draft-ietf-netconf-notification-messages-03.txt   draft-ietf-netconf-notification-messages-04.txt 
NETCONF E. Voit NETCONF E. Voit
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track H. Birkholz Intended status: Standards Track H. Birkholz
Expires: August 24, 2018 Fraunhofer SIT Expires: February 23, 2019 Fraunhofer SIT
A. Bierman A. Bierman
YumaWorks YumaWorks
A. Clemm A. Clemm
Huawei Huawei
T. Jenkins T. Jenkins
Cisco Systems Cisco Systems
February 20, 2018 August 22, 2018
Notification Message Headers and Bundles Notification Message Headers and Bundles
draft-ietf-netconf-notification-messages-03 draft-ietf-netconf-notification-messages-04
Abstract Abstract
This document defines a new notification message format, using yang- This document defines a new notification message format, using yang-
data. Included are: data. Included are:
o a new notification mechanism and encoding to replace the one way o a new notification mechanism and encoding to replace the one way
operation of RFC-5277 operation of RFC-5277
o a set of common, transport agnostic message header objects. o a set of common, transport agnostic message header objects.
skipping to change at page 1, line 49 skipping to change at page 1, line 49
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 August 24, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 23, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 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 3, line 31 skipping to change at page 3, line 31
The document describes information elements needed for the functions The document describes information elements needed for the functions
above. It also provides YANG structures for sending messages above. It also provides YANG structures for sending messages
containing one or more events and/or update records to a receiver. containing one or more events and/or update records to a receiver.
2. Terminology 2. 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", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
The definition of notification is in RFC 7950 [RFC7950]. Publisher, The definition of notification is in RFC 7950 [RFC7950]. Publisher,
receiver, and subscription are defined in receiver, subscription, and event occurence time are defined in
[I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications]. [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications].
3. Header Objects 3. Header Objects
There are a number of transport independent headers which should have There are a number of transport independent headers which should have
common definition. These include: common definition. These include:
o subscription-id: provides a reference into the reason the o subscription-id: provides a reference into the reason the
publisher believed the receiver wishes to be notified of this publisher believed the receiver wishes to be notified of this
specific information. specific information.
skipping to change at page 19, line 17 skipping to change at page 19, line 17
For their valuable comments, discussions, and feedback, we wish to For their valuable comments, discussions, and feedback, we wish to
acknowledge Martin Bjorklund, Einar Nilsen-Nygaard, and Kent Watsen. acknowledge Martin Bjorklund, Einar Nilsen-Nygaard, and Kent Watsen.
11. References 11. References
11.1. Normative References 11.1. Normative References
[I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications] [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications]
Voit, E., Clemm, A., Gonzalez Prieto, A., Tripathy, A., Voit, E., Clemm, A., Gonzalez Prieto, A., Tripathy, A.,
and E. Nilsen-Nygaard, "Custom Subscription to Event and E. Nilsen-Nygaard, "Custom Subscription to Event
Streams", draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-06 Streams", draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-16
(work in progress), January 2018. (work in progress), August 2018.
[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>.
[RFC5277] Chisholm, S. and H. Trevino, "NETCONF Event [RFC5277] Chisholm, S. and H. Trevino, "NETCONF Event
Notifications", RFC 5277, DOI 10.17487/RFC5277, July 2008, Notifications", RFC 5277, DOI 10.17487/RFC5277, July 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5277>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5277>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
11.2. Informative References 11.2. Informative References
[I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif] [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif]
Voit, Eric., Clemm, Alexander., Tripathy, A., Nilsen- Voit, Eric., Clemm, Alexander., Tripathy, A., Nilsen-
Nygaard, E., and Alberto. Gonzalez Prieto, "Restconf and Nygaard, E., and Alberto. Gonzalez Prieto, "Restconf and
HTTP transport for event notifications", January 2018, HTTP transport for event notifications", June 2018,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/
draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif/>. draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif/>.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push] [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push]
Clemm, Alexander., Voit, Eric., Gonzalez Prieto, Alberto., Clemm, Alexander., Voit, Eric., Gonzalez Prieto, Alberto.,
Tripathy, A., Nilsen-Nygaard, E., Bierman, A., and B. Tripathy, A., Nilsen-Nygaard, E., Bierman, A., and B.
Lengyel, "YANG Datastore Subscription", December 2017, Lengyel, "YANG Datastore Subscription", August 2018,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/
draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push/>. draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push/>.
[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>.
[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>.
Appendix A. Changes between revisions Appendix A. Changes between revisions
(To be removed by RFC editor prior to publication) (To be removed by RFC editor prior to publication)
v03 - v04
o Terminology tweaks.
o Revision before expiration. Awaiting closure of SN prior to
update.
v02 - v03 v02 - v03
o Removed the option for an unbundled message. This might be re- o Removed the option for an unbundled message. This might be re-
added later for transport efficiency if desired by the WG added later for transport efficiency if desired by the WG
o New message structure driven by the desire to put the signature o New message structure driven by the desire to put the signature
information at the end. information at the end.
v01 - v02 v01 - v02
 End of changes. 10 change blocks. 
10 lines changed or deleted 17 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/