| I2RS working group | S. Hares |
| Internet-Draft | Huawei |
| Intended status: Informational | A. Dass |
| Expires: September 11, 2017 | Ericsson |
| March 10, 2017 |
Yang for I2RS Protocol
draft-hares-netmod-i2rs-yang-03.txt
This document requests yang language additions for the data models that exist as part of the I2RS control plane datastore. One of these additions is the ability to mark a portion of the model as having ephemeral state.
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 September 11, 2017.
Copyright (c) 2017 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 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
This a proposal for additions to yang 1.1 [RFC7950] to support the I2RS protocol.
The I2RS architecture [RFC7921] defines the I2RS interface "a programmatic interface for state transfer in and out of the Internet routing system". The I2RS protocol is a protocol designed to a higher level protocol comprised of a set of IETF existing protocols (NETCONF [RFC6241], RESTCONF [RFC8044], and others) 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 by reusing existing protocols and extending these protocols for new uses, and has been designed to be implemented in phases [RFC7921].
This document suggests the following additions to Yang to support the I2RS control plane datastore. [I-D.ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state] specifies the I2RS requirements for the ephemeral state.
Section 3 of this document defines optional additions to yang 1.1 to support I2RS ephemeral control plane datastore. The main addition is the datastore statement with four new substatements (dstype, ephemeral, protosup, validation). The protosup substatement has two valid substatements (protobase, protoadd). The validation substatement has has three new substatements: bulkchecks, caching, and nstransport.
Section 4 provides the augmentation to RFC7950 tables for these optional features.
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].
The I2RS architecture [RFC7921] defines the following terms:
The "datastore" substatement for the Yang Module statement provides the ability to describe which datastore a module or submodule may be loaded into. If no "datastore" statement exists, there is no restriction on the datastores a module or submodule can be loaded into.
The argument the datastore is a datastore name denoted as "dsname".
The vaid substatements are in Table 1. The "description" substatement provides a description of the datastore. The "dstype" provides information on the class (e.g., config or control plane) and the subclass of the datastore (e.g., i2rs). The ephemeral indicates that entire datastore is ephemeral. The validation provides alternate validation rules for the datastore. The syntax of these substatements are provided in sections x.x of thsi document
Data store syntax:
datastore <dsname> {
<sub-statements>
};
dstype syntax:
dstype dsclass dsname
where:
dsclass: [config | control-plane ]
dssubclass [ i2rs | vendor ]
Figure 1
Table 1
+---------------+----------+---------+-------------+
| | This | | |
| | document | RFC7960 | |
| substatement | section | section | cardinality |
+---------------+----------+---------+-------------+
| description | - | 7.21.3 | 0..1 |
| dstype | 3.2 | - | 1 |
| ephemeral | 3.3 | - | 0..n |
| protosup | 3.4 | - | 0..n |
| reference | - | 7.21.4 | 0..1 |
| revision | - | 7.1.9 | 0..n |
| revision-date | - | 7.1.5.1 | 0..1 |
| validation | 3.5 | - | 0..n |
| version | | 7.1.9 | 0..n |
+---------------+----------+---------+-------------+
The substatements for the datastore substatement are listed below:
Application Comments:
A module may be mounted into different datastores. The datastore statement indicates which datastores a module may be mounted in, and the characteristics of each datastore.
They substatement dstype indicates the datastore class and subclass of the datastore. A dstype substatement may only exist within a datastore statement.
Syntax of the dstype datastore is:
dstype <dsclass> <dsname>;
where:
dsclass: ["config" | "control-plane ]
dssubclass [ "i2rs-v0" | "vendor" ]
The ephemeral indicates that an object is ephemeral data which does not survive a reboot (see [I-D.ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state]. The definition of the object may be a datastore, a module, a submodule, an action, a container, a grouping, a leaf, a leaf-list, a list, or an rpc.
Syntax is the following: ephemeral [yes | no]; The value "no" indicates the object is not ephemeral. The value "yes" indicates the value is ephemeral. Figure 2
This indicates which protocols support this datastore. The protocols can be netconf, restconf, coap, gprc, and bgp. The substatements for protosup are protocobase and protoadd
Syntax is the following:
protosup {
<<protosup substatements>>
}
Table 2
+---------------+----------+---------+-------------+
| | document | RFC7960 | |
| substatement | section | section | cardinality |
+---------------+----------+---------+-------------+
| description | - | 7.21.3 | 0..1 |
| protobase | 3.4.1 | - | 1..n |
| protoadd | 3.4.2 | - | 1..n |
+---------------+----------+---------+-------------+
Syntax for protobase:
protobase [netconf | restconf | coap
| bgp | isis | ospf | dots
| <protocol-name> ]
Figure 3
The protobase substatement indicates the protocol a database can be sent over. The syntax is below:
Syntax for proto add: protoadd [i2rs | i2nsf | <proto-add>] Figure 4
The protoadd specifies required optional additions to a protocol that sends information to a datastore. One example of such an addition is the additions to RESTCONF to support the I2RS protocol denoted as "i2rs".
The validation keyword indicates that the object uses alternate validation besides the mechanisms defined by the configuration datastore as defined in [RFC7950]. The validation subcommand is invalid in any module or submodule which is only defined for the configuration datastore. Unless the module has a datastore statement which includes a datastore other than config, all validation statements in the module are ignored. Unless the submodule has a datastore statement which includes a datastore other than config, all validation statements are ignored.
The validation can be set on a datastore command in a a module, a submodule, an action, a container, a grouping, a leaf, a leaf-list, a list, or an rpc. The validation substatements include nstransport and bulk-checks as shown in table 3.
Syntax of the validation is:
validation {
<<validation-substatements>>
};
Figure 5
Table 3
+---------------+----------+---------+-------------+
| | document | RFC7960 | |
| substatement | section | section | cardinality |
+---------------+----------+---------+-------------+
| description | - | 7.21.3 | 0..1 |
| bulkchecks | 3.5 | - | 0..1 |
| caching | 3.6 | - | 0..1 |
| nstransport | 3.7 | - | 0..1 |
| organization | - | 7.1.7 | 0..1 |
| reference | - | 7.21.4 | 0..n |
| revision-date | - | 7.1.5.1 | 0..1 |
| version | | 7.1.9 | 0..n |
+---------------+----------+---------+-------------+
The bulkcheck flag indicates whether this object uses bulk-check validation instead of the normal configuration datastore validation. The protocol updating the object must support bulk checking mechanism, or indicate that this object is not supported.
This is a new feature for control plane protocols and control plane datastores. In the configuration datastores, it is possible to support this feature at the validation level for the rpc object. Early implemementers of this feature for module which may loaded in the configuration datastore are encouraged to place bulkcheck features within "rpc" functionality.
bulkcheck syntax: bulkchecks [yes | no]; Figure 6
The value "no" indicates the object does not allows "bulkchecks" of data, and uses the normal configuration datastore checking. The value "yes" indicates the object does not allows "bulkchecks" of data within this object.
The caching flag indicates whether the I2RS support caching of multiple client information within I2RS Agents.
Application note: This feature is not supported for the I2RS protocol version 0
caching syntax: caching [yes | no]; Figure 7
The value "no" indicates the object does not allows "bulkchecks" of data, and uses the normal configuration datastore checking. The value "yes" indicates the object does not allows "bulkchecks" of data within this object.
The nstransport indicates whether this object may be sent across a non-secure transport. Sending data across a non-secure transport should be done only if the circumstances warrant it.
This is a new feature for the I2RS control plane protocols and control plane datastores.
Caution: For a description of when a on-secure transport is appropriate for I2RS control plane protocol, please refer to the I2RS protocol security requirements [I-D.ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements]. Implementers of this feature in an I2RS implementation should also review the I2RS security requirements [I-D.ietf-i2rs-security-environment-reqs]. No data which reveals any identity for a person or confidential information should be sent via a non-secure transport.
Syntax is the following: nstransport [yes | no];
The optional attributes add options to the tables for substatements for the module (section 7.1.1), submodule table, action, container, grouping, leaf, leaf-list, a list, and an rpc. This section provides the revised tables.
+--------------+----------+-------------+ | | RFC7950 | | | substatement | section | cardinality | +--------------+----------+-------------+ | anydata | 7.10 | 0..n | | anyxml | 7.11 | 0..n | | augment | 7.17 | 0..n | | choice | 7.9 | 0..n | | contact | 7.1.8 | 0..1 | | container | 7.5 | 0..n | | description | 7.21.3 | 0..1 | | deviation | 7.20.3 | 0..n | | extension | 7.19 | 0..n | | feature | 7.20.1 | 0..n | | grouping | 7.12 | 0..n | | identity | 7.18 | 0..n | | import | 7.1.5 | 0..n | | include | 7.1.6 | 0..n | | leaf | 7.6 | 0..n | | leaf-list | 7.7 | 0..n | | list | 7.8 | 0..n | | namespace | 7.1.3 | 1 | | notification | 7.16 | 0..n | | organization | 7.1.7 | 0..1 | | prefix | 7.1.4 | 1 | | reference | 7.21.4 | 0..1 | | revision | 7.1.9 | 0..n | | rpc | 7.14 | 0..n | | typedef | 7.3 | 0..n | | uses | 7.13 | 0..n | | yang-version | 7.1.2 | 1 | +--------------+----------+-------------+ | optional | This | | | Yang 1.1 |document's| | | substatement | section | cardinality | +--------------+----------+-------------+ | datastore | 3.2 | 0..n | | ephemeral | 3.3 | 0..n | | validation | 3.5 | 0..n | +--------------+----------+-------------+ Figure 2
This is the additions to module's substatment table in section 7.1.1 of [RFC7950].
7.2.1. The submodule's Substatements +--------------+----------+-------------+ | | RFC7950 | | | substatement | section | cardinality | +--------------+----------+-------------+ | anydata | 7.10 | 0..n | | anyxml | 7.11 | 0..n | | augment | 7.17 | 0..n | | belongs-to | 7.2.2 | 1 | | choice | 7.9 | 0..n | | contact | 7.1.8 | 0..1 | | container | 7.5 | 0..n | | description | 7.21.3 | 0..1 | | deviation | 7.20.3 | 0..n | | extension | 7.19 | 0..n | | feature | 7.20.1 | 0..n | | grouping | 7.12 | 0..n | | identity | 7.18 | 0..n | | import | 7.1.5 | 0..n | | include | 7.1.6 | 0..n | | leaf | 7.6 | 0..n | | leaf-list | 7.7 | 0..n | | list | 7.8 | 0..n | | namespace | 7.1.3 | 1 | | notification | 7.16 | 0..n | | organization | 7.1.7 | 0..1 | | reference | 7.21.4 | 0..1 | | revision | 7.1.9 | 0..n | | rpc | 7.14 | 0..n | | typedef | 7.3 | 0..n | | uses | 7.13 | 0..n | | yang-version | 7.1.2 | 1 | +--------------+----------+-------------+ | optional | This | | | Yang 1.1 |document's| | | substatement | section | cardinality | +--------------+----------+-------------+ | ephemeral | 3.3 | 0..n | | validation | 3.5 | 0..n | +--------------+----------+-------------+ Figure 2
Below would be the replacement for the substatement table in setion 7.2.1 of [RFC7950] which lists the valid submodule statements.
7.5.2. The container Substatements +--------------+----------+-------------+ | | RFC7950 | | | substatement | section | cardinality | +--------------+----------+-------------+ | action | 7.15 | 0..n | | anydata | 7.10 | 0..n | | anyxml | 7.11 | 0..n | | choice | 7.9 | 0..n | | config | 7.21.1 | 0..1 | | description | 7.21.3 | 0..1 | | grouping | 7.12 | 0..n | | if-feature | 7.20.2 | 0..n | | leaf | 7.6 | 0..n | | leaf-list | 7.7 | 0..n | | list | 7.8 | 0..n | | must | 7.5.3 | 0..n | | notification | 7.16 | 0..n | | presennce | 7.5.5 | 0..1 | | reference | 7.21.4 | 0..1 | | status | 7.1.9 | 0..1 | | typedef | 7.3 | 0..n | | uses | 7.13 | 0..n | | when | 7.21.5 | 0..1 | +--------------+----------+-------------+ | optional | This | | | Yang 1.1 |document's| | | substatement | section | cardinality | +--------------+----------+-------------+ | ephemeral | 3.3 | 0..n | | validation | 3.5 | 0..n | +--------------+----------+-------------+ Figure 2
Below would be the replacement for the substatement table in section 7.5.2 of [RFC7950] that lists the legal container substatements.
7.6.2 The leaf's Substatements +--------------+----------+-------------+ | | RFC7950 | | | substatement | section | cardinality | +--------------+----------+-------------+ | config | 7.21.1 | 0..1 | | default | 7.6.4 | 0..1 | | description | 7.21.3 | 0..1 | | if-feature | 7.20.2 | 0..n | | mandatory | 7.6.5 | 0..1 | | must | 7.5.3 | 0..n | | reference | 7.21.4 | 0..1 | | status | 7.21.2 | 0..1 | | type | 7.6.3 | 1 | | units | 7.3.3 | 0..1 | | when | 7.21.5 | 0..1 | +--------------+----------+-------------+ | optional | This | | | Yang 1.1 |document's| | | substatement | section | cardinality | +--------------+----------+-------------+ | ephemeral | 3.3 | 0..n | | validation | 3.5 | 0..n | +--------------+----------+-------------+ Figure 2
Below would be replacement for the substatement table in section 7.6.2 of [RFC7950] which provides the leaf's substatements.
7.7.2 The leaf's Substatements +--------------+----------+-------------+ | | RFC7950 | | | substatement | section | cardinality | +--------------+----------+-------------+ | config | 7.21.1 | 0..1 | | default | 7.6.4 | 0..1 | | description | 7.21.3 | 0..1 | | if-feature | 7.20.2 | 0..n | | max-elements | 7.7.6 | 0..1 | | min-elements | 7.7.5 | 0..1 | | must | 7.5.3 | 0..n | | ordered-by | 7.7.7 | 0..1 | | reference | 7.21.4 | 0..1 | | status | 7.21.2 | 0..1 | | type | 7.6.3 | 1 | | units | 7.3.3 | 0..1 | | when | 7.21.5 | 0..1 | +--------------+---------+-------------+ | optional | This | | | Yang 1.1 |document's| | | substatement | section | cardinality | +--------------+----------+-------------+ | ephemeral | 3.3 | 0..n | | validation | 3.5 | 0..n | +--------------+----------+-------------+ Figure 2
Below would be the replacement for the substatement table in section 7.7.2 in [RFC7950] which provides the list of the leaf-lists substatements.
7.8.1 The list's Substatements +--------------+----------+-------------+ | | RFC7950 | | | substatement | section | cardinality | +--------------+----------+-------------+ | action | 7.15 | 0..n | | anydata | 7.10 | 0..n | | anyxml | 7.11 | 0..n | | choice | 7.9 | 0..n | | config | 7.21.1 | 0..1 | | container | 7.5 | 0..n | | description | 7.21.3 | 0..1 | | grouping | 7.12 | 0..n | | if-feature | 7.20.2 | 0..n | | key | 7.8.2 | 0..n | | leaf | 7.6 | 0..n | | leaf-list | 7.7 | 0..n | | list | 7.8 | 0..n | | max-elements | 7.7.6 | 0..1 | | min-elements | 7.7.5 | 0..1 | | must | 7.5.3 | 0..n | | notification | 7.16 | 0..n } | ordered-by | 7.7.7 | 0..1 | | reference | 7.21.4 | 0..1 | | status | 7.21.2 | 0..1 | | typedef | 7.3 | 0..n | | uses | 7.13 | 0..n | | when | 7.21.5 | 0..1 | +--------------+----------+-------------+ | optional | This | | | Yang 1.1 |document's| | | substatement | section | cardinality | +--------------+----------+-------------+ | ephemeral | 3.3 | 0..n | | validation | 3.5 | 0..n | +--------------+----------+-------------+ Figure 2
Below would be the replacement for the table in section 7.8.1 in [RFC7950] which provides the list's substatements.
7.5.2. The grouping's Substatements +--------------+----------+-------------+ | | RFC7950 | | | substatement | section | cardinality | +--------------+----------+-------------+ | action | 7.15 | 0..n | | anydata | 7.10 | 0..n | | anyxml | 7.11 | 0..n | | choice | 7.9 | 0..n | | description | 7.21.3 | 0..1 | | grouping | 7.12 | 0..n | | leaf | 7.6 | 0..n | | leaf-list | 7.7 | 0..n | | list | 7.8 | 0..n | | notification | 7.16 | 0..n | | reference | 7.21.4 | 0..1 | | status | 7.1.9 | 0..1 | | typedef | 7.3 | 0..n | | uses | 7.13 | 0..n | +--------------+----------+-------------+ | optional | This | | | Yang 1.1 |document's| | | substatement | section | cardinality | +--------------+----------+-------------+ | ephemeral | 3.3 | 0..n | | validation | 3.5 | 0..n | +--------------+----------+-------------+ Figure 2
Below would be the replacement for the table 7.12.1 of [RFC7950] that lists the vaid substatments for the container substatements.
7.5.2. The rpc Substatements +--------------+----------+-------------+ | | RFC7950 | | | substatement | section | cardinality | +--------------+----------+-------------+ | description | 7.21.3 | 0..1 | | grouping | 7.12 | 0..n | | if-feature | 7.20.2 | 0..n | | input | 7.14.2 | 0..1 | | output | 7.14.3 | 0..1 | | reference | 7.21.4 | 0..1 | | status | 7.1.9 | 0..1 | | typedef | 7.3 | 0..n | +--------------+=---------+-------------+ | optional | This | | | Yang 1.1 |document's| | | substatement | section | cardinality | +--------------+----------+-------------+ | ephemeral | 3.3 | 0..n | | validation | 3.5 | 0..n | +--------------+----------+-------------+ Figure 2
Below would be the replacement for the table in section 7.14.1 of [RFC7950] that lists the legal rpc substatements.
7.5.2. The action Substatements +--------------+----------+-------------+ | | RFC7950 | | | substatement | section | cardinality | +--------------+----------+-------------+ | description | 7.21.3 | 0..1 | | grouping | 7.12 | 0..n | | if-feature | 7.20.2 | 0..n | | input | 7.14.2 | 0..1 | | output | 7.14.3 | 0..1 | | reference | 7.21.4 | 0..1 | | status | 7.1.9 | 0..1 | | typedef | 7.3 | 0..n | +--------------+=---------+-------------+ | optional | This | | | Yang 1.1 |document's| | | substatement | section | cardinality | +--------------+----------+-------------+ | ephemeral | 3.3 | 0..n | | validation | 3.5 | 0..n | +--------------+----------+-------------+ Figure 2
Below would be the replacement for the table 7.15.1 of [RFC7950] that lists the legal action substatements.
The additions for registries go here.
The security requirements for the I2RS protocol are covered in [I-D.ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements]. The security environment the I2RS protocol is covered in [I-D.ietf-i2rs-security-environment-reqs]. Any person implementing or deploying these yang additions for an I2RS protocol should consider both security requirements.
tBD
| [RFC2119] | Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997. |
| [RFC6241] | Enns, R., Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J. and A. Bierman, "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011. |
| [RFC7921] | Atlas, A., Halpern, J., Hares, S., Ward, D. and T. Nadeau, "An Architecture for the Interface to the Routing System", RFC 7921, DOI 10.17487/RFC7921, June 2016. |
| [RFC7950] | Bjorklund, M., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language", RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016. |
| [RFC8044] | DeKok, A., "Data Types in RADIUS", RFC 8044, DOI 10.17487/RFC8044, January 2017. |
| [I-D.ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state] | Haas, J. and S. Hares, "I2RS Ephemeral State Requirements", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-23, November 2016. |
| [I-D.ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements] | Hares, S., Migault, D. and J. Halpern, "I2RS Security Related Requirements", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements-17, September 2016. |
| [I-D.ietf-i2rs-security-environment-reqs] | Migault, D., Halpern, J. and S. Hares, "I2RS Environment Security Requirements", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-i2rs-security-environment-reqs-03, March 2017. |
| [I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores] | Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K. and R. Wilton, "A Revised Conceptual Model for YANG Datastores", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-00, December 2016. |