Internet DRAFT - draft-chairs-netmod-opstate-reqs
draft-chairs-netmod-opstate-reqs
NETMOD Working Group K. Watsen
Internet-Draft Juniper Networks
Intended status: Standards Track T. Nadeau
Expires: March 14, 2016 Brocade Networks
September 11, 2015
NETMOD Operational State Requirements
draft-chairs-netmod-opstate-reqs-00
Abstract
This document captures consensus on operational state requirements by
the NETMOD working group.
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 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 March 14, 2016.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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.
Watsen & Nadeau Expires March 14, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft NETMOD Operational State Requirements September 2015
Table of Contents
1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Appendix A. Relation to Requirements in Other Drafts . . . . . . 5
Appendix B. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Terminology
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 following terms are defined in
[draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01]:
o intended configuration - this data represents the state that the
network operator intends the system to be in. This data is
colloquially referred to as the 'configuration' of the system.
o applied configuration - this data represents the state that the
network element is actually in, i.e., that which is currently
being run by particular software modules (e.g., the BGP daemon),
or other systems within the device (e.g., a secondary control-
plane, or line card).
o derived state - this data represents information which is
generated as part of the system's own interactions. For example,
derived state may consist of the results of protocol interactions
(the negotiated duplex state of an Ethernet link), statistics
(such as message queue depth), or counters (such as packet input
or output bytes).
2. Requirements
1. Ability to interact with both intended and applied configuration
A. The ability to ask the operational components of a system
(e.g., line cards) for the configuration that they are
currently using. This is the "applied configuration".
B. Applied configuration is read-only
Watsen & Nadeau Expires March 14, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft NETMOD Operational State Requirements September 2015
C. The data model for the applied configuration is the same as
the data model for the intended configuration (same leaves)
D. For asynchronous systems, when fully synchronized, the data
in the applied configuration is the same as the data in the
intended configuration.
2. Applied configuration as part of operational state
A. The ability to retrieve the applied configuration and derived
state nodes in a single protocol operation.
3. Support for both transactional, synchronous management systems as
well as distributed, asynchronous management systems
A. For asynchronous systems, the ability to request a protocol
operation to not return (i.e. block) until the intended
configuration has been fully synchronized.
B. The protocol operation's response would indicate the result
of the operation (success, failure, partial, etc.)
4. Separation of configuration and operational state data; ability
to retrieve them independently
A. Be able to retrieve only the derived state aspects of
operational state
B. Be able to retrieve only the non-derived state aspects of
operational state
5. Ability to retrieve operational state corresponding only to
derived values, statistics, etc.
// this is a duplicate of # 4-a
6. Ability to relate configuration with its corresponding
operational state
A. Ability to map intended config nodes to corresponding applied
config nodes
B. Ability to map intended config nodes to associated derived
state nodes
C. The mappings needs to be programmatically consumable
7. Ability for distinct modules to leverage a common model-structure
Watsen & Nadeau Expires March 14, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft NETMOD Operational State Requirements September 2015
A. Scope is limited to IETF-defined modules
B. Multiple domain-specific trees are okay
C. Multiple namespaces are okay
3. Security Considerations
None
4. IANA Considerations
None
5. Acknowledgements
TBD
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
6.2. Informative References
[draft-openconfig-netmod-model-structure-00]
Shaikh, A., Shakir, R., D'Souza, K., and L. Fang,
"Operational Structure and Organization of YANG Models",
draft-openconfig-netmod-model-structure-00 (work in
progress), 2015, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-
openconfig-netmod-model-structure-00>.
[draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01]
Shakir, R., Shaikh, A., and M. Hines, "Consistent Modeling
of Operational State Data in YANG", draft-openconfig-
netmod-opstate-01 (work in progress), 2015,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-openconfig-netmod-
opstate-01>.
Watsen & Nadeau Expires March 14, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft NETMOD Operational State Requirements September 2015
Appendix A. Relation to Requirements in Other Drafts
The requirements in this document roughly map onto the requirements
listed in [draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01] and
[draft-openconfig-netmod-model-structure-00] as list below. Some
liberty was taken to adjust the requirements based on what looked
liked consensus from on list discussions:
1. draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01, Section 3
2. draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01, Section 4.1
3. draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01, Section 4.2
4. draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01, Section 4.3
5. draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01, Section 4.4
6. draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01, Section 4.5
7. draft-openconfig-netmod-model-structure-00 (no section)
Appendix B. Open Issues
All issues with this draft are tracked using GitHub issues. Please
see: https://github.com/netmod-wg/opstate-reqs/issues to see
currently opened issues.
Authors' Addresses
Kent Watsen
Juniper Networks
EMail: kwatsen@juniper.net
Thomas Nadeau
Brocade Networks
EMail: tnadeau@lucidvision.com
Watsen & Nadeau Expires March 14, 2016 [Page 5]
