|
|
|
|
|
|
IETF RFC 8650
Last modified on Sunday, November 17th, 2019
 Permanent link to RFC 8650
 Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 8650
 Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 8650
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) E. Voit
Request for Comments: 8650 R. Rahman
Category: Standards Track E. Nilsen-Nygaard
ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco Systems
A. Clemm
Futurewei
A. Bierman
YumaWorks
November 2019
Dynamic Subscription to YANG Events and Datastores over RESTCONF
 Abstract
This document provides a RESTCONF binding to the dynamic subscription
capability of both subscribed notifications and YANG-Push.
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 8650.
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
2. Terminology
3. Dynamic Subscriptions
3.1. Transport Connectivity
3.2. Discovery
3.3. RESTCONF RPCs and HTTP Status Codes
3.4. Call Flow for Server-Sent Events
4. QoS Treatment
5. Notification Messages
6. YANG Tree
7. YANG Module
8. IANA Considerations
9. Security Considerations
10. References
10.1. Normative References
10.2. Informative References
Appendix A. Examples
A.1. Dynamic Subscriptions
A.1.1. Establishing Dynamic Subscriptions
A.1.2. Modifying Dynamic Subscriptions
A.1.3. Deleting Dynamic Subscriptions
A.2. Subscription State Notifications
A.2.1. "subscription-modified"
A.2.2. "subscription-completed", "subscription-resumed", and
"replay-completed"
A.2.3. "subscription-terminated" and "subscription-suspended"
A.3. Filter Example
Acknowledgments
Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction
Mechanisms to support event subscription and YANG-Push are defined in
[RFC 8639]. Enhancements to [RFC 8639] that enable YANG datastore
subscription and YANG-Push are defined in [RFC 8641]. This document
provides a transport specification for dynamic subscriptions over
RESTCONF [RFC 8040]. Requirements for these mechanisms are captured
in [RFC 7923].
The streaming of notifications that encapsulate the resulting
information push is done via the mechanism described in Section 6.3
of [RFC 8040].
2. Terminology
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.
The following terms use the definitions from [RFC 8639]: dynamic
subscription, event stream, notification message, publisher,
receiver, subscriber, and subscription.
Other terms reused include datastore, which is defined in [RFC 8342],
and HTTP/2 stream, which maps to the definition of "stream" within
[RFC 7540], Section 2.
3. Dynamic Subscriptions
This section provides specifics on how to establish and maintain
dynamic subscriptions over RESTCONF [RFC 8040]. Subscribing to event
streams is accomplished in this way via RPCs defined within
[RFC 8639], Section 2.4. The RPCs are done via RESTCONF POSTs. YANG
datastore subscription is accomplished via augmentations to [RFC 8639]
as described within [RFC 8641], Section 4.4.
As described in Section 6.3 of [RFC 8040], a GET needs to be performed
on a specific URI on the publisher. Subscribers cannot predetermine
the URI against which a subscription might exist on a publisher, as
the URI will only exist after the "establish-subscription" RPC has
been accepted. Therefore, the POST for the "establish-subscription"
RPC replaces the GET request for the "location" leaf that is used in
[RFC 8040] to obtain the URI. The subscription URI will be determined
and sent as part of the response to the "establish-subscription" RPC,
and a subsequent GET to this URI will be done in order to start the
flow of notification messages back to the subscriber. As specified
in Section 2.4.1 of [RFC 8639], a subscription does not move to the
active state until the GET is received.
3.1. Transport Connectivity
For a dynamic subscription, when a RESTCONF session doesn't already
exist, a new RESTCONF session is initiated from the subscriber.
As stated in Section 2.1 of [RFC 8040], a subscriber MUST establish
the HTTP session over TLS [RFC 8446] in order to secure the content in
transit.
Without the involvement of additional protocols, HTTP sessions by
themselves do not support quick recognition of the loss of the
communication path to the publisher. Where quick recognition of the
loss of a publisher is required, a subscriber SHOULD use a TLS
heartbeat [RFC 6520], just from subscriber to publisher, to track HTTP
session continuity.
Loss of the heartbeat MUST result in the teardown of any
subscription-related TCP sessions between those endpoints. A
subscriber can then attempt to re-establish the dynamic subscription
by using the procedure described in Section 3.4.
3.2. Discovery
Subscribers can learn which event streams a RESTCONF server supports
by querying the "streams" container of ietf-subscribed-
notifications.yang in [RFC 8639]. Support for the "streams" container
of ietf-restconf-monitoring.yang in [RFC 8040] is not required. In
the case when the RESTCONF binding specified by this document is used
to convey the "streams" container from ietf-restconf-monitoring.yang
(i.e., that feature is supported), any event streams contained
therein are also expected to be present in the "streams" container of
ietf-restconf-monitoring.yang.
Subscribers can learn which datastores a RESTCONF server supports by
following Section 2 of [RFC 8527].
3.3. RESTCONF RPCs and HTTP Status Codes
Specific HTTP response codes as defined in Section 6 of [RFC 7231]
will indicate the result of RESTCONF RPC requests with the publisher.
An HTTP status code of 200 is the proper response to any successful
RPC defined within [RFC 8639] or [RFC 8641].
If a publisher fails to serve the RPC request for one of the reasons
indicated in Section 2.4.6 of [RFC 8639] or Appendix A of [RFC 8641],
this will be indicated by an appropriate error code, as shown below,
transported in the HTTP response.
When an HTTP error code is returned, the RPC reply MUST include an
<rpc-error> element per Section 7.1 of [RFC 8040] with the following
parameter values:
* an "error-type" node of "application".
* an "error-tag" node whose value is a string that corresponds to an
identity associated with the error. This "error-tag" will come
from one of two places and will correspond to the error identities
either within Section 2.4.6 of [RFC 8639] for general subscription
errors (Table 1) or within Appendix A.1 of [RFC 8641] for
subscription errors specific to YANG datastores (Table 2).
* an "error-app-tag" node whose value is a string that corresponds
to an identity associated with the error, as defined in
Section 2.4.6 of [RFC 8639] for general subscriptions or
Appendix A.1 of [RFC 8641] for subscription errors specific to YANG
datastores. The tag to use depends on the RPC for which the error
occurred. Viable errors for different RPCs are found in Table 3.
+------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+
| Error identity | Uses "error-tag" | HTTP code |
+========================+=========================+===========+
| dscp-unavailable | invalid-value | 400 |
+------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+
| encoding-unsupported | invalid-value | 400 |
+------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+
| filter-unsupported | invalid-value | 400 |
+------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+
| insufficient-resources | resource-denied | 409 |
+------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+
| no-such-subscription | invalid-value | 404 |
+------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+
| replay-unsupported | operation-not-supported | 501 |
+------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+
Table 1: General Subscription Error Identities and
Associated "error-tag" Use
+-----------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+
| Error identity | Uses "error-tag" | HTTP |
| | | code |
+=============================+=========================+===========+
| cant-include | operation-not-supported | 501 |
+-----------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+
| datastore-not-subscribable | invalid-value | 400 |
+-----------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+
| no-such-subscription-resync | invalid-value | 404 |
+-----------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+
| on-change-unsupported | operation-not-supported | 501 |
+-----------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+
| on-change-sync-unsupported | operation-not-supported | 501 |
+-----------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+
| period-unsupported | invalid-value | 400 |
+-----------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+
| update-too-big | too-big | 400 |
+-----------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+
| sync-too-big | too-big | 400 |
+-----------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+
| unchanging-selection | operation-failed | 500 |
+-----------------------------+-------------------------+-----------+
Table 2: Datastore-Specific Error Identities and Associated
"error-tag" Use
+------------------------+--------------------------------+
| RPC | Select an identity with a base |
+========================+================================+
| establish-subscription | establish-subscription-error |
+------------------------+--------------------------------+
| modify-subscription | modify-subscription-error |
+------------------------+--------------------------------+
| delete-subscription | delete-subscription-error |
+------------------------+--------------------------------+
| kill-subscription | delete-subscription-error |
+------------------------+--------------------------------+
| resync-subscription | resync-subscription-error |
+------------------------+--------------------------------+
Table 3: RPC Errors and Associated Error Identities
Each error identity will be inserted as the "error-app-tag" using
JSON encoding following the form <modulename>:<identityname>. An
example of such a valid encoding would be "ietf-subscribed-
notifications:no-such-subscription".
In the case of error responses to an "establish-subscription" or
"modify-subscription" request, there is the option to include an
"error-info" node. This node may contain hints for parameter
settings that might lead to successful RPC requests in the future.
Tables 4 and 5 show the yang-data structures that may be returned.
+--------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Target: | Return hints in yang-data structure |
+==============+=============================================+
| event stream | establish-subscription-stream-error-info |
+--------------+---------------------------------------------+
| datastore | establish-subscription-datastore-error-info |
+--------------+---------------------------------------------+
Table 4: Optional "error-info" Node Hints for an
"establish-subscription" Request
+--------------+------------------------------------------+
| Target: | Returns hints in yang-data structure |
+==============+==========================================+
| event stream | modify-subscription-stream-error-info |
+--------------+------------------------------------------+
| datastore | modify-subscription-datastore-error-info |
+--------------+------------------------------------------+
Table 5: Optional "error-info" Node Hints for an
"modify-subscription" Request
The yang-data included within "error-info" SHOULD NOT include the
optional leaf "reason", as such a leaf would be redundant with
information that is already placed within the "error-app-tag".
In case of an <rpc-error> as a result of a "delete-subscription", a
"kill-subscription", or a "resync-subscription" request, no "error-
info" needs to be included, as the "subscription-id" is the only RPC
input parameter, and no hints regarding this RPC input parameters
need to be provided.
Note that "error-path" [RFC 8040] does not need to be included with
the <rpc-error> element, as subscription errors are generally
associated with the choice of RPC input parameters.
3.4. Call Flow for Server-Sent Events
The call flow for Server-Sent Events (SSE) is defined in Figure 1.
The logical connections denoted by (a) and (b) can be a TCP
connection or an HTTP/2 stream (if HTTP/2 is used, multiple HTTP/2
streams can be carried in one TCP connection). Requests to RPCs as
defined in [RFC 8639] or [RFC 8641] are sent on a connection indicated
by (a). A successful "establish-subscription" will result in an RPC
response returned with both a subscription identifier that uniquely
identifies a subscription, as well as a URI that uniquely identifies
the location of subscription on the publisher (b). This URI is
defined via the "uri" leaf in the data model in Section 7.
An HTTP GET is then sent on a separate logical connection (b) to the
URI on the publisher. This signals the publisher to initiate the
flow of notification messages that are sent in SSE [W3C-20150203] as
a response to the GET. There cannot be two or more simultaneous GET
requests on a subscription URI: any GET request received while there
is a current GET request on the same URI MUST be rejected with HTTP
error code 409.
As described in Section 6.4 of [RFC 8040], RESTCONF servers SHOULD NOT
send the "event" or "id" fields in the SSE event notifications.
+--------------+ +--------------+
| Subscriber | | Publisher |
| | | |
| Logical | | Logical |
| Connection | | Connection |
| (a) (b) | | (a) (b) |
+--------------+ +--------------+
| RESTCONF POST (RPC:establish-subscription) |
|--------------------------------------------->|
| HTTP 200 OK (ID,URI)|
|<---------------------------------------------|
| |HTTP GET (URI) |
| |--------------------------------------------->|
| | HTTP 200 OK|
| |<---------------------------------------------|
| | SSE (notif-message)|
| |<---------------------------------------------|
| RESTCONF POST (RPC:modify-subscription) | |
|--------------------------------------------->| |
| | HTTP 200 OK| |
|<---------------------------------------------| |
| | SSE (subscription-modified)|
| |<------------------------------------------(c)|
| | SSE (notif-message)|
| |<---------------------------------------------|
| RESTCONF POST (RPC:delete-subscription) | |
|--------------------------------------------->| |
| | HTTP 200 OK| |
|<---------------------------------------------| |
| | | |
| | | |
(a) (b) (a) (b)
Figure 1: Dynamic Subscriptions with Server-Sent Events
Additional requirements for dynamic subscriptions over SSE include:
* A publisher MUST return all subscription state notifications in a
separate SSE message used by the subscription to which the state
change refers.
* Subscription RPCs MUST NOT use the connection currently providing
notification messages for that subscription.
* In addition to an RPC response for a "modify-subscription" RPC
traveling over (a), a "subscription-modified" state change
notification MUST be sent within (b). This allows the receiver to
know exactly when, within the stream of events, the new terms of
the subscription have been applied to the notification messages.
See arrow (c).
* In addition to any required access permissions (e.g., Network
Configuration Access Control Model (NACM)), the RPCs "modify-
subscription", "resync-subscription", and "delete-subscription"
SHOULD only be allowed by the same RESTCONF username [RFC 8040]
that invoked "establish-subscription". Such a restriction
generally serves to preserve users' privacy, but exceptions might
be made for administrators that may need to modify or delete other
users' subscriptions.
* The "kill-subscription" RPC can be invoked by any RESTCONF
username with the required administrative permissions.
A publisher MUST terminate a subscription in the following cases:
* Receipt of a "delete-subscription" or a "kill-subscription" RPC
for that subscription
* Loss of TLS heartbeat
A publisher MAY terminate a subscription at any time as stated in
Section 1.3 of [RFC 8639].
4. QoS Treatment
Qos treatment for event streams is described in Section 2.3 of
[RFC 8639]. In addition, if HTTP/2 is used, the publisher MUST:
* Take the "weighting" leaf node in [RFC 8639] and copy it into the
HTTP/2 stream weight, Section 5.3 of [RFC 7540], and
* Take any existing subscription "dependency", as specified by the
"dependency" leaf node in [RFC 8639], and use the HTTP/2 stream for
the parent subscription as the HTTP/2 stream dependency (as
described in Section 5.3.1 of [RFC 7540]) of the dependent
subscription.
* Set the exclusive flag (Section 5.3.1 of [RFC 7540]) to 0.
For dynamic subscriptions with the same Differentiated Services Code
Point (DSCP) value to a specific publisher, it is recommended that
the subscriber sends all URI GET requests on a common HTTP/2 session
(if HTTP/2 is used). Conversely, a subscriber cannot use a common
HTTP/2 session for subscriptions with different DSCP values.
5. Notification Messages
Notification messages transported over RESTCONF will be encoded
according to [RFC 8040], Section 6.4.
6. YANG Tree
The YANG module defined in Section 7 has one leaf that augments three
nodes of [RFC 8639].
module: ietf-restconf-subscribed-notifications
augment /sn:establish-subscription/sn:output:
+--ro uri? inet:uri
augment /sn:subscriptions/sn:subscription:
+--ro uri? inet:uri
augment /sn:subscription-modified:
+--ro uri? inet:uri
7. YANG Module
This module references [RFC 8639].
<CODE BEGINS>
file "ietf-restconf-subscribed-notifications@2019-11-17.yang"
module ietf-restconf-subscribed-notifications {
yang-version 1.1;
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:"
+ "ietf-restconf-subscribed-notifications";
prefix rsn;
import ietf-subscribed-notifications {
prefix sn;
}
import ietf-inet-types {
prefix inet;
}
organization
"IETF NETCONF (Network Configuration) Working Group";
contact
"WG Web: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/netconf/>
WG List: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
Editor: Eric Voit
<mailto:evoit@cisco.com>
Editor: Alexander Clemm
<mailto:ludwig@clemm.org>
Editor: Reshad Rahman
<mailto:rrahman@cisco.com>";
description
"Defines RESTCONF as a supported transport for subscribed
event notifications.
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified
as authors of the code. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject to
the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License set
forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
This version of this YANG module is part of RFC 8650; see the
RFC itself for full legal notices.";
revision 2019-11-17 {
description
"Initial version";
reference
"RFC 8650: Dynamic Subscription to YANG Events and Datastores
over RESTCONF";
}
grouping uri {
description
"Provides a reusable description of a URI.";
leaf uri {
type inet:uri;
config false;
description
"Location of a subscription-specific URI on the publisher.";
}
}
augment "/sn:establish-subscription/sn:output" {
description
"This augmentation allows RESTCONF-specific parameters for a
response to a publisher's subscription request.";
uses uri;
}
augment "/sn:subscriptions/sn:subscription" {
description
"This augmentation allows RESTCONF-specific parameters to be
exposed for a subscription.";
uses uri;
}
augment "/sn:subscription-modified" {
description
"This augmentation allows RESTCONF-specific parameters to be
included as part of the notification that a subscription has
been modified.";
uses uri;
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
8. IANA Considerations
This document registers the following namespace URI in the "ns"
subregistry of the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC 3688]:
URI:
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-restconf-subscribed-notifications
Registrant Contact: The IESG.
XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.
This document registers the following YANG module in the "YANG Module
Names" registry [RFC 6020]:
Name: ietf-restconf-subscribed-notifications
Namespace:
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-restconf-subscribed-notifications
Prefix: rsn
Reference: RFC 8650
9. Security Considerations
The YANG module specified in this document defines a schema for data
that is designed to be accessed via network management transports
such as NETCONF [RFC 6241] or RESTCONF [RFC 8040]. The lowest NETCONF
layer is the secure transport layer, and the mandatory-to-implement
secure transport is Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC 6242]. The lowest
RESTCONF layer is HTTPS, and the mandatory-to-implement secure
transport is TLS [RFC 8446].
The Network Configuration Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC 8341]
provides the means to restrict access for particular NETCONF or
RESTCONF users to a preconfigured subset of all available NETCONF or
RESTCONF protocol operations and content.
The one new data node introduced in this YANG module may be
considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. It
is thus important to control read access (e.g., via get, get-config,
or notification) to this data node. These are the subtrees and data
nodes and their sensitivity/vulnerability:
Container: "/subscriptions"
* "uri": leaf will show where subscribed resources might be located
on a publisher. Access control must be set so that only someone
with proper access permissions, i.e., the same RESTCONF [RFC 8040]
user credentials that invoked the corresponding "establish-
subscription", has the ability to access this resource.
The subscription URI is implementation specific and is encrypted via
the use of TLS. Therefore, even if an attacker succeeds in guessing
the subscription URI, a RESTCONF username [RFC 8040] with the required
administrative permissions must be used to be able to access or
modify that subscription. It is recommended that the subscription
URI values not be easily predictable.
The access permission considerations for the RPCs "modify-
subscription", "resync-subscription", "delete-subscription", and
"kill-subscription" are described in Section 3.4.
If a buggy or compromised RESTCONF subscriber sends a number of
"establish-subscription" requests, then these subscriptions
accumulate and may use up system resources. In such a situation, the
publisher MAY also suspend or terminate a subset of the active
subscriptions from that RESTCONF subscriber in order to reclaim
resources and preserve normal operation for the other subscriptions.
10. References
10.1. 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 3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 3688, January 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3688>.
[RFC 6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 6020, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6020>.
[RFC 6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6241, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6241>.
[RFC 6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure
Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6242, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6242>.
[RFC 6520] Seggelmann, R., Tuexen, M., and M. Williams, "Transport
Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS) Heartbeat Extension", RFC 6520,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 6520, February 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6520>.
[RFC 7540] Belshe, M., Peon, R., and M. Thomson, Ed., "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)", RFC 7540,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 7540, May 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7540>.
[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>.
[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 8639] Voit, E., Clemm, A., Gonzalez Prieto, A., Nilsen-Nygaard,
E., and A. Tripathy, "Subscription to YANG Notifications",
RFC 8639, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8639, September 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8639>.
[RFC 8641] Clemm, A. and E. Voit, "Subscription to YANG Notifications
for Datastore Updates", RFC 8641, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8641,
September 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8641>.
[W3C-20150203]
Hickson, I., "Server-Sent Events", W3C Recommendation, 3
February 2015,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2015/REC-eventsource-20150203/>.
Latest version available at <https://www.w3.org/TR/
eventsource/>.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC 7231] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer
Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content", RFC 7231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 7231, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7231>.
[RFC 7923] Voit, E., Clemm, A., and A. Gonzalez Prieto, "Requirements
for Subscription to YANG Datastores", RFC 7923,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 7923, June 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7923>.
[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 8347] Liu, X., Ed., Kyparlis, A., Parikh, R., Lindem, A., and M.
Zhang, "A YANG Data Model for the Virtual Router
Redundancy Protocol (VRRP)", RFC 8347,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 8347, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8347>.
[RFC 8527] Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K.,
and R. Wilton, "RESTCONF Extensions to Support the Network
Management Datastore Architecture", RFC 8527,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 8527, March 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8527>.
[RFC 8640] Voit, E., Clemm, A., Gonzalez Prieto, A., Nilsen-Nygaard,
E., and A. Tripathy, "Dynamic Subscription to YANG Events
and Datastores over NETCONF", RFC 8640,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 8640, September 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8640>.
[XPATH] Clark, J. and S. DeRose, "XML Path Language (XPath)
Version 1.0", W3C Recommendation, 16 November 1999,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xpath-19991116>. Latest
version available at <https://www.w3.org/TR/ xpath/>.
Appendix A. Examples
This section is non-normative. To allow easy comparison, this
section mirrors the functional examples shown with NETCONF over XML
within [RFC 8640]. In addition, HTTP/2 vs HTTP/1.1 headers are not
shown as the contents of the JSON encoded objects are identical
within.
The subscription URI values used in the examples in this section are
purely illustrative, and are not indicative of the expected usage
that is described in Section 9.
The DSCP values are only for example purposes and are all indicated
in decimal since the encoding is JSON [RFC 7951].
A.1. Dynamic Subscriptions
A.1.1. Establishing Dynamic Subscriptions
The following figure shows two successful "establish-subscription"
RPC requests as per [RFC 8639]. The first request is given a
subscription identifier of 22, and the second, an identifier of 23.
+------------+ +-----------+
| Subscriber | | Publisher |
+------------+ +-----------+
| |
|establish-subscription |
|------------------------------>| (a)
| HTTP 200 OK, id#22, URI#1 |
|<------------------------------| (b)
|GET (URI#1) |
|------------------------------>| (c)
| HTTP 200 OK,notif-mesg (id#22)|
|<------------------------------|
| |
| |
|establish-subscription |
|------------------------------>|
| HTTP 200 OK, id#23, URI#2|
|<------------------------------|
|GET (URI#2) |
|------------------------------>|
| |
| |
| notif-mesg (id#22)|
|<------------------------------|
| HTTP 200 OK,notif-mesg (id#23)|
|<------------------------------|
| |
Figure 2: Multiple Subscriptions over RESTCONF/HTTP
To provide examples of the information being transported, example
messages for interactions in Figure 2 are detailed below:
POST /restconf/operations
/ietf-subscribed-notifications:establish-subscription
{
"ietf-subscribed-notifications:input": {
"stream-xpath-filter": "/example-module:foo/",
"stream": "NETCONF",
"dscp": 10
}
}
Figure 3: "establish-subscription" Request (a)
As the publisher was able to fully satisfy the request, the publisher
sends the subscription identifier of the accepted subscription and
the URI:
HTTP status code - 200
{
"id": 22,
"uri": "https://example.com/restconf/subscriptions/22"
}
Figure 4: "establish-subscription" Success (b)
Upon receipt of the successful response, the subscriber does a GET to
the provided URI to start the flow of notification messages. When
the publisher receives this, the subscription is moved to the active
state (c).
GET /restconf/subscriptions/22
Figure 5: "establish-subscription" Subsequent POST
While not shown in Figure 2, if the publisher had not been able to
fully satisfy the request, or the subscriber has no authorization to
establish the subscription, the publisher would have sent an RPC
error response. For instance, if the "dscp" value of 10 asserted by
the subscriber in Figure 3 proved unacceptable, the publisher may
have returned:
HTTP status code - 400
{ "ietf-restconf:errors" : {
"error" : [
{
"error-type": "application",
"error-tag": "invalid-value",
"error-severity": "error",
"error-app-tag":
"ietf-subscribed-notifications:dscp-unavailable"
}
]
}
}
Figure 6: An Unsuccessful "establish-subscription"
The subscriber can use this information in future attempts to
establish a subscription.
A.1.2. Modifying Dynamic Subscriptions
An existing subscription may be modified. The following exchange
shows a negotiation of such a modification via several exchanges
between a subscriber and a publisher. This negotiation consists of a
failed RPC modification request/response followed by a successful
one.
+------------+ +-----------+
| Subscriber | | Publisher |
+------------+ +-----------+
| |
| notification message (id#23)|
|<-----------------------------|
| |
|modify-subscription (id#23) |
|----------------------------->| (d)
| HTTP 400 error (with hint)|
|<-----------------------------| (e)
| |
|modify-subscription (id#23) |
|----------------------------->|
| HTTP 200 OK |
|<-----------------------------|
| |
| notif-mesg (id#23)|
|<-----------------------------|
| |
Figure 7: Interaction Model for Successful Subscription Modification
If the subscription being modified in Figure 7 is a datastore
subscription as per [RFC 8641], the modification request made in (d)
may look like that shown in Figure 8. As can be seen, the
modifications being attempted are the application of a new XML Path
Language (XPath) filter as well as the setting of a new periodic time
interval.
POST /restconf/operations
/ietf-subscribed-notifications:modify-subscription
{
"ietf-subscribed-notifications:input": {
"id": 23,
"ietf-yang-push:datastore-xpath-filter":
"/example-module:foo/example-module:bar",
"ietf-yang-push:periodic": {
"ietf-yang-push:period": 500
}
}
}
Figure 8: Subscription Modification Request (c)
If the publisher can satisfy both changes, the publisher sends a
positive result for the RPC. If the publisher cannot satisfy either
of the proposed changes, the publisher sends an RPC error response
(e). The following is an example RPC error response for (e) that
includes a hint. This hint is an alternative time period value that
might have resulted in a successful modification:
HTTP status code - 400
{ "ietf-restconf:errors" : {
"error" : [
"error-type": "application",
"error-tag": "invalid-value",
"error-severity": "error",
"error-app-tag": "ietf-yang-push:period-unsupported",
"error-info": {
"ietf-yang-push":
"modify-subscription-datastore-error-info": {
"period-hint": 3000
}
}
]
}
}
Figure 9: "modify-subscription" Failure with Hint (e)
A.1.3. Deleting Dynamic Subscriptions
The following demonstrates deleting a subscription. This
subscription may have been to either a stream or a datastore.
POST /restconf/operations
/ietf-subscribed-notifications:delete-subscription
{
"delete-subscription": {
"id": "22"
}
}
Figure 10: "delete-subscription" Request
If the publisher can satisfy the request, the publisher replies with
success to the RPC request.
If the publisher cannot satisfy the request, the publisher sends an
<rpc-error> element indicating the modification didn't work.
Figure 11 shows a valid response for an existing valid subscription
identifier, but that subscription identifier was created on a
different transport session:
HTTP status code - 404
{
"ietf-restconf:errors" : {
"error" : [
"error-type": "application",
"error-tag": "invalid-value",
"error-severity": "error",
"error-app-tag":
"ietf-subscribed-notifications:no-such-subscription"
]
}
}
Figure 11: Unsuccessful "delete-subscription"
A.2. Subscription State Notifications
A publisher will send subscription state notifications according to
the definitions within [RFC 8639].
A.2.1. "subscription-modified"
A "subscription-modified" encoded in JSON would look like:
{
"ietf-restconf:notification" : {
"eventTime": "2007-09-01T10:00:00Z",
"ietf-subscribed-notifications:subscription-modified": {
"id": 39,
"uri": "https://example.com/restconf/subscriptions/22"
"stream-xpath-filter": "/example-module:foo",
"stream": {
"ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications" : "NETCONF"
}
}
}
}
Figure 12: "subscription-modified" Subscription State Notification
A.2.2. "subscription-completed", "subscription-resumed", and "replay-
completed"
A "subscription-completed" notification would look like:
{
"ietf-restconf:notification" : {
"eventTime": "2007-09-01T10:00:00Z",
"ietf-subscribed-notifications:subscription-completed": {
"id": 39,
}
}
}
Figure 13: "subscription-completed" Notification in JSON
The "subscription-resumed" and "replay-complete" are virtually
identical, with "subscription-completed" simply being replaced by
"subscription-resumed" and "replay-complete".
A.2.3. "subscription-terminated" and "subscription-suspended"
A "subscription-terminated" would look like:
{
"ietf-restconf:notification" : {
"eventTime": "2007-09-01T10:00:00Z",
"ietf-subscribed-notifications:subscription-terminated": {
"id": 39,
"error-id": "suspension-timeout"
}
}
}
Figure 14: "subscription-terminated" Subscription State Notification
The "subscription-suspended" is virtually identical, with
"subscription-terminated" simply being replaced by "subscription-
suspended".
A.3. Filter Example
This section provides an example that illustrates the method of
filtering event record contents. The example is based on the YANG
notification "vrrp-protocol-error-event" as defined per the ietf-
vrrp.yang module within [RFC 8347]. Event records based on this
specification that are generated by the publisher might appear as:
data: {
data: "ietf-restconf:notification" : {
data: "eventTime" : "2018-09-14T08:22:33.44Z",
data: "ietf-vrrp:vrrp-protocol-error-event" : {
data: "protocol-error-reason" : "checksum-error"
data: }
data: }
data: }
Figure 15: RFC 8347 (VRRP) - Example Notification
Suppose a subscriber wanted to establish a subscription that only
passes instances of event records where there is a "checksum-error"
as part of a Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP) protocol
event. Also assume the publisher places such event records into the
NETCONF stream. To get a continuous series of matching event
records, the subscriber might request the application of an XPath
filter against the NETCONF stream. An "establish-subscription" RPC
to meet this objective might be:
POST /restconf/operations
/ietf-subscribed-notifications:establish-subscription
{
"ietf-subscribed-notifications:input": {
"stream": "NETCONF",
"stream-xpath-filter":
"/ietf-vrrp:vrrp-protocol-error-event[
protocol-error-reason='checksum-error']/",
}
}
Figure 16: Establishing a Subscription Error Reason via XPath
For more examples of XPath filters, see [XPATH].
Suppose the "establish-subscription" in Figure 16 was accepted. And
suppose later a subscriber decided they wanted to broaden this
subscription cover to all VRRP protocol events (i.e., not just those
with a "checksum error"). The subscriber might attempt to modify the
subscription in a way that replaces the XPath filter with a subtree
filter that sends all VRRP protocol events to a subscriber. Such a
"modify-subscription" RPC might look like:
POST /restconf/operations
/ietf-subscribed-notifications:modify-subscription
{
"ietf-subscribed-notifications:input": {
"stream": "NETCONF",
"stream-subtree-filter": {
"/ietf-vrrp:vrrp-protocol-error-event" : {}
}
}
}
Figure 17: Example "modify-subscription" RPC
For more examples of subtree filters, see [RFC 6241], Section 6.4.
Acknowledgments
We wish to acknowledge the helpful contributions, comments, and
suggestions that were received from Ambika Prasad Tripathy, Alberto
Gonzalez Prieto, Susan Hares, Tim Jenkins, Balazs Lengyel, Kent
Watsen, Michael Scharf, Guangying Zheng, Martin Bjorklund, Qin Wu,
and Robert Wilton.
Authors' Addresses
Eric Voit
Cisco Systems
Email: evoit@cisco.com
Reshad Rahman
Cisco Systems
Email: rrahman@cisco.com
Einar Nilsen-Nygaard
Cisco Systems
Email: einarnn@cisco.com
Alexander Clemm
Futurewei
Email: ludwig@clemm.org
Andy Bierman
YumaWorks
Email: andy@yumaworks.com
RFC TOTAL SIZE: 46475 bytes
PUBLICATION DATE: Sunday, November 17th, 2019
LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)
|
