Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-netconf-call-home
draft-ietf-netconf-call-home
NETCONF Working Group K. Watsen
Internet-Draft Juniper Networks
Intended status: Standards Track December 22, 2015
Expires: June 24, 2016
NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home
draft-ietf-netconf-call-home-17
Abstract
This RFC presents NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home, which
enable a NETCONF or RESTCONF server to initiate a secure connection
to a NETCONF or RESTCONF client respectively.
Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)
This draft contains many placeholder values that need to be replaced
with finalized values at the time of publication. This note
summarizes all of the substitutions that are needed. Please note
that no other RFC Editor instructions are specified anywhere else in
this document.
Artwork in this document contains placeholder references for this
draft. Please apply the following replacement:
o "XXXX" --> the assigned RFC value for this draft
This document contains references to another draft in progress, both
in the Normative References section, as well as in body text
throughout. Please update the following reference to reflect its
final RFC assignment:
o draft-ietf-netconf-restconf
Artwork in this document contains placeholder values for ports
pending IANA assignment from "draft-ietf-netconf-call-home". Please
apply the following replacements:
o "PORT-X" --> the assigned port value for "netconf-ch-ssh"
o "PORT-Y" --> the assigned port value for "netconf-ch-tls"
o "PORT-Z" --> the assigned port value for "restconf-ch-tls"
Watsen Expires June 24, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home December 2015
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 June 24, 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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Requirements Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. Applicability Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4. Relation to RFC 4253 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.5. The NETCONF/RESTCONF Convention . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Solution Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. The NETCONF or RESTCONF Client . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Protocol Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Configuration Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. The NETCONF or RESTCONF Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Protocol Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Configuration Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Watsen Expires June 24, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home December 2015
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
This RFC presents NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home, which
enable a NETCONF or RESTCONF server to initiate a secure connection
to a NETCONF or RESTCONF client respectively.
NETCONF Call Home supports both of the secure transports used by the
NETCONF protocol [RFC6241], SSH and TLS. The NETCONF protocol's
binding to SSH is defined in [RFC6242]. The NETCONF protocol's
binding to TLS is defined in [RFC7589].
RESTCONF Call Home only supports TLS, the same as the RESTCONF
protocol [draft-ietf-netconf-restconf]. The RESTCONF protocol's
binding to TLS is defined in [draft-ietf-netconf-restconf].
The SSH protocol is defined in [RFC4253]. The TLS protocol is
defined in [RFC5246]. Both the SSH and TLS protocols are layered on
top of the TCP protocol, which is defined in [RFC793].
Both NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home preserve all but one of
the client/server roles in their respective protocol stacks, as
compared to client initiated NETCONF and RESTCONF connections. The
one and only role reversal that occurs is at the TCP layer; that is,
which peer is the TCP-client and which is the TCP-server.
For example, a network element is traditionally the TCP-server.
However, when calling home, the network element becomes the TCP-
client. The network element's secure transport layer roles (SSH-
server, TLS-server) and its application layer roles (NETCONF-server,
RESTCONF-server) both remain the same.
Having consistency in both the secure transport layer (SSH, TLS) and
application layer (NETCONF, RESTCONF) roles conveniently enables
deployed network management infrastructure to support call home also.
For instance, existing certificate chains and user authentication
mechanisms are unaffected by call home.
Watsen Expires June 24, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home December 2015
1.1. Motivation
Call home is generally useful for both the initial deployment and on-
going management of networking elements. Here are some scenarios
enabled by call home:
o The network element may proactively call home after being powered
on for the first time in order to register itself with its
management system.
o The network element may access the network in a way that
dynamically assigns it an IP address, but does not register its
assigned IP address to a mapping service (e.g., dynamic DNS).
o The network element may be deployed behind a firewall that
implements network address translation (NAT) for all internal
network IP addresses.
o The network element may be deployed behind a firewall that doesn't
allow any management access to the internal network.
o The network element may be configured in "stealth mode" and thus
doesn't have any open ports for the management system to connect
to.
o The operator may prefer to have network elements initiate
management connections, believing it is easier to secure one open
port in the data center than to have an open port on each network
element in the network.
1.2. Requirements 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].
1.3. Applicability Statement
The techniques described in this document are suitable for network
management scenarios such as the ones described in Section 1.1.
However, these techniques are only defined for NETCONF Call Home and
RESTCONF Call Home, as described in this document.
The reason for this restriction is that different protocols have
different security assumptions. The NETCONF and RESTCONF protocols
require clients and servers to verify the identity of the other
party. This requirement is specified for the NETCONF protocol in
Watsen Expires June 24, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home December 2015
Section 2.2 of [RFC6241], and is specified for the RESTCONF protocol
in Sections 2.4 and 2.5 of [draft-ietf-netconf-restconf]).
This contrasts with the base SSH and TLS protocols, which do not
require programmatic verification of the other party (section 9.3.4
of [RFC4251], section 4 of [RFC4252], and section 7.3 of [RFC5246]).
In such circumstances, allowing the SSH/TLS server to contact the
SSH/TLS client would open new vulnerabilities. Any use of call home
with SSH/TLS for purposes other than NETCONF or RESTCONF will need a
thorough contextual risk assessment. A risk assessment for this RFC
is in the Security Considerations section (Section 5).
1.4. Relation to RFC 4253
This document uses the SSH Transport Layer Protocol [RFC4253] with
the exception that the statement "The client initiates the
connection" made in Section 4 (Connection Setup) does not apply.
Assuming the reference to client means "SSH client" and the reference
to connection means "TCP connection", this statement doesn't hold
true in call home, where the network element is the SSH server and
yet still initiates the TCP connection. Security implications
related to this change are discussed in Security Considerations
(Section 5).
1.5. The NETCONF/RESTCONF Convention
Throughout the remainder of this document, the term "NETCONF/
RESTCONF" is used as an abbreviation in place of the text "the
NETCONF or the RESTCONF". The NETCONF/RESTCONF abbreviation is not
intended to require or to imply that a client or server must
implement both the NETCONF standard and the RESTCONF standard.
2. Solution Overview
The diagram below illustrates call home from a protocol layering
perspective:
Watsen Expires June 24, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home December 2015
NETCONF/RESTCONF NETCONF/RESTCONF
Server Client
| |
| 1. TCP |
|----------------------------------->|
| |
| |
| 2. SSH/TLS |
|<-----------------------------------|
| |
| |
| 3. NETCONF/RESTCONF |
|<-----------------------------------|
| |
Note: arrows point from the "client" to
the "server" at each protocol layer
This diagram makes the following points:
1. The NETCONF/RESTCONF server begins by initiating a TCP connection
to the NETCONF/RESTCONF client.
2. Using this TCP connection, the NETCONF/RESTCONF client initiates
a SSH/TLS session to the NETCONF/RESTCONF server.
3. Using this SSH/TLS session, the NETCONF/RESTCONF client initates
a NETCONF/RESTCONF session to the NETCONF/RESTCONF server.
3. The NETCONF or RESTCONF Client
The term "client" is defined in [RFC6241], Section 1.1 "client". In
the context of network management, the NETCONF/RESTCONF client might
be a network management system.
3.1. Protocol Operation
C1 The NETCONF/RESTCONF client listens for TCP connection requests
from NETCONF/RESTCONF servers. The client MUST support accepting
TCP connections on the IANA-assigned ports defined in Section 6,
but MAY be configured to listen to a different port.
C2 The NETCONF/RESTCONF client accepts an incoming TCP connection
request and a TCP connection is established.
Watsen Expires June 24, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home December 2015
C3 Using this TCP connection, the NETCONF/RESTCONF client starts
either the SSH-client [RFC4253] or the TLS-client [RFC5246]
protocol. For example, assuming the use of the IANA-assigned
ports, the SSH-client protocol is started when the connection is
accepted on port PORT-X and the TLS-client protocol is started
when the connection is accepted on either port PORT-Y or PORT-Z.
C4 If using TLS, the NETCONF/RESTCONF client MUST advertise
"peer_allowed_to_send", as defined by [RFC6520]. This is
required so NETCONF/RESTCONF servers can depend on it being there
for call home connections, when keep-alives are needed the most.
C5 As part of establishing an SSH or TLS connection, the NETCONF/
RESTCONF client MUST validate the server's presented host key or
certificate. This validation MAY be accomplished by certificate
path validation or by comparing the host key or certificate to a
previously trusted or "pinned" value. If a certificate is
presented and it contains revocation checking information, the
NETCONF/RESTCONF client SHOULD check the revocation status of the
certificate. If it is determined that a certificate has been
revoked, the client MUST immediately close the connection.
C6 If certificate path validation is used, the NETCONF/RESTCONF
client MUST ensure that the presented certificate has a valid
chain of trust to a preconfigured issuer certificate, and that
the presented certificate encodes an "identifier" [RFC6125] that
the client had awareness of prior to the connection attempt. How
identifiers are encoded in certificates MAY be determined by a
policy associated with the certificate's issuer. For instance, a
given issuer may be known to only sign IDevID certificates
[Std-802.1AR-2009] having a unique identifier (e.g., serial
number) in the X.509 certificate's "CommonName" field.
C7 After the server's host key or certificate is validated, the SSH
or TLS protocol proceeds as normal to establish a SSH or TLS
connection. When performing client authentication with the
NETCONF/RESTCONF server, the NETCONF/RESTCONF client MUST ensure
to only use credentials that it had previously associated for the
NETCONF/RESTCONF server's presented host key or server
certificate.
C8 Once the SSH or TLS connection is established, the NETCONF/
RESTCONF client starts either the NETCONF-client [RFC6241] or
RESTCONF-client [draft-ietf-netconf-restconf] protocol. Assuming
the use of the IANA-assigned ports, the NETCONF-client protocol
is started when the connection is accepted on either port PORT-X
or PORT-Y and the RESTCONF-client protocol is started when the
connection is accepted on port PORT-Z.
Watsen Expires June 24, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home December 2015
3.2. Configuration Data Model
How a NETCONF or RESTCONF client is configured is outside the scope
of this document. For instance, such configuration might be used to
enable listening for call home connections, configuring trusted
certificate issuers, or configuring identifiers for expected
connections.
4. The NETCONF or RESTCONF Server
The term "server" is defined in [RFC6241], Section 1.1 "server". In
the context of network management, the NETCONF/RESTCONF server might
be a network element or a device.
4.1. Protocol Operation
S1 The NETCONF/RESTCONF server initiates a TCP connection request to
the NETCONF/RESTCONF client. The server MUST support connecting
to one of the IANA-assigned ports defined in Section 6, but MAY
be configured to connect to a different port. Using the IANA-
assigned ports, the server connects to port PORT-X for NETCONF
over SSH, port PORT-Y for NETCONF over TLS, and port PORT-Z for
RESTCONF over TLS.
S2 The TCP connection request is accepted and a TCP connection is
established.
S3 Using this TCP connection, the NETCONF/RESTCONF server starts
either the SSH-server [RFC4253] or the TLS-server [RFC5246]
protocol, depending on how it is configured. For example,
assuming the use of the IANA-assigned ports, the SSH-server
protocol is used after connecting to the remote port PORT-X and
the TLS-server protocol is used after connecting to one of the
remote ports PORT-Y or PORT-Z.
S4 As part of establishing the SSH or TLS connection, the NETCONF/
RESTCONF server will send its host key or certificate to the
client. If a certificate is sent, the server MUST also send all
intermediate certificates leading up to a well known and trusted
issuer. How to send a list of certificates is defined for SSH in
[RFC6187] Section 2.1, and for TLS in [RFC5246] Section 7.4.2.
S5 Establishing an SSH or TLS session requires server authentication
of client credentials in all cases except with RESTCONF, where
some client authentication schemes occur after the secure
transport connection (TLS) has been established. If transport
Watsen Expires June 24, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home December 2015
(SSH or TLS) level client authentication is required, and the
client is unable to successfully authenticate itself to the
server in an amount of time defined by local policy, the server
MUST close the connection.
S6 Once the SSH or TLS connection is established, the NETCONF/
RESTCONF server starts either the NETCONF-server [RFC6241] or
RESTCONF-server [draft-ietf-netconf-restconf] protocol, depending
on how it is configured. Assuming the use of the IANA-assigned
ports, the NETCONF-server protocol is used after connecting to
remote port PORT-X or PORT-Y, and the RESTCONF-server protocol is
used after connecting to remote port PORT-Z.
S7 If a persistent connection is desired, the NETCONF/RESTCONF
server, as the connection initiator, SHOULD actively test the
aliveness of the connection using a keep-alive mechanism. For
TLS based connections, the NETCONF/RESTCONF server SHOULD send
HeartbeatRequest messages, as defined by [RFC6520]. For SSH
based connections, per Section 4 of [RFC4254], the NETCONF/
RESTCONF server SHOULD send a SSH_MSG_GLOBAL_REQUEST message with
a purposely nonexistent "request name" value (e.g.,
keepalive@ietf.org) and the "want reply" value set to '1'.
4.2. Configuration Data Model
How a NETCONF or RESTCONF server is configured is outside the scope
of this document. This includes configuration that might be used to
specify hostnames, IP addresses, ports, algorithms, or other relevant
parameters. That said, a YANG [RFC6020] model for configuring
NETCONF and RESTCONF servers, including call home, is provided in
[draft-ietf-netconf-server-model].
5. Security Considerations
The security considerations described in [RFC6242] and [RFC7589], and
by extension [RFC4253], [RFC5246], and [draft-ietf-netconf-restconf]
apply here as well.
This RFC deviates from standard SSH and TLS usage by having the SSH/
TLS server initiate the underlying TCP connection. This reversal is
incongruous with [RFC4253], which says "the client initiates the
connection" and also [RFC6125], which says "the client MUST construct
a list of acceptable reference identifiers, and MUST do so
independently of the identifiers presented by the service."
Risks associated with these variances are centered around server
authentication and the inability for clients to compare an
independently constructed reference identifier to one presented by
Watsen Expires June 24, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home December 2015
the server. To mitigate these risks, this RFC requires that the
NETCONF/RESTCONF client validate the server's SSH host key or
certificate, by certificate path validation to a preconfigured issuer
certificate, or by comparing the host key or certificate to a
previously trusted or "pinned" value. Furthermore, when a
certificate is used, this RFC requires that the client be able to
match an identifier encoded in the presented certificate with an
identifier the client was preconfigured to expect (e.g., serial
number).
For cases when the NETCONF/RESTCONF server presents an X.509
certificate, NETCONF/RESTCONF clients should ensure that the
preconfigured issuer certificate used for certificate path validation
is unique to the manufacturer of the server. That is, the
certificate should not belong to a 3rd-party certificate authority
that might issue certificates for more than one manufacturer. This
is especially important when a client authentication mechanism
passing a shared secret (e.g., a password) to the server is used.
Not doing so could otherwise lead to a case where the client sends
the shared secret to another server that happens to have the same
identity (e.g., serial number) as the server the client was
configured to expect.
Considerations not associated with server authentication follow next.
Internet facing hosts running NETCONF or RESTCONF call home will be
fingerprinted via scanning tools such as `zmap` [zmap]. Both SSH and
TLS provide many ways in which a host can be fingerprinted. SSH and
TLS servers are fairly mature and able to withstand attacks, but SSH
and TLS clients may not be as robust. Implementers and deployments
need to ensure that software update mechanisms are provided so that
vulnerabilities can be fixed in a timely fashion.
An attacker could launch a denial of service (DoS) attack on the
NETCONF/RESTCONF client by having it perform computationally
expensive operations, before deducing that the attacker doesn't
possess a valid key. For instance, in TLS 1.3
[draft-ietf-tls-tls13], the ClientHello message contains a Key Share
value based on an expensive asymmetric key operation. Common
precautions mitigating DoS attacks are recommended, such as
temporarily blacklisting the source address after a set number of
unsuccessful login attempts.
When using call home with the RESTCONF protocol, special care is
required when using some HTTP authentication schemes, especially the
Basic [RFC7617] and Digest [RFC7616] schemes, which convey a shared
secret (e.g., a password). Implementations and deployments should be
Watsen Expires June 24, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home December 2015
sure to review the Security Considerations section in the RFC for any
HTTP client authentication scheme used.
6. IANA Considerations
This RFC requests that IANA assigns three TCP port numbers in the
"Registered Port Numbers" range with the service names "netconf-ch-
ssh", "netconf-ch-tls", and "restconf-ch-tls". These ports will be
the default ports for NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home
protocols. Below is the registration template following the rules in
[RFC6335].
Service Name: netconf-ch-ssh
Transport Protocol(s): TCP
Assignee: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Contact: IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
Description: NETCONF Call Home (SSH)
Reference: RFC XXXX
Port Number: PORT-X
Service Name: netconf-ch-tls
Transport Protocol(s): TCP
Assignee: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Contact: IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
Description: NETCONF Call Home (TLS)
Reference: RFC XXXX
Port Number: PORT-Y
Service Name: restconf-ch-tls
Transport Protocol(s): TCP
Assignee: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Contact: IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
Description: RESTCONF Call Home (TLS)
Reference: RFC XXXX
Port Number: PORT-Z
7. Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the following for lively discussions
on list and in the halls (ordered by last name): Jari Arkko, Andy
Bierman, Martin Bjorklund, Ben Campbell, Spencer Dawkins, Mehmet
Ersue, Stephen Farrell, Wes Hardaker, Stephen Hanna, David
Harrington, Jeffrey Hutzelman, Simon Josefsson, Radek Krejci, Suresh
Krishnan, Barry Leiba, Alan Luchuk, Kathleen Moriarty, Mouse, Russ
Mundy, Tom Petch, Peter Saint-Andre, Joseph Salowey, Juergen
Schoenwaelder, Martin Stiemerling, Joe Touch, Hannes Tschofenig, Sean
Turner, and Bert Wijnen.
Watsen Expires June 24, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home December 2015
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[draft-ietf-netconf-restconf]
Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", draft-ieft-netconf-restconf-04 (work in
progress), 2014, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-
netconf-restconf>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4251] Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, Ed., "The Secure Shell (SSH)
Protocol Architecture", RFC 4251, DOI 10.17487/RFC4251,
January 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4251>.
[RFC4252] Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, Ed., "The Secure Shell (SSH)
Authentication Protocol", RFC 4252, DOI 10.17487/RFC4252,
January 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4252>.
[RFC4253] Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, Ed., "The Secure Shell (SSH)
Transport Layer Protocol", RFC 4253, DOI 10.17487/RFC4253,
January 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4253>.
[RFC4254] Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, Ed., "The Secure Shell (SSH)
Connection Protocol", RFC 4254, DOI 10.17487/RFC4254,
January 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4254>.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
[RFC6125] Saint-Andre, P. and J. Hodges, "Representation and
Verification of Domain-Based Application Service Identity
within Internet Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509
(PKIX) Certificates in the Context of Transport Layer
Security (TLS)", RFC 6125, DOI 10.17487/RFC6125, March
2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6125>.
[RFC6187] Igoe, K. and D. Stebila, "X.509v3 Certificates for Secure
Shell Authentication", RFC 6187, DOI 10.17487/RFC6187,
March 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6187>.
Watsen Expires June 24, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home December 2015
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
[RFC6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure
Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC6242, June 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6242>.
[RFC6335] Cotton, M., Eggert, L., Touch, J., Westerlund, M., and S.
Cheshire, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and
Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", BCP 165,
RFC 6335, DOI 10.17487/RFC6335, August 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6335>.
[RFC6520] Seggelmann, R., Tuexen, M., and M. Williams, "Transport
Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS) Heartbeat Extension", RFC 6520,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6520, February 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6520>.
[RFC7589] Badra, M., Luchuk, A., and J. Schoenwaelder, "Using the
NETCONF Protocol over Transport Layer Security (TLS) with
Mutual X.509 Authentication", RFC 7589,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7589, June 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7589>.
[RFC793] Postel, J., "TRANSMISSION CONTROL PROTOCOL", STD 7,
September 1981, <https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc793.txt>.
8.2. Informative References
[draft-ietf-netconf-server-model]
Watsen, K. and J. Schoenwaelder, "NETCONF Server
Configuration Model", 2014, <http://tools.ietf.org/html/
draft-ietf-netconf-server-model>.
[draft-ietf-tls-tls13]
Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", 2015,
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-tls13>.
[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.
Watsen Expires June 24, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home December 2015
[RFC7616] Shekh-Yusef, R., Ed., Ahrens, D., and S. Bremer, "HTTP
Digest Access Authentication", RFC 7616,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7616, September 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7616>.
[RFC7617] Reschke, J., "The 'Basic' HTTP Authentication Scheme",
RFC 7617, DOI 10.17487/RFC7617, September 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7617>.
[Std-802.1AR-2009]
IEEE SA-Standards Board, "IEEE Standard for Local and
metropolitan area networks - Secure Device Identity",
December 2009, <http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/
standard/802.1AR-2009.html>.
[zmap] Durumeric, Z., Wustrow, E., and J. Halderman, "ZMap: Fast
Internet-Wide Scanning and its Security Applications",
2013, <https://zmap.io/paper.html>.
In proceedings of the 22nd USENIX Security Symposium
Author's Address
Kent Watsen
Juniper Networks
EMail: kwatsen@juniper.net
Watsen Expires June 24, 2016 [Page 14]
