draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-00.txt		draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01.txt
	NETMOD Working Group K. Watsen		NETMOD Working Group K. Watsen
	Internet-Draft Juniper Networks		Internet-Draft Juniper Networks
	Intended status: Informational T. Nadeau		Intended status: Informational T. Nadeau
	Expires: April 21, 2016 Brocade Networks		Expires: June 17, 2016 Brocade Networks
	October 19, 2015		December 15, 2015
	NETMOD Operational State Requirements		NETMOD Operational State Requirements
	draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-00		draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-01
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document defines requirements for servers enabling better		This document defines requirements for servers enabling better
	visibility and control over the server's operational state. To		visibility and control over the server's operational state. To
	achieve this end, this document also defines terminology describing a		achieve this end, this document also defines terminology describing a
	conceptual model enabling the requirements to be expressed.		conceptual model enabling the requirements to be expressed.
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	skipping to change at page 1, line 34		skipping to change at page 1, line 34
	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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://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 April 21, 2016.		This Internet-Draft will expire on June 17, 2016.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2015 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
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://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 18		skipping to change at page 2, line 18
	2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	Appendix A. Relation to Terms Defined in Other Drafts . . . . . 7		Appendix A. Relation to Terms Defined in Other Drafts . . . . . 7
	Appendix B. Relation to Requirements in Other Drafts . . . . . . 7		Appendix B. Relation to Requirements in Other Drafts . . . . . . 7
	Appendix C. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		Appendix C. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
			Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	1. Terminology		1. Terminology
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
	document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].		document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
	The term "server" is used throughout this document to refer to what		The term "server" is used throughout this document to refer to what
	is many times known as the "device", "system", or "network element".		is many times known as the "device", "system", or "network element".
	This definition is intended to be consistent with the term "server"		This definition is intended to be consistent with the term "server"
	skipping to change at page 3, line 24		skipping to change at page 3, line 25
	as part of the server's own interactions. For example, derived		as part of the server's own interactions. For example, derived
	state may consist of the results of protocol interactions (the		state may consist of the results of protocol interactions (the
	negotiated duplex state of an Ethernet link), statistics (such as		negotiated duplex state of an Ethernet link), statistics (such as
	message queue depth), or counters (such as packet input or output		message queue depth), or counters (such as packet input or output
	bytes).		bytes).
	Intended Configuration: This data represents the configuration state		Intended Configuration: This data represents the configuration state
	that the network operator intends the server to be in, and that		that the network operator intends the server to be in, and that
	has been accepted by the server as valid configuration.		has been accepted by the server as valid configuration.
			Operational State: Operational State is the current state of the
			system as known to the various components of the system (e.g.,
			control plane daemons, operating system kernels, line cards).
			The operational state includes both applied configuration and
			derived state.
	Rollback On Error: If an error condition occurs such that part of		Rollback On Error: If an error condition occurs such that part of
	applying the configuration fails, the server will stop processing		applying the configuration fails, the server will stop processing
	the configuration operation and restore the specified		the configuration operation and restore the specified
	configuration to its complete state at the start of this		configuration to its complete state at the start of this
	configuration operation.		configuration operation.
	Synchronous Configuration Operation: A configuration request to		Synchronous Configuration Operation: A configuration request to
	update the running configuration of a server that is applied		update the running configuration of a server that is applied
	synchronously with respect to the client request (i.e. a blocking		synchronously with respect to the client request (i.e. a blocking
	call). The server MUST fully attempt to apply the configuration		call). The server MUST fully attempt to apply the configuration
	skipping to change at page 4, line 14		skipping to change at page 4, line 21
	C. The data model for the applied configuration is the same as		C. The data model for the applied configuration is the same as
	the data model for the intended configuration (same leaves)		the data model for the intended configuration (same leaves)
	D. When a configuration change for any intended configuration		D. When a configuration change for any intended configuration
	node has been successfully applied to the server (e.g. not		node has been successfully applied to the server (e.g. not
	failed, nor deferred due to absent hardware) then the		failed, nor deferred due to absent hardware) then the
	existence and value of the corresponding applied		existence and value of the corresponding applied
	configuration node must match the intended configuration		configuration node must match the intended configuration
	node.		node.
	2. Applied configuration as part of operational state		2. Support for both synchronous and asynchronous configuration
	A. The ability to retrieve the applied configuration and derived
	state nodes in a single protocol operation.
	3. Support for both synchronous and asynchronous configuration
	operations (see terms)		operations (see terms)
	A. A server may support only synchronous configuration		A. A server may support only synchronous configuration
	operations, or only asynchronous configuration operations, or		operations, or only asynchronous configuration operations, or
	both synchronous and asynchronous configuration operations on		both synchronous and asynchronous configuration operations on
	a client-specified per-operation basis.		a client-specified per-operation basis.
	B. Servers that support asynchronous configuration operations		B. Servers that support asynchronous configuration operations
	MAY also provide a verify operation that a client can request		MAY also provide a verify operation that a client can request
	from the server to return information regarding the		from the server to return information regarding the
	difference between the intended and applied configurations.		difference between the intended and applied configurations.
	C. The configuration protocol MUST specify how configuration		C. The configuration protocol MUST specify how configuration
	errors are handled. Errors may be handled by "stop on		errors are handled. Errors may be handled by "stop on
	error", "continue on error" or "rollback on error" semantics		error", "continue on error" or "rollback on error" semantics
	(see terms). Support for "rollback on error" SHOULD be		(see terms). Support for "rollback on error" SHOULD be
	provided.		provided.
	4. Separation of configuration and operational state data; ability		3. Separation of the applied configuration and derived state aspects
	to retrieve them and independently		of operational state; ability to retrieve them independently and
			together
	A. Be able to retrieve only the derived state aspects of		A. Be able to retrieve only the applied configuration aspects of
	operational state		operational state
	B. Be able to retrieve only the non-derived state aspects of		B. Be able to retrieve only the derived state aspects of
	operational state		operational state
	C. Be able to retrieve both the derived and non-derived state		C. Be able to retrieve both the applied configuration and
	aspects of operational state together		derived state aspects of operational state together
	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		4. Ability to relate configuration with its corresponding
	operational state		operational state
	A. Ability to map intended config nodes to corresponding applied		A. Ability to map intended config nodes to corresponding applied
	config nodes		config nodes
	B. Ability to map intended config nodes to associated derived		B. Ability to map intended config nodes to associated derived
	state nodes		state nodes
	C. The mappings needs to be programmatically consumable		C. The mappings needs to be programmatically consumable
	7. Ability for distinct modules to leverage a common model-structure		5. Ability for distinct modules to leverage a common model-structure
	A. Focus on the IETF-defined modules, and ideally provides		A. Focus on the IETF-defined modules, and ideally provides
	guidance to other SDOs		guidance to other SDOs
	B. Multiple domain-specific model-structure trees are okay		B. Multiple domain-specific model-structure trees are okay
	C. Model-structures may be defined in multiple modules with		C. Model-structures may be defined in multiple modules with
	distinct namespaces		distinct namespaces
	3. Security Considerations		3. Security Considerations
	skipping to change at page 5, line 50		skipping to change at page 5, line 48
	Shaikh, Benoit Claise, Carl Moberg, Dan Romascanu, Dean Bogdanovic,		Shaikh, Benoit Claise, Carl Moberg, Dan Romascanu, Dean Bogdanovic,
	Gert Grammel, Jonathan Hansford, Juergen Schoenwaelder, Lou Berger,		Gert Grammel, Jonathan Hansford, Juergen Schoenwaelder, Lou Berger,
	Mahesh Jethanandani, Martin Bjorklund, Phil Shafer, Randy Presuhn,		Mahesh Jethanandani, Martin Bjorklund, Phil Shafer, Randy Presuhn,
	Rob Shakir, Robert Wilton, Sterne, Jason.		Rob Shakir, Robert Wilton, Sterne, Jason.
	6. References		6. References
	6.1. Normative References		6.1. 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, DOI 10.17487/		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
	RFC2119, March 1997,		DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
	6.2. Informative References		6.2. Informative References
	[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>.
	[draft-openconfig-netmod-model-structure-00]		[draft-openconfig-netmod-model-structure-00]
	Shaikh, A., Shakir, R., D'Souza, K., and L. Fang,		Shaikh, A., Shakir, R., D'Souza, K., and L. Fang,
	"Operational Structure and Organization of YANG Models",		"Operational Structure and Organization of YANG Models",
	draft-openconfig-netmod-model-structure-00 (work in		draft-openconfig-netmod-model-structure-00 (work in
	progress), 2015, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-		progress), 2015, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-
	openconfig-netmod-model-structure-00>.		openconfig-netmod-model-structure-00>.
	[draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01]		[draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01]
	Shakir, R., Shaikh, A., and M. Hines, "Consistent Modeling		Shakir, R., Shaikh, A., and M. Hines, "Consistent Modeling
	of Operational State Data in YANG", draft-openconfig-		of Operational State Data in YANG", draft-openconfig-
	netmod-opstate-01 (work in progress), 2015,		netmod-opstate-01 (work in progress), 2015,
	<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-openconfig-netmod-		<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-openconfig-netmod-
	opstate-01>.		opstate-01>.
			[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>.
	Appendix A. Relation to Terms Defined in Other Drafts		Appendix A. Relation to Terms Defined in Other Drafts
	The following terms were originally defined in [RFC6241], but since		The following terms were originally defined in [RFC6241], but since
	modified by the NETMOD WG:		modified by the NETMOD WG:
	o continue-on-error		o continue-on-error
	o stop-on-error		o stop-on-error
	o rollback-on-error		o rollback-on-error
	skipping to change at page 7, line 36		skipping to change at page 7, line 36
	Appendix B. Relation to Requirements in Other Drafts		Appendix B. Relation to Requirements in Other Drafts
	The requirements in this document roughly map onto the requirements		The requirements in this document roughly map onto the requirements
	listed in [draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01] and		listed in [draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01] and
	[draft-openconfig-netmod-model-structure-00] as list below. Some		[draft-openconfig-netmod-model-structure-00] as list below. Some
	liberty was taken to adjust the requirements based on what looked		liberty was taken to adjust the requirements based on what looked
	liked consensus from on list discussions:		liked consensus from on list discussions:
	1. draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01, Section 3		1. draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01, Section 3
	2. draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01, Section 4.1		2. draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01, Section 4.2
	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		3. draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01, Section 4.3
	6. draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01, Section 4.5		4. draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate-01, Section 4.5
	7. draft-openconfig-netmod-model-structure-00 (no section)		5. draft-openconfig-netmod-model-structure-00 (no section)
	Appendix C. Open Issues		Appendix C. Open Issues
	All issues with this draft are tracked using GitHub issues. Please		All issues with this draft are tracked using GitHub issues. Please
	see: https://github.com/netmod-wg/opstate-reqs/issues to see		see: https://github.com/netmod-wg/opstate-reqs/issues to see
	currently opened issues.		currently opened issues.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Kent Watsen		Kent Watsen
End of changes. 19 change blocks.
	38 lines changed or deleted		32 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/