draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-02.txt   draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-03.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: July 7, 2016 Brocade Networks Expires: July 11, 2016 Brocade Networks
January 4, 2016 January 8, 2016
Terminology and Requirements for Enhanced Terminology and Requirements for Enhanced Handling of Operational State
Operational State Visibility and Control draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-03
draft-ietf-netmod-opstate-reqs-02
Abstract Abstract
This document discusses the difference between intended configuration This document primarily regards the difference between the intended
and applied configuration of a device and how intended and applied configuration and the applied configuration of a device and how
configuration relate to the operational state of a device. The intended and applied configuration relate to the operational state of
document defines the necessary terminology and identifies a device. This document defines requirements for the applied
requirements enabling visibility into the difference of intended configuration's data model and its values, as well as for enabling a
configuration and applied configuration. client to know when a configuration has been fully applied or not,
how to access operational state, and how to relate intended
configuration nodes to applied configuration and derived state nodes.
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.
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 July 7, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 11, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 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 24 skipping to change at page 2, line 25
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document discusses the difference between intended configuration This document primarily regards the difference between the intended
and applied configuration of a device and how intended and applied configuration and the applied configuration of a device and how
configuration relate to the operational state of a device. The intended and applied configuration relate to the operational state of
document defines the necessary terminology and identifies a device. This document defines requirements for the applied
requirements enabling visibility into the difference of intended configuration's data model and its values, as well as for enabling a
configuration and applied configuration. client to know when a configuration has been fully applied or not,
how to access operational state, and how to relate intended
configuration nodes to applied configuration and derived state nodes.
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", "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 "client" is used throughout this document to refer to what The term "client" is used throughout this document to refer to what
is many times known as the "application" or "network management is many times known as the "application" or "network management
system". This definition is intended to be consistent with the term system". This definition is intended to be consistent with the term
skipping to change at page 5, line 49 skipping to change at page 6, line 5
state nodes state nodes
C. The mappings needs to be programmatically consumable C. The mappings needs to be programmatically consumable
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
It is understood that the intended and applied configurations will It is understood that the intended and applied configurations will
differ while synchronization is in progress. During the differ while synchronization is in progress. During the
synchronization process, the server will be in an inconsistent state synchronization process, the server will be in an inconsistent state
from the client's perspective. Implementations need to take care to from the client's perspective. Implementations need to take care to
ensure that this inconsistency minimizes gaps in the application of ensure that this process minimizes gaps in the application of
security policy (e.g., replacing a firewall policy in a single step). security policy (e.g., replacing a firewall policy in a single step).
Implementations additionally need to ensure that any gaps in security Implementations additionally need to ensure that any gaps in security
policies or not dependent on external input that an attacker might be policies are not dependent on external input that an attacker might
able to control or prevent access to. be able to control or prevent access to.
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
None None
7. Acknowledgements 7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the following for contributing to The authors would like to thank the following for contributing to
this document (in alphabetic order): Acee Lindem, Andy Bierman, Anees this document (in alphabetic order): Acee Lindem, Andy Bierman, Anees
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, Jason Sterne, Jonathan Hansford, Juergen Schoenwaelder,
Mahesh Jethanandani, Martin Bjorklund, Phil Shafer, Randy Presuhn, Lou Berger, Mahesh Jethanandani, Martin Bjorklund, Phil Shafer, Randy
Rob Shakir, Robert Wilton, Sterne, Jason. Presuhn, Rob Shakir, Robert Wilton.
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. 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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
 End of changes. 8 change blocks. 
24 lines changed or deleted 27 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/