Internet-Draft NETCONF Private Candidates March 2024
Cumming & Wills Expires 2 September 2024 [Page]
Workgroup:
Internet Engineering Task Force
Internet-Draft:
draft-ietf-netconf-privcand-02
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Authors:
JG. Cumming
Nokia
R. Wills
Cisco Systems

NETCONF Private Candidates

Abstract

This document provides a mechanism to extend the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) and RESTCONF protocol to support multiple clients making configuration changes simultaneously and ensuring that they commit only those changes that they defined.

This document addresses two specific aspects: The interaction with a private candidate over the NETCONF and RESTCONF protocols and the methods to identify and resolve conflicts between clients.

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 2 September 2024.

▲

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

NETCONF [RFC6241] and RESTCONF [RFC8040] both provide a mechanism for one or more clients to make configuration changes to a device running as a NETCONF/RESTCONF server. Each client has the ability to make one or more configuration change to the servers shared candidate configuration.

As the name shared candidate suggests, all clients have access to the same candidate configuration. This means that multiple clients may make changes to the shared candidate prior to the configuration being committed. This behavior may be undesirable as one client may unwittingly commit the configuration changes made by another client.

NETCONF provides a way to mitigate this behavior by allowing clients to place a lock on the shared candidate. The placing of this lock means that no other client may make any changes until that lock is released. This behavior is, in many situations, also undesirable.

Many network devices already support private candidates configurations, where a user (machine or otherwise) is able to edit a personal copy of a devices configuration without blocking other users from doing so.

This document details the extensions to the NETCONF protocol in order to support the use of private candidates. It also describes how the RESTCONF protocol can be used on a system that implements private candidates.

1.1. Requirements Language

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.

2. Definitions and terminology

2.1. Session specific datastore

A session specific datastore is a configuration datastore that, unlike the candidate and running configuration datastores which have only one per system, is bound to the specific NETCONF session.

2.2. Shared candidate configuration

The candidate configuration datastore defined in [RFC6241] is referenced as the shared candidate configuration in this document.

2.3. Private candidate configuration

A private candidate configuration is a session specific candidate configuration datastore.

When a private candidate is used by NETCONF, the specific session (and user) that created the private candidate configuration is the only session (user) that has access to it over NETCONF. Devices may expose this to other users through other interfaces but this is out of scope for this document.

When a private candidate is used by RESTCONF, the client that created the private candidate configuration is the only client that has access to it over RESTCONF.

The private candidate configuration contains a full copy of the running configuration when it is created (in the same way as a branch does in a source control management system and in the same way as the candidate configuration datastore as defined in [RFC6241]). Any changes made to it, for example, through the use of operations such as <edit-config> and <edit-data>, are made in this private candidate configuration.

Obtaining this private candidate over NETCONF or RESTCONF will display the entire configuration, including all changes made to it. Performing a <commit> operation will merge the changes from the private candidate into the running configuration (the same as a merge in source code management systems). A <discard-changes> operation will revert the private candidate to the branch's initial state or it's state at the last <commit> (whichever is most recent).

All changes made to this private candidate configuration are held separately from any other candidate configuration changes, whether made by other users to the shared candidate or any other private candidate, and are not visible to or accessible by anyone else.

3. Limitations using the shared candidate configuration for multiple clients

The following sections describe some limitations and mitigation factors in more detail for the use of the shared candidate configuration during multi-client configuration over NETCONF or RESTCONF.

3.1. Issues

3.1.1. Unintended deployment of alternate users configuration changes

Consider the following scenario:

  1. Client 1 modifies item A in the shared candidate configuration
  2. Client 2 then modifies item B in the shared candidate configuration
  3. Client 2 then issues a <commit> RPC

In this situation, both client 1 and client 2 configurations will be committed by client 2. In a machine-to-machine environment client 2 may not have been aware of the change to item A and, if they had been aware, may have decided not to proceed.

3.2. Current mitigation strategies

3.2.1. Locking the shared candidate configuration datastore

In order to resolve unintended deployment of alternate users configuration changes as described above NETCONF provides the ability to lock a datastore in order to restrict other users from editing and committed changes.

This does resolve the specific issue above, however, it introduces another issue. Whilst one of the clients holds a lock, no other client may edit the configuration. This will result in the client failing and having to retry. Whilst this may be a desirable consequence when two clients are editing the same section of the configuration, where they are editing different sections this behavior may hold up valid operational activity.

Additionally, a lock placed on the shared candidate configuration must also lock the running configuration, otherwise changes committed directly into the running datastore may conflict.

Finally, this locking mechanism isn't available to RESTCONF clients.

3.2.2. Always use the running configuration datastore

The use of the running configuration datastore as the target for all configuration changes does not resolve any issues regarding blocking of system access in the case a lock is taken, nor does it provide a solution for multiple NETCONF and RESTCONF clients as each configuration change is applied immediately and the client has no knowledge of the current configuration at the point in time that they commenced the editing activity nor at the point they commit the activity.

3.2.3. Fine-grained locking

[RFC5717] describes a partial lock mechanism that can be used on specific portions of the shared candidate datastore.

Partial locking does not solve the issues of staging a set of configuration changes such that only those changes get committed in a commit operation, nor does it solve the issue of multiple clients editing the same parts of the configuration at the same time.

Partial locking additionally requires that the client is aware of any interdependencies within the servers YANG models in order to lock all parts of the tree.

4. Private candidates solution

The use of private candidates resolves the issues detailed earlier in this document.

NETCONF sessions and RESTCONF clients are able to utilize the concept of private candidates in order to streamline network operations, particularly for machine-to-machine communication.

Using this approach clients may improve their performance and reduce the likelihood of blocking other clients from continuing with valid operational activities.

One or more private candidates may exist at any one time, however, a private candidate SHOULD:

Additionally, the choice of using a shared candidate configuration datastore or a private candidate configuration datastore MUST be for the entire duration of the NETCONF session.

4.1. What is a private candidate

A private candidate is defined earlier in the definitions and terminology section of this document.

4.2. When is a private candidate created

A private candidate datastore is created when the first RPC that requires access to it is sent to the server. This could be, for example, an <edit-config>.

When the private candidate is created a copy of the running configuration is made and stored in it. This can be considered the same as creating a branch in a source code repository.

          +----------------------------> private candidate
         /
        /
+------+-------------------------------> running configuration
       ^
     Private candidate created

4.3. When is a private candidate destroyed

A private candidate is valid for the duration of the NETCONF session, or the duration of the existence of the RESTCONF client. Issuing a <commit> operation will not close the private candidate but will issue an implicit <update> operation resyncing changes from the running configuration. More details on this later in this document.

A NETCONF session that is operating using a private candidate will discard all uncommitted changes in that session's private candidate and destroy the private candidate if the session is closed through a deliberate user action or disconnected for any other reason (such as a loss of network connectivity).

4.4. How to signal the use of private candidates

4.4.1. Server

The server MUST signal its support for private candidates. The server does this by advertising a new :private-candidate capability:

urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:private-candidate:1.0

A server may also advertise the :candidate capability as defined in [RFC6241] if the shared candidate is also supported.

A non-NMDA capable NETCONF server that advertises the :private-candidate capability MUST also advertise the :candidate capability.

If the server has not signalled the :private-candidate capability, or otherwise does not support private candidates, the server MUST:

  • Terminate the session when it receives the :private-candidate capability from a client in a <hello> message,
  • Return an <rpc-error> if a client attempts to interact with the NMDA private-candidate configuration datastore.

4.4.2. NETCONF client

In order to utilise a private candidate configuration within a NETCONF session, the client must inform the server that it wishes to do this.

Two approaches are available for a NETCONF client to signal that it wants to use a private candidate:

4.4.2.1. Client capability declaration

When a NETCONF client connects with a server it sends a list of client capabilities including one of the :base NETCONF version capabilties.

In order to enable private candidate mode for the duration of the NETCONF client session the NETCONF client sends the following capability:

urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:private-candidate:1.0

In order for the use of private candidates to be established using this approach both the NETCONF server and the NETCONF client MUST advertise this capability.

When a server receives the client capability its mode of operation will be set to private candidate mode for the duration of the NETCONF session.

All RPC requests that target the candidate configuration datastore will operate in exactly the same way as they would do when using the shared candidate configuration datastore, however, when the server receives a request to act upon the candidate configuration datastore it instead uses the session's private candidate configuration datastore.

Using this method, the use of private candidates can be made available to NMDA and non-NMDA capable servers.

No protocol extensions are required for the transitioning of candidates between the shared mode and the private mode and no extensions are required for any RPCs (including <lock>)

4.4.2.2. Private candidate datastore

The private candidate configuration datastore is exposed as its own datastore similar to other NMDA [RFC8342] capable datastores. This datastore is called private-candidate.

All NMDA operations that support candidate NMDA datastore SHOULD support the private-candidate datastore.

Any non-NMDA aware NETCONF operations that take a source or target (destination) may be extended to accept the new datastore.

The ability for the server to support private candidates is optional and SHOULD be signalled in NMDA supporting servers as a datastore in addition to the server capabilities described earlier in this document.

To use this method the client is not required to send the :private-candidate capability.

The first datastore referenced (either candidate or private-candidate) in any NETCONF operation will define which mode that NETCONF session will operate in for its duration. As an example, performing a <get-data> operation on the private-candidate datastore will switch the session into private candidate configuration mode and subsequent <edit-config> operations that reference the candidate configuration datastore MUST fail.

4.4.3. RESTCONF client

RESTCONF doesn't provide a mechanism for the client to advertise a capability. Therefore when a RESTCONF server advertises the :private-candidate capability, the decision of whether to use a private candidate depends on whether a datastore is explicitly referenced in the request using the RESTCONF extensions for NMDA [RFC8527].

4.4.3.1. Datastore is not explicitly referenced

When the server advertises the :private-candidate capability and the client references the "{+restconf}/data" resource described in Section 3.3.1 of [RFC8040], all edits are made to the client's private candidate, and the private candidate is automatically committed.

This ensures backwards compatibility with RESTCONF clients that are not aware of private candidates, because those clients will expect their changes to be committed immediately.

4.4.3.2. Private candidate datastore is referenced in the request

When the private-candidate datastore is explicitly referenced as an NMDA datastore, edits are made to the client's private candidate, but the private candidate is not committed. To commit the changes, the client must explicitly send a commit request.

A commit request is of the form "{+restconf}/operations/ietf-netconf:commit", using the API described in Section 3.3.2 of [RFC8040]. The semantics are identical to the NETCONF <commit> operation.

Similarly, the client can perform ietf-netconf:discard-changes, ietf-netconf:validate, and ietf-netconf:cancel-commit operations (if the appropriate capabilities are implemented). The semantics are identical to NETCONF.

4.4.3.3. Identifying the private candidate datastore

Each RESTCONF client has its own private candidate datastore. The client (and hence the private candidate datastore) is identified using the mechanism described in Section 2.5 of [RFC8040].

4.5. Interaction between running and private-candidate(s)

Multiple operations may be performed on the private candidate in order to stage changes ready for a commit.

In the simplest example, a session may create a private candidate configuration, perform multiple operations (such as <edit-config>) on it and then perform a <commit> operation to merge the private candidate configuration into the running configuration in line with semantics in [RFC6241].

                               commit
       +--------------------------+--------> private candidate
      /   ^             ^          \
     /   edit-config   edit-config  ⌄
+---+-------------------------------+------> running configuration
    ^
  edit-config
  (Private candidate created)

More complex scenarios need to be considered, when multiple private candidate sessions are working on their own configuration (branches) and they make commits into the running configuration.

                           commit
       +---------------------+----------------> private candidate 1
      /                       \
     /         edit-config     ⌄
+---+------------+-------------+--------------> running configuration
  edit-config     \
                   \
                    +-------------------------> private candidate 2

In this situation, if, how and when private candidate 2 is updated with the information that the running configuration has changed must be considered.

As described earlier, the client MUST be aware of changes to it's private candidate configuration so it can be assured that it is only committing its own modifications. It should also be aware of any changes to the current running configuration.

It is possible, during an update, for conflicts to occur and the detection and resolution of these is discussed later in this document.

A good way to understand the interaction between candidates is to consider them as branches such as you might find in a source code management system.

Each private candidate is treated as a separate branch and changes made to the running configuration are not placed into a private candidate datastore except in one of the following situations:

It is possible for a private candidate configuration to become significantly out of sync with the running configuration should the private candidate be open for a long time, however, most NETCONF configuration activities (between the first <edit-config>/<edit-data> and a <commit>) are short-lived.

An implementation may choose, optionally, to automatically perform an <update> operation after a change to the running configuration from another client. However, this choice should be made with caution as it will replace, overwrite, or otherwise alter (depending on the servers default resolution mode, discussed later) the private candidate configuration without notifying the client

A <compare> operation may be performed against:

4.6. Detecting and resolving conflicts

4.6.1. What is a conflict?

A conflict is when the intent of the client may have been different had it had a different starting point. In configuration terms, a conflict occurs when the same set of nodes in a configuration being altered by one user are changed between the start of the configuration preparation (the first <edit-config>/<edit-data> operation) and the conclusion of this configuration session (terminated by a <commit> operation).

The situation where conflicts have the potential of occurring are when multiple configuration sessions are in progress and one session commits changes into the running configuration after the private candidate (branch) was created.

When this happens a conflict occurs if the nodes modified in the running configuration are the same nodes that are modified in the private candidate configuration.

Examples of conflicts include:

  • An interface has been deleted in the running configuration that existed when the private candidate was created. A change to a child node of this specific interface is made in the private candidate using the default merge operation would, instead of changing the child node, both recreate the interface and then set the child node.
  • A leaf has been modified in the running configuration from the value that it had when the private candidate was created. The private candidate configuration changes that leaf to another value.

4.6.2. Detecting and reporting conflicts

A conflict can occur when an <update> operation is triggered. This can occur in a number of ways:

  • Manually triggered by the <update> NETCONF operation
  • Automatically triggered by the server running an <update> operation, such as when a <commit> operation is performed by the client in the private candidate session.

When a conflict occurs:

  • The client MUST be given the opportunity to re-evaluate its intent based on the new information. The resolution of the conflict may be manual or automatic depending on the server and client decision (discussed later in this document).
  • A <commit> operation (that MUST trigger an automatic <update> operation immediately before) MUST fail. It MUST inform the client of the conflict and SHOULD detail the location of the conflict(s).
  • A <update> operation MUST fail unless the server has explicitly configured a system-wide default resolution mode of ignore or overwrite (discussed later in this document)

The location of the conflict(s) should be reported as a list of xpaths and values.

Note: If a server implementation has chosen to automatically issue an <update> operation every time a change is made to the running configuration the server MUST have the system-wide default resolution mode set to ignore or overwrite

4.6.3. Conflict resolution

Conflict resolution defines which configuration elements are retained when a conflict is resolved; those from the running configuration or those from the private candidate configuration.

When a conflict is detected in any client triggered activity, the client MUST be informed. The client then has a number of options available to resolve the conflict.

An <update> operation uses the resolution method specified in the request, or the system default resolution mode if not specified. The <update> operation is discussed later in this document.

The following configuration data is used below to illustrate the behaviour of each resolution method:

<configure>
  <interfaces>
    <interface>
      <name>intf_one</name>
      <description>Link to London<description>
    </interface>
    <interface>
      <name>intf_two</name>
      <description>Link to Tokyo<description>
    </interface>
  </interfaces>
</configure>

The example workflow is shown in this diagram and is used for the purpose of the examples below. In these examples the reader should assume that the <update> operation is manually provided by a client working in pruvate candidate 1.

                        update commit
       +--------------------+---+------> private candidate 1
      /                    /     \
     /  edit-config       /       ⌄
+---+--------+--------+--+--------+----> running configuration
 edit-config  \       ^
               \     /
                +---+------------------> private candidate 2
                 commit

There are three defined resolution methods:

4.6.3.1. Ignore

When using the ignore resolution method items in the running configuration that are not in conflict with the private candidate configuration are merged from the running configuration into the private candidate configuration. Nodes that are in conflict are ignored and not merged. The outcome of this is that the private candidate configuration reflects changes in the running that were not being worked on and those that are being worked on in the private candidate remain in the private candidate. Issuing a <commit> operation at this point will overwrite the running configuration with the conflicted items from the private candidate configuration.

Example:

Session 1 edits the configuration by submitting the following

<rpc message-id="config"
        xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
  <edit-config>
    <target><candidate/><target>
    <config>
      <configure>
        <interfaces>
          <interface>
            <name>intf_one</name>
            <description>Link to San Francisco<description>
          </interface>
        </interfaces>
      </configure>
    </config>
  </edit-config>
</rpc>

Session 2 then edits the configuration deleting the interface intf_one, updating the description on interface intf_two and commits the configuration to the running configuration datastore.

<rpc message-id="config"
        xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
  <edit-config>
    <target><candidate/><target>
    <config>
      <configure>
        <interfaces>
          <interface>
            <name operation="delete">intf_one</name>
          </interface>
          <interface>
            <name>intf_two</name>
            <description>Link moved to Paris</description>
          </interface>
        </interfaces>
      </configure>
    </config>
  </edit-config>
</rpc>

Session 1 then sends an <update> NETCONF operation.

<rpc message-id="update"
        xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
  <update>
    <resolution-mode>ignore</resolution-mode>
  </update>
</rpc>

The un-conflicting changes are merged and the conflicting ones are ignored (and not merged from the running into private candidate 1).

The resulting data in private candidate 1 is:

<configure>
  <interfaces>
    <interface>
      <name>intf_one</name>
      <description>Link to San Francisco<description>
    </interface>
    <interface>
      <name>intf_two</name>
      <description>Link moved to Paris<description>
    </interface>
  </interfaces>
</configure>
4.6.3.2. Overwrite

When using the overwrite resolution method items in the running configuration that are not in conflict with the private candidate configuration are merged from the running configuration into the private candidate configuration. Nodes that are in conflict are pushed from the running configuration into the private candidate configuration, overwriting any previous changes in the private candidate configuration. The outcome of this is that the private candidate configuration reflects the changes in the running configuration that were not being worked on as well as changing those being worked on in the private candidate to new values.

Example:

Session 1 edits the configuration by submitting the following

<rpc message-id="config"
        xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
  <edit-config>
    <target><candidate/><target>
    <config>
      <configure>
        <interfaces>
          <interface>
            <name>intf_one</name>
            <description>Link to San Francisco<description>
          </interface>
        </interfaces>
      </configure>
    </config>
  </edit-config>
</rpc>

Session 2 then edits the configuration deleting the interface intf_one, updating the description on interface intf_two and commits the configuration to the running configuration datastore.

<rpc message-id="config"
        xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
  <edit-config>
    <target><candidate/><target>
    <config>
      <configure>
        <interfaces>
          <interface>
            <name operation="delete">intf_one</name>
          </interface>
          <interface>
            <name>intf_two</name>
            <description>Link moved to Paris</description>
          </interface>
        </interfaces>
      </configure>
    </config>
  </edit-config>
</rpc>

Session 1 then sends an <update> NETCONF operation.

<rpc message-id="update"
        xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
  <update>
    <resolution-mode>overwrite</resolution-mode>
  </update>
</rpc>

The un-conflicting changes are merged and the conflicting ones are pushed into the private candidate 1 overwriting the existing changes.

The resulting data in private candidate 1 is:

<configure>
  <interfaces>
    <interface>
      <name>intf_two</name>
      <description>Link moved to Paris<description>
    </interface>
  </interfaces>
</configure>
4.6.3.3. Revert-on-conflict

When using the revert-on-conflict resolution method an update will fail to complete when any conflicting node is found. The session issuing the update will be informed of the failure.

No changes, whether conflicting or un-conflicting are merged into the private candidate configuration.

The owner of the private candidate session must then take deliberate and specific action to adjust the private candidate configuration to rectify the conflict. This may be by issuing further <edit-config> or <edit-data> operations, by issuing a <discard-changes> operation or by issuing an <update> operation with a different resolution method.

This resolution method is the default resolution method as it provides for the highest level of visibility and control to ensure operational stability.

This resolution method MUST be supported by a server.

Example:

Session 1 edits the configuration by submitting the following

<rpc message-id="config"
        xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
  <edit-config>
    <target><candidate/><target>
    <config>
      <configure>
        <interfaces>
          <interface>
            <name>intf_one</name>
            <description>Link to San Francisco<description>
          </interface>
        </interfaces>
      </configure>
    </config>
  </edit-config>
</rpc>

Session 2 then edits the configuration deleting the interface intf_one, updating the description on interface intf_two and commits the configuration to the running configuration datastore.

<rpc message-id="config"
        xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
  <edit-config>
    <target><candidate/><target>
    <config>
      <configure>
        <interfaces>
          <interface>
            <name operation="delete">intf_one</name>
          </interface>
          <interface>
            <name>intf_two</name>
            <description>Link moved to Paris</description>
          </interface>
        </interfaces>
      </configure>
    </config>
  </edit-config>
</rpc>

Session 1 then sends an <update> NETCONF operation.

<rpc message-id="update"
        xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
  <update>
    <resolution-mode>revert-on-conflict</resolution-mode>
  </update>
</rpc>

A conflict is detected, the update fails with an <rpc-error> and no merges/overwrite operations happen.

The resulting data in private candidate 1 is:

<configure>
  <interfaces>
    <interface>
      <name>intf_one</name>
      <description>Link to San Francisco<description>
    </interface>
    <interface>
      <name>intf_two</name>
      <description>Link to Tokyo<description>
    </interface>
  </interfaces>
</configure>

4.6.4. Default resolution mode and advertisement of this mode

The default resolution mode is revert-on-conflict, however, a system MAY choose to select a different default resolution mode.

The default resolution mode MUST be advertised in the :private-candidate capability by adding the default-resolution-mode parameter if the system default is anything other than revert-on-conflict. If the system default resolution mode is revert-on-conflict then advertising this in the :private-candidate capability is optional.

In this example, a server has configured a default system-wide resolution mode of overwrite which MUST be signalled with the :private-candidate capability as follows:

urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:private-candidate:1.0
              ?default-resolution-mode=overwrite

4.6.5. Supported resolution modes

A server SHOULD support all three resolution modes, however, if the server does not support all three modes, the server MUST report the supported modes in the :private-candidate capability using the supported-resolution-modes, for example:

urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:private-candidate:1.0
              ?supported-resolution-modes=revert-on-conflict,ignore

4.7. NETCONF operations

4.7.1. New NETCONF operations

4.7.1.1. <update>

The <update> operation is provided to allow NETCONF clients (or servers) to trigger a rebase of the private candidate configuration against the running configuration.

The <update> operation may be triggered manually by the client or automatically by the server.

The <update> operation MUST be implicitly triggered by a specific NETCONF session issuing a <commit> operation when using private candidates. The actual order of operations in the server MUST be to issue the implicit <update> operation first and then the <commit> operation.

A <commit> operation that fails the implicit <update> operation SHOULD fail. The client is then required to make a specific decision to rectify the issue prior to committing. This may be to edit the private candidate configuration or to issue a manual <update> operation with a specific resolution mode selected.

4.7.1.1.1. <resolution-mode> parameter

The <update> operation takes the optional <resolution-mode> parameter

The resolution modes are described earlier in this document and the accepted inputs are:

  • revert-on-conflict (default)
  • ignore
  • overwrite

4.7.2. Updated NETCONF operations

Specific NETCONF operations altered by this document are listed in this section. Any notable behavior with existing unaltered NETCONF operations is noted in the appendix.

4.7.2.1. <edit-config>

The <edit-config> operation is updated to accept private-candidate as valid input to the <target> field.

The use of <edit-config> will create a private candidate configuration if one does not already exist for that NETCONF session.

Sending an <edit-config> request to private-candidate after one has been sent to the shared candidate datastore in the same session will fail (and visa-versa).

Multiple <edit-config> requests may be sent to the private-candidate datastore in a single session.

4.7.2.2. <edit-data>

The <edit-data> operation is updated to accept private-candidate as valid input to the <datastore> field. (datastore is an identityref and so the actual input will be ds:private-candidate).

The use of <edit-data> will create a private candidate configuration if one does not already exist for that NETCONF session.

Multiple <edit-data> requests may be sent to the private-candidate datastore in a single session.

4.7.2.3. <lock> and <unlock>

Performing a <lock> on the private-candidate datastore is a valid operation, although it is understood that the practical effect of this is a 'no op' as only one session may edit the locked private candidate.

If the client's intention is that no other session may commit changes to the system then the client should issue a <lock> operation on the running candidate.

Other NETCONF sessions are still able to create a new private-candidate configurations, make edits to them and perform operations on them, such as <update> or <discard-changes>.

Performing an <unlock> on the private-candidate datastore is a valid operation

Changes in the private-candidate datastore are not lost when the lock is released.

4.7.2.4. <compare>

Performing a <compare> [RFC9144] operation with the private-candidate datastore as either the <source> or <target> is a valid operation.

If <compare> is performed prior to a private candidate configuration being created, one will be created at that point.

The <compare> operation is extended by this document to allow the ability to compare the private-candidate datastore (at its current point in time) with the same private-candidate datastore at an earlier point in time or with another datastore.

4.7.2.4.1. <reference-point> parameter

This document adds the optional <reference-point> node to the input of the <compare> operation that accepts the following values:

  • last-update
  • creation-point

Servers MAY support this functionality but are not required to by this document.

The last-update selection of <reference-point> will provide an output comparing the current private-candidate configuration datastore with the same private-candidate datastore at the time it was last updated using the <update> NETCONF operation described in this document (whether automatically or manually triggered).

The creation-point selection of <reference-point> will provide an output comparing the current private-candidate configuration datastore with the same private-candidate datastore at the time this private-candidate was initially created.

4.7.2.5. <get-config>

The <get-config> operation is updated to accept private-candidate as valid input to the <source> field.

The use of <get-config> will create a private candidate configuration if one does not already exist for that NETCONF session.

Sending an <get-config> request to private-candidate after one has been sent to the shared candidate datastore in the same session will fail (and visa-versa).

4.7.2.6. <get-data>

The <get-data> operation accepts the private-candidate as a valid datastore.

The use of <get-data> will create a private candidate configuration if one does not already exist for that NETCONF session.

Sending an <get-data> request to private-candidate after one has been sent to the shared candidate datastore in the same session will fail (and visa-versa).

4.7.2.7. <copy-config>

The <copy-config> operation is updated to accept private-candidate as a valid input to the <source> or <target> fields.

4.7.2.8. <delete-config>

The <delete-config> operation is updated to accept private-candidate as a valid input to the <target> field.

4.7.2.9. <commit>

The <commit> operation MUST trigger an implicit <update> operation.

Nothing in this document alters the standard behavior of the <persist> or <persist-id> options and these SHOULD work when using the private-candidate configuration datastore.

5. IANA Considerations

This document requests the registration the the following NETCONF capabilities:

6. Security Considerations

This document should not affect the security of the Internet.

7. References

7.1. Normative References

[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC6241]
Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
[RFC8342]
Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K., and R. Wilton, "Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)", RFC 8342, DOI 10.17487/RFC8342, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8342>.
[RFC9144]
Clemm, A., Qu, Y., Tantsura, J., and A. Bierman, "Comparison of Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) Datastores", RFC 9144, DOI 10.17487/RFC9144, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9144>.
[RFC5717]
Lengyel, B. and M. Bjorklund, "Partial Lock Remote Procedure Call (RPC) for NETCONF", RFC 5717, DOI 10.17487/RFC5717, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5717>.
[RFC8040]
Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.
[RFC8527]
Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K., and R. Wilton, "RESTCONF Extensions to Support the Network Management Datastore Architecture", RFC 8527, DOI 10.17487/RFC8527, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8527>.

7.2. Informative References

Appendix A. Behavior with unaltered NETCONF operations

A.1. <get>

The <get> operation does not accept a datastore value and therefore this document is not applicable to this operation. The use of the get operation will not create a private candidate configuration.

Contributors

The authors would like to thank Jan Lindblad, Lori-Ann McGrath, Jason Sterne, Kent Watsen and Rob Wilton for their contributions and reviews.

Authors' Addresses

James Cumming
Nokia
Robert Wills
Cisco Systems