RFC 9196: YANG Modules Describing Capabilities for Systems and Datastore Update Notifications
- B. Lengyel,
- A. Clemm,
- B. Claise
Abstract
This document defines two YANG modules, "ietf
The module "ietf
The module "ietf
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://
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 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://
1. Introduction
Servers and/or publishers often have capabilities, which can be represented by values that designate operational behavior, that need to be conveyed to clients. The YANG modules that are defined in this document facilitate this.¶
There is a need to publish this capability information as it is part of the API contract between the server and client. Examples include the maximum size of data that can be stored or transferred, information about counters (whether a node supports "on-change" telemetry), etc. Such capabilities are often dependent on a vendor's implementation or the available resources at deployment. Many such capabilities are specific to the complete system, individual YANG datastores [RFC8342], specific parts of the YANG schema, or even individual data nodes. It is a goal of this document to provide a common way to represent such capabilities in a format that is:¶
Implementation
Implementation
Runtime capability information is needed:¶
1.1. 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 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
The terms "YANG-Push", "on-change subscription", and "periodic subscription" are used as defined in [RFC8641].¶
The terms "subscriber", "publisher", and "receiver" are used as defined in [RFC8639].¶
The term "server" is used as defined in [RFC8342].¶
The terms "YANG instance data file format", "instance data", and "instance data set" are used as defined in [RFC9195].¶
In addition, this document defines the following terms:¶
- Implementation
-time information: - Information about the server's behavior that is made available during the implementation of the server, available from a source other than a running server.¶
- Runtime information:
- Information about the server's behavior that is available from the running server via management protocols such as NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040].¶
2. Providing System Capability Information
Capability information is represented by instance data based on one or
more "capability
- For the implementation
-time use case: - Capabilities SHOULD be provided by the implementer as YANG instance data files complying with [RFC9195]. When provided, the file MUST already be available at implementation time and retrievable in a way that does not depend on a live network node, e.g., downloading from a product website.¶
- For the runtime use case:
- Capabilities SHOULD be available via
NETCONF [RFC6241] or
RESTCONF [RFC8040] from the live server (implementing
the publisher) during runtime.
Implementations that support changing these capabilities at
runtime SHOULD support "on-change" notifications about the
system
-capabilities container.¶
The module "ietf
The module "ietf
The YANG data models in this document conform to the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) defined in [RFC8342].¶
3. Providing YANG-Push Notification Capabilities Information
A specific case is the need to specify capabilities in the YANG-Push functionality. As defined in [RFC8641], a publisher may allow subscribers to subscribe to updates from a datastore and will subsequently push such update notifications to the receiver. Notifications may be sent periodically or "on change" (more or less immediately after each change).¶
A publisher supporting YANG-Push has a number of capabilities defined in [RFC8641] that are often determined during the implementation of the publisher. These include:¶
Additional capabilities if the optional "on-change" feature is supported include:¶
Publishers might have some capabilities (or limitations) to document -- for example, how many update notifications and how many datastore node updates they can send out in a certain time period. Other publishers might not support "periodic" subscriptions to all datastores. In some cases, a publisher supporting "on-change" notifications will not be able to push updates for some object types "on change". Reasons for this might be that the value of the datastore node changes frequently (e.g., in-octet counter), that small object changes are frequent and irrelevant to the receiver (e.g., a temperature gauge changing 0.1 degrees within a predetermined and acceptable range), or that the implementation is not capable of on-change notification for a particular object. In all those cases, it will be important for subscriber applications to have a way to identify the objects for which "on-change" notifications are supported and the objects for which they are not.¶
Support for "on-change" notifications does not
mean that such notifications will be sent for any specific data node, as the ability to do so may not be supported for every data node. Therefore, subscriber
Clients of a server (and subscribers to a publisher, as subscribers are also clients) need a method to gather capability information.¶
4. System Capabilities Model
The module "ietf
This module itself does not contain any capabilities; it provides
augmentation points for capabilities to be defined in subsequent YANG
modules. "ietf
Capability values can be specified at the system level, at the datastore level (by selecting all nodes in the datastore), or for specific data nodes of a specific datastore (and their contained subtrees). Capability values specified for a specific datastore or node-set override values specified at the system level.¶
Note: The solution is usable for both NMDA and non-NMDA systems. For non-NMDA servers, "config false" data is considered as if it were part of the running datastore.¶
4.1. Tree Diagram
The following tree diagram [RFC8340] provides an overview of the data model.¶
5. Notification Capabilities Model
The YANG module "ietf
5.1. Tree Diagram
The following tree diagram [RFC8340] provides an overview of the data model.¶
6. Security Considerations
The YANG modules specified in this document define a schema for data
that is designed to be accessed via network management protocols such
as NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040]
or as YANG instance data.
The lowest NETCONF layer is the secure transport layer, and the
mandatory
The Network Configuration Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC8341] 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.¶
This document outlines a framework for conveying system capability information that is inherently flexible and extensible. While the full set of use cases is not known now, they may range as wide as conveying the minimum update period for periodic subscription updates and what protocols might be used for such notifications. Knowledge of this type of value might, for example, allow an attacker to gain insight into how long unauthorized configuration changes might be active prior to detection and what communications channels might be disrupted to extend the period of non-detection. Documents adding additional capabilities via augmenting this module are encouraged to document the security considerations of the new YANG nodes, according to the guidance in BCP 216 [RFC8407].¶
All protocol
When that data is in file format, the data should be protected against modification or unauthorized access using normal file-handling mechanisms. The data in file format also inherits all the security considerations of [RFC9195], which includes additional considerations about read protections and distinguishes between data at rest and in motion.¶
7. IANA Considerations
7.1. The IETF XML Registry
This document registers the following URIs in the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688]:¶
7.2. The YANG Module Names Registry
This document registers the following YANG modules in the "YANG Module Names" registry [RFC6020]:¶
8. References
8.1. Normative References
- [RFC2119]
-
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC2119 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc2119 - [RFC3688]
-
Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC3688 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc3688 - [RFC6020]
-
Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6020 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6020 - [RFC6241]
-
Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6241 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6241 - [RFC6242]
-
Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6242 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6242 - [RFC8040]
-
Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8040 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8040 - [RFC8174]
-
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8174 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8174 - [RFC8341]
-
Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration Access Control Model", STD 91, RFC 8341, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8341 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8341 - [RFC8342]
-
Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K., and R. Wilton, "Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)", RFC 8342, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8342 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8342 - [RFC8446]
-
Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8446 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8446 - [RFC8525]
-
Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Watsen, K., and R. Wilton, "YANG Library", RFC 8525, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8525 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8525 - [RFC8639]
-
Voit, E., Clemm, A., Gonzalez Prieto, A., Nilsen-Nygaard, E., and A. Tripathy, "Subscription to YANG Notifications", RFC 8639, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8639 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8639 - [RFC8641]
-
Clemm, A. and E. Voit, "Subscription to YANG Notifications for Datastore Updates", RFC 8641, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8641 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8641 - [RFC9195]
-
Lengyel, B. and B. Claise, "A File Format for YANG Instance Data", RFC 9195, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9195 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9195
8.2. Informative References
- [RFC8340]
-
Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams", BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8340 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8340 - [RFC8407]
-
Bierman, A., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of Documents Containing YANG Data Models", BCP 216, RFC 8407, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8407 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8407 - [RFC8792]
-
Watsen, K., Auerswald, E., Farrel, A., and Q. Wu, "Handling Long Lines in Content of Internet-Drafts and RFCs", RFC 8792, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8792 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8792
Appendix A. Instance Data Example #1
The following examples use artwork folding [RFC8792] for better formatting.¶
The following instance data example describes the notification capabilities of a hypothetical "acme-router". The router implements the running and operational datastores. Every change can be reported "on-change" from the running datastore, but only "config false" nodes and some "config false" data can be reported on-change from the operational datastore. Interface statistics are not reported "on-change"; only two important counters are. Datastore subscription capabilities are not reported "on-change", as they never change on the acme-router during runtime.¶
Appendix B. Instance Data Example #2
The following examples use artwork folding [RFC8792] for better formatting.¶
The following instance data example describes the notification capabilities of a hypothetical "acme-switch". The switch implements the running, candidate, and operational datastores. Every change can be reported "on-change" from the running datastore, nothing can be reported on-change from the candidate datastore, and all "config false" data can be reported on-change from the operational datastore. "Periodic" subscriptions are supported for running and operational but not for candidate datastores.¶
Acknowledgments
For their valuable comments, discussions, and feedback, we wish to acknowledge Andy Bierman, Juergen Schoenwaelder, Rob Wilton, Kent Watsen, Eric Voit, Joe Clarke, Martin Bjorklund, Ladislav Lhotka, Qin Wu, Mahesh Jethanandani, Ran Tao, Reshad Rahman, and other members of the Netmod Working Group.¶