-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif-05.txt
1232 lines (830 loc) · 44.8 KB
/
draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif-05.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
NETCONF G. Zheng
Internet-Draft T. Zhou
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei
Expires: 4 September 2022 T. Graf
Swisscom
P. Francois
A. Huang Feng
INSA-Lyon
P. Lucente
NTT
3 March 2022
UDP-based Transport for Configured Subscriptions
draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif-05
Abstract
This document describes an UDP-based notification mechanism to
collect data from networking devices. A shim header is proposed to
facilitate the data streaming directly from the publishing process on
network processor of line cards to receivers. The objective is to
provide a lightweight approach to enable higher frequency and less
performance impact on publisher and receiver processes compared to
already established notification mechanisms.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
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 4 September 2022.
Zheng, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft unyte-udp-notif March 2022
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 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 Simplified BSD License text
as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Configured Subscription to UDP-Notif . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. UDP-Based Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Design Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Format of the UDP-Notif Message Header . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Data Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Segmentation Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Private Encoding Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. Congestion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. Message Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.3. Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Secured layer for UDP-notif . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6.1. Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.2. Port Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.3. Session lifecycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.3.1. DTLS Session Initiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.3.2. Publish Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.3.3. Session termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. A YANG Data Model for Management of UDP-Notif . . . . . . . . 14
8. YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Zheng, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft unyte-udp-notif March 2022
1. Introduction
Sub-Notif [RFC8639] defines a mechanism that lets a receiver
subscribe to the publication of YANG-defined data maintained in a
YANG [RFC7950] datastore. The mechanism separates the management and
control of subscriptions from the transport used to deliver the data.
Three transport mechanisms, namely NETCONF transport [RFC8640],
RESTCONF transport [RFC8650], and HTTPS transport
[I-D.ietf-netconf-https-notif] have been defined so far for such
notification messages.
While powerful in their features and general in their architecture,
the currently available transport mechanisms need to be complemented
to support data publications at high velocity from devices that
feature a distributed architecture. The currently available
transports are based on TCP and lack the efficiency needed to
continuously send notifications at high velocity.
This document specifies a transport option for Sub-Notif that
leverages UDP. Specifically, it facilitates the distributed data
collection mechanism described in
[I-D.ietf-netconf-distributed-notif]. In the case of publishing from
multiple network processors on multiple line cards, centralized
designs require data to be internally forwarded from those network
processors to the push server, presumably on a route processor, which
then combines the individual data items into a single consolidated
stream. The centralized data collection mechanism can result in a
performance bottleneck, especially when large amounts of data are
involved.
What is needed is a mechanism that allows for directly publishing
from multiple network processors on line cards, without passing them
through an additional processing stage for internal consolidation.
The proposed UDP-based transport allows for such a distributed data
publishing approach.
* Firstly, a UDP approach reduces the burden of maintaining a large
amount of active TCP connections at the receiver, notably in cases
where it collects data from network processors on line cards from
a large amount of networking devices.
* Secondly, as no connection state needs to be maintained, UDP
encapsulation can be easily implemented by the hardware of the
publication streamer, which will further improve performance.
* Ultimately, such advantages allow for a larger data analysis
feature set, as more voluminous, finer grained data sets can be
streamed to the receiver.
Zheng, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft unyte-udp-notif March 2022
The transport described in this document can be used for transmitting
notification messages over both IPv4 and IPv6.
This document describes the notification mechanism. It is intended
to be used in conjunction with [RFC8639], extended by
[I-D.ietf-netconf-distributed-notif].
Section 2 describes the control of the proposed transport mechanism.
Section 3 details the notification mechanism and message format.
Section 4 describes the use of options in the notification message
header. Section 5 covers the applicability of the proposed
mechanism. Section 6 describes a mechanism to secure the protocol in
open networks.
2. Configured Subscription to UDP-Notif
This section describes how the proposed mechanism can be controlled
using subscription channels based on NETCONF or RESTCONF.
Following the usual approach of Sub-Notif, configured subscriptions
contain the location information of all the receivers, including the
IP address and the port number, so that the publisher can actively
send UDP-Notif messages to the corresponding receivers.
Note that receivers MAY NOT be already up and running when the
configuration of the subscription takes effect on the monitored
device. The first message MUST be a separate subscription-started
notification to indicate the Receiver that the stream has started
flowing. Then, the notifications can be sent immediately without
delay. All the subscription state notifications, as defined in
[RFC8639], MUST be encapsulated in separate notification messages.
3. UDP-Based Transport
In this section, we specify the UDP-Notif Transport behavior.
Section 3.1 describes the general design of the solution.
Section 3.2 specifies the UDP-Notif message format. Section 4
describes a generic optional sub TLV format. Section 4.1 uses such
options to provide a segmentation solution for large UDP-Notif
message payloads. Section 3.3 describes the encoding of the message
payload.
Zheng, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft unyte-udp-notif March 2022
3.1. Design Overview
As specified in Sub-Notif, the telemetry data is encapsulated in the
NETCONF/RESTCONF notification message, which is then encapsulated and
carried using transport protocols such as TLS or HTTP2. This
document defines a UDP based transport. Figure 1 illustrates the
structure of an UDP-Notif message.
* The Message Header contains information that facilitate the
message transmission before deserializing the notification
message.
* Notification Message is the encoded content that the publication
stream transports. The common encoding methods are listed in
Section 3.2. [I-D.ietf-netconf-notification-messages] describes
the structure of the Notification Message for single notifications
and bundled notifications.
+-------+ +--------------+ +--------------+
| UDP | | Message | | Notification |
| | | Header | | Message |
+-------+ +--------------+ +--------------+
Figure 1: UDP-Notif Message Overview
3.2. Format of the UDP-Notif Message Header
The UDP-Notif Message Header contains information that facilitate the
message transmission before deserializing the notification message.
The data format is shown in Figure 2.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-----+-+-------+---------------+-------------------------------+
| Ver |S| MT | Header Len | Message Length |
+-----+-+-------+---------------+-------------------------------+
| Observation-Domain-ID |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Message-ID |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
~ Options ~
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 2: UDP-Notif Message Header Format
The Message Header contains the following field:
Zheng, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft unyte-udp-notif March 2022
* Ver represents the PDU (Protocol Data Unit) encoding version. The
initial version value is 0.
* S represents the space of media type specified in the MT field.
When S is unset, MT represents the standard media types as defined
in this document. When S is set, MT represents a private space to
be freely used for non standard encodings.
* MT is a 4 bit identifier to indicate the media type used for the
Notification Message. 16 types of encoding can be expressed. When
the S bit is unset, the following values apply:
- 0: Reserved;
- 1: application/yang-data+json [RFC8040]
- 2: application/yang-data+xml [RFC8040]
- 3: application/yang-data+cbor [I-D.ietf-core-yang-cbor]
* Header Len is the length of the message header in octets,
including both the fixed header and the options.
* Message Length is the total length of the message within one UDP
datagram, measured in octets, including the message header.
* Observation-Domain-ID is a 32-bit identifier of the Observation
Domain that led to the production of the notification message, as
defined in [I-D.ietf-netconf-notification-messages]. This allows
disambiguation of an information source, such as the
identification of different line cards sending the notification
messages. The source IP address of the UDP datagrams SHOULD NOT
be interpreted as the identifier for the host that originated the
UDP-Notif message. Indeed, the streamer sending the UDP-Notif
message could be a relay for the actual source of data carried
within UDP-Notif messages.
* The Message ID is generated continuously by the publisher of UDP-
Notif messages. Different subscribers share the same Message ID
sequence.
* Options is a variable-length field in the TLV format. When the
Header Length is larger than 12 octets, which is the length of the
fixed header, Options TLVs follow directly after the fixed message
header (i.e., Message ID). The details of the options are
described in Section 4.
Zheng, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft unyte-udp-notif March 2022
3.3. Data Encoding
UDP-Notif message data can be encoded in CBOR, XML or JSON format.
It is conceivable that additional encodings may be supported in the
future. This can be accomplished by augmenting the subscription data
model with additional identity statements used to refer to requested
encodings.
Private encodings can be supported through the use of the S bit of
the header. When the S bit is set, the value of the MT field is left
to be defined and agreed upon by the users of the private encoding.
An option is defined in Section 4.2 for more verbose encoding
descriptions than what can be described with the MT field.
Implementation MAY support multiple encoding methods per
subscription. When bundled notifications are supported between the
publisher and the receiver, only subscribed notifications with the
same encoding can be bundled in a given message.
4. Options
All the options are defined with the following format, illustrated in
Figure 3.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+--------------------------------
| Type | Length | Variable-length data
+---------------+---------------+--------------------------------
Figure 3: Generic Option Format
* Type: 1 octet describing the option type;
* Length: 1 octet representing the total number of octets in the
TLV, including the Type and Length fields;
* Variable-length data: 0 or more octets of TLV Value.
When more than one option are used in the UDP-notif header, options
MUST be ordered by the Type value.
Zheng, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft unyte-udp-notif March 2022
4.1. Segmentation Option
The UDP payload length is limited to 65535. Application level
headers will make the actual payload shorter. Even though binary
encodings such as CBOR may not require more space than what is left,
more voluminous encodings such as JSON and XML may suffer from this
size limitation. Although IPv4 and IPv6 publishers can fragment
outgoing packets exceeding their Maximum Transmission Unit(MTU),
fragmented IP packets may not be desired for operational and
performance reasons.
Consequently, implementations of the mechanism SHOULD provide a
configurable max-segment-size option to control the maximum size of a
payload.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+-----------------------------+-+
| Type | Length | Segment Number |L|
+---------------+---------------+-----------------------------+-+
Figure 4: Segmentation Option Format
The Segmentation Option is to be included when the message content is
segmented into multiple pieces. Different segments of one message
share the same Message ID. An illustration is provided in Figure 4.
The fields of this TLV are:
* Type: Generic option field which indicates a Segmentation Option.
The Type value is to be assigned TBD1.
* Length: Generic option field which indicates the length of this
option. It is a fixed value of 4 octets for the Segmentation
Option.
* Segment Number: 15-bit value indicating the sequence number of the
current segment. The first segment of a segmented message has a
Segment Number value of 0.
* L: is a flag to indicate whether the current segment is the last
one of the message. When 0 is set, the current segment is not the
last one. When 1 is set, the current segment is the last one,
meaning that the total number of segments used to transport this
message is the value of the current Segment Number + 1.
Zheng, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft unyte-udp-notif March 2022
An implementation of this specification MUST NOT rely on IP
fragmentation by default to carry large messages. An implementation
of this specification MUST either restrict the size of individual
messages carried over this protocol, or support the segmentation
option.
When a message has multiple options and is segmented using the
described mechanism, all the options MUST be present on the first
segment ordered by the options Type. The rest of segmented messages
MAY include all the options ordered by options type.
4.2. Private Encoding Option
The space to describe private encodings in the MT field of the UDP-
Notif header being limited, an option is provided to describe custom
encodings. The fields of this option are as follows.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+--------------------------------
| Type | Length | Variable length enc. descr.
+---------------+---------------+--------------------------------
Figure 5: Private Encoding Option Format
* Type: Generic option field which indicates a Private Encoding
Option. The Type value is to be assigned TBD2.
* Length: Generic option field which indicates the length of this
option. It is a variable value.
* Enc. Descr: The description of the private encoding used for this
message. The values to be used for such private encodings is left
to be defined by the users of private encodings.
This option SHOULD only be used when the S bit of the header is set,
as providing a private encoding description for standard encodings is
meaningless.
5. Applicability
In this section, we provide an applicability statement for the
proposed mechanism, following the recommendations of [RFC8085].
The proposed mechanism falls in the category of UDP applications
"designed for use within the network of a single network operator or
on networks of an adjacent set of cooperating network operators, to
Zheng, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft unyte-udp-notif March 2022
be deployed in controlled environments". Implementations of the
proposed mechanism SHOULD thus follow the recommendations in place
for such specific applications. In the following, we discuss
recommendations on congestion control, message size guidelines,
reliability considerations and security considerations.
5.1. Congestion Control
The proposed application falls into the category of applications
performing transfer of large amounts of data. It is expected that
the operator using the solution configures QoS on its related flows.
As per [RFC8085], such applications MAY choose not to implement any
form of congestion control, but follow the following principles.
It is NOT RECOMMENDED to use the proposed mechanism over congestion-
sensitive network paths. The only environments where UDP-Notif is
expected to be used are managed networks. The deployments require
that the network path has been explicitly provisioned to handle the
traffic through traffic engineering mechanisms, such as rate limiting
or capacity reservations.
Implementation of the proposal SHOULD NOT push unlimited amounts of
traffic by default, and SHOULD require the users to explicitly
configure such a mode of operation.
Burst mitigation through packet pacing is RECOMMENDED. Disabling
burst mitigation SHOULD require the users to explicitly configure
such a mode of operation.
Applications SHOULD monitor packet losses and provide means to the
user for retrieving information on such losses. The UDP-Notif
Message ID can be used to deduce congestion based on packet loss
detection. Hence the receiver can notify the device to use a lower
streaming rate. The interaction to control the streaming rate on the
device is out of the scope of this document.
5.2. Message Size
[RFC8085] recommends not to rely on IP fragmentation for messages
whose size result in IP packets exceeding the MTU along the path.
The segmentation option of the current specification permits
segmentation of the UDP Notif message content without relying on IP
fragmentation. Implementation of the current specification SHOULD
allow for the configuration of the MTU.
Zheng, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft unyte-udp-notif March 2022
5.3. Reliability
The target application for UDP-Notif is the collection of data-plane
information. The lack of reliability of the data streaming mechanism
is thus considered acceptable as the mechanism is to be used in
controlled environments, mitigating the risk of information loss,
while allowing for publication of very large amounts of data.
Moreover, in this context, sporadic events when incomplete data
collection is provided is not critical for the proper management of
the network, as information collected for the devices through the
means of the proposed mechanism is to be often refreshed.
A receiver implementation for this protocol SHOULD deal with
potential loss of packets carrying a part of segmented payload, by
discarding packets that were received, but cannot be re-assembled as
a complete message within a given amount of time. This time SHOULD
be configurable.
5.4. Security Considerations
[RFC8085] states that "UDP applications that need to protect their
communications againts eavesdropping, tampering, or message forgery
SHOULD employ end-to-end security services provided by other IETF
protocols". As mentioned above, the proposed mechanism is designed
to be used in controlled environments and thus, a security layer is
unrequired. Nevertheless, a DTLS layer SHOULD be implemented in open
or unsecured networks. A DTLS layered implementation is presented in
Section 6.
6. Secured layer for UDP-notif
In open or unsecured networks, UDP-notif messages SHOULD be secured
or encrypted. In this section, a mechanism using DTLS 1.3 to secure
UDP-notif protocol is presented. The following sections defines the
requirements for the implementation of the secured layer of DTLS for
UDP-notif. No DTLS 1.3 extensions are defined nor needed.
The DTLS 1.3 protocol [I-D.draft-ietf-tls-dtls13] is designed to meet
the requirements of applications that need to secure datagram
transport.
DTLS can be used as a secure transport to counter all the primary
threats to UDP-notif:
* Confidentiality to counter disclosure of the message contents.
* Integrity checking to counter modifications to a message on a hop-
by-hop basis.
Zheng, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft unyte-udp-notif March 2022
* Server or mutual authentication to counter masquerade.
In addition, DTLS also provides:
* A cookie exchange mechanism during handshake to counter Denial of
Service attacks.
* A sequence number in the header to counter replay attacks.
Even though this security layer is unrequired, DTLS 1.3 SHOULD be
implemented on unsecured networks to achieve privacy.
6.1. Transport
As shown in Figure 6, the DTLS is layered next to the UDP transport
providing reusable security and authentication functions over UDP.
No DTLS extension is required to enable UDP-notif messages over DTLS.
+-----------------------------+
| UDP-notif Message |
+-----------------------------+
| DTLS |
+-----------------------------+
| UDP |
+-----------------------------+
| IP |
+-----------------------------+
Figure 6: Protocol Stack for DTLS secured UDP-notif
The application implementer will map a unique combination of the
remote address, remote port number, local address, and local port
number to a session.
Each UDP-notif message is delivered by the DTLS record protocol,
which assigns a sequence number to each DTLS record. Although the
DTLS implementer may adopt a queue mechanism to resolve reordering,
it may not assure that all the messages are delivered in order when
mapping on the UDP transport.
Since UDP is an unreliable transport, with DTLS, an originator or a
relay may not realize that a collector has gone down or lost its DTLS
connection state, so messages may be lost.
The DTLS record has its own sequence number, encryption and
decryption will be done by the DTLS layer, so that the UDP-notif
Message layer is not impacted by the use of DTLS.
Zheng, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft unyte-udp-notif March 2022
6.2. Port Assignment
When this security layer is used, the Publisher MUST always be a DTLS
client, and the Receiver MUST always be a DTLS server. The Receivers
MUST support accepting UDP-notif Messages on the specified UDP port,
but MAY be configurable to listen on a different port. The Publisher
MUST support sending UDP-notif messages to the specified UDP port,
but MAY be configurable to send messages to a different port. The
Publisher MAY use any source UDP port for transmitting messages.
6.3. Session lifecycle
6.3.1. DTLS Session Initiation
The Publisher initiates a DTLS connection by sending a DTLS
ClientHello to the Receiver. Implementations MAY support the denial
of service countermeasures defined by DTLS 1.3. When these
countermeasures are used, the Receiver responds with a DTLS
HelloRetryRequest containing a stateless cookie. The Publisher MUST
send a new DTLS ClientHello message containing the received cookie,
which initiates the DTLS handshake.
When DTLS is implemented, the Publisher MUST NOT send any UDP-notif
messages before the DTLS handshake has successfully completed.
Implementations of this security layer MUST support DTLS 1.3
[I-D.draft-ietf-tls-dtls13] and MUST support the mandatory to
implement cipher suite TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 and SHOULD implement
TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 and TLS_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256 cipher
suites, as specified in TLS 1.3 [RFC8446]. If additional cipher
suites are supported, then implementations MUST NOT negotiate a
cipher suite that employs NULL integrity or authentication
algorithms.
Where privacy is REQUIRED, then implementations must either negotiate
a cipher suite that employs a non-NULL encryption algorithm or
otherwise achieve privacy by other means, such as a physically
secured network.
6.3.2. Publish Data
When DTLS is used, all UDP-notif messages MUST be published as DTLS
"application_data". It is possible that multiple UDP-notif messages
are contained in one DTLS record, or that a publication message is
transferred in multiple DTLS records. The application data is
defined with the following ABNF [RFC5234] expression:
APPLICATION-DATA = 1*UDP-NOTIF-FRAME
Zheng, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft unyte-udp-notif March 2022
UDP-NOTIF-FRAME = MSG-LEN SP UDP-NOTIF-MSG
MSG-LEN = NONZERO-DIGIT *DIGIT
SP = %d32
NONZERO-DIGIT = %d49-57
DIGIT = %d48 / NONZERO-DIGIT
UDP-NOTIF-MSG is defined in Section 3.
The Publisher SHOULD attempt to avoid IP fragmentation by using the
Segmentation Option in the UDP-notif message.
6.3.3. Session termination
A Publisher MUST close the associated DTLS connection if the
connection is not expected to deliver any UDP-notif Messages later.
It MUST send a DTLS close_notify alert before closing the connection.
A Publisher (DTLS client) MAY choose to not wait for the Receiver's
close_notify alert and simply close the DTLS connection. Once the
Receiver gets a close_notify from the Publisher, it MUST reply with a
close_notify.
When no data is received from a DTLS connection for a long time, the
Receiver MAY close the connection. Implementations SHOULD set the
timeout value to 10 minutes but application specific profiles MAY
recommend shorter or longer values. The Receiver (DTLS server) MUST
attempt to initiate an exchange of close_notify alerts with the
Publisher before closing the connection. Receivers that are
unprepared to receive any more data MAY close the connection after
sending the close_notify alert.
Although closure alerts are a component of TLS and so of DTLS, they,
like all alerts, are not retransmitted by DTLS and so may be lost
over an unreliable network.
7. A YANG Data Model for Management of UDP-Notif
The YANG model defined in Section 8 has two leaves augmented into one
place of Sub-Notif [RFC8639], plus one identity.
Zheng, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft unyte-udp-notif March 2022
module: ietf-udp-subscribed-notifications
augment /sn:subscriptions/sn:subscription/sn:receivers/sn:receiver:
+--rw address inet:ip-address
+--rw port inet:port-number
+--rw enable-segmentation? boolean
+--rw max-segmentation-size? uint32
8. YANG Module
<CODE BEGINS> file "[email protected]"
module ietf-udp-notif {
yang-version 1.1;
namespace
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-udp-notif";
prefix un;
import ietf-subscribed-notifications {
prefix sn;
reference
"RFC 8639: Subscription to YANG Notifications";
}
import ietf-inet-types {
prefix inet;
reference
"RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types";
}
organization "IETF NETCONF (Network Configuration) Working Group";
contact
"WG Web: <http:/tools.ietf.org/wg/netconf/>
WG List: <mailto:[email protected]>
Authors: Guangying Zheng
<mailto:[email protected]>
Tianran Zhou
<mailto:[email protected]>
Thomas Graf
<mailto:[email protected]>
Pierre Francois
<mailto:[email protected]>
Paolo Lucente
<mailto:[email protected]>";
description
"Defines UDP-Notif as a supported transport for subscribed
event notifications.
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as authors
Zheng, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft unyte-udp-notif March 2022
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 Simplified 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 2021-10-18 {
description
"Slight change to the name of two parameters.";
reference
"RFC XXXX: UDP-based Transport for Configured Subscriptions";
}
/*
* FEATURES
*/
feature encode-cbor {
description
"This feature indicates that CBOR encoding of notification
messages is supported.";
}
/*
* IDENTITIES
*/
identity udp-notif {
base sn:transport;
description
"UDP-Notif is used as transport for notification messages
and state change notifications.";
}
identity encode-cbor {
base sn:encoding;
description
"Encode data using CBOR as described in RFC XXX.";
reference
"RFC XXX: draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor-18, CBOR Encoding of
Data Modeled with YANG";
}
grouping target-receiver {
description
Zheng, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft unyte-udp-notif March 2022
"Provides a reusable description of a UDP-Notif target
receiver.";
leaf address {
type inet:ip-address;
mandatory true;
description
"IP address of target UDP-Notif receiver, which can be an
IPv4 address or an IPV6 address.";
}
leaf port {
type inet:port-number;
description
"Port number of target UDP-Notif receiver, if not specified,
the system should use default port number.";
}
leaf enable-segmentation {
type boolean;
default false;
description
"The switch for the segmentation feature. When disabled, the
publisher will not allow fragment for a very large data";
}
leaf max-segmentation-size {
when "../enable-segmentation = 'true'";
type uint32;
description "UDP-Notif provides a configurable
max-segmentation-size to control the size of each message.";
}
}
augment "/sn:subscriptions/sn:subscription/sn:receivers/sn:receiver" {
when "derived-from(../../../transport, 'un:udp-notif')";
description
"This augmentation allows UDP-Notif specific parameters to be
exposed for a subscription.";
uses target-receiver;
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
Zheng, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft unyte-udp-notif March 2022
9. IANA Considerations
This document is creating 2 registries called "UDP-notif media types"
and "UDP-notif option types" under the new heading "UDP-notif
protocol". The registration procedure is made using the Standards
Action process defined in [RFC8126].
The first requested registry is the following:
Registry Name: UDP-notif media types
Registry Category: UDP-notif protocol.
Registration Procedure: Standard Action as defined in RFC8126
Maximum value: 15
These are the initial registrations for "UDP-notif media types":
Value: 0
Description: Reserved
Reference: this document
Value: 1
Description: media type application/yang-data+json
Reference: <xref target="RFC8040"/>
Value: 2
Description: media type application/yang-data+xml
Reference: <xref target="RFC8040"/>
Value: 3
Description: media type application/yang-data+cbor
Reference: <xref target="I-D.ietf-core-yang-cbor"/>
The second requested registry is the following:
Registry Name: UDP-notif option types
Registry Category: UDP-notif protocol.
Registration Procedure: Standard Action as defined in RFC8126
Maximum value: 255
These are the initial registrations for "UDP-notif options types":
Value: 0
Description: Reserved
Reference: this document