Re: [Dots] use of restconf for the data channel?
"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Wed, 22 February 2017 15:57 UTC
Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.com>
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA2EE129A48 for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 07:57:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.945
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.945 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2-8cHZm7IGls for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 07:57:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-97-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EEE4129A5A for <dots@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Feb 2017 07:57:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=50.124.243.128;
From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: "'Teague, Nik'" <nteague@verisign.com>, "'Clark, Gilbert J. (GRC-LCA0)'" <gilbert.j.clark@nasa.gov>, "'Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)'" <tireddy@cisco.com>, "'Roman D. Danyliw'" <rdd@cert.org>, "'Mortensen, Andrew'" <amortensen@arbor.net>, dots@ietf.org
References: <6AE56175-DBE7-4CD9-BA4E-5DCA88E901D8@arbor.net> <359EC4B99E040048A7131E0F4E113AFC0104F01D17@marathon> <5AE9F2D3F5799545818A4795DA145E7103BC588B@NDJSMBX201.ndc.nasa.gov> <ae1384a257014ace9ff9e722515a4f83@XCH-RCD-017.cisco.com> <5AE9F2D3F5799545818A4795DA145E7103BC595B@NDJSMBX201.ndc.nasa.gov> <00d501d28d13$3b0564f0$b1102ed0$@ndzh.com> <010a01d28d1b$0057c070$01074150$@ndzh.com> <9BB728BF-B3D5-4A8F-8C82-0EC87B7A59AE@verisign.com>
In-Reply-To: <9BB728BF-B3D5-4A8F-8C82-0EC87B7A59AE@verisign.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 10:53:06 -0500
Message-ID: <014f01d28d23$c2529710$46f7c530$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQJmFW6DDzAmzfgGvVNa0u+cVn2h/AKLxGeiAr6R73ABz+0ANAEMF6loAdJol4QBzYxY9gHIa8Zdn+GanpA=
Content-Language: en-us
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/nz4CfMiPcbtwzi3YHKmqhX4BGCo>
Subject: Re: [Dots] use of restconf for the data channel?
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." <dots.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dots>, <mailto:dots-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dots/>
List-Post: <mailto:dots@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dots-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots>, <mailto:dots-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 15:57:39 -0000
Nik: This second message was to inform you of upcoming changes in NETCONF and NETMOD work. Here's the take away: 1) NETMOD's revision of data store design allows Yang support for control plane protocols (E.g. DOTS signal), and the traditional configuration (E.g. NETCONF/RESTCONF configuration for the DOTS bulk protocol) 2) Events and publication/subscription functionality in NETCONF/NETMO is something you should review - ODL has open-source code 3) Other control plane protocols (E.g. I2RS or I2NSF) will want to use CoAP below the event stream with minimal additional layers Perhaps working with them will help you determine what is common and what is unique to DOTS signaling channels. Sue -----Original Message----- From: Teague, Nik [mailto:nteague@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 10:06 AM To: Susan Hares; 'Clark, Gilbert J. (GRC-LCA0)'; 'Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)'; 'Roman D. Danyliw'; 'Mortensen, Andrew'; dots@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dots] use of restconf for the data channel? Sue hi, Are you detailing this still in the context of the DOTS data channel? You mention DOTS signaling Thanks, -Nik On 22/02/2017, 14:50, "Dots on behalf of Susan Hares" <dots-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of shares@ndzh.com> wrote: Gilbert and Tirumaleswar: Here are a few advanced on NETCONF/RESTCONF stack related to upcoming changes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ Content (data models) ---> data stores (config, control plane, dynamic configuration) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- Operations: NETCONF, RESTCONF config + events + pub/sub Upcoming operations: control plane state + dynamic config (dhcp) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- CoAP (proposed for light-weight config/events, or streams) --------------- |TLS| DLTS | -------------- |TCP|UDP | -------------- | IP | --------------- The NETCONF/RESTCONF events are NETCONF and NETMOD Working Documents. The signaling of events or publication streams may range from light weight (I'm here, I'm attacked) to large streams. The events + publication/subscription streams requirements come from I2RS work which desires these to be used for configuration and for control plane protocols such as I2RS protocol. DOTS signaling could be another control plane protocol. CoAPs does not yet support these events, but it could be added. Why use this? The event notification and publication/subscription stream have many of the same base mechanisms. ID, lifetime, policy-id, sequencing numbers, and timeouts plus additional features to tune the level of data transmission. Mitigation request/signaling requires status updates at period intervals which could use the publication/subscription channel that sends this information to multiple clients. A binary encoding of the event/signal mechanism via CoAP would this efficient. One other thing to consider is the mixture of configuration/control plane protocols. The NETMOD revised data stores (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores/) describes the NETMOD architecture for the mixture of configuration and control plane. The control plane protocol does not need to follow the netconf/restconf operational rules - but can set their own rules for validation of data. NETMOD plans to support Yang modification for this point. I hope this helps. We'll talk in a few minutes. Sue Hares -----Original Message----- From: Dots [mailto:dots-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 8:55 AM To: 'Clark, Gilbert J. (GRC-LCA0)'; 'Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)'; 'Roman D. Danyliw'; 'Mortensen, Andrew'; dots@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dots] use of restconf for the data channel? Gilbert: Can you provide a bit more unpacking of the message here? NETCONF or RESTCONF + Yang data models was the initial suggestion to allow stable protocol plus the ability to rapidly change data models that form the content of the bulk data channel. I sent a longish message to the list around IETF 97 since you have questions, I will reformat this message as an internet-draft and send it to the list this week. The Data channel requirements are: reliable transport, data privacy and integrity, resource configuration (described in OP-07), data-004 black-white list management. These are the basic design requirements for NETCONF/RESTCONF functionality. The specific resources, black-list, or white-list management can be data models. There are four parts to NETCONF/RESTCONF protocol: Content -- data models Messaging method (NETCONF: edit-config, get-config, RESTCONF/ PUT, GET) + new Event and publication/subscription streams information Messaging protocol (rpc/rpc-reply / secure http) ============= Secure transport (TLS with X.509 certifications, DTLS + add ons) Transport (TCP or UDP) Since all of the requirements for the secure transport are the same (peer mutual authentication, message confidentiality, integrity and authenticity, and message replay protection are the same as the DOTS requirements. You may wish to change the messaging protocol (rpc/rpc-reply or RESTCONF http) to protobufs. If so, I suggest you make that suggestion to the I2NSF WG that will include it in its general changes suggested to NETCONF WG and I2RS WG . The WGs would consider protobufs if there is a real use case. If you want to change the message method to edit configuration, what your alternative would be? If you are read, write, or updating you configuration or white lists, this is what these protocols are built for. The yang data models are tailored for user-readability. If you want to change the new event publication and subscription, exactly what do you want to change. As I will rapidly turn around a draft to answer your questions, please let me know exactly what your concerns are. If you are looking for the a secure shim layer, Content -- data models Messaging method (NETCONF: edit-config, get-config, RESTCONF/ PUT, GET) + new Event and publication/subscription streams information Messaging protocol (rpc/rpc-reply / secure http) (proposed: protobufs) ============= Secure session layer (for attack scenarios) Secure transport (TLS with X.509 certifications, DTLS + add ons) Transport (TCP or UDP Bob Moskowitz and I have proposed one. If you use this, you may be able to utilize a lighter weight upper layer. Thanks for your comments, Sue Hares -----Original Message----- From: Dots [mailto:dots-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Clark, Gilbert J. (GRC-LCA0) Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 8:16 AM To: Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy); Roman D. Danyliw; Mortensen, Andrew; dots@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dots] use of restconf for the data channel? Oh, neat: didn't realize RESTCONF graduated to an RFC. Looks like it was pretty recent, but that is still a good thing and does alleviate one of my concerns to an extent :) "But for DOTS data channel RESTCONF is suitable" Why is RESTCONF suitable for the data channel? Why was RESTCONF, specifically, chosen? What does it offer that might justify the implementation burden that it brings, and would therefore make it a compelling choice when compared to just building and documenting a REST interface? If there are reasons to use it that justify the complexity, then okay. I haven't seen these elements documented on the mailing list, though (apologies if I missed them?), and I also didn't see them documented anywhere in the current draft. With this in mind, including text to explain what benefits RESTCONF offers and explains *why* its adoption is important to the data channel would go a long way to alleviate the concerns I have in this instance :) I would also point out that the data-channel-04 draft still references the restconf draft instead of the RFC [1] - that's something that should probably be corrected for a future revision of the draft, if it hasn't already. Cheers, Gilbert [1] [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF Protocol", draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-18 (work in progress), October 2016. ________________________________________ From: Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) [tireddy@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 2:17 AM To: Clark, Gilbert J. (GRC-LCA0); Roman D. Danyliw; Mortensen, Andrew; dots@ietf.org Subject: RE: use of restconf for the data channel? NETCONF and RESTCONF are not both suitable for DOTS signal channel. But for DOTS data channel RESTCONF is suitable and RESTCONF is already an RFC https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8040. Various products in the market already use RESTCONF (e.g. confd 6.3 http://www.tail-f.com/management-agent/) -Tiru > -----Original Message----- > From: Dots [mailto:dots-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Clark, Gilbert > J. (GRC- > LCA0) > Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 11:26 AM > To: Roman D. Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>; Mortensen, Andrew > <amortensen@arbor.net>; dots@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Dots] use of restconf for the data channel? > > Hi: > > My strongest objection to both NETCONF and RESTCONF were in the > context of their consideration for use in the signal channel. > > I wouldn't personally vote to see NETCONF, specifically, used in > either channel. > NETCONF can involve substantial implementation complexity to support > capabilities that, in the case of DOTS, seem to me to be of marginal > utility at best. > > The use of RESTCONF seems a little more reasonable to me here since > many of those implementation requirements are relaxed. > > I will note that adoption of RESTCONF will inflict a 100+ page > not-yet-RFC as > (additional) required reading for anyone who wishes to implement a > DOTS data channel from scratch. Also, note that the use of RESTCONF > would introduce a dependency on something that is still in > development, and that therefore most likely hasn't yet been very well > tested and / or may be subject to change. > > Just offering some clarification on my original opinion(s), for what > that's worth. > > -Gilbert > _________________________________ > From: Dots [dots-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of Roman D. Danyliw > [rdd@cert.org] > Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 9:51 AM > To: Mortensen, Andrew; dots@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Dots] use of restconf for the data channel? > > > Subject: [Dots] use of restconf for the data channel? > > [snip] > > > > Since RESTCONF is now a concrete proposal, it seems worthwhile > > continuing the debate ahead of the interim meeting. Are there > > specific concerns in the WG regarding the use ... > > This discussion topic is one we need to resolve. We can start here on > the list but I'll also add a slot to the interim meeting to continue > the conversation. > > Roman > > _______________________________________________ > Dots mailing list > Dots@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots > > _______________________________________________ > Dots mailing list > Dots@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots _______________________________________________ Dots mailing list Dots@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots _______________________________________________ Dots mailing list Dots@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots _______________________________________________ Dots mailing list Dots@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots
- [Dots] use of restconf for the data channel? Mortensen, Andrew
- Re: [Dots] use of restconf for the data channel? Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [Dots] use of restconf for the data channel? Roman D. Danyliw
- Re: [Dots] use of restconf for the data channel? Clark, Gilbert J. (GRC-LCA0)
- Re: [Dots] use of restconf for the data channel? Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
- Re: [Dots] use of restconf for the data channel? Clark, Gilbert J. (GRC-LCA0)
- Re: [Dots] use of restconf for the data channel? Susan Hares
- Re: [Dots] use of restconf for the data channel? Susan Hares
- Re: [Dots] use of restconf for the data channel? Teague, Nik
- Re: [Dots] use of restconf for the data channel? Susan Hares
- Re: [Dots] use of restconf for the data channel? Clark, Gilbert J. (GRC-LCA0)
- Re: [Dots] use of restconf for the data channel? Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
- Re: [Dots] use of restconf for the data channel? Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)