draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-04.txt   draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-05.txt 
Network Working Group A. Clemm Network Working Group A. Clemm
Internet-Draft Y. Qu Internet-Draft Y. Qu
Intended status: Standards Track Futurewei Intended status: Standards Track Futurewei
Expires: January 14, 2021 J. Tantsura Expires: March 19, 2021 J. Tantsura
Apstra Apstra
A. Bierman A. Bierman
YumaWorks YumaWorks
July 13, 2020 September 15, 2020
Comparison of NMDA datastores Comparison of NMDA datastores
draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-04 draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-05
Abstract Abstract
This document defines an RPC operation to compare management This document defines an RPC operation to compare management
datastores that comply with the NMDA architecture. datastores that comply with the NMDA architecture.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
skipping to change at page 1, line 35 skipping to change at page 1, line 35
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 14, 2021. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 19, 2021.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 19 skipping to change at page 2, line 19
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Definitions and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Definitions and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Data Model Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. Data Model Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. YANG Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. YANG Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7. Performance Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Possible Future Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8. Possible Future Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.1. Updates to the IETF XML Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9.1. Updates to the IETF XML Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.2. Updates to the YANG Module Names Registry . . . . . . . . 15 9.2. Updates to the YANG Module Names Registry . . . . . . . . 14
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The revised Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) The revised Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)
[RFC8342] introduces a set of new datastores that each hold YANG- [RFC8342] introduces a set of new datastores that each hold YANG-
defined data [RFC7950] and represent a different "viewpoint" on the defined data [RFC7950] and represent a different "viewpoint" on the
data that is maintained by a server. New YANG datastores that are data that is maintained by a server. New YANG datastores that are
skipping to change at page 6, line 7 skipping to change at page 6, line 7
+--ro target target-resource-offset +--ro target target-resource-offset
+--ro point? target-resource-offset +--ro point? target-resource-offset
+--ro where? enumeration +--ro where? enumeration
+--ro value? +--ro value?
+--ro source-value? +--ro source-value?
Structure of ietf-nmda-compare Structure of ietf-nmda-compare
5. YANG Data Model 5. YANG Data Model
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-nmda-compare@2019-11-04.yang" <CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-nmda-compare@2020-09-15.yang"
module ietf-nmda-compare { module ietf-nmda-compare {
yang-version 1.1; yang-version 1.1;
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-nmda-compare"; namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-nmda-compare";
prefix cp; prefix cmp;
import ietf-yang-types { import ietf-yang-types {
prefix yang; prefix yang;
reference "RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types";
} }
import ietf-datastores { import ietf-datastores {
prefix ds; prefix ds;
reference "RFC 8342: Network Management Datastore
Architecture (NMDA)";
} }
import ietf-yang-patch { import ietf-yang-patch {
prefix ypatch; prefix ypatch;
reference "RFC 8072: YANG Patch Media Type";
} }
import ietf-netconf { import ietf-netconf {
prefix nc; prefix nc;
reference "RFC6241: Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)";
} }
organization "IETF"; organization "IETF";
contact contact
"WG Web: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netconf/> "WG Web: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netconf/>
WG List: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org> WG List: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
Author: Alexander Clemm Author: Alexander Clemm
<mailto:ludwig@clemm.org> <mailto:ludwig@clemm.org>
skipping to change at page 7, line 19 skipping to change at page 7, line 24
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject to without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject to
the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License set the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License set
forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
Relating to IETF Documents Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX; see the This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX; see the
RFC itself for full legal notices."; RFC itself for full legal notices.";
revision 2019-11-04 { revision 2020-09-15 {
description description
"Initial revision"; "Initial revision";
reference reference
"RFC XXXX: Comparison of NMDA datastores"; "RFC XXXX: Comparison of NMDA datastores";
} }
/* RPC */ /* RPC */
rpc compare { rpc compare {
description description
"NMDA compare operation."; "NMDA compare operation.";
skipping to change at page 8, line 37 skipping to change at page 8, line 41
target datastore to retrieve."; target datastore to retrieve.";
reference "RFC 6241, Section 6."; reference "RFC 6241, Section 6.";
} }
leaf xpath-filter { leaf xpath-filter {
if-feature nc:xpath; if-feature nc:xpath;
type yang:xpath1.0; type yang:xpath1.0;
description description
"This parameter contains an XPath expression "This parameter contains an XPath expression
identifying the portions of the target identifying the portions of the target
datastore to retrieve."; datastore to retrieve.";
reference "RFC 6021: Common YANG Data Types";
} }
} }
} }
output { output {
choice compare-response { choice compare-response {
description description
"Comparison results."; "Comparison results.";
leaf no-matches { leaf no-matches {
type empty; type empty;
description description
skipping to change at page 9, line 24 skipping to change at page 9, line 29
when "../operation = 'delete'" when "../operation = 'delete'"
+ "or ../operation = 'merge'" + "or ../operation = 'merge'"
+ "or ../operation = 'move'" + "or ../operation = 'move'"
+ "or ../operation = 'replace'" + "or ../operation = 'replace'"
+ "or ../operation = 'remove'"; + "or ../operation = 'remove'";
description description
"The anydata 'value' is only used for 'delete', "The anydata 'value' is only used for 'delete',
'move', 'merge', 'replace', and 'remove' 'move', 'merge', 'replace', and 'remove'
operations."; operations.";
} }
reference "RFC 8072: YANG Patch Media Type";
} }
} }
} }
} }
} }
} }
} }
<CODE ENDS> <CODE ENDS>
6. Example 6. Example
The following example compares the difference between <operational> The following example compares the difference between <operational>
and <intended> for a subtree under "interfaces". The subtree and <intended> for a subtree under "interfaces". The subtree
contains objects that are defined in a YANG data model for the contains a subset of objects that are defined in a YANG data model
management of interfaces defined in [RFC8343]. The excerpt of the for the management of interfaces defined in [RFC8343]. The excerpt
data model whose instantiation is basis of the comparison is as of the data model whose instantiation is basis of the comparison is
follows: as follows:
container interfaces { container interfaces {
description description
"Interface parameters."; "Interface parameters.";
list interface { list interface {
key "name"; key "name";
leaf name { leaf name {
type string; type string;
description description
"The name of the interface". "The name of the interface".
skipping to change at page 10, line 32 skipping to change at page 10, line 32
default "true"; default "true";
description description
"This leaf contains the configured, desired state of the "This leaf contains the configured, desired state of the
interface.";" interface.";"
} }
} }
} }
The contents of <intended> and <operational> datastores: The contents of <intended> and <operational> datastores:
<interfaces xmlns:or="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-origin" //INTENDED
or:origin="or:intended"> <interfaces xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-interfaces">
<interface> <interface>
<name>eth0</name> <name>eth0</name>
<enabled>false</enabled> <enabled>false</enabled>
<description>ip interface</description> <description>ip interface</description>
</interface> </interface>
</interfa </interfaces>
<interfaces xmlns:or="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-origin"
or:origin="or:operational"> //OPERATIONAL
<interface> <interfaces
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-interfaces"
xmlns:or="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-origin">
<interface or:origin="or:learned">
<name>eth0</name> <name>eth0</name>
<enabled>true</enabled> <enabled>true</enabled>
</interface>
</interfaces>
<operational> contains one object that was not contained in </interface>
<intended>, "preference". Another object, "explicit-router-id", has </interfaces>
differences in values. A third object, "enable", is the same in both <operational> does not contain object "description" that is contained
cases. in <intended>. Another object, "enabled", has differences in values,
being "true" in <operational> and "false" in <intended>. A third
object, "name", is the same in both cases. The origin of the objects
in <operational> is "learned", which may help explain the
discrepancies.
RPC request to compare <operational< (source of the comparison) with RPC request to compare <operational> (source of the comparison) with
<intended>(target of the comparison): <intended>(target of the comparison):
<rpc message-id="101" <rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"> xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<compare xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-nmda-compare" <compare xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-nmda-compare"
xmlns:ds="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-datastores"> xmlns:ds="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-datastores">
<source>ds:operational</source> <source>ds:operational</source>
<target>ds:intended</target> <target>ds:intended</target>
<xpath-filter <xpath-filter
xmlns:if="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-interfaces">\ xmlns:if="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-interfaces">
/if:interfaces\ /if:interfaces
</xpath-filter> </xpath-filter>
</compare> </compare>
</rpc> </rpc>
RPC reply, when a difference is detected: RPC reply, when a difference is detected:
<rpc-reply <rpc-reply
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"
message-id="101"> message-id="101">
<differences <differences
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-nmda-compare" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-nmda-compare"
xmlns:or="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-origin"> xmlns:or="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-origin">
<yang-patch> <yang-patch>
<patch-id>interface status</patch-id> <patch-id>interface status</patch-id>
<comment>diff between operational and intended</comment> <comment>
diff between operational (source) and intended (target)
</comment>
<edit> <edit>
<edit-id>1</edit-id> <edit-id>1</edit-id>
<operation>replace</operation> <operation>replace</operation>
<target>/ietf-interfaces:interface=eth0/enabled</target> <target>/ietf-interfaces:interface=eth0/enabled</target>
<value> <value>
<if:enabled <if:enabled>false<if:enabled>
or:origin="or:system">true<enabled>
</value> </value>
<source-value> <source-value>
<if:enabled <if:enabled or:origin="or:learned">true</if:enabled>
or:origin="or:intended">false<enabled>
</source-value> </source-value>
<edit-id>2</edit-id> <edit-id>2</edit-id>
<operation>create</operation> <operation>create</operation>
<target>/ietf-interfaces:interface=eth0/description</target> <target>/ietf-interfaces:interface=eth0/description</target>
<value> <value>
<if:description <if:description>ip interface<description>
or:origin="or:system">ip interface<description>
</value> </value>
</edit> </edit>
</yang-patch> </yang-patch>
</differences> </differences>
</rpc-reply> </rpc-reply>
The same request in RESTCONF (using JSON format): The same request in RESTCONF (using JSON format):
POST /restconf/operations/ietf-nmda-compare:compare HTTP/1.1 POST /restconf/operations/ietf-nmda-compare:compare HTTP/1.1
Host: example.com Host: example.com
Content-Type: application/yang-data+json Content-Type: application/yang-data+json
Accept: application/yang-d Accept: application/yang-d
{ "ietf-nmda-compare:input" { { "ietf-nmda-compare:input" {
"source" : "ietf-datastores:operational", "source" : "ietf-datastores:operational"
"target" : "ietf-datastores:intended". "target" : "ietf-datastores:intended"
"xpath-filter" : \ "xpath-filter" : \
"/ietf-interfaces:interfaces" "/ietf-interfaces:interfaces"
} }
} }
The same response in RESTCONF (using JSON format): The same response in RESTCONF (using JSON format):
HTTP/1.1 200 OK HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2019 20:56:30 GMT Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2019 20:56:30 GMT
Server: example-server Server: example-server
Content-Type: application/yang-d Content-Type: application/yang-d
{ "ietf-nmda-compare:output" : { { "ietf-nmda-compare:output" : {
"differences" : { "differences" : {
"ietf-yang-patch:yang-patch" : { "ietf-yang-patch:yang-patch" : {
"patch-id" : "interface status", "patch-id" : "interface status",
"comment" : "diff between operational and intended", "comment" : "diff between intended (source) and operational",
"edit" : [ "edit" : [
{ {
"edit-id" : "1", "edit-id" : "1",
"operation" : "replace", "operation" : "replace",
"target" : "/ietf-interfaces:interface=eth0/enabled", "target" : "/ietf-interfaces:interface=eth0/enabled",
"value" : { "value" : {
"ietf-interfaces:interface/enabled" : "true"
"@ietf-interfaces:interface/enabled" : {
"ietf-origin:origin" : "ietf-origin:system"
}
"source-value" : {
"ietf-interfaces:interface/enabled" : "false" "ietf-interfaces:interface/enabled" : "false"
},
"source-value" : {
"ietf-interfaces:interface/enabled" : "true",
"@ietf-interfaces:interface/enabled" : { "@ietf-interfaces:interface/enabled" : {
"ietf-origin:origin" : "ietf-origin:intended" "ietf-origin:origin" : "ietf-origin:learned"
} }
}
"edit-id" : "2", "edit-id" : "2",
"operation" : "create", "operation" : "create",
"target" : "/ietf-interfaces:interface=eth0/description", "target" : "/ietf-interfaces:interface=eth0/description",
"value" : { "value" : {
"ietf-interface:interface/description" : "ip interface" "ietf-interface:interface/description" : "ip interface"
"@ietf-interface:interfaces/description" : { }
"ietf-origin:origin" : "ietf-origin:intended"
}
} }
] ]
} }
} }
} }
} }
7. Performance Considerations 7. Performance Considerations
The compare operation can be computationally expensive. While The compare operation can be computationally expensive. While
responsible client applications are expected to use the operation responsible client applications are expected to use the operation
responsibly and sparingly only when warranted, implementations need responsibly and sparingly only when warranted, implementations need
to be aware of the fact that excessive invocation of this operation to be aware of the fact that excessive invocation of this operation
will burden system resources and need to ensure that system will burden system resources and need to ensure that system
performance will not be adversely impacted. One possibility for an performance will not be adversely impacted. One possibility for an
implementation to mitigate against such a possibility is to limit the implementation to mitigate against such a possibility is to limit the
number of requests that is served to a client in any one time number of requests that is served to a client, or to any number of
interval, rejecting requests made at a higher frequency than the clients, in any one time interval, rejecting requests made at a
implementation can reasonably sustain. higher frequency than the implementation can reasonably sustain.
8. Possible Future Extensions 8. Possible Future Extensions
It is conceivable to extend the compare operation with a number of It is conceivable to extend the compare operation with a number of
possible additional features in the future. possible additional features in the future.
Specifically, it is possible to define an extension with an optional Specifically, it is possible to define an extension with an optional
feature for dampening. This will allow clients to specify a minimum feature for dampening. This will allow clients to specify a minimum
time period for which a difference must persist for it to be time period for which a difference must persist for it to be
reported. This will enable clients to distinguish between reported. This will enable clients to distinguish between
skipping to change at page 15, line 12 skipping to change at page 15, line 4
XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace. XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.
9.2. Updates to the YANG Module Names Registry 9.2. Updates to the YANG Module Names Registry
This document registers a YANG module in the YANG Module Names This document registers a YANG module in the YANG Module Names
registry [RFC7950]. Following the format in [RFC7950], the following registry [RFC7950]. Following the format in [RFC7950], the following
registration is requested: registration is requested:
name: ietf-nmda-compare name: ietf-nmda-compare
namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-nmda-compare namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-nmda-compare
prefix: cp prefix: cmp
reference: RFC XXXX reference: RFC XXXX
10. Security Considerations 10. Security Considerations
The YANG module specified in this document defines a schema for data The YANG module specified in this document defines a schema for data
that is designed to be accessed via network management protocols such that is designed to be accessed via network management protocols such
as NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040]. The lowest NETCONF layer as NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040]. The lowest NETCONF layer
is the secure transport layer, and the mandatory-to-implement secure is the secure transport layer, and the mandatory-to-implement secure
transport is Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC6242]. The lowest RESTCONF layer transport is Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC6242]. The lowest RESTCONF layer
skipping to change at page 16, line 8 skipping to change at page 15, line 44
ways. For one, they can implement the NETCONF access control model ways. For one, they can implement the NETCONF access control model
in order to require proper authorization for requests to be made. in order to require proper authorization for requests to be made.
Second, server implementations can limit the number of requests that Second, server implementations can limit the number of requests that
they serve to a client in any one time interval, rejecting requests they serve to a client in any one time interval, rejecting requests
made at a higher frequency than the implementation can reasonably made at a higher frequency than the implementation can reasonably
sustain. sustain.
11. Acknowledgments 11. Acknowledgments
We thank Rob Wilton, Martin Bjorklund, Mahesh Jethanandani, Lou We thank Rob Wilton, Martin Bjorklund, Mahesh Jethanandani, Lou
Berger, Kent Watsen, Phil Shafer, Ladislav Lhotka, and Tim Carey for Berger, Kent Watsen, Phil Shafer, Ladislav Lhotka, Tim Carey, and
valuable feedback and suggestions. Reshad Rahman for valuable feedback and suggestions.
12. References 12. References
12.1. Normative References 12.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, [RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004, DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
skipping to change at page 16, line 33 skipping to change at page 16, line 24
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., [RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011, (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
[RFC6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure [RFC6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure
Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC6242, June 2011, Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC6242, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6242>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6242>.
[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", [RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016, RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.
[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF [RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017, Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.
[RFC8072] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "YANG Patch [RFC8072] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "YANG Patch
Media Type", RFC 8072, DOI 10.17487/RFC8072, February Media Type", RFC 8072, DOI 10.17487/RFC8072, February
 End of changes. 39 change blocks. 
56 lines changed or deleted 66 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/