standards Track                            Jacobs University
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                P. Shafer
                                                        Juniper Networks
                                                               K. Watsen
                                                         Watsen Networks
                                                               R. Wilton
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                              March 2019


                   RESTCONF Extensions to Support the
               Network Management Datastore Architecture

 Abstract

   This document extends the RESTCONF protocol defined in RFC 8040 in
   order to support the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)
   defined in RFC 8342.

   This document updates RFC 8040 by introducing new datastore
   resources, adding a new query parameter, and requiring the usage of
   the YANG library (described in RFC 8525) by RESTCONF servers
   implementing the NMDA.

 Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8527.











Bjorklund, et al.            Standards Track                 PAGE 1 top


RFC 8527 RESTCONF Extensions for the NMDA March 2019 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2019 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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction ....................................................3 1.1. Terminology ................................................3 2. Datastore and YANG Library Requirements .........................3 3. RESTCONF Extensions .............................................4 3.1. New Datastore Resources ....................................4 3.2. Protocol Operations ........................................5 3.2.1. The "with-defaults" Query Parameter on the Operational State Datastore .........................5 3.2.2. New "with-origin" Query Parameter ...................6 4. IANA Considerations .............................................7 5. Security Considerations .........................................7 6. Normative References ............................................7 Authors' Addresses .................................................9 Bjorklund, et al. Standards Track PAGE 2 top

RFC 8527 RESTCONF Extensions for the NMDA March 2019 1. Introduction This document extends the RESTCONF protocol defined in [RFC 8040] in order to support the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) defined in [RFC 8342]. This document updates [RFC 8040] in order to enable RESTCONF clients to discover which datastores are supported by the RESTCONF server, determine which modules are supported in each datastore, and interact with all the datastores supported by the NMDA. Specifically, the update introduces new datastore resources, adds a new query parameter, and requires the usage of the YANG library [RFC 8525] by RESTCONF servers implementing the NMDA. The solution presented in this document is backwards compatible with [RFC 8040]. This is achieved by only adding new resources and leaving the semantics of the existing resources unchanged. 1.1. Terminology This document uses the terminology defined by the NMDA [RFC 8342]. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC 2119] [RFC 8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. 2. Datastore and YANG Library Requirements An NMDA-compliant RESTCONF server MUST support the operational state datastore and MUST implement at least revision 2019-01-04 of the "ietf-yang-library" module defined in [RFC 8525]. Such a server identifies that it supports the NMDA both by implementing the {+restconf}/ds/ietf-datastores:operational resource and by implementing at least revision 2019-01-04 of the "ietf-yang-library" module. A RESTCONF client can test if a server supports the NMDA by using either the HEAD or GET methods on {+restconf}/ds/ietf- datastores:operational. A RESTCONF client can discover which datastores and YANG modules the server supports by reading the YANG library information from the operational state datastore. Bjorklund, et al. Standards Track PAGE 3 top

RFC 8527 RESTCONF Extensions for the NMDA March 2019 3. RESTCONF Extensions This section describes the RESTCONF extensions needed to support the NMDA. 3.1. New Datastore Resources This document defines a set of new resources representing datastores as defined in [RFC 8342]. These resources are available using the following resource path template: {+restconf}/ds/<datastore> The <datastore> path component is encoded as an "identityref" according to the JSON encoding rules for identities, defined in Section 6.8 of [RFC 7951]. The namespace-qualified form MUST be used. Such an identity MUST be derived from the "datastore" identity defined in the "ietf-datastores" YANG module [RFC 8342]. Specifically: o The resource {+restconf}/ds/ietf-datastores:operational refers to the operational state datastore. o The resource {+restconf}/ds/ietf-datastores:running refers to the running configuration datastore. o The resource {+restconf}/ds/ietf-datastores:intended refers to the intended configuration datastore. An NMDA-compliant server MUST implement {+restconf}/ds/ietf- datastores:operational. Other datastore resources MAY be implemented. YANG actions can only be invoked in {+restconf}/ds/ietf- datastores:operational. As an example, if a server implements a datastore called "ds-ephemeral", defined in a module called "example-ds-ephemeral", then the server would implement the resource {+restconf}/ds/example- ds-ephemeral:ds-ephemeral. Bjorklund, et al. Standards Track PAGE 4 top

RFC 8527 RESTCONF Extensions for the NMDA March 2019 3.2. Protocol Operations The protocol operations available for the new datastore resources (see Section 3.1) are the same as the protocol operations defined in [RFC 8040] for the {+restconf}/data resource with the following exceptions: o Dynamic configuration datastores are excluded, as each dynamic configuration datastore definition needs to be reviewed for what protocol operations it supports. o Some datastores are read-only by nature (e.g., <intended>); hence, any attempt to modify these datastores will fail. A server MUST return a response with a "405 Method Not Allowed" status-line and an error-tag value of "operation-not-supported". o The semantics of the "with-defaults" query parameter (Section 4.8.9 of [RFC 8040]) differ when interacting with the operational state datastore. The semantics are described in Section 3.2.1. o [RFC 8040], Section 3.5.4, paragraph 3 does not apply when interacting with any resource under {+restconf}/ds. 3.2.1. The "with-defaults" Query Parameter on the Operational State Datastore Support for the "with-defaults" query parameter (Section 4.8.9 of [RFC 8040]) is OPTIONAL when interacting with {+restconf}/ds/ietf- datastores:operational. The associated capability to indicate a server's support is identified with the URI: urn:ietf:params:restconf:capability:with-operational-defaults:1.0 For servers that support it, the behavior of the "with-defaults" query parameter on the operational state datastore is defined as follows: o If no "with-defaults" query parameter is specified, or if it is set to "explicit", "report-all", or "report-all-tagged", then the "in use" values, as defined in Section 5.3 of [RFC 8342], are returned from the operational state datastore, even if a node happens to have a default statement in the YANG module and this default value is being used by the server. If the "with-defaults" parameter is set to "report-all-tagged", any values that match the schema default are tagged with additional metadata, as described in Section 4.8.9 of [RFC 8040]. Bjorklund, et al. Standards Track PAGE 5 top

RFC 8527 RESTCONF Extensions for the NMDA March 2019 o If the "with-defaults" query parameter is set to "trim", all "in use" values are returned, except that the output is filtered to exclude any values that match the default defined in the YANG schema. Servers are not required to support all values in the "with-defaults" query parameter on the operational state datastore. If a request is made using a value that is not supported, then the error handling behavior is as described in Section 4.8.9 of [RFC 8040]. 3.2.2. New "with-origin" Query Parameter A new query parameter named "with-origin" is added to the GET operation. If present, it requests that the server includes "origin" metadata annotations in its response, as detailed in the NMDA. This parameter is only valid when querying {+restconf}/ds/ietf- datastores:operational or any datastores with identities derived from the "operational" identity. Otherwise, if an invalid datastore is specified, then the server MUST return a response with a "400 Bad Request" status-line, using an error-tag value of "invalid-value". "origin" metadata annotations are not included unless a client explicitly requests them. Data in the operational state datatstore can come from multiple sources. The server should return the "origin" metadata annotation value that most accurately indicates the source of the operational value, as specified in Section 5.3.4 of [RFC 8342]. When encoding the "origin" metadata annotation for a hierarchy of returned nodes, the annotation can be omitted for a child node when the value matches that of the parent node, as described in the "ietf-origin" YANG module [RFC 8342]. Support for the "with-origin" query parameter is OPTIONAL. It is identified with the URI: urn:ietf:params:restconf:capability:with-origin:1.0 Bjorklund, et al. Standards Track PAGE 6 top

RFC 8527 RESTCONF Extensions for the NMDA March 2019 4. IANA Considerations This document defines two capability identifier URNs in the "RESTCONF Capability URNs" registry defined in [RFC 8040]: Index Capability Identifier --------------------- :with-origin urn:ietf:params:restconf:capability:with-origin:1.0 :with-operational-defaults urn:ietf:params:restconf:capability:with-operational-defaults:1.0 5. Security Considerations This document extends the RESTCONF protocol by introducing new datastore resources. The lowest RESTCONF layer is HTTPS, and the mandatory-to-implement secure transport is TLS [RFC 8446]. The RESTCONF protocol uses the network configuration access control model [RFC 8341], which provides the means to restrict access for particular RESTCONF users to a preconfigured subset of all available RESTCONF protocol operations and content. The security constraints for the base RESTCONF protocol (see Section 12 of [RFC 8040]) apply to the new RESTCONF datastore resources defined in this document. 6. Normative References [RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC 2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2119>. [RFC 7951] Lhotka, L., "JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG", RFC 7951, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7951, August 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7951>. [RFC 8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8040, January 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8040>. [RFC 8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8174, May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8174>. Bjorklund, et al. Standards Track PAGE 7 top

RFC 8527 RESTCONF Extensions for the NMDA March 2019 [RFC 8341] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration Access Control Model", STD 91, RFC 8341, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8341, March 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8341>. [RFC 8342] Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K., and R. Wilton, "Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)", RFC 8342, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8342, March 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8342>. [RFC 8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8446, August 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8446>. [RFC 8525] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Watsen, K., and R. Wilton, "YANG Library", RFC 8525, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8525, March 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8525>. Bjorklund, et al. Standards Track PAGE 8 top

RFC 8527 RESTCONF Extensions for the NMDA March 2019 Authors' Addresses Martin Bjorklund Tail-f Systems Email: mbj@tail-f.com Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Email: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Phil Shafer Juniper Networks Email: phil@juniper.net Kent Watsen Watsen Networks Email: kent+ietf@watsen.net Robert Wilton Cisco Systems Email: rwilton@cisco.com Bjorklund, et al. Standards Track PAGE 9 top

RFC TOTAL SIZE: 15757 bytes PUBLICATION DATE: Thursday, March 7th, 2019 LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)


RFC-ARCHIVE.ORG

© RFC 8527: The IETF Trust, Thursday, March 7th, 2019
© the RFC Archive, 2024, RFC-Archive.org
Maintainer: J. Tunnissen

Privacy Statement