draft-ietf-netconf-udp-pub-channel-00.txt   draft-ietf-netconf-udp-pub-channel-01.txt 
NETCONF G. Zheng NETCONF G. Zheng
Internet-Draft T. Zhou Internet-Draft T. Zhou
Intended status: Standards Track A. Clemm Intended status: Standards Track A. Clemm
Expires: March 27, 2018 Huawei Expires: May 15, 2018 Huawei
September 23, 2017 November 11, 2017
UDP based Publication Channel for Streaming Telemetry UDP based Publication Channel for Streaming Telemetry
draft-ietf-netconf-udp-pub-channel-00 draft-ietf-netconf-udp-pub-channel-01
Abstract Abstract
This document describes a UDP-based publication channel for streaming This document describes a UDP-based publication channel for streaming
telemetry use to collect data from devices. A new shim header is telemetry use to collect data from devices. A new shim header is
proposed to facilitate the distributed data collection mechanism proposed to facilitate the distributed data collection mechanism
which directly pushes data from line cards to the collector. Because which directly pushes data from line cards to the collector. Because
of the lightweight UDP encapsulation, higher frequency and better of the lightweight UDP encapsulation, higher frequency and better
transit performance can be achieved. transit performance can be achieved.
skipping to change at page 1, line 42 skipping to change at page 1, line 42
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 March 27, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 15, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 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 20 skipping to change at page 2, line 20
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Solution Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Solution Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. UDP Transport for Publication Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. UDP Transport for Publication Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Data Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. Design Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.2. Data Format of the Message Header . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.1. Reliability Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.3. Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.2. Authentication Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.3.1. Reliability Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. Data Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.4. Data Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. Congestion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Streaming telemetry refers to sending a continuous stream of Streaming telemetry refers to sending a continuous stream of
operational data from a device to a remote receiver. This provides operational data from a device to a remote receiver. This provides
an ability to monitor a network from remote and to provide network an ability to monitor a network from remote and to provide network
analytics. Devices generate telemetry data and push that data to a analytics. Devices generate telemetry data and push that data to a
collector for further analysis. By streaming the data, much better collector for further analysis. By streaming the data, much better
performance, finer-grained sampling, monitoring accuracy, and performance, finer-grained sampling, monitoring accuracy, and
bandwidth utilization can be achieved than with polling-based bandwidth utilization can be achieved than with polling-based
skipping to change at page 3, line 10 skipping to change at page 3, line 10
[I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push] defines a mechanism that allows a [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push] defines a mechanism that allows a
collector to subscribe to updates of YANG-defined data that is collector to subscribe to updates of YANG-defined data that is
maintained in a YANG [RFC7950] datastore. The mechanism separates maintained in a YANG [RFC7950] datastore. The mechanism separates
the management and control of subscriptions from the transport that the management and control of subscriptions from the transport that
is used to actually stream and deliver the data. Two transports have is used to actually stream and deliver the data. Two transports have
been defined so far, NETCONF [RFC6241] and RESTCONF [RFC8040]. been defined so far, NETCONF [RFC6241] and RESTCONF [RFC8040].
While powerful in its features and general in its architecture, in While powerful in its features and general in its architecture, in
its current form the mechanism needs to be extended to stream its current form the mechanism needs to be extended to stream
telemetry data at high velocity from devices that feature a telemetry data at high velocity from devices that feature a
distributed architecture. Specifically, there are two aspects that distributed architecture. The transports that have been defined so
need to be addressed: far, NETCONF and RESTCONF, are ultimately based on TCP (Transmission
Control Protocol) and lack the efficiency needed to stream data
1. The transports that have been defined so far, NETCONF and continuously at high velocity. A lighter-weight, more efficient
RESTCONF, are ultimately based on TCP (Transmission Control transport, e.g. a transport based on UDP (User Datagram Protocol) is
Protocol) and lack the efficiency needed to stream data needed.
continuously at high velocity. A lighter-weight, more efficient
transport, e.g. a transport based on UDP (User Datagram Protocol)
is needed.
* Firstly, data collector will suffer a lot of TCP connection
from, for example, many line cards equipped on different
devices.
* Secondly, as no connection state needs to be maintained, UDP o Firstly, data collector will suffer a lot of TCP connections from,
encapsulation can be easily implemented by hardware which will for example, many line cards equipped on different devices.
further improve the performance.
* Thirdly, because of the lightweight UDP encapsulation, higher o Secondly, as no connection state needs to be maintained, UDP
frequency and better transit performance can be achieved, encapsulation can be easily implemented by hardware which will
which is important for streaming telemetry. further improve the performance.
2. The current design involves a single push server. In the case of o Thirdly, because of the lightweight UDP encapsulation, higher
data originating from multiple line cards, the design requires frequency and better transit performance can be achieved, which is
data to be internally forwarded from those line cards to the push important for streaming telemetry.
server, presumably on a main board, which then combines the
individual data items into a single consolidated stream. This
centralized data collection mechanism can result in a performance
bottleneck, especially when large amounts of data are involved.
What is needed instead is support for a distributed mechanism
that allows to directly push multiple individual substreams, e.g.
one from each line card, without needing to first pass them
through an additional processing stage for internal
consolidation, but still allowing those substreams to be managed
and controlled via a single subscription.
This document specifies a distributed data collection mechanism which This document specifies a higher-performance transport option for
can directly push data from line cards to a collector by using a UDP YANG-Push that leverages UDP. Specifically, it facilitates the
based publication channel. Specifically, a higher-performance distributed data collection mechanism described in
transport option for YANG-Push that leverages UDP is specified. [I-D.zhou-netconf-multi-stream-originators]. In the case of data
originating from multiple line cards, the design requires data to be
internally forwarded from those line cards to the push server,
presumably on a main board, which then combines the individual data
items into a single consolidated stream. The centralized data
collection mechanism can result in a performance bottleneck,
especially when large amounts of data are involved. What is needed
instead is the support for a distributed mechanism that allows to
directly push multiple individual substreams, e.g. one from each line
card, without needing to first pass them through an additional
processing stage for internal consolidation, but still allowing those
substreams to be managed and controlled via a single subscription.
The proposed UDP publication channel natively supports the
distributed data collection mechanism.
While this document will focus on the data publication channel, the While this document will focus on the data publication channel, the
subscription can be used in conjunction with the mechanism proposed subscription can be used in conjunction with the mechanism proposed
in [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push] with necessary extensions. in [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push] with necessary extensions
[I-D.zhou-netconf-multi-stream-originators].
Although the distributed data streaming from device line cards is one
typical scenario that the proposed UDP based publication channel can
be useful, the proposal is general enough to fit more scenarios that
require UDP transport for data collections, e.g. the IoT (Internet of
Things) use case.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
Streaming telemetry: refers to sending a continuous stream of Streaming telemetry: refers to sending a continuous stream of
operational data from a device to a remote receiver. This provides operational data from a device to a remote receiver. This provides
an ability to monitor a network from remote and to provide network an ability to monitor a network from remote and to provide network
analytics. analytics.
Component subscription: A subscription that defines the data from
each individual entity which is managed and controlled by a single
subscription server.
Subscription agent: An agent that streams telemetry data per the
terms of a component subscription.
3. Solution Overview 3. Solution Overview
The typical distributed data collection solution is shown in figure The typical distributed data collection solution is shown in Fig. 1.
1. The subscription server located in the main board receives the The Subscriber cannot see the Agents directly, so it will send the
subscription requests or configurations. It may be colocated, not Global Subscription information to the Master (e.g., main board).
necessary, with a NETCONF server which interacts with outside When receiving a Global Subscription, the Subscription Server
clients. When receiving a subscription request, the subscription decomposes the subscription request into multiple Component
server decomposes the subscription into multiple component Subscriptions, each involving data from a separate internal telemetry
subscriptions, each involving data from a separate internal telemetry source, for example a line card. The Component Subscriptions are
source, for example a line card. The component subscriptions are distributed to the Component Subscription Server located in Agents.
distributed within the device to the subscription agents located in Subsequently, each Agent generates its own stream of telemetry data,
line cards. Subsequently, each line card generates its own stream of collecting and encapsulating the packets per the Component
telemetry data, collecting and encapsulating the packets per the Subscription and streaming them to the designated Collector.This
component subscription and streaming it to the designated data distributed data collection mechanism may form multiple Publication
collector. Channels between the data originators and the Collector. The
Collector is able to assemble many pieces of data associated with one
Global Subscription.
The publication channel supports the reliable data streaming, for The Publication Channel supports the reliable data streaming, for
example for some alarm events. The subscriber has the option of example for some alarm events. The Collector has the option of
deducing the packet loss and the disorder based on the information deducing the packet loss and the disorder based on the information
carried by the notification data. And the subscriber will decide the carried by the notification data. And the Collector will decide the
behavior to request retransmission. The subscriber can send the behavior to request retransmission. The Collector can send the
retransmission request to the subscriber server for further retransmission request to the subscriber server for further
processing. processing.
Subscription server and subscription agents interact with each other
in several ways:
o Subscription agents need to have a registration or announcement
handshake with the subscription server, so the subscription server
is aware of them and of lifecycle events (such as subscription
agents appearing and disappearing).
o The subscription server relays the component subscriptions to the
subscription agents.
o The subscription agents indicate status of component subscriptions
to the subscription server. The status of the overall "master"
subscription is maintained by the subscription server. The
subscription server is also responsible for notifying the
subscriber in case of any problems of component subscriptions.
The rest of the draft describes the UDP based publication channel. The rest of the draft describes the UDP based publication channel.
retransmission + + retransmission + + Global
request | | subscription request | | Subscription
+------------------------+ +------------------------+
| | | Main Board| | | | Master |
| +--v----v--------+ | | +--v----v--------+ |
| | subscription | | | | Subscription | |
| | server | | | | Server | |
| +--+----+-----+--+ | | +--+----+-----+--+ |
| | | | | internal | | | | | internal
+------------------------+ subscription Component +------------------------+ subscription
| | | distribution Subscription | | | distribution
+---------------+ | +--------------+ +---------------+ | +--------------+
| | | | | |
+------------------+ +------------------+ +------------------+ +------------------+ +------------------+ +------------------+
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| +-------v------+ | | +------v-------+ | | +-----v--------+ | | +-------v------+ | | +------v-------+ | | +-----v--------+ |
| | subscription | | | | subscription | | | | subscription | | | | Component | | | | Component | | | | Component | |
| | agent | | | | agent | | | | agent | | | | Subscription | | | | Subscription | | | | Subscription | |
| | Server | | | | Server | | | | Server | |
| +--------------+ | | +--------------+ | | +--------------+ | | +--------------+ | | +--------------+ | | +--------------+ |
| Line Card 1 | | Line Card 2 | | Line Card n | | Agent 1 | | Agent 2 | | Agent n |
+---------+--------+ +--------+---------+ +----------+-------+ +---------+--------+ +--------+---------+ +----------+-------+
| | | | | |
| | Publication Channel | | | Publication Channel |
+--------------+ | +-----------------+ +--------------+ | +-----------------+
| | | | | |
+-v-----v-----v-+ +-v-----v-----v-+
| | | |
| Collector | | Collector |
| | | |
+---------------+ +---------------+
Fig. 1 Distributed Data Collection
4. UDP Transport for Publication Channel 4. UDP Transport for Publication Channel
In [I-D.voit-netconf-notification-messages], the transport 4.1. Design Overview
independent message header is proposed for the notification use. The
following shim header refers to and implements that message header
definition.
4.1. Data Format As specified in YANG-Push, the telemetry data is encapsulated in the
NETCONF/RESTCONF notification message, which is then encapsulated and
carried in the transport protocols, e.g. TLS, HTTP2. The following
figure shows the overview of the UDP publication message structure.
The data format of the UDP based based publication transport is shown o Next to the UDP encapsulation, the DTLS layer is to provide
as follows. reusable security and authentication functions over UDP.
o The Message Header contains information that can facilitate the
message transmission before de-serializing the notification
message.
o Notification Message is the encoded content that the publication
channel transports. The common encoding method includes GPB [1],
CBOR [RFC7049], JSON, and XML.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-notification-messages] describes the structure
of the Notification Message for both single notification and
multiple bundled notifications.
+--------------+
| Notification |
| Message |
+--------------+
+--------------+
| Message |
| Header |
+--------------+
+--------------+
| DTLS |
+--------------+
+--------------+
| UDP |
+--------------+
Fig. 2 UDP Publication Message Overview
4.2. Data Format of the Message Header
The Message Header contains information that can facilitate the
message transmission before de-serializing the notification message.
The data format is shown as follows.
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
~ UDP Header ~
+-------+---------------+-------+-------------------------------+ +-------+---------------+-------+-------------------------------+
| Vers. | Flag | Rsvd | Length | | Vers. | Flag | ET | Length |
+-------+---------------+-------+-------------------------------+ +-------+---------------+-------+-------------------------------+
| Notification-Time | | Notification-Time |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Message-Generator-ID | | Message-Generator-ID |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------------------------------+
~ Options ~ ~ Options ~
+---------------------------------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------------------------------+
~ Message Content ~
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Right after the UDP header, a simple inform header is attached to Fig. 3 Message Header Format
carry the necessary information with regard to the streaming mode.
o The Vers. field represents the PDU (Protocol Data Unit) encoding The Message Header contains the following field:
version. The initial version value is 0.
o The Flag is a bitmap indicating what features this packet has and o Vers.: represents the PDU (Protocol Data Unit) encoding version.
the corresponding options attached. Each bit associates to one The initial version value is 0.
o Flag: is a bitmap indicating what features this packet has and the
corresponding options attached. Each bit associates to one
feature and one option data. When the bit is set to 1, the feature and one option data. When the bit is set to 1, the
associated feature is enabled and the option data is attached. associated feature is enabled and the option data is attached.
The sequence of the presence of the options follows the bit order The sequence of the presence of the options follows the bit order
of the bitmap. In this document, 2 flags are specified as of the bitmap. In this document, the flag is specified as
follows: follows:
* bit 0, the reliability flag; * bit 0, the reliability flag;
* bit 1, the authentication flag;
* other bits are reserved. * other bits are reserved.
o The Length field is the total length of the message, measured in o ET: is a 4 bits identifier to indicate the encoding type used for
octets, including message header. the Notification Message. 16 types of encoding can be expressed:
o The Message-Generator-ID is a 32-bit identifier of the process * 0: GPB;
which created the message notification. This allows
disambiguation of an information source, such as the
identification of different line cards sending the notification
messages.
o The Notification-Time, is the time at which the message leaves the * 1: CBOR;
* 2: JSON;
* 3: XML;
* others are reserved.
o Length: is the total length of the message, measured in octets,
including message header.
o Message-Generator-ID: is a 32-bit identifier of the process which
created the message notification. This allows disambiguation of
an information source, such as the identification of different
line cards sending the notification messages.
o Notification-Time: is the time at which the message leaves the
exporter, expressed in seconds since the UNIX epoch of 1 January exporter, expressed in seconds since the UNIX epoch of 1 January
1970 at 00:00 UTC, encoded as an unsigned 32-bit integer. 1970 at 00:00 UTC, encoded as an unsigned 32-bit integer.
o The Options is a variable-length field. The details of the o Options: is a variable-length field. The details of the Options
Options will be described in the respective sections below. will be described in the respective sections below.
After the inform header is the real content which is encoded. The
actual encoding is based on the subscription, e.g., in binary with
GPB [1] or CBOR [RFC7049].
4.2. Options 4.3. Options
The order of packing the data fields in the Options field follows the The order of packing the data fields in the Options field follows the
bit order of the Flag field. bit order of the Flag field.
4.2.1. Reliability Option 4.3.1. Reliability Option
The UDP based publication transport described in this document The UDP based publication transport described in this document
provides two streaming modes, the reliable mode an the unreliable provides two streaming modes, the reliable mode an the unreliable
mode, for different SLA (Service Level Agreement) and telemetry mode, for different SLA (Service Level Agreement) and telemetry
requirements. requirements.
In the unreliable streaming mode, the line card pushes the In the unreliable streaming mode, the line card pushes the
encapsulated data to the data collector without any sequence encapsulated data to the data collector without any sequence
information. So the subscriber does not know whether the data is information. So the subscriber does not know whether the data is
correctly received or not. Hence no retransmission happens. correctly received or not. Hence no retransmission happens.
skipping to change at page 9, line 12 skipping to change at page 9, line 12
When the reliability flag bit is set to 1 in the Flag field, the When the reliability flag bit is set to 1 in the Flag field, the
following option data will be attached following option data will be attached
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------------------------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Notification ID | | Notification ID |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Previous Notification ID | | Previous Notification ID |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------------------------------+
Fig. 4 Reliability Option Format
The notification ID is generated continuously by the message The notification ID is generated continuously by the message
generator. Different subscribers share the same notification ID generator. Different subscribers share the same notification ID
sequence. Current ID and previous ID will be added in the packets. sequence. Current ID and previous ID will be added in the packets.
For example, there are two subscriber A and B, For example, there are two subscriber A and B,
o Notification IDs for the generator are : [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, o Notification IDs for the generator are : [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
9], in which Subscriber A subscribes [1,2,3,6,7] and Subscriber B 9], in which Subscriber A subscribes [1,2,3,6,7] and Subscriber B
subscribes [1,2,4,5,7,8,9]. subscribes [1,2,4,5,7,8,9].
o Subscriber A will receive : [0,1][1,2][2,3][3,6][6,7]. o Subscriber A will receive : [0,1][1,2][2,3][3,6][6,7].
o Subscriber B will receive : [0,1][1,2][2,4][4,5][5,7][7,8]. o Subscriber B will receive : [0,1][1,2][2,4][4,5][5,7][7,8].
4.2.2. Authentication Option 4.4. Data Encoding
When the authentication flag bit is set to 1 in the Flag field, a 24
octets data field will be included in the Options. The message is
signed, and the signature is filled in the 24 octets Authentication
Option field. So that a receiver can verify the authenticity of the
message.
HMAC [RFC2104] defines a mechanism for message authentication using
cryptographic hash functions. Any message digest algorithm can be
used, but the cryptographic strength of HMAC depends on the
properties of the underlying hash function. As suggested by
[RFC6151], new protocol designs should not employ HMAC-MD5 [RFC2202].
Alternatives to HMAC-MD5 include HMAC-SHA256 [RFC4231] and AES-CMAC
[RFC4493].
Implementations permit multiple acceptable algorithms, while the
HMAC-SHA256 algorithm is mandatory in this document. The resulting
message digest (output of HMAC) is truncated to 24 octets, which is
the 192 leftmost bits of the HMAC computation, to fit the size of the
Authentication Option field. It is recommended in [RFC2104] that the
truncated output length should be not less than half the length of
the hash output to match the birthday attack bound.
4.3. Data Encoding
Subscribed data can be encoded in GPB, CBOR, XML or JSON format. It Subscribed data can be encoded in GPB, CBOR, XML or JSON format. It
is conceivable that additional encodings may be supported as options is conceivable that additional encodings may be supported as options
in the future. This can be accomplished by augmenting the in the future. This can be accomplished by augmenting the
subscription data model with additional identity statements used to subscription data model with additional identity statements used to
refer to requested encodings. refer to requested encodings.
5. IANA Considerations Implementation may support different encoding method per
subscription. When bundled notifications is supported between the
TBD publisher and the receiver, only subscribed notifications with the
same encoding can be bundled as one message.
6. Operational Considerations 5. Congestion Control
While efficient, UDP has no build-in congestion-avoidance mechanism. While efficient, UDP has no build-in congestion control mechanism.
It is not recommended to use the UDP based publication channel over It is not recommended to use the UDP based publication channel over
congestion-sensitive network paths. The deployments require the congestion-sensitive network paths. The deployments require the
communications from exporters to collectors are always congestion communications from exporters to collectors are always congestion
controllable, i.e., the transport is over dedicated links or the controllable, i.e., the transport is over dedicated links or the
streaming rate can be limited. streaming rate can be limited.
6. IANA Considerations
TBD
7. Security Considerations 7. Security Considerations
The security of the UDP based publication channel depends on the TBD
subscription channel. Typically, both NETCONF and RESTCONF support
the secure configuration of the private key for the publication
channel. So that the message data can be encrypted by using
symmetric key algorithms.
8. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
The authors of this documents would like to thank Eric Voit, Tim The authors of this documents would like to thank Eric Voit, Tim
Jenkins, and Huiyang Yang for the initial comments. Jenkins, and Huiyang Yang for the initial comments.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-
Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2104, February 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2104>.
[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>.
[RFC2202] Cheng, P. and R. Glenn, "Test Cases for HMAC-MD5 and HMAC-
SHA-1", RFC 2202, DOI 10.17487/RFC2202, September 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2202>.
[RFC4231] Nystrom, M., "Identifiers and Test Vectors for HMAC-SHA-
224, HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA-384, and HMAC-SHA-512",
RFC 4231, DOI 10.17487/RFC4231, December 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4231>.
[RFC4493] Song, JH., Poovendran, R., Lee, J., and T. Iwata, "The
AES-CMAC Algorithm", RFC 4493, DOI 10.17487/RFC4493, June
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4493>.
[RFC6151] Turner, S. and L. Chen, "Updated Security Considerations
for the MD5 Message-Digest and the HMAC-MD5 Algorithms",
RFC 6151, DOI 10.17487/RFC6151, March 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6151>.
[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>.
[RFC7049] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object [RFC7049] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, DOI 10.17487/RFC7049, Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, DOI 10.17487/RFC7049,
October 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7049>. October 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7049>.
[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>.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-netconf-notification-messages]
Voit, E., Bierman, A., Clemm, A., and T. Jenkins,
"Notification Message Headers and Bundles", draft-ietf-
netconf-notification-messages-02 (work in progress),
October 2017.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications] [I-D.ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications]
Voit, E., Clemm, A., Prieto, A., Nilsen-Nygaard, E., and Voit, E., Clemm, A., Prieto, A., Nilsen-Nygaard, E., and
A. Tripathy, "Custom Subscription to Event Notifications", A. Tripathy, "Custom Subscription to Event Streams",
draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-04 (work in draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-07 (work in
progress), September 2017. progress), October 2017.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push] [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push]
Clemm, A., Voit, E., Prieto, A., Tripathy, A., Nilsen- Clemm, A., Voit, E., Prieto, A., Tripathy, A., Nilsen-
Nygaard, E., Bierman, A., and B. Lengyel, "Subscribing to Nygaard, E., Bierman, A., and B. Lengyel, "YANG Datastore
YANG datastore push updates", draft-ietf-netconf-yang- Subscription", draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push-11 (work in
push-09 (work in progress), September 2017. progress), October 2017.
[I-D.voit-netconf-notification-messages] [I-D.zhou-netconf-multi-stream-originators]
Voit, E., Bierman, A., Clemm, A., and T. Jenkins, Zhou, T., Zheng, G., Voit, E., Clemm, A., and A. Bierman,
"Notification Message Headers and Bundles", draft-voit- "Subscription to Multiple Stream Originators", draft-zhou-
netconf-notification-messages-01 (work in progress), July netconf-multi-stream-originators-00 (work in progress),
2017. October 2017.
9.3. URIs 9.3. URIs
[1] https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/ [1] https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/
Appendix A. Change Log Appendix A. Change Log
(To be removed by RFC editor prior to publication) (To be removed by RFC editor prior to publication)
A.1. draft-ietf-zheng-udp-pub-channel-00 to v00 A.1. draft-ietf-zheng-udp-pub-channel-00 to v00
o Modified the telemetry header format. o Modified the telemetry header format.
o Add a section on the Authentication Option. o Add a section on the Authentication Option.
o Cleaned up the text and removed unnecessary TBDs. o Cleaned up the text and removed unnecessary TBDs.
Authors' Addresses A.2. v01
o Removed the detailed description on distributed data collection
mechanism from this document. Mainly focused on the description
of a UDP based publication channel for telemetry use.
o Modified the telemetry header format.
Authors' Addresses
Guangying Zheng Guangying Zheng
Huawei Huawei
101 Yu-Hua-Tai Software Road 101 Yu-Hua-Tai Software Road
Nanjing, Jiangsu Nanjing, Jiangsu
China China
Email: zhengguangying@huawei.com Email: zhengguangying@huawei.com
Tianran Zhou Tianran Zhou
Huawei Huawei
 End of changes. 55 change blocks. 
217 lines changed or deleted 197 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/