CoRE M. Veillette, Ed. Internet-Draft Trilliant Networks Inc. Intended status: Standards Track P. van der Stok, Ed. Expires: 7 May 2025 consultant A. Pelov, Ed. IMT Atlantique A. Bierman YumaWorks C. Bormann, Ed. Universität Bremen TZI 3 November 2024 CoAP Management Interface (CORECONF) draft-ietf-core-comi-19 Abstract This document describes a network management interface for constrained devices and networks, called CoAP Management Interface (CORECONF). The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) is used to access datastore and data node resources specified in YANG, or SMIv2 converted to YANG. CORECONF uses the YANG to CBOR mapping and converts YANG identifier strings to numeric identifiers for payload size reduction. CORECONF extends the set of YANG based protocols, NETCONF and RESTCONF, with the capability to manage constrained devices and networks. About This Document This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC. The latest revision of this draft can be found at https://core- wg.github.io/comi/draft-ietf-core-comi.html. Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft- ietf-core-comi/. Discussion of this document takes place on the core Working Group mailing list (mailto:core@ietf.org), which is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/. Subscribe at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core/. Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/core-wg/comi. Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 1] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 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." This Internet-Draft will expire on 7 May 2025. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. Example syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. CORECONF Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1. Major differences between RESTCONF and CORECONF . . . . . 7 2.1.1. Differences due to CoAP and its efficient usage . . . 7 2.1.2. Differences due to the use of CBOR . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2. Compression of YANG identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.2.1. Instance-identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.3. Media-Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.4. Unified datastore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3. CoAP Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.1. Data Retrieval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.1.1. Using the 'c' query parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.1.2. Using the 'd' query parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 2] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 3.1.3. FETCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.2. Data Editing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.2.1. Data Ordering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.2.2. POST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.2.3. iPATCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.3. Full datastore access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.3.1. Full datastore examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.4. Event stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.4.1. Filtering Notifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.4.2. Notify Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.5. RPC and Action statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.5.1. RPC Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.5.2. Action Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 4. Use of Block-wise Transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 5. Application Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 5.1. YANG library . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 5.2. Resource Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 5.2.1. Datastore Resource Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 5.2.2. Data node Resource Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 5.2.3. Event stream Resource Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 8.1. Resource Type (rt=) Link Target Attribute Values Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 8.2. CoAP Content-Formats Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 8.3. Media Types Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 8.4. YANG Namespace and Module Name Registration . . . . . . . 34 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Appendix A. ietf-coreconf YANG module . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Appendix B. ietf-coreconf .sid file . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 1. Introduction The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) [RFC7252] is designed for Machine to Machine (M2M) applications such as smart energy, smart city, and building control. Constrained devices need to be managed in an automatic fashion to handle the large quantities of devices that are expected in future installations. Messages between devices need to be as small and infrequent as possible. The implementation complexity and runtime resources need to be as small as possible. Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 3] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 This specification describes the CoAP Management Interface (CORECONF) which uses CoAP methods to access structured data defined in YANG [RFC7950]. This specification is complementary to [RFC8040] which describes a REST-like interface called RESTCONF, which uses HTTP methods to access structured data defined in YANG. The use of standardized data models specified in a standardized language, such as YANG, promotes interoperability between devices and applications from different manufacturers. CORECONF and RESTCONF are intended to work in a stateless client- server fashion. They use a single round-trip to complete a single editing transaction, where NETCONF needs multiple round trips. To promote small messages, CORECONF uses a YANG to CBOR mapping [RFC9254] and numeric identifiers [I-D.ietf-core-sid] to minimize CBOR payloads and URI length. 1.1. Terminology The following terms are defined in the YANG data modeling language [RFC7950]: action, anydata, anyxml, client, container, data model, data node, identity, instance identifier, leaf, leaf-list, list, module, RPC, schema node, server, submodule. The following terms are defined in [RFC6241]: configuration data, datastore, state data. The following term is defined in [I-D.ietf-core-sid]: YANG schema item identifier (YANG SID, often shortened to simply SID). The following terms are defined in the CoAP protocol [RFC7252]: Confirmable Message, Content-Format, Endpoint. The following terms are defined in this document: data node resource: a CoAP resource that models a YANG data node. datastore resource: a CoAP resource that models a YANG datastore. event stream resource: a CoAP resource used by clients to observe YANG notifications. notification instance: An instance of a schema node of type notification, specified in a YANG module implemented by the server. The instance is generated in the server at the occurrence of the corresponding event and reported by an event stream resource. Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 4] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 list instance identifier: Handle used to identify a YANG data node that is an instance of a YANG "list", specified with the values of the key leaves of the list. single instance identifier: Handle used to identify a specific data node which can be instantiated only once. This includes data nodes defined at the root of a YANG module and data nodes defined within a container. This excludes data nodes defined within a list or any children of these data nodes. instance-identifier: List instance identifier or single instance identifier. instance-value: The value assigned to a data node instance. Instance-values are serialized into the payload according to the rules defined in Section 4 of [RFC9254]. In a yang-instances data item, the reference SID applying to the instance-value is provided by the SID in the corresponding instance-identifier. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. 1.2. Example syntax CBOR is used to encode CORECONF request and response payloads. The CBOR syntax of the YANG payloads is specified in [RFC9254], based on [RFC8949] and [RFC8742]. The payload examples are notated in Diagnostic notation (defined in Section 8 of [RFC8949] and Appendix G of [RFC8610]), which can be automatically converted to CBOR. 2. CORECONF Architecture This section describes the CORECONF architecture to use CoAP for reading and modifying the content of datastore(s) used for the management of the instrumented node. Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 5] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | SMIv2 specification (optional) (2) | +------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | v +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | YANG specification (1) | +--------+--------------------------------------------+----------+ | | Client v Server v +--------------+ +-------------------------+ | Request +--> CoAP request(3) -->| Indication | | Confirm |<-- CoAP response(3)<--+ Response (4) | | | | | | |<==== Security (7) ===>| +---------------------+ | +--------------+ | | Datastore(s) (5) | | | +---------------------+ | | | | +---------------------+ | | | Event stream(s) (6) | | | +---------------------+ | +-------------------------+ Figure 1: Abstract CORECONF architecture Figure 1 is a high-level representation of the main elements of the CORECONF management architecture. The different numbered components of Figure 1 are discussed according to the component number. (1) YANG specification: contains a set of named and versioned modules. (2) SMIv2 specification: Optional part that consists of a named module which, specifies a set of variables and "conceptual tables". There is an algorithm to translate SMIv2 specifications to YANG specifications. (3) CoAP request/response messages: The CORECONF client sends request messages to and receives response messages from the CORECONF server. (4) Request, Indication, Response, Confirm: Processes performed by the CORECONF clients and servers. (5) Datastore: A resource used to access configuration data, state Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 6] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 data, RPCs, and actions. A CORECONF server supports a single unified datastore. Multiple datastores, for instance as those defined by Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) [RFC8342], are out of scope of this specification. (6) Event stream: A resource used to get real-time notifications. A CORECONF server may support multiple Event streams serving different purposes such as normal monitoring, diagnostic, syslog, security monitoring. (7) Security: The server MUST prevent unauthorized users from reading or writing any CORECONF resources. CORECONF relies on security protocols such as DTLS [RFC6347][RFC9147] or OSCORE [RFC8613] to secure CoAP communications. 2.1. Major differences between RESTCONF and CORECONF CORECONF is a RESTful protocol for small devices where saving bytes to transport a message is very important. Contrary to RESTCONF, many design decisions are motivated by the saving of bytes. Consequently, CORECONF is not a RESTCONF over CoAP protocol, but differs more significantly from RESTCONF. 2.1.1. Differences due to CoAP and its efficient usage * CORECONF uses CoAP/UDP as transport protocol and CBOR as payload format [RFC9254]. RESTCONF uses HTTP/TCP as transport protocol and JSON or XML as payload formats. * CORECONF uses the methods FETCH and iPATCH to access data nodes. RESTCONF uses instead the HTTP method PATCH and the HTTP method GET with the "fields" Query parameter. * RESTCONF uses the HTTP methods HEAD, and OPTIONS, which are not supported by CoAP. * CORECONF does not support "insert" query parameter (first, last, before, after) and the "point" query parameter which are supported by RESTCONF. * CORECONF does not support the "start-time" and "stop-time" query parameters to retrieve past notifications. 2.1.2. Differences due to the use of CBOR * CORECONF encodes YANG identifier strings as numbers, where RESTCONF does not. Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 7] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 * CORECONF also differs in the handling of default values, only 'report-all' and 'trim' options are supported. 2.2. Compression of YANG identifiers In the YANG specification, items are identified with a name string. In order to significantly reduce the size of identifiers used in CORECONF, numeric identifiers called YANG Schema Item iDentifier (YANG SID or simply SID) are used instead. 2.2.1. Instance-identifiers Instance-identifiers are used to uniquely identify data node instances within a datastore. This YANG built-in type is defined in Section 9.13 of [RFC7950]. An instance-identifier is composed of the data node identifier (i.e., a SID) and, for data nodes within list(s), the keys used to index within these list(s). In CORECONF, instance-identifiers are carried in the payload of FETCH and PATCH requests. They are encoded in CBOR based on the rules defined in Section 6.13.1 of [RFC9254]. 2.3. Media-Types CORECONF uses Media-Types based on the YANG to CBOR mapping specified in [RFC9254]. The following new Media-Types based on CBOR sequences [RFC8742] are defined in this document: application/yang-identifiers+cbor-seq: This Media-Type represents a CBOR YANG document containing a list of instance-identifiers used to target specific data node instances within a datastore. FORMAT: CBOR sequence of instance-identifiers The message payload of Media-Type 'application/yang- identifiers+cbor-seq' is encoded using a CBOR sequence. Each item of this CBOR sequence contains an instance-identifier encoded as defined in Section 6.13.1 of [RFC9254]. application/yang-instances+cbor-seq: This Media-Type represents a CBOR YANG document containing a list of data node instances. Each data node instance is identified by its associated instance- identifier. FORMAT: CBOR sequence of CBOR maps of instance-identifier, instance-value Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 8] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 The message payload of Media-Type 'application/yang- instances+cbor-seq' is encoded using a CBOR sequence. Each item within this CBOR sequence contains a CBOR map carrying an instance-identifier and associated instance-value. Instance- identifiers are encoded using the rules defined in Section 6.13.1 of [RFC9254], instance-values are encoded using the rules defined in Section 4 of [RFC9254]. The reference SID applying to the instance-value is provided by the SID in the instance-identifier. When present in an iPATCH request payload, this Media-Type carry a list of data node instances to be replaced, created, or deleted. For each data node instance D, for which the instance-identifier is the same as a data node instance I, in the targeted datastore resource: the value of D replaces the value of I. When the value of D is null, the data node instance I is removed. When the targeted datastore resource does not contain a data node instance with the same instance-identifier as D, a new instance is created with the same instance-identifier and value as D (unless the value of D is null). The different Media-Type usages are summarized in the table below: +===============+===========+=======================================+ | Method | Resource | Media-Type | +===============+===========+=======================================+ | FETCH request | datastore | application/yang- | | | | identifiers+cbor-seq | +---------------+-----------+---------------------------------------+ | FETCH | datastore | application/yang- | | response | | instances+cbor-seq | +---------------+-----------+---------------------------------------+ | iPATCH | datastore | application/yang- | | request | | instances+cbor-seq | +---------------+-----------+---------------------------------------+ | GET response | event | application/yang- | | | stream | instances+cbor-seq | +---------------+-----------+---------------------------------------+ | POST request | rpc, | application/yang- | | | action | instances+cbor-seq | +---------------+-----------+---------------------------------------+ | POST response | rpc, | application/yang- | | | action | instances+cbor-seq | +---------------+-----------+---------------------------------------+ Table 1: Summary of Media-Type Usages Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 9] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 2.4. Unified datastore CORECONF supports a simple datastore model consisting of a single unified datastore. This datastore provides access to both configuration and operational data. Configuration updates performed on this datastore are reflected immediately or with a minimal delay as operational data. More complex datastore models such as the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as defined by [RFC8342] are out of scope of the present specification. Characteristics of the unified datastore are summarized in the table below: +==============+===================================================+ | Name | Value | +==============+===================================================+ | Name | unified | +--------------+---------------------------------------------------+ | YANG modules | all modules | +--------------+---------------------------------------------------+ | YANG nodes | all data nodes ("config true" and "config false") | +--------------+---------------------------------------------------+ | Access | read-write | +--------------+---------------------------------------------------+ | How applied | changes applied in place immediately or with a | | | minimal delay | +--------------+---------------------------------------------------+ | Protocols | CORECONF | +--------------+---------------------------------------------------+ | Defined in | "ietf-coreconf" | +--------------+---------------------------------------------------+ Table 2: Characteristics of the Unified Datastore 3. CoAP Interface This document specifies a Management Interface. CoAP endpoints that implement the CORECONF management protocol, support at least one discoverable management resource of resource type (rt): core.c.ds. The path of the discoverable management resource is left to implementers to select (see Section 5). YANG data node instances are accessible by performing FETCH and iPATCH operations on the datastore resource. Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 10] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 CORECONF also supports event stream resources used to observe notification instances. Event stream resources can be discovered using resource type (rt): core.c.ev. The description of the CORECONF management interface is shown in the table below: +===============================+==============+===========+ | CoAP resource | Example path | rt | +===============================+==============+===========+ | Datastore resource | /c | core.c.ds | +-------------------------------+--------------+-----------+ | Default event stream resource | /s | core.c.ev | +-------------------------------+--------------+-----------+ Table 3: Resources, example paths, and resource types (rt) The path values in the table are example ones. On discovery, the server makes the actual path values known for these resources. The methods used by CORECONF are: +===========+=============================================+ | Operation | Description | +===========+=============================================+ | FETCH | Retrieve specific data nodes within a | | | datastore resource or event stream resource | +-----------+---------------------------------------------+ | iPATCH | Idempotently create, replace, and delete | | | data node(s) within a datastore resource | +-----------+---------------------------------------------+ | POST | Invoke an RPC or action | +-----------+---------------------------------------------+ | GET | Retrieve the datastore resource or event | | | stream resource | +-----------+---------------------------------------------+ | PUT | Create or replace a datastore resource | +-----------+---------------------------------------------+ | DELETE | Delete a datastore resource | +-----------+---------------------------------------------+ Table 4: CoAP Methods in CORECONF 3.1. Data Retrieval One or more data nodes can be retrieved by the client. The operation is mapped to the FETCH method defined in Section 2 of [RFC8132]. Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 11] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 There are two additional query parameters for the FETCH method: +==================+=============================================+ | query parameters | Description | +==================+=============================================+ | c | Control selection of configuration and non- | | | configuration data nodes (GET and FETCH) | +------------------+---------------------------------------------+ | d | Control retrieval of default values. | +------------------+---------------------------------------------+ Table 5 3.1.1. Using the 'c' query parameter The 'c' (content) option controls how descendant nodes of the requested data nodes will be processed in the reply. The allowed values are: +=======+=====================================================+ | Value | Description | +=======+=====================================================+ | c | Return only configuration descendant data nodes | +-------+-----------------------------------------------------+ | n | Return only non-configuration descendant data nodes | +-------+-----------------------------------------------------+ | a | Return all descendant data nodes | +-------+-----------------------------------------------------+ Table 6: Values for the 'c' query parameter This option is only allowed for GET and FETCH methods on datastore and data node resources. A 4.02 (Bad Option) error is returned if used for other methods or resource types. If this query parameter is not present, the default value is "a" (the quotes are added for readability, but they are not part of the payload). 3.1.2. Using the 'd' query parameter The 'd' (with-defaults) option controls how the default values of the descendant nodes of the requested data nodes will be processed. The allowed values are: Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 12] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 +=======+======================================================+ | Value | Description | +=======+======================================================+ | a | All data nodes are reported. Defined as 'report- | | | all' in Section 3.1 of [RFC6243]. | +-------+------------------------------------------------------+ | t | Data nodes set to the YANG default are not reported. | | | Defined as 'trim' in Section 3.2 of [RFC6243]. | +-------+------------------------------------------------------+ Table 7: Values for the 'd' query parameter If the target of a GET or FETCH method is a data node that represents a leaf that has a default value, and the leaf has not been given a value by any client yet, the server MUST return the default value of the leaf. If the target of a GET method is a data node that represents a container or list that has child resources with default values, and these have not been given a value yet, The server MUST NOT return the child resource if d=t. The server MUST return the child resource if d=a. If this query parameter is not present, the default value is "t" (the quotes are added for readability, but they are not part of the payload). 3.1.3. FETCH The FETCH method is used to retrieve one or more instance-values. The FETCH request payload contains the list of instance-identifiers of the data node instances requested. The return response payload contains a list of data node instance- values in the same order as requested. A CBOR null is returned for each data node requested by the client, not supported by the server or not currently instantiated. For compactness, indexes of the list instance identifiers returned by the FETCH response SHOULD be elided, only the SID is provided. That means that the client is responsible for remembering the full instance-identifiers in its request since no key values will be in the response. This approach may also help reduce implementation complexity since the format of each entry within the CBOR sequence of the FETCH response is identical to the format of the corresponding GET response. Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 13] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 FORMAT: FETCH (Content-Format: application/yang-identifiers+cbor-seq) CBOR sequence of instance-identifiers 2.05 Content (Content-Format: application/yang-instances+cbor-seq) CBOR sequence of CBOR maps of SID, instance-value 3.1.3.1. FETCH examples This example uses the current-datetime leaf from module ietf-system [RFC7317] and the interface list from module ietf-interfaces [RFC8343]. In this example the value of current-datetime (SID 1723) and the interface list (SID 1533) instance identified with name="eth0" are queried. REQ: FETCH (Content-Format: application/yang-identifiers+cbor-seq) 1723, / current-datetime (SID 1723) / [1533, "eth0"] / interface (SID 1533) with name = "eth0" / RES: 2.05 Content (Content-Format: application/yang-instances+cbor-seq) { 1723 : "2014-10-26T12:16:31Z" / current-datetime (SID 1723) / }, { 1533 : { 4 : "eth0", / name (SID 1537) / 1 : "Ethernet adaptor", / description (SID 1534) / 5 : 1880, / type (SID 1538), identity / / ethernetCsmacd (SID 1880) / 2 : true, / enabled (SID 1535) / 11 : 3 / oper-status (SID 1544), value is testing / } } 3.2. Data Editing CORECONF allows datastore contents to be created, modified and deleted using CoAP methods. Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 14] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 3.2.1. Data Ordering A CORECONF server MUST preserve the relative order of all user- ordered list and leaf-list entries that are received in a single edit request. As per [RFC9254], these YANG data node types are encoded as CBOR arrays, so messages will preserve their order. 3.2.2. POST The CoAP POST operation is used in CORECONF for the invocation of "ACTION" and "RPC" resources. Refer to Section 3.5 for details on "ACTION" and "RPC" resources. 3.2.3. iPATCH One or multiple data node instances are replaced with the idempotent CoAP iPATCH method [RFC8132]. There are no query parameters for the iPATCH method. The processing of the iPATCH command is specified by Media-Type application/yang-instances+cbor-seq. In summary, if the CBOR patch payload contains a data node instance that is not present in the target, this instance is added. If the target contains the specified instance, the content of this instance is replaced with the value of the payload. A null value indicates the removal of an existing data node instance. FORMAT: iPATCH (Content-Format: application/yang-instances+cbor-seq) CBOR sequence of CBOR maps of instance-identifier, instance-value 2.04 Changed 3.2.3.1. iPATCH example In this example, a CORECONF client requests the following operations: * Set "/ietf-system:system/ntp/enabled" (SID 1755) to true. * Remove the server "tac.nrc.ca" from the "/ietf-system:system/ntp/ server" (SID 1756) list. * Add/set the server "NTP Pool server 2" to the list "/ietf- system:system/ntp/server" (SID 1756). Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 15] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 REQ: iPATCH (Content-Format: application/yang-instances+cbor-seq) { 1755 : true / enabled (SID 1755) / }, { [1756, "tac.nrc.ca"] : null / server (SID 1756) / }, { 1756 : { / server (SID 1756) / 3 : "tic.nrc.ca", / name (SID 1759) / 4 : true, / prefer (SID 1760) / 5 : { / udp (SID 1761) / 1 : "132.246.11.231" / address (SID 1762) / } } } RES: 2.04 Changed A data node resource is deleted using an iPATCH with a null value, as seen in this example. 3.3. Full datastore access The methods GET, PUT, POST, and DELETE can be used to request, replace, create, and delete a whole datastore respectively. FORMAT: GET 2.05 Content (Content-Format: application/yang-data+cbor; id=sid) CBOR map of SID, instance-value FORMAT: PUT (Content-Format: application/yang-data+cbor; id=sid) CBOR map of SID, instance-value 2.04 Changed FORMAT: POST (Content-Format: application/yang-data+cbor; id=sid) CBOR map of SID, instance-value 2.01 Created Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 16] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 FORMAT: DELETE 2.02 Deleted The content of the CBOR map represents the complete datastore of the server at the GET indication of after a successful processing of a PUT or POST request. 3.3.1. Full datastore examples The example uses the interface list from module ietf-interfaces [RFC8343] and the clock container from module ietf-system [RFC7317]. We assume that the datastore contains two modules ietf-system (SID 1700) and ietf-interfaces (SID 1500); they contain the 'interface' list (SID 1533) with one instance and the 'clock' container (SID 1721). After invocation of GET, a CBOR map with data nodes from these two modules is returned: REQ: GET RES: 2.05 Content (Content-Format: application/yang-data+cbor; id=sid) { 1721 : { / Clock (SID 1721) / 2: "2016-10-26T12:16:31Z", / current-datetime (SID 1723) / 1: "2014-10-05T09:00:00Z" / boot-datetime (SID 1722) / }, 1533 : [ { / interface (SID 1533) / 4 : "eth0", / name (SID 1537) / 1 : "Ethernet adaptor", / description (SID 1534) / 5 : 1880, / type (SID 1538), identity: / / ethernetCsmacd (SID 1880) / 2 : true, / enabled (SID 1535) / 11 : 3 / oper-status (SID 1544), value is testing / } ] } 3.4. Event stream Event notification is an essential function for the management of servers. CORECONF allows notifications specified in YANG [RFC5277] to be reported to a list of clients. The path for the default event stream can be discovered as described in Section 3. The server MAY support additional event stream resources to address different notification needs. Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 17] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 Reception of notification instances is enabled with the CoAP Observe [RFC7641] function. Clients subscribe to the notifications by sending a GET request with an "Observe" option to the stream resource. Each response payload carries one or multiple notifications. The number of notifications reported, and the conditions used to remove notifications from the reported list are left to implementers. When multiple notifications are reported, they MUST be ordered starting from the newest notification at index zero. Note that this could lead to notifications being sent multiple times, which increases the probability for the client to receive them, but it might potentially lead to messages that exceed the MTU of a single CoAP packet. If such cases could arise, implementers should make sure appropriate fragmentation is available - for example the one described in Section 4. The format of notifications is a CBOR sequence, where each item in the sequence is a single notification as described in Section 4.2.1 of [RFC9254]. (Accordingly, a notification without any content is an empty CBOR sequence, i.e., zero bytes.) FORMAT: GET Observe(0) 2.05 Content (Content-Format: application/yang-instances+cbor-seq) CBOR sequence of CBOR maps of instance-identifier, instance-value The sequence of data node instances may contain identical items which have been generated at different times. An example implementation is: Every time an event is generated, the generated notification instance is appended to the chosen stream(s). After an aggregation period, which may be limited by the maximum number of notifications supported, the content of the instance is sent to all clients observing the modified stream. 3.4.1. Filtering Notifications If only a subset of all possible notifications is of interest, a FETCH operation can be performed with a request payload of type application/yang-identifiers+cbor-seq that indicates which subset. Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 18] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 FORMAT: FETCH Observe(0) (Content-Format: application/yang-identifiers+cbor-seq) CBOR sequence of instance-identifiers 2.05 Content (Content-Format: application/yang-instances+cbor-seq) CBOR sequence of CBOR maps of instance-identifier, instance-value When filtering is not supported by a CORECONF server, the request payload can be ignored: all event notifications are then reported independently of the presence and content of the request payload. 3.4.2. Notify Examples Let suppose the server generates the example-port-fault event as defined below. module example-port { yang-version 1.1; namespace "https://example.com/ns/example-port"; prefix "port"; notification example-port-fault { // SID 60010 description "Event generated if a hardware fault is detected"; leaf port-name { // SID 60011 type string; } leaf port-fault { // SID 60012 type string; } } } In this example the default event stream resource path /s is an example location discovered with a request similar to Figure 3. By executing a GET with Observe 0 on the default event stream resource the client receives the following response: Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 19] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 REQ: GET Observe(0) RES: 2.05 Content (Content-Format: application/yang-instances+cbor-seq) Observe(12) { 60010 : { / example-port-fault (SID 60010) / 1 : "0/4/21", / port-name (SID 60011) / 2 : "Open pin 2" / port-fault (SID 60012) / } }, { 60010 : { / example-port-fault (SID 60010) / 1 : "1/4/21", / port-name (SID 60011) / 2 : "Open pin 5" / port-fault (SID 60012) / } } In the example, the request returns a success response with the contents of the last two generated events. Consecutively the server will regularly notify the client when a new event is generated. A client that wants to filter notifications can use a FETCH payload: REQ: FETCH Observe(0) (Content-Format: application/yang-identifiers+cbor-seq) 60010, 60020 /CBOR sequence with two notification identifiers/ RES: 2.05 Content (Content-Format: application/yang-instances+cbor-seq) Observe(12) { 60010 : { / example-port-fault (SID 60010) / 1 : "0/4/21", / port-name (SID 60011) / 2 : "Open pin 2" / port-fault (SID 60012) / } }, { 60010 : { / example-port-fault (SID 60010) / 1 : "1/4/21", / port-name (SID 60011) / 2 : "Open pin 5" / port-fault (SID 60012) / } } Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 20] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 Note that the notifications in this example are identical to the unfiltered example as they are all using identifier SID 60010 and this is included in the filter. 3.5. RPC and Action statements The YANG "action" and "RPC" statements specify the execution of a Remote Procedure Call (RPC) in the server. It is invoked using a POST method to an "Action" or "RPC" resource instance. The request payload contains the values assigned to the input container when specified. The response payload contains the values of the output container when specified. Both the input and output containers are encoded in CBOR using the rules defined in Section 4.2.1 of [RFC9254]. The returned success response code is 2.04 Changed. FORMAT: POST (Content-Format: application/yang-instances+cbor-seq) CBOR sequence of CBOR maps of instance-identifier, instance-value 2.04 (Content-Format: application/yang-instances+cbor-seq) CBOR sequence of CBOR maps of instance-identifier, instance-value 3.5.1. RPC Example This example is based on Section 3.6.1 of [RFC8040], abbreviated and annotated with SIDs as follows: Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 21] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 module example-ops { yang-version 1.1; namespace "https://example.com/ns/example-ops"; prefix "ops"; rpc reboot { // SID 61000 description "Reboot operation."; input { // SID 61009 leaf delay { // SID 61001 type uint32; units "seconds"; default 0; description "Number of seconds to wait before initiating the reboot operation."; } } } } This example invokes the 'reboot' RPC (SID 61000). REQ: POST (Content-Format: application/yang-instances+cbor-seq) { 61000: { 1 : 77 } } RES: 2.04 Changed (Content-Format: application/yang-instances+cbor-seq) { 61000: null } 3.5.2. Action Example The example is based on the YANG action "reset" as defined in Section 7.15.3 of [RFC7950] and annotated below with SIDs. Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 22] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 module example-server-farm { yang-version 1.1; namespace "urn:example:server-farm"; prefix "sfarm"; import ietf-yang-types { prefix "yang"; } list server { // SID 60000 key name; leaf name { // SID 60001 type string; } action reset { // SID 60002 input { // SID 60008 leaf reset-at { // SID 60003 type yang:date-and-time; mandatory true; } } output { // SID 60009 leaf reset-finished-at { // SID 60004 type yang:date-and-time; mandatory true; } } } } } This example invokes the 'reset' action (SID 60002), of the server instance with name equal to "myserver". Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 23] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 REQ: POST (Content-Format: application/yang-instances+cbor-seq) { [60002, "myserver"]: { 1 : "2016-02-08T14:10:08Z" / reset-at (SID 60003) / } } RES: 2.04 Changed (Content-Format: application/yang-instances+cbor-seq) { [60002, "myserver"]: { 2 : "2016-02-08T14:10:11Z" / reset-finished-at (SID 60004)/ } } 4. Use of Block-wise Transfers The CoAP protocol provides reliability by acknowledging the UDP datagrams. However, when large pieces of data need to be transported, datagrams get fragmented, thus creating constraints on the resources in the client, server and intermediate routers. The block option [RFC7959] allows the transport of the total payload in individual blocks of which the size can be adapted to the underlying transport sizes such as: (UDP datagram size ~64KiB, IPv6 MTU of 1280, IEEE 802.15.4 payload of 60-80 bytes). Each block is individually acknowledged to guarantee reliability. Notice that the Block mechanism splits the data at fixed positions, such that individual data fields may become fragmented. Therefore, assembly of multiple blocks may be required to process complete data fields. Beware of race conditions. In case blocks are filled one at a time, care should be taken that the whole and consistent data representation is sent in multiple blocks sequentially without interruption. On the server, values might change, lists might get re-ordered, extended or reduced. When these actions happen during the serialization of the contents of the resource, the transported results do not correspond with a state having occurred in the server; or worse the returned values are inconsistent. For example: array length does not correspond with the actual number of items. It may be advisable to use Indefinite-length CBOR arrays and maps, which are foreseen for data streaming purposes. (Note that the outer structure of yang-identifiers and yang-instances is a CBOR sequence, which already behaves similar to an indefinite-length encoded array.) Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 24] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 5. Application Discovery Two application discovery mechanisms are supported by CORECONF, the YANG library data model as defined by [I-D.ietf-core-yang-library] and the CORE resource discovery [RFC6690]. Implementers may choose to implement one or the other or both. 5.1. YANG library The YANG library data model [I-D.ietf-core-yang-library] provides a high-level description of the resources available. The YANG library contains the list of modules, features, and deviations supported by the CORECONF server. From this information, CORECONF clients can infer the list of data nodes supported and the interaction model to be used to access them. This module also contains the list of datastores implemented. As described in [RFC6690], the location of the YANG library can be found by sending a GET request to "/.well-known/core" including a resource type (RT) parameter with the value "core.c.yl". Upon success, the return payload will contain the root resource of the YANG library module. The following example assumes that the SID of the YANG library is 2351 (kv after encoding as specified in Section 2.2) and that the server uses /c as datastore resource path. REQ: GET RES: 2.05 Content (Content-Format: application/link-format) ;rt="core.c.yl" 5.2. Resource Discovery As some CoAP interfaces and services might not support the YANG library interface and still be interested to discover resources that are available, implementations MAY choose to support discovery of all available resources using "/.well-known/core" as defined by [RFC6690]. 5.2.1. Datastore Resource Discovery The presence and location of (path to) each datastore implemented by the CORECONF server can be discovered by sending a GET request to "/.well-known/core" including a resource type (RT) parameter with the value "core.c.ds". Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 25] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 Upon success, the return payload contains the list of datastore resources. Each datastore returned is further qualified using the "ds" Link- Format attribute. This attribute is set to the SID assigned to the datastore identity. When a unified datastore is implemented, the ds attribute is set to 1029 as specified in Appendix B. For other examples of datastores, see the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) [RFC7950]. link-extension = ( "ds" "=" sid ) ; SID assigned to the datastore identity sid = 1*DIGIT The following example assumes that the server uses /c as datastore resource path. REQ: GET RES: 2.05 Content (Content-Format: application/link-format) ; rt="core.c.ds";ds=1029 Figure 2 5.2.2. Data node Resource Discovery If implemented, the presence and location of (path to) each data node implemented by the CORECONF server are discovered by sending a GET request to "/.well-known/core" including a resource type (RT) parameter with the value "core.c.dn". Upon success, the return payload contains the SID assigned to each data node and their location. The example below shows the discovery of the presence and location of data nodes. Data nodes '/ietf-system:system-state/clock/boot- datetime' (SID 1722) and '/ietf-system:system-state/clock/current- datetime' (SID 1723) are returned. The example assumes that the server uses /c as datastore resource path. REQ: GET RES: 2.05 Content (Content-Format: application/link-format) ;rt="core.c.dn", ;rt="core.c.dn" Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 26] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 Without additional filtering, the list of data nodes may become prohibitively long. If this is the case implementations SHOULD support a way to obtain all links using multiple GET requests (for example through some form of pagination). 5.2.3. Event stream Resource Discovery The presence and location of (path to) each event stream implemented by the CORECONF server are discovered by sending a GET request to "/.well-known/core" including a resource type (RT) parameter with the value "core.c.es". Upon success, the return payload contains the list of event stream resources. The following example assumes that the server uses /s as the default event stream resource. REQ: GET RES: 2.05 Content (Content-Format: application/link-format) ;rt="core.c.es" Figure 3 6. Error Handling In case a request is received which cannot be processed properly, the CORECONF server MUST return an error response. This error response MUST contain a CoAP 4.xx or 5.xx response code. Requests that result in an error response MUST NOT have an effect on the datastore. Errors returned by a CORECONF server can be broken into two categories, those associated with the CoAP protocol itself and those generated during the validation of the YANG data model constraints as described in Section 8 of [RFC7950]. The following list of common CoAP errors should be implemented by CORECONF servers. This list is not exhaustive, other errors defined by CoAP and associated RFCs may be applicable. * Error 4.01 (Unauthorized) is returned by the CORECONF server when the CORECONF client is not authorized to perform the requested action on the targeted resource (i.e., data node, datastore, rpc, action or event stream). * Error 4.02 (Bad Option) is returned by the CORECONF server when one or more CoAP options are unknown or malformed. Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 27] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 * Error 4.04 (Not Found) is returned by the CORECONF server when the CORECONF client is requesting a non-instantiated resource (i.e., data node, datastore, rpc, action or event stream). * Error 4.05 (Method Not Allowed) is returned by the CORECONF server when the CORECONF client is requesting a method not supported on the targeted resource. (e.g., GET on an rpc, PUT or POST on a data node with "config" set to false). * Error 4.08 (Request Entity Incomplete) is returned by the CORECONF server if one or multiple blocks of a block transfer request is missing, see [RFC7959] for more details. * Error 4.13 (Request Entity Too Large) may be returned by the CORECONF server during a block transfer request, see [RFC7959] for more details. * Error 4.15 (Unsupported Content-Format) is returned by the CORECONF server when the Content-Format used in the request does not match those specified in Section 2.3. The CORECONF server MUST also enforce the different constraints associated with the YANG data models implemented. These constraints are described in Section 8 of [RFC7950]. These errors are reported using the CoAP error code 4.00 (Bad Request) and may have the following error container as payload. The YANG definition and associated .sid file are available in Appendix A and Appendix B. The error container is encoded using the encoding rules of a YANG data template as defined in Section 5 of [RFC9254]. +--rw error! +--rw error-tag identityref +--rw error-app-tag? identityref +--rw error-data-node? instance-identifier +--rw error-message? string The following 'error-tag' and 'error-app-tag' are defined by the ietf-coreconf YANG module, these tags are implemented as YANG identity and can be extended as needed. * error-tag 'operation-failed' is returned by the CORECONF server when the operation request cannot be processed successfully. - error-app-tag 'malformed-message' is returned by the CORECONF server when the payload received from the CORECONF client does not contain a well-formed CBOR content as defined in [RFC8949] or does not comply with the CBOR structure defined within this document. Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 28] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 - error-app-tag 'data-not-unique' is returned by the CORECONF server when the validation of the 'unique' constraint of a list or leaf-list fails. - error-app-tag 'too-many-elements' is returned by the CORECONF server when the validation of the 'max-elements' constraint of a list or leaf-list fails. - error-app-tag 'too-few-elements' is returned by the CORECONF server when the validation of the 'min-elements' constraint of a list or leaf-list fails. - error-app-tag 'must-violation' is returned by the CORECONF server when the restrictions imposed by a 'must' statement are violated. - error-app-tag 'duplicate' is returned by the CORECONF server when a client tries to create a duplicate list or leaf-list entry. * error-tag 'invalid-value' is returned by the CORECONF server when the CORECONF client tries to update or create a leaf with a value encoded using an invalid CBOR datatype or if the 'range', 'length', 'pattern' or 'require-instance' constrain is not fulfilled. - error-app-tag 'invalid-datatype' is returned by the CORECONF server when CBOR encoding does not follow the rules set by the YANG Build-In type or when the value is incompatible with it (e.g., a value greater than 127 for an int8, undefined enumeration). - error-app-tag 'not-in-range' is returned by the CORECONF server when the validation of the 'range' property fails. - error-app-tag 'invalid-length' is returned by the CORECONF server when the validation of the 'length' property fails. - error-app-tag 'pattern-test-failed' is returned by the CORECONF server when the validation of the 'pattern' property fails. * error-tag 'missing-element' is returned by the CORECONF server when the operation requested by a CORECONF client fails to comply with the 'mandatory' constraint defined. The 'mandatory' constraint is enforced for leafs and choices, unless the node or any of its ancestors have a 'when' condition or 'if-feature' expression that evaluates to 'false'. Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 29] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 - error-app-tag 'missing-key' is returned by the CORECONF server to further qualify a missing-element error. This error is returned when the CORECONF client tries to create or list instance, without all the 'key' specified or when the CORECONF client tries to delete a leaf listed as a 'key'. - error-app-tag 'missing-input-parameter' is returned by the CORECONF server when the input parameters of an RPC or action are incomplete. * error-tag 'unknown-element' is returned by the CORECONF server when the CORECONF client tries to access a data node of a YANG module not supported, of a data node associated with an 'if- feature' expression evaluated to 'false' or to a 'when' condition evaluated to 'false'. * error-tag 'bad-element' is returned by the CORECONF server when the CORECONF client tries to create data nodes for more than one case in a choice. * error-tag 'data-missing' is returned by the CORECONF server when a data node required to accept the request is not present. - error-app-tag 'instance-required' is returned by the CORECONF server when a leaf of type 'instance-identifier' or 'leafref' marked with require-instance set to 'true' refers to an instance that does not exist. - error-app-tag 'missing-choice' is returned by the CORECONF server when no nodes exist in a mandatory choice. * error-tag 'error' is returned by the CORECONF server when an unspecified error has occurred. For example, the CORECONF server might return the following error. Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 30] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 RES: 4.00 Bad Request (Content-Format: application/yang-data+cbor; id=sid) { 1024 : { 4 : 1011, / error-tag (SID 1028) / / = invalid-value (SID 1011) / 1 : 1018, / error-app-tag (SID 1025) / / = not-in-range (SID 1018) / 2 : 1740, / error-data-node (SID 1026) / / = timezone-utc-offset (SID 1740) / 3 : "maximum value exceeded" / error-message (SID 1027) / } } 7. Security Considerations For secure network management, it is important to restrict access to configuration variables only to authorized parties. CORECONF re-uses the security mechanisms already available to CoAP, this includes DTLS [RFC6347][RFC9147] and OSCORE [RFC8613] for protected access to resources, as well as suitable authentication and authorization mechanisms, for example those defined in ACE OAuth [RFC9200]. All the security considerations of [RFC7252], [RFC7959], [RFC8132] and [RFC7641] apply to this document as well. The use of NoSec (Section 9 of [RFC7252]), when OSCORE is not used, is NOT RECOMMENDED. In addition, mechanisms for authentication and authorization may need to be selected if not provided with the CoAP security mode. As [RFC9254] and [RFC4648] are used for payload and SID encoding, the security considerations of those documents also need to be well- understood. 8. IANA Considerations 8.1. Resource Type (rt=) Link Target Attribute Values Registry This document adds the following resource type to the "Resource Type (rt=) Link Target Attribute Values", within the "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Parameters" registry. Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 31] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 +===========+=====================+===========+ | Value | Description | Reference | +===========+=====================+===========+ | core.c.ds | YANG datastore | RFC XXXX | +-----------+---------------------+-----------+ | core.c.dn | YANG data node | RFC XXXX | +-----------+---------------------+-----------+ | core.c.yl | YANG module library | RFC XXXX | +-----------+---------------------+-----------+ | core.c.es | YANG event stream | RFC XXXX | +-----------+---------------------+-----------+ Table 8 // RFC Ed.: replace RFC XXXX with this RFC number and remove this note. 8.2. CoAP Content-Formats Registry This document adds the following Content-Formats from the Expert Review range (0-255) to the "CoAP Content-Formats", within the "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Parameters" registry. +===========================+================+======+===========+ | Media Type | Content Coding | ID | Reference | +===========================+================+======+===========+ | application/yang- | | TBD2 | RFC XXXX | | identifiers+cbor-seq | | | | +---------------------------+----------------+------+-----------+ | application/yang- | | TBD3 | RFC XXXX | | instances+cbor-seq | | | | +---------------------------+----------------+------+-----------+ Table 9 // RFC Ed.: replace TBD2 (suggested: 141) and TBD3 (suggested: 142) with assigned IDs and remove this note. (There is no TBD1, that was already defined in RFC 9254.) // RFC Ed.: replace RFC XXXX with this RFC number and remove this note. 8.3. Media Types Registry This document adds the following media types to the "Media Types" registry. Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 32] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 +===========================+===========================+=========+ | Name | Template |Reference| +===========================+===========================+=========+ | yang-identifiers+cbor-seq | application/yang- |RFC XXXX | | | identifiers+cbor-seq | | +---------------------------+---------------------------+---------+ | yang-instances+cbor-seq | application/yang- |RFC XXXX | | | instances+cbor-seq | | +---------------------------+---------------------------+---------+ Table 10 Each of these media types share the following information: * Subtype name: * Required parameters: N/A * Optional parameters: N/A * Encoding considerations: binary * Security considerations: See the Security Considerations section of RFC XXXX * Interoperability considerations: N/A * Published specification: RFC XXXX * Applications that use this media type: CORECONF * Fragment identifier considerations: N/A * Additional information: * Deprecated alias names for this type: N/A * Magic number(s): N/A * File extension(s): N/A * Macintosh file type code(s): N/A * Person & email address to contact for further information: iesg&ietf.org * Intended usage: COMMON Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 33] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 * Restrictions on usage: N/A * Author: Michel Veillette * Change Controller: IETF * Provisional registration? No // RFC Ed.: replace RFC XXXX with this RFC number and remove this note. 8.4. YANG Namespace and Module Name Registration This document registers the following XML namespace URN in the "IETF XML Registry", following the format defined in [RFC3688]: URI: please assign urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-coreconf Registrant Contact: The IESG. XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace. Reference: RFC XXXX IANA is requested to register the following YANG module in the "YANG Module Names" registry [RFC6020]: Name: ietf-coreconf Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-coreconf Prefix: coreconf Reference: RFC XXXX // RFC Ed.: please replace XXXX with RFC number and remove this note The YANG module and SID file are in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively. 9. References 9.1. Normative References Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 34] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 [I-D.ietf-core-sid] Veillette, M., Pelov, A., Petrov, I., Bormann, C., and M. Richardson, "YANG Schema Item iDentifier (YANG SID)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-core-sid-24, 22 December 2023, . [I-D.ietf-core-yang-library] Veillette, M. and I. Petrov, "Constrained YANG Module Library", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf- core-yang-library-03, 11 January 2021, . [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004, . [RFC4648] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data Encodings", RFC 4648, DOI 10.17487/RFC4648, October 2006, . [RFC5277] Chisholm, S. and H. Trevino, "NETCONF Event Notifications", RFC 5277, DOI 10.17487/RFC5277, July 2008, . [RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020, DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010, . [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, . [RFC6243] Bierman, A. and B. Lengyel, "With-defaults Capability for NETCONF", RFC 6243, DOI 10.17487/RFC6243, June 2011, . Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 35] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 [RFC7252] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252, DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014, . [RFC7641] Hartke, K., "Observing Resources in the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7641, DOI 10.17487/RFC7641, September 2015, . [RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language", RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016, . [RFC7959] Bormann, C. and Z. Shelby, Ed., "Block-Wise Transfers in the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7959, DOI 10.17487/RFC7959, August 2016, . [RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017, . [RFC8132] van der Stok, P., Bormann, C., and A. Sehgal, "PATCH and FETCH Methods for the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 8132, DOI 10.17487/RFC8132, April 2017, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . [RFC8342] Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K., and R. Wilton, "Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)", RFC 8342, DOI 10.17487/RFC8342, March 2018, . [RFC8610] Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and JSON Data Structures", RFC 8610, DOI 10.17487/RFC8610, June 2019, . [RFC8742] Bormann, C., "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) Sequences", RFC 8742, DOI 10.17487/RFC8742, February 2020, . Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 36] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 [RFC8949] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949, DOI 10.17487/RFC8949, December 2020, . [RFC9254] Veillette, M., Ed., Petrov, I., Ed., Pelov, A., Bormann, C., and M. Richardson, "Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG in the Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)", RFC 9254, DOI 10.17487/RFC9254, July 2022, . 9.2. Informative References [RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347, January 2012, . [RFC6690] Shelby, Z., "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Link Format", RFC 6690, DOI 10.17487/RFC6690, August 2012, . [RFC7317] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "A YANG Data Model for System Management", RFC 7317, DOI 10.17487/RFC7317, August 2014, . [RFC8343] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface Management", RFC 8343, DOI 10.17487/RFC8343, March 2018, . [RFC8613] Selander, G., Mattsson, J., Palombini, F., and L. Seitz, "Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments (OSCORE)", RFC 8613, DOI 10.17487/RFC8613, July 2019, . [RFC9147] Rescorla, E., Tschofenig, H., and N. Modadugu, "The Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Protocol Version 1.3", RFC 9147, DOI 10.17487/RFC9147, April 2022, . [RFC9200] Seitz, L., Selander, G., Wahlstroem, E., Erdtman, S., and H. Tschofenig, "Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments Using the OAuth 2.0 Framework (ACE-OAuth)", RFC 9200, DOI 10.17487/RFC9200, August 2022, . Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 37] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 Appendix A. ietf-coreconf YANG module This appendix is normative. file "ietf-coreconf@2024-03-04.yang" module ietf-coreconf { yang-version 1.1; namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-coreconf"; prefix coreconf; import ietf-datastores { prefix ds; reference "RFC 8342: Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)"; } import ietf-restconf { prefix rc; description "This import statement is required to access the yang-data extension defined in RFC 8040."; reference "RFC 8040: RESTCONF Protocol"; } organization "IETF Core Working Group"; contact "WG Web: WG List: Michel Veillette Alexander Pelov Peter van der Stok Andy Bierman "; description "This module contains the different definitions required by the CORECONF protocol. Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 38] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as authors of the code. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject to the license terms contained in, the Revised BSD License set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX; see the RFC itself for full legal notices."; revision 2024-03-04 { description "Initial revision."; reference "[I-D.ietf-core-comi] CoAP Management Interface"; } identity unified { base ds:datastore; description "Identifier of the unified configuration and operational state datastore."; } identity error-tag { description "Base identity for error-tag."; } identity operation-failed { base error-tag; description "Returned by the CORECONF server when the operation request can't be processed successfully."; } identity invalid-value { base error-tag; description "Returned by the CORECONF server when the CORECONF client tries to update or create a leaf with a value encoded using an invalid CBOR datatype or if the 'range', 'length', 'pattern' or 'require-instance' constrain is not fulfilled."; } Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 39] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 identity missing-element { base error-tag; description "Returned by the CORECONF server when the operation requested by a CORECONF client fails to comply with the 'mandatory' constraint defined. The 'mandatory' constraint is enforced for leafs and choices, unless the node or any of its ancestors have a 'when' condition or 'if-feature' expression that evaluates to 'false'."; } identity unknown-element { base error-tag; description "Returned by the CORECONF server when the CORECONF client tries to access a data node of a YANG module not supported, of a data node associated with an 'if-feature' expression evaluated to 'false' or to a 'when' condition evaluated to 'false'."; } identity bad-element { base error-tag; description "Returned by the CORECONF server when the CORECONF client tries to create data nodes for more than one case in a choice."; } identity data-missing { base error-tag; description "Returned by the CORECONF server when a data node required to accept the request is not present."; } identity error { base error-tag; description "Returned by the CORECONF server when an unspecified error has occurred."; } identity error-app-tag { description "Base identity for error-app-tag."; } identity malformed-message { Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 40] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 base error-app-tag; description "Returned by the CORECONF server when the payload received from the CORECONF client don't contain a well-formed CBOR content as defined in [RFC8949] or don't comply with the CBOR structure defined within this document."; } identity data-not-unique { base error-app-tag; description "Returned by the CORECONF server when the validation of the 'unique' constraint of a list or leaf-list fails."; } identity too-many-elements { base error-app-tag; description "Returned by the CORECONF server when the validation of the 'max-elements' constraint of a list or leaf-list fails."; } identity too-few-elements { base error-app-tag; description "Returned by the CORECONF server when the validation of the 'min-elements' constraint of a list or leaf-list fails."; } identity must-violation { base error-app-tag; description "Returned by the CORECONF server when the restrictions imposed by a 'must' statement are violated."; } identity duplicate { base error-app-tag; description "Returned by the CORECONF server when a client tries to create a duplicate list or leaf-list entry."; } identity invalid-datatype { base error-app-tag; description "Returned by the CORECONF server when CBOR encoding is Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 41] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 incorect or when the value encoded is incompatible with the YANG Built-In type. (e.g., value greater than 127 for an int8, undefined enumeration)."; } identity not-in-range { base error-app-tag; description "Returned by the CORECONF server when the validation of the 'range' property fails."; } identity invalid-length { base error-app-tag; description "Returned by the CORECONF server when the validation of the 'length' property fails."; } identity pattern-test-failed { base error-app-tag; description "Returned by the CORECONF server when the validation of the 'pattern' property fails."; } identity missing-key { base error-app-tag; description "Returned by the CORECONF server to further qualify a missing-element error. This error is returned when the CORECONF client tries to create a list instance, without all the 'key' specified or when the CORECONF client tries to delete a leaf listed as a 'key'."; } identity missing-input-parameter { base error-app-tag; description "Returned by the CORECONF server when the input parameters of a RPC or action are incomplete."; } identity instance-required { base error-app-tag; description "Returned by the CORECONF server when a leaf of type 'instance-identifier' or 'leafref' marked with Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 42] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 require-instance set to 'true' refers to an instance that does not exist."; } identity missing-choice { base error-app-tag; description "Returned by the CORECONF server when no nodes exist in a mandatory choice."; } rc:yang-data coreconf-error { container error { description "Optional payload of a 4.00 Bad Request CoAP error."; leaf error-tag { type identityref { base error-tag; } mandatory true; description "The enumerated error-tag."; } leaf error-app-tag { type identityref { base error-app-tag; } description "The application-specific error-tag."; } leaf error-data-node { type instance-identifier; description "When the error reported is caused by a specific data node, this leaf identifies the data node in error."; } leaf error-message { type string; description "A message describing the error."; } } } } Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 43] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 Figure 4: ietf-coreconf YANG module Appendix B. ietf-coreconf .sid file This appendix is normative. file "ietf-coreconf@2024-03-04.sid" { "ietf-sid-file:sid-file": { "module-name": "ietf-coreconf", "module-revision": "2024-03-04", "assignment-range": [ { "entry-point": "1000", "size": "100" } ], "item": [ { "namespace": "module", "identifier": "ietf-coreconf", "sid": "1000" }, { "namespace": "identity", "identifier": "bad-element", "sid": "1001" }, { "namespace": "identity", "identifier": "data-missing", "sid": "1002" }, { "namespace": "identity", "identifier": "data-not-unique", "sid": "1003" }, { "namespace": "identity", "identifier": "duplicate", "sid": "1004" }, { "namespace": "identity", "identifier": "error", Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 44] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 "sid": "1005" }, { "namespace": "identity", "identifier": "error-app-tag", "sid": "1006" }, { "namespace": "identity", "identifier": "error-tag", "sid": "1007" }, { "namespace": "identity", "identifier": "instance-required", "sid": "1008" }, { "namespace": "identity", "identifier": "invalid-datatype", "sid": "1009" }, { "namespace": "identity", "identifier": "invalid-length", "sid": "1010" }, { "namespace": "identity", "identifier": "invalid-value", "sid": "1011" }, { "namespace": "identity", "identifier": "malformed-message", "sid": "1012" }, { "namespace": "identity", "identifier": "missing-choice", "sid": "1013" }, { "namespace": "identity", "identifier": "missing-element", "sid": "1014" }, { Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 45] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 "namespace": "identity", "identifier": "missing-input-parameter", "sid": "1015" }, { "namespace": "identity", "identifier": "missing-key", "sid": "1016" }, { "namespace": "identity", "identifier": "must-violation", "sid": "1017" }, { "namespace": "identity", "identifier": "not-in-range", "sid": "1018" }, { "namespace": "identity", "identifier": "operation-failed", "sid": "1019" }, { "namespace": "identity", "identifier": "pattern-test-failed", "sid": "1020" }, { "namespace": "identity", "identifier": "too-few-elements", "sid": "1021" }, { "namespace": "identity", "identifier": "too-many-elements", "sid": "1022" }, { "namespace": "identity", "identifier": "unified", "sid": "1029" }, { "namespace": "identity", "identifier": "unknown-element", "sid": "1023" Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 46] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 }, { "namespace": "data", "identifier": "/ietf-coreconf:error", "sid": "1024" }, { "namespace": "data", "identifier": "/ietf-coreconf:error/error-app-tag", "sid": "1025" }, { "namespace": "data", "identifier": "/ietf-coreconf:error/error-data-node", "sid": "1026" }, { "namespace": "data", "identifier": "/ietf-coreconf:error/error-message", "sid": "1027" }, { "namespace": "data", "identifier": "/ietf-coreconf:error/error-tag", "sid": "1028" } ] } } Figure 5: ietf-coreconf SID file Acknowledgments We are very grateful to Bert Greevenbosch who was one of the original authors of the CORECONF specification. Mehmet Ersue and Bert Wijnen explained the encoding aspects of PDUs transported under SNMP. Koen Zandberg's implementation input motivated massively simplifying (and fixing) the URI construction for GET/PUT/POST requests. The specification has further benefited from comments (alphabetical order) by Rodney Cummings, Dee Denteneer, Esko Dijk, Klaus Hartke, Michael van Hartskamp, Tanguy Ropitault, Jürgen Schönwälder, Anuj Sehgal, Zach Shelby, Hannes Tschofenig, Michael Verschoor, and Thomas Watteyne. Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 47] Internet-Draft CORECONF November 2024 Contributors Ivaylo Petrov Google Email: ivaylopetrov@google.com Authors' Addresses Michel Veillette (editor) Trilliant Networks Inc. 610 Rue du Luxembourg Granby Quebec J2J 2V2 Canada Email: michel.veillette@trilliant.com Peter van der Stok (editor) consultant Phone: +31625097806 Email: stokcons@kpnmail.nl URI: https://vanderstok.tech Alexander Pelov (editor) IMT Atlantique 2 rue de la Châtaigneraie 35510 Cesson-Sevigne France Email: alexander.pelov@imt-atlantique.fr Andy Bierman YumaWorks 685 Cochran St. Suite #160 Simi Valley, CA 93065 United States of America Email: andy@yumaworks.com Carsten Bormann (editor) Universität Bremen TZI Postfach 330440 D-28359 Bremen Germany Phone: +49-421-218-63921 Email: cabo@tzi.org Veillette, et al. Expires 7 May 2025 [Page 48]