Internet DRAFT - draft-jholland-mboned-dorms
draft-jholland-mboned-dorms
Mboned J. Holland
Internet-Draft Akamai Technologies, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track March 09, 2020
Expires: September 10, 2020
Discovery Of Restconf Metadata for Source-specific multicast
draft-jholland-mboned-dorms-02
Abstract
This document defines DORMS (Discovery Of Restconf Metadata for
Source-specific multicast), a method to discover and retrieve
extensible metadata about source-specific multicast channels using
RESTCONF. The reverse IP DNS zone for a multicast sender's IP
address is configured to use SRV resource records to advertise the
hostname of a RESTCONF server that publishes metadata according to a
new YANG module with support for extensions. A new service name and
the new YANG module are defined.
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 https://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 10, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 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
Holland Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DORMS March 2020
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
1.1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Discovery and Metdata Retrieval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. DNS Bootstrap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. RESTCONF Bootstrap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.1. Root Resource Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.2. Yang Library Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.3. Yang Library Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.4. Metadata Retrieval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.5. Cross Origin Resource Sharing (CORS) . . . . . . . . 8
3. Scalability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1. Provisioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2. Data Scoping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. YANG Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Yang Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. Yang Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. Linking Content to Traffic Streams . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2. Linking Multicast Subscribers to Unicast Connections . . 12
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1. The YANG Module Names Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.2. The Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number
Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.1. Secure Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7.2. Exposure of Metadata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.3. DNS Bootstrapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction
This document defines DORMS (Discovery Of Restconf Metadata for
Source-specific multicast).
A DORMS service is a RESTCONF [RFC8040] service that provides read
access to data in the "ietf-dorms" YANG [RFC7950] model defined in
Section 4. This model, along with optional extensions defined in
Holland Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DORMS March 2020
other documents, provide an extensible set of information about
multicast data streams.
This document defines the "dorms" service name for use with the SRV
DNS Resource Record (RR) type [RFC2782]. A sender offering a DORMS
service to publish metadata SHOULD configure at least one SRV RR for
the "_dorms._tcp" subdomain in the reverse IP DNS zone for the source
IP of its multicast channel to advertise a hostname for a DORMS
server that can provide metadata for the sender's source-specific
multicast traffic. Doing so enables receivers and middleboxes to
discover and query a DORMS server as described in Section 2.
The goal is to provide an extensible framework for attaching
information necessary for the correct processing of multicast data
channels, both for middle boxes forwarding the traffic, and for
receivers subscribing to traffic (hereafter called "clients").
1.1. Background
The reader is assumed to be familiar with the basic DNS concepts
described in [RFC1034], [RFC1035], and the subsequent documents that
update them, as well as the use of the SRV Resource Record type as
described in [RFC2782].
The reader is also assumed to be familiar with the concepts and
terminology regarding source-specific multicast as described in
[RFC4607] and the use of IGMPv3 [RFC3376] and MLDv2 [RFC3810] for
group management of source-specific multicast channels, as described
in [RFC4604].
The reader is also assumed to be familiar with the concepts and
terminology for RESTCONF [RFC8040] and YANG [RFC7950].
1.2. Terminology
+--------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| Term | Definition |
+--------+----------------------------------------------------------+
| (S,G) | A source-specific multicast channel, as described in |
| | [RFC4607]. A pair of IP addresses with a source host IP |
| | and destination group IP. |
| | |
| RR | A DNS Resource Record, as described in [RFC1034] |
| | |
| RRType | A DNS Resource Record Type, as described in [RFC1034] |
| | |
| SSM | Source-specific multicast, as described in [RFC4607] |
+--------+----------------------------------------------------------+
Holland Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DORMS March 2020
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
[RFC2119] and [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2. Discovery and Metdata Retrieval
A client that needs metadata about a (S,G) MAY attempt to discover
metadata for the (S,G) using the mechanisms defined here, and MAY use
the metadata received to manage the forwarding or processing of the
packets in the channel.
2.1. DNS Bootstrap
The DNS Bootstrap step is how a client discovers an appropriate
RESTCONF server, given the source address of an (S,G). Use of the
DNS Bootstrap is OPTIONAL for clients with an alternate method of
obtaining a RESTCONF hostname for a DORMS server with metadata for an
(S,G).
This mechanism only works for source-specific multicast (SSM)
channels. The source address of the (S,G) is reversed and used as an
index into one of the reverse mapping trees (in-addr.arpa for IPv4,
as described in Section 3.5 of [RFC1035], or ip6.arpa for IPv6, as
described in Section 2.5 of [RFC3596]).
When a receiver or middle box needs metadata for an (S,G), for
example when handling a new join for that (S,G) and looking up
authentication methods available, a receiver or middlebox can issue a
DNS query for a SRV RR using the "dorms" service name with the domain
from the reverse mapping tree, combining them as described in
[RFC2782].
For example, while handling a join for (203.0.113.15, 232.1.1.1), a
receiver would perform a DNS query for the SRV RRType for the domain:
_dorms._tcp.15.113.0.203.in-addr.arpa.
The DNS response for this domain might return a record such as:
SRV 0 1 443 dorms-restconf.example.com.
This response informs the receiver that a DORMS server SHOULD be
reachable at dorms-restconf.example.com on port 443. Multiple SRV
records are handled as described by [RFC2782].
Holland Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DORMS March 2020
A sender providing DORMS discovery SHOULD publish at least one SRV
record in the reverse DNS zone for each source address of the
multicast channels it is sending, in order to advertise the hostname
of the DORMS server to receivers and middle boxes. The DORMS servers
advertised SHOULD be configured with metadata for all the groups sent
from the same source IP address that have metadata published with
DORMS.
2.2. RESTCONF Bootstrap
Once a DORMS host has been chosen (whether via an SRV RR from a DNS
response or via some other method), RESTCONF provides all the
information necessary to determine the versions and url paths for
metadata from the server. A walkthrough is provided here for a
sequence of example requests and responses from a receiver connecting
to a new DORMS server.
2.2.1. Root Resource Discovery
As described in Section 3.1 of [RFC8040] and [RFC6415], the RESTCONF
server provides the link to the RESTCONF api entry point via the
"/.well-known/host-meta" or "/.well-known/host-meta.json" resource.
Example:
The receiver might send:
GET /.well-known/host-meta.json HTTP/1.1
Host: dorms-restconf.example.com
Accept: application/json
The server might respond as follows:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 20:56:00 GMT
Server: example-server
Cache-Control: no-cache
Content-Type: application/json
{
"links":[
{
"rel":"restconf",
"href":"/top/restconf"
}
]
}
Holland Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DORMS March 2020
2.2.2. Yang Library Version
As described in Section 3.3.3 of [RFC8040], the yang-library-version
leaf is required by RESTCONF, and can be used to determine the schema
of the ietf-yang-library module:
Example:
The receiver might send:
GET /top/restconf/yang-library-version HTTP/1.1
Host: dorms-restconf.example.com
Accept: application/yang-data+json
The server might respond as follows:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 20:56:01 GMT
Server: example-server
Cache-Control: no-cache
Content-Type: application/yang-data+json
{
"ietf-restconf:yang-library-version": "2016-06-21"
}
TBD: We might need a method for learning a specific restconf server
or resource path that supports a version the client knows how to use,
in the case the client is older than the server after a new yang-
library version is released... Can this be just retry with a hold-
down on specific hostnames, so that you can find a lower priority
older server from the SRV records, or is signaling that can find or
negotiate an explicit version as part of the lookup going to be
necessary? -jake 2019-08-26
2.2.3. Yang Library Contents
After checking that the version of the yang-library module will be
understood by the receiver, the client can check that the desired
metadata module is available on the DORMS server by fetching the
module-state resource from the ietf-yang-library module.
Example:
The receiver might send:
Holland Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DORMS March 2020
GET /top/restconf/data/ietf-yang-library:modules-state/\
module=ietf-dorms,2016-08-15
Host: dorms-restconf.example.com
Accept: application/yang-data+json
The server might respond as follows:
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 20:56:02 GMT
Server: example-server
Cache-Control: no-cache
Content-Type: application/yang-data+json
{
"ietf-yang-library:module": [
{
"conformance-type": "implement",
"name": "ietf-dorms",
"namespace": "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-dorms",
"revision": "2019-08-25",
"schema":
"https://example.com/yang/ietf-dorms@2019-08-25.yang"
}
]
}
Other modules required or desired by the client also can be checked
in a similar way, or the full set of available modules can be
retrieved by not providing a key for the "module" list.
2.2.4. Metadata Retrieval
Once the expected DORMS version is confirmed, the client can retrieve
the metadata specific to the desired (S,G).
Example:
The receiver might send:
GET /top/restconf/data/ietf-dorms:metadata/\
sender=203.0.113.15/group=232.1.1.1
Host: dorms-restconf.example.com
Accept: application/yang-data+json
The server might respond as follows:
Holland Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DORMS March 2020
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 20:56:02 GMT
Server: example-server
Cache-Control: no-cache
Content-Type: application/yang-data+json
{
"ietf-dorms:group": [
{
"group-address":"232.1.1.1",
"udp-stream":[
{
"port":"5001"
}
]
}
]
}
Note that when other modules are installed on the DORMS server that
extend the ietf-dorms module, other fields MAY appear inside the
response. This is the primary mechanism for providing extensible
metadata for an (S,G), so clients SHOULD ignore fields they do not
understand.
As mentioned in Section 3.2, most clients SHOULD use data resource
identifiers in the request URI as in the above example, in order to
retrieve metadata for only the targeted (S,G)s.
2.2.5. Cross Origin Resource Sharing (CORS)
It is RECOMMENDED that DORMS servers use the Access-Control-Allow-
Origin header field, as specified by [W3C.REC-cors-20140116], and
that they respond appropriately to Preflight requests.
Providing '*' for the allowed origins exposes the DORMS-based
metadata to all web pages. When access to the metadata is used as a
prerequisite to permitting the joining of the multicast flows, this
would permit scripts from arbitrary web pages to issue joins for the
multicast flows, which could allow e.g. malicious advertisements to
participate in overjoining attacks (see Appendix A of
[I-D.draft-jholland-cb-assisted-cc-01]) using multicast flows not
controlled by the ad's senders. Therefore the use of '*' for allowed
origins is NOT RECOMMENDED. (TBD: this probably deserves a security
considerations section.)
Holland Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DORMS March 2020
3. Scalability Considerations
3.1. Provisioning
In contrast to many common RESTCONF deployments that are intended to
provide configuration management for a service to a narrow set of
authenticated administrators, DORMS servers often provide read-only
metadata for public access, or for a very large set of end receivers,
since it provides metadata in support of multicast data streams and
multicast can scale to very large audiences.
Operators are advised to provision the DORMS service in a way that
will scale appropriately to the size of the expected audience.
Specific advice on such scaling is out of scope for this document,
but some of the mechanisms outlined in [RFC3040] or other online
resources might be useful, depending on the expected number of
receivers.
3.2. Data Scoping
In the absence of contextual information, clients SHOULD issue
narrowed requests for DORMS resources by following the format from
Section 3.5.3 of [RFC8040] to encode data resource identifiers in the
request URI. This avoids downloading excessive data, since the DORMS
server may provide metadata for many (S,G)s, possibly from many
different senders.
However, clients MAY use heuristics or out of band information about
the service to issue requests for (S,G) metadata narrowed only by the
source-address, or not narrowed at all. Depending on the request
patterns and the contents of the data store, this may result in fewer
round trips or less overhead, and can therefore be helpful behavior
for scaling purposes. Servers MAY restrict or throttle client access
based on the client certificate presented (if any), or based on
heuristics that take note of client request patterns.
A complete description of the heuristics for clients and servers to
meet their scalability goals is out of scope for this document.
4. YANG Model
The primary purpose of the YANG model defined here is to serve as a
scaffold for the more useful metadata that will extend it. Currently
known use cases include providing authentication information and bit-
rate information for use by receivers and middle boxes, but more use
cases are anticipated.
Holland Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DORMS March 2020
4.1. Yang Tree
module: ietf-dorms
+--rw metadata
+--rw sender* [source-address]
+--rw source-address inet:ip-address
+--rw group* [group-address]
+--rw group-address rt-types:ip-multicast-group-address
+--rw udp-stream* [port]
+--rw port inet:port-number
DORMS Tree Diagram
4.2. Yang Module
<CODE BEGINS> file ietf-dorms@2020-03-09.yang
module ietf-dorms {
yang-version 1.1;
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-dorms";
prefix "dorms";
import ietf-inet-types {
prefix "inet";
reference "RFC 6991 Section 4";
}
import ietf-routing-types {
prefix "rt-types";
reference "RFC 8294";
}
organization "IETF";
contact
"Author: Jake Holland
<mailto:jholland@akamai.com>
";
description
"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
Holland Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DORMS March 2020
Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcXXXX); see the RFC itself
for full legal notices.
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.
This module contains the definition for the DORMS data type.
It provides out of band metadata about SSM channels.";
revision 2019-08-25 {
description "Initial revision.";
reference
"";
// "I-D.draft-jholland-mboned-dorms";
}
container metadata {
description "Metadata scaffold for source-specific multicast
channels.";
list sender {
key source-address;
description "Sender for DORMS";
leaf source-address {
type inet:ip-address;
mandatory true;
description
"The source IP address of a multicast sender.";
}
list group {
key group-address;
description "Metadata for a DORMS (S,G).";
leaf group-address {
type rt-types:ip-multicast-group-address;
mandatory true;
description "The group IP address for an (S,G).";
}
list udp-stream {
Holland Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DORMS March 2020
key "port";
description
"Metadata for UDP traffic on a specific port.";
leaf port {
type inet:port-number;
mandatory true;
description
"The UDP port of a data stream in an (S,G).";
}
}
}
}
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
5. Privacy Considerations
5.1. Linking Content to Traffic Streams
In the typical case, the mechanisms defined in this document provide
a standardized way to discover information that is already available
in other ways.
However, depending on the metadata provided by the server, observers
may be able to more easily associate traffic from an (S,G) with the
content contained within the (S,G). At the subscriber edge of a
multicast-capable network, where the network operator has the
capability to localize an IGMP [RFC3376] or MLD [RFC3810] channel
subscription to a specific user or location by MAC address or source
IP address, the structured publishing of metadata may make it easier
to automate collection of data about the content a receiver is
consuming.
5.2. Linking Multicast Subscribers to Unicast Connections
Subscription to a multicast channel generally only exposes the IGMP
or MLD membership report to others on the same LAN, and as the
membership propagates through a multicast-capable network, it
ordinarily gets aggregated with other end users.
However, a RESTCONF connection is a unicast connection, and exposes a
different set of information to the operator of the RESTCONF server,
including IP address and timing about the requests made. Where DORMS
access becomes required to succeed a multicast join, as expected in a
browser deployment, this can expose new information about end users
relative to services based solely on multicast streams.
Holland Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DORMS March 2020
In some deployments it may be possible to use a proxy that aggregates
many end users when the aggregate privacy characteristics are needed
by end users.
6. IANA Considerations
6.1. The YANG Module Names Registry
This document adds one YANG module to the "YANG Module Names"
registry maintained at <https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-
parameters>. The following registrations are made, per the format in
Section 14 of [RFC6020]:
name: ietf-dorms
namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-dorms
prefix: dorms
reference: I-D.draft-jholland-mboned-dorms
6.2. The Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry
This document adds one service name to the "Service Name and
Transport Protocol Port Number Registry" maintained at
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers>. The
following registrations are made, per the format in Section 8.1.1 of
[RFC6335]:
Service Name: dorms
Transport Protocol(s): TCP
Assignee: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Contact: IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
Description: This service name is used to construct the
SRV service label "_dorms" for discovering
DORMS servers.
Reference: I-D.draft-jholland-mboned-dorms
Port Number: N/A
Service Code: N/A
Known Unauthorized Uses: N/A
Assignment Notes: This protocol uses HTTPS as a substrate.
7. Security Considerations
7.1. Secure Communications
It is intended that security related metadata about the SSM channels
will be delivered over the RESTCONF connection, and that information
available from this connection can be used as a trust anchor.
Holland Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft DORMS March 2020
The provisions of Section 2 of [RFC8040] provide secure communication
requirements that are already required of DORMS servers, since they
are RESTCONF servers. All RESTCONF requirements and security
considerations remain in force for DORMS servers.
7.2. Exposure of Metadata
Although some DORMS servers MAY restrict access based on client
identity, as described in Section 2.5 of [RFC8040], many DORMS
servers will use the ietf-dorms YANG model to publish information
without restriction, and even DORMS servers requiring client
authentication will inherently, because of the purpose of DORMS, be
providing the DORMS metadata to potentially many receivers.
Accordingly, future YANG modules that augment data paths under "ietf-
dorms:metadata" MUST NOT include any sensitive data unsuitable for
public dissemination in those data paths. Because of the possibility
that scalable read-only access might be necessary to fulfill the
scalability goals for a DORMS server, data under these paths MAY be
cached or replicated by numerous external entities, so owners of such
data SHOULD NOT assume it can be kept secret when provided by DORMS
servers anywhere under the "ietf-dorms:metadata" path, even if they
are authenticating clients.
7.3. DNS Bootstrapping
The DNS bootstrap phase relies on DNS for the reverse IP tree. When
using DNS to discover a DORMS server's domain name, there must be a
trust relationship between the end consumer of this resource record
and the DNS server. This relationship may be end-to-end DNSSEC
validation, a TSIG [RFC2845] or SIG(0) [RFC2931] channel to another
secure source, a secure local channel on the host, DNS over TLS
[RFC7858] or HTTPS [RFC8484], or some other secure mechanism.
If the SRV Resource Record cannot be authenticated, it may be
possible for an attacker who can spoof the resource record to perform
a denial of service for the receiver by providing wrong or missing
authentication metadata. An attacker who can also inject traffic for
(S,G)s, would also be able to provide false content in the data
stream, so an attacker who can perform both could provide
authenticated false content by authenticating with a trust anchor
from an attacker-controlled DORMS server.
Clients MAY use other secure methods to explicitly associate an (S,G)
with a set of DORMS server hostnames, such as a configured mapping or
an alternative trusted lookup service.
Holland Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft DORMS March 2020
8. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Christian Worm Mortensen for some very helpful comments and
review.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2782] Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for
specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)", RFC 2782,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2782, February 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2782>.
[RFC3596] Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi,
"DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", STD 88,
RFC 3596, DOI 10.17487/RFC3596, October 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3596>.
[RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types",
RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6991>.
[RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.
[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
<https://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/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8294] Liu, X., Qu, Y., Lindem, A., Hopps, C., and L. Berger,
"Common YANG Data Types for the Routing Area", RFC 8294,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8294, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8294>.
Holland Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft DORMS March 2020
[W3C.REC-cors-20140116]
Kesteren, A., "Cross-Origin Resource Sharing", World Wide
Web Consortium Recommendation REC-cors-20140116, January
2014, <http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-cors-20140116>.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.draft-jholland-cb-assisted-cc-01]
Holland, J., "Circuit Breaker Assisted Congestion Control
(CBACC): Protocol Specification", draft-jholland-cb-
assisted-cc-01 (work in progress), April 2017.
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
November 1987, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.
[RFC2845] Vixie, P., Gudmundsson, O., Eastlake 3rd, D., and B.
Wellington, "Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS
(TSIG)", RFC 2845, DOI 10.17487/RFC2845, May 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2845>.
[RFC2931] Eastlake 3rd, D., "DNS Request and Transaction Signatures
( SIG(0)s )", RFC 2931, DOI 10.17487/RFC2931, September
2000, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2931>.
[RFC3040] Cooper, I., Melve, I., and G. Tomlinson, "Internet Web
Replication and Caching Taxonomy", RFC 3040,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3040, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3040>.
[RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.
Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
3", RFC 3376, DOI 10.17487/RFC3376, October 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3376>.
[RFC3810] Vida, R., Ed. and L. Costa, Ed., "Multicast Listener
Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3810, June 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3810>.
Holland Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft DORMS March 2020
[RFC4604] Holbrook, H., Cain, B., and B. Haberman, "Using Internet
Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast
Listener Discovery Protocol Version 2 (MLDv2) for Source-
Specific Multicast", RFC 4604, DOI 10.17487/RFC4604,
August 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4604>.
[RFC4607] Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for
IP", RFC 4607, DOI 10.17487/RFC4607, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4607>.
[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6335>.
[RFC6415] Hammer-Lahav, E., Ed. and B. Cook, "Web Host Metadata",
RFC 6415, DOI 10.17487/RFC6415, October 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6415>.
[RFC7858] Hu, Z., Zhu, L., Heidemann, J., Mankin, A., Wessels, D.,
and P. Hoffman, "Specification for DNS over Transport
Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 7858, DOI 10.17487/RFC7858, May
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7858>.
[RFC8484] Hoffman, P. and P. McManus, "DNS Queries over HTTPS
(DoH)", RFC 8484, DOI 10.17487/RFC8484, October 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8484>.
[whatwg-fetch]
Kesteren, A., "WHATWG Fetch Living Standard", August 2019,
<https://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/>.
Author's Address
Jake Holland
Akamai Technologies, Inc.
150 Broadway
Cambridge, MA 02144
United States of America
Email: jakeholland.net@gmail.com
Holland Expires September 10, 2020 [Page 17]
