WDIFF

draft-ietf-netconf-beep-00.txt --> draft-ietf-netconf-beep-01.txt

Network Working Group E. Lear
Internet-Draft K. Crozier
Expires: April December 6, 2004 Cisco Systems
October
June 7, 2003 2004

BEEP Application Protocol Mapping for NETCONF
draft-ietf-netconf-beep-00
draft-ietf-netconf-beep-01

Status of this Memo

This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

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."

The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://
www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

This Internet-Draft will expire on April December 6, 2004.

Abstract

This document specifies an application protocol mapping for the
NETCONF protocol over the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol (BEEP).

Lear & Crozier Expires April December 6, 2004 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft NETCONF over BEEP October 2003 June 2004

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1 Why BEEP? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. BEEP Transport Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1 NETCONF Session Initiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 NETCONF RPC Execution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3 NETCONF <rpc-abort> and <rpc-progress> . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4 NETCONF Session Teardown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.5
2.4 BEEP Profiles Profile for NETCONF Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.5.1 Management Channel Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.5.2
2.4.1 Operations Channel Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.5.3 5
2.4.2 Notification Channel Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9
5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 10
Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 11
Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 12
A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 15 14

Lear & Crozier Expires April December 6, 2004 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft NETCONF over BEEP October 2003 June 2004

1. Introduction

The NETCONF protocol [1] defines a simple mechanism through which a
network device can be managed. NETCONF is designed to be usable over
a variety of application protocols. This document specifies an
application protocol mapping for NETCONF over the Blocks Extensible
Exchange Protocol (BEEP) [2] .

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [3].

1.1 Why BEEP?

Use of BEEP is natural as an application protocol for transport of
XML. As a peer to peer protocol, BEEP provides an easy way to
implement NETCONF, no matter which side of the connection was the
initiator. This "bidirectionality" allows for either side to play
the role of the manager with no protocol changes. Either side can
open a channel. Either side could initiate an RPC. This is
particularly important to support operational models that involve
small devices connecting to a manager, and those devices that must
reverse the management connection in the face of firewalls and NATs.

The SASL profile used by BEEP allows for a simple and direct mapping
to the existing security model for CLI. CLI, while TLS provides a strong
well tested encryption mechanism with either server or server and
client-side authentication.

Lear & Crozier Expires April December 6, 2004 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft NETCONF over BEEP October 2003 June 2004

2. BEEP Transport Mapping

All NETCONF over BEEP implementations MUST implement the profile and
functional mapping between NETCONF and BEEP as described below.

2.1 NETCONF Session Initiation

Managers may be either BEEP listeners or initiators. Similarly,
agents may be either listeners or initiators. Thus the initial
exchange takes place without regard to whether a manager or the agent
is the initiator. After the transport connection is established, as
greetings are exchanged, they should each announce their support for
TLS [5] and optionally SASL [4] (see below), as well as for the
SYSLOG profile [6]. Once greetings are exchanged, if TLS is to be
used and available by both parties, the listener STARTs a channel
with the TLS profile.

Once TLS has been started, a new greeting is sent by both initiator
and listener, as required by the BEEP RFC.

At this point, if SASL is desired, the initiator starts BEEP channel
1 to perform a SASL exchange to authenticate itself. When SASL is
completed, the channel MUST be closed.

Once authentication has occurred, there is no need to distinguish
between initiator and listener. We now distinguish between manager
and agent.

The manager now establishes an NETCONF management a new
&dquot;operational&dquot; channel for the
purpose of exchanging capabilities, monitoring progress, capabilitiesexchange and
requests and aborting
remote procedure calls. responses. As initiators assign odd channels and
listeners assign even channels, the management this next channel is BEEP channel 1
or 2, depending on whether the manager is the initiator or the
listener.

The manager next establishes the

Certain NETCONF operational channel for the
purpose of issuing RPC requests. This channel is BEEP channel 3 or
4.

Finally, if either manager or agent wishes to send or receive
notifications, it capabilities may issue require additional BEEP channels.
When such capabilities are defined, a start on the next available channel if
the other side has sent the send or receive NETCONF capability. BEEP mapping must be defined as
well.

At this point, the NETCONF session is established.

2.2 NETCONF RPC Execution

To issue an RPC, the manager transmits on the operational channel a

Lear & Crozier Expires April 6, 2004 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft NETCONF over BEEP October 2003
BEEP MSG containing the RPC and its arguments. In accordance with
the BEEP standard, RPC requests may be split across multiple BEEP
frames.

Once received and processed, the agent responds with BEEP RPYs on the
same channel with the response to the RPC. In accordance with the
BEEP standard, responses may be split across multiple BEEP frames.

2.3 NETCONF <rpc-abort> and <rpc-progress>

<rpc-abort> and <rpc-progress> requests are issued by the manager on
the NETCONF management channel, and the agent responds with BEEP RPYs
on that same channel.

2.4 NETCONF Session Teardown

Either side may initiate the termination of an NETCONF session. In
This is done by issuing a BEEP close on the operational channel after
the current RPC has completed. The same is done with any
notification channels by the end that transmits notifications.
Finally, BEEP channel 0 is closed.

2.5 BEEP Profiles for NETCONF Channels

There are two profiles, the management channel profile and the
operations channel profile. These are not to be confused with the
BEEP control channel.

The operations channel will have two commands, <rpc> and <rpc-reply>.
The management channel will have one additional operation with
<rpc-progress>.

2.5.1 Management Channel Profile

<!-- DTD for netconf management over BEEP

Refer to this DTD as:

<!ENTITY % NETCONF PUBLIC "netconf/management/1.0" "">
%NETCONF;
-->

<!-- Contents

Overview

Includes
Profile Summaries

Lear & Crozier Expires April December 6, 2004 [Page 5] 4]

Internet-Draft NETCONF over BEEP October 2003

Entity Definitions

Operations
rpc
rpc-reply
rpc-progress
-->

<!ENTITY % BEEP PUBLIC "-//Blocks//DTD BEEP//EN"
"">
%BEEP;

<!-- Profile summaries

BEEP profile NETCONF-MANAGEMENT

role MSG RPY ERR
==== === === ===
I or L rpc ok error
I or L rpc-reply ok error
I or L rpc-progress ok error

-->

<!--
Entity Definitions

entity syntax/reference example
====== ================ =======

a PRC
RPC-DATA Alpha
a RPC reply number
RPC-REPLY 1*3DIGIT
a RPC progress number
RPC-PROGRESS 1*3DIGIT

-->

<!ENTITY % RPC-REPLY "CDATA">
<!ENTITY % RPC-DATA "CDATA">
<!ENTITY % RPC-PROGRESS "CDATA">
-->

Lear & Crozier Expires April 6, June 2004 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft NETCONF over

Once received and processed, the agent responds with BEEP October 2003

<!ELEMENT rpc (#PCDATA)>
<!ATTLIST rpc
rpc-data %RPC_DATA; #REQUIRED>

<!ELEMENT rpc-reply (#PCDATA)>
<!ATTLIST rpc-reply
rpc-reply %RPC-REPLY; #REQUIRED
rpc-data %rpc-data #REQUIRED>

<!--
Progress In accordance with the
BEEP standard, responses may be split across multiple BEEP frames.

2.3 NETCONF Session Teardown

Either side may initiate the termination of an NETCONF session. In
This is done by issuing a BEEP close on channel 0 after the current
RPC operation.
-->

<!ELEMENT rpc-progress (#PCDATA)>
<!ATTLIST rpc-progress
rpc-progress %RPC-PROGRESS; #REQUIRED>

2.5.2 has completed. Having sent or received a BEEP close, a manager
MUST NOT send further requests, and an agent MUST NOT send additional
responses. If there are additional activities due to expanded
capabilities, these MUST cease in an orderly manner, and should be
properly described in the capability mapping.

2.4 BEEP Profile for NETCONF

The operations channel will have two commands, <rpc> and <rpc-reply>.

2.4.1 Operations Channel Profile

<!-- DTD for netconf operations over BEEP

Refer to this DTD as:

<!ENTITY % NETCONF PUBLIC "netconf/Operation/1.0" "">
%NETCONF;
-->

<!-- Contents

Overview

Includes
Profile Summaries
Entity Definitions

Operations

Lear & Crozier Expires April 6, 2004 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft NETCONF over BEEP October 2003
rpc
rpc-reply
-->

<!ENTITY % BEEP PUBLIC "-//Blocks//DTD BEEP//EN"
"">
%BEEP;

Lear & Crozier Expires December 6, 2004 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft NETCONF over BEEP June 2004

<!-- Profile summaries

BEEP profile NETCONF-MANAGEMENT

role MSG RPY ERR
==== === === ===
I or L rpc ok error
I or L rpc-reply ok error

-->

<!--
Entity Definitions

entity syntax/reference example
====== ================ =======

a PRC
RPC-DATA Alpha
a RPC reply number
RPC-REPLY 1*3DIGIT

-->

<!ENTITY % RPC-REPLY "CDATA">
<!ENTITY % RPC-DATA "CDATA">

-->

<!ELEMENT RPC (#PCDATA)>
<!ATTLIST RPC

Lear & Crozier Expires April 6, 2004 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft NETCONF over BEEP October 2003
RPC-DATA %RPC_DATA; #REQUIRED>

<!ELEMENT RPC-REPLY (#PCDATA)>
<!ATTLIST RPC-REPLY
RPC-REPLY %RPC-REPLY; #REQUIRED
RPC-DATA %RPC-DATA #REQUIRED>

Lear & Crozier Expires December 6, 2004 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft NETCONF over BEEP June 2004

2.5.3

2.4.2 Notification Channel Profile

The NETCONF notification channel profile is defined in RFC 3195 [6].

Lear & Crozier Expires April December 6, 2004 [Page 9] 7]

Internet-Draft NETCONF over BEEP October 2003 June 2004

3. Security Considerations

Configuration information is by its very nature sensitive. Its
transmission in the clear and without integrity checking leaves
devices open to classic so-called "person in the middle" attacks.
Configuration information often times contains passwords, user names,
service descriptions, and topological information, all of which are
sensitive. A NETCONF application protocol, therefore, must minimally
support options for both confidentiality and authentication.

BEEP makes use of both transport layer security and SASL. We require
that TLS be used in BEEP as described by the BEEP standard.
Client-side certificates are strongly desirable, but an SASL
authentication is the bare minimum. SASL allows for the use of
protocols such as RADIUS [9], so that authentication can occur off
the box.

SASL authentication will occur on the first channel creation, and
prior to issuance of any protocol operations. No further
authentication may occur during the same session. This avoids a
situation where rights are different between different channels. If
an implementation wishes to support multiple accesses by different
individuals with different rights, then multiple sessions are
required.

Different environments may well allow different rights prior to and
then after authentication. Thus, an authorization model is not
specified in this document. When an operation is not properly
authorized then a simple "permission denied" is sufficient. Note that
authorization information may be exchanged in the form of
configuration information, which is all the more reason to ensure the
security of the connection.

Lear & Crozier Expires April December 6, 2004 [Page 10] 8]

Internet-Draft NETCONF over BEEP October 2003 June 2004

4. IANA Considerations

The IANA will assign a TCP port for NETCONF.

Lear & Crozier Expires April December 6, 2004 [Page 11] 9]

Internet-Draft NETCONF over BEEP October 2003 June 2004

5. Acknowledgments

This work is the product of the NETCONF IETF working group, and many
people have contributed to the NETCONF discussion. Most notably, Rob
Ens, Phil Schafer, Andy Bierman, Wes Hardiger, Ted Goddard, and
Margaret Wasserman all contributed in some fashion to this work,
which was originally to be found in the NETCONF base protocol
specification. Thanks also to Weijing Chen, Keith Allen, Juergen
Schoenwaelder, and Eamon O'Tuathail for their very constructive
participation.

Lear & Crozier Expires April December 6, 2004 [Page 12] 10]

Internet-Draft NETCONF over BEEP October 2003 June 2004

Normative References

[1] Enns, R., "NETCONF Configuration Protocol",
draft-ietf-netconf-prot-00
draft-ietf-netconf-prot-01 (work in progress), August October 2003.

[2] Rose, M., "The Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol Core", RFC
3080, March 2001.

[3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

[4] Myers, J., "Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL)",
RFC 2222, October 1997.

[5] Dierks, T., Allen, C., Treese, W., Karlton, P., Freier, A. and
P. Kocher, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0", RFC 2246, January
1999.

[6] New, D. and M. Rose, "Reliable Delivery for syslog", RFC 3195,
November 2001.

Lear & Crozier Expires April December 6, 2004 [Page 13] 11]

Internet-Draft NETCONF over BEEP October 2003 June 2004

Informative References

[7] Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C. and E. Maler,
"Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Second Edition)", W3C REC
REC-xml-20001006, October 2000.

[8] Hollenbeck, S., Rose, M. and L. Masinter, "Guidelines for the
Use of Extensible Markup Language (XML) within IETF Protocols",
BCP 70, RFC 3470, January 2003.

[9] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A. and W. Simpson, "Remote
Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 2865, June
2000.

Authors' Addresses

Eliot Lear
Cisco Systems
170 W. Tasman Dr.
San Jose, CA 95134-1706
US

EMail: lear@cisco.com

Ken Crozier
Cisco Systems
170 W. Tasman Dr.
San Jose, CA 95134-1706
US

EMail: kcrozier@cisco.com

Lear & Crozier Expires April December 6, 2004 [Page 14] 12]

Internet-Draft NETCONF over BEEP October 2003 June 2004

Appendix A. Change Log

Removed management channel, rpc-status, rpc-abort, and associated
profile changes.

Lear & Crozier Expires December 6, 2004 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft NETCONF over BEEP June 2004

Intellectual Property Statement

The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.

The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.

Full Copyright Statement

This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.

The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.

This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION

Lear & Crozier Expires April December 6, 2004 [Page 15] 14]

Internet-Draft NETCONF over BEEP October 2003 June 2004

HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Acknowledgment

Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.

Lear & Crozier Expires April December 6, 2004 [Page 16] 15]

----