-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
Copy pathdraft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif-19.txt
2072 lines (1453 loc) · 77.1 KB
/
draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif-19.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: 15 August 2025 T. Graf
Swisscom
P. Francois
A. Huang Feng
INSA-Lyon
P. Lucente
NTT
11 February 2025
UDP-based Transport for Configured Subscriptions
draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif-19
Abstract
This document describes a UDP-based transport for YANG notifications
to collect data from network nodes. A shim header is defined to
facilitate the data streaming directly from a publishing process on a
network device to telemetry receivers. Such a design enable higher
frequency updates and less performance overhead on publisher and
receiver processes compared to already established notification
mechanisms. A YANG data model is also defined for management of the
described UDP-based transport.
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 15 August 2025.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Zheng, et al. Expires 15 August 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft UDP-Notif February 2025
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. UDP-Based Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Design Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Format of the UDP-Notif Message Header . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Data Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Segmentation Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. Private Encoding Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. Congestion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2. Message Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.3. Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Secured layer for UDP-Notif . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1. Session Lifecycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1.1. DTLS Session Initiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1.2. Publish Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1.3. Session Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.1.4. DTLS Fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. A YANG Data Model for Management of UDP-Notif . . . . . . . . 16
7.1. YANG Module for configuring UDP-Notif . . . . . . . . . . 16
7.2. YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8.1. IANA Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8.2. URI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8.3. YANG Module Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9.1. Open Source Publisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9.2. Open Source Receiver Library . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9.3. Pmacct Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9.4. Huawei VRP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9.5. 6WIND VSR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9.6. Cisco IOS XR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Zheng, et al. Expires 15 August 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft UDP-Notif February 2025
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Appendix A. UDP-Notif Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
A.1. Configuration for UDP-Notif transport with DTLS
disabled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
A.2. Configuration for UDP-Notif transport with DTLS
enabled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
A.3. YANG Push message with UDP-Notif transport protocol . . . 34
A.4. Example of Private Encoding Option Usage . . . . . . . . 35
A.4.1. Using the MT Field only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
A.4.2. Defining Encoding Flavors with the Private Encoding
Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
1. Introduction
The mechanism to support a subscription of a continuous and
customized stream of updates from a YANG datastore [RFC8342] is
defined in Subscribed Notifications [RFC8639] and YANG-Push
[RFC8641].
Subscribed Notifications [RFC8639] separate 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] were defined 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 frequency with low overhead.
This is important for network nodes that feature a distributed
architecture with sparse resources on components specialized for
packet forwarding. The currently available transports are TCP-based
requiring the maintenance of connections, states and retransmissions,
which is not necessary for high-frequency continuous notification
content, typically published directly from network processors on line
cards.
Zheng, et al. Expires 15 August 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft UDP-Notif February 2025
This document specifies a transport option for Configured
Subscriptions as defined in Section 2.5 of [RFC8639] 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 UDP-based transport allows for such a distributed data publishing
approach:
* Firstly, a UDP approach reduces the burden of maintaining a large
pool of active TCP connections at the receiver, notably in cases
where it collects data from network processors on line cards from
a large number of network nodes.
* Secondly, as no connection state needs to be maintained, UDP
encapsulation could be implemented by the hardware of the
publisher, which further improves 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.
The transport described in this document can be used for transmitting
notification messages over both IPv4 and IPv6. It is designed to be
used in cases where packet loss is not a concern, such as the
collection of statistical metrics that are exported periodically.
This transport can be configured via NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF
[RFC8040].
This document describes the notification mechanism. It is intended
to be used in conjunction with [RFC8639], extended by
[I-D.ietf-netconf-distributed-notif]. Additionally, this document
defines a YANG data model for management of the UDP-based transport.
The YANG module specified in this document is compliant with Network
Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) [RFC8639].
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 mechanism.
Zheng, et al. Expires 15 August 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft UDP-Notif February 2025
Section 6 describes a mechanism to secure the protocol in open
networks. Finally, Section 7 defines a YANG data model for
management of the mechanism described in this document.
2. Terminology
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.
The following terms are used as defined in Subscribed Notifications
[RFC8639]:
* Notification message
* Subscription
* Configured Subscription
* Subscriber
* Publisher
* Receiver
The following term is used as defined in
[I-D.ietf-netconf-distributed-notif]:
* Message Publisher ID
This document defines the following term:
* Message ID: identifier of a message transported by the UDP-Notif
protocol. More details are presented in Section 3.2.
3. UDP-Based Transport
This section specifies the UDP-Notif transport behavior. Section 3.1
describes the general design of the solution. Section 3.2 specifies
the UDP-Notif message format and Section 3.3 describes the encoding
of the message payload.
Zheng, et al. Expires 15 August 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft UDP-Notif February 2025
3.1. Design Overview
As specified in Section 2.6 of Subscribed Notifications [RFC8639],
the content of a YANG notification is encapsulated in a notification
message, which is then encapsulated and carried using a transport
protocol. Figure 1 illustrates the structure of a UDP-Notif message:
* The Message Header contains information that facilitates the
message transmission before deserializing the notification
message.
* The Notification Message is the encoded content that is
transported by the publication stream. The common encoding
methods are listed in Section 3.2. The structure of the
notification message is defined in Section 2.6 of Subscribed
Notifications [RFC8639].
+-------+ +--------------+ +--------------+
| UDP | | Message | | Notification |
| | | Header | | Message |
+-------+ +--------------+ +--------------+
Figure 1: UDP-Notif Message Overview
When a publisher starts streaming UDP-Notif messages, The first
message generated by the publisher MUST be a separate "subscription-
started" notification to indicate to the receiver that the stream has
started flowing. Then, the notifications can be sent immediately
without delay. Subscription state notifications, defined in
Section 2.7 of [RFC8639], MUST be encapsulated in separate
notification messages.
Note that receivers collecting UDP-Notif messages may not be already
up and running when the configuration of the subscription takes
effect on a monitored network node.
3.2. Format of the UDP-Notif Message Header
The UDP-Notif message header contains information that facilitates
the message transmission between the publisher and the receiver
before deserializing the notification message. The data format is
shown in Figure 2.
Zheng, et al. Expires 15 August 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft UDP-Notif February 2025
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 |
+-----+-+-------+---------------+-------------------------------+
| Message Publisher ID |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Message ID |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
~ Options ~
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 2: UDP-Notif Message Header Format
The Message Header contains the following field:
* Ver indicates the UDP-Notif protocol header version. The values
are allocated by the IANA registry "UDP-Notif header version"
(Section 8.1). The current header version number is 1.
* S-flag represents the space of media type specified in the MT
field. When S-flag is not set, MT represents the standard media
types as defined in the IANA registry "UDP-Notif media types"
(Section 8.1). When S-flag is set, MT represents a private space
to be freely used for non-standard encodings. Additionally, when
S-flag is set and the 16 private encoding values set in the MT
field are not sufficient, the Private Encoding Option defined in
Section 4.2 can be used together with the MT to define more
encoding flavors. See Section 4.2 for more details.
* MT is a 4-bit identifier that indicates the media type used for
the notification message. When the S bit is not set, the
following values apply:
- 0: Reserved, MUST NOT be used.
- 1: application/yang-data+json [RFC8040]
- 2: application/yang-data+xml [RFC8040]
- 3: application/yang-data+cbor [RFC9254]
* Header Len (8-bit) records the length of the message header in
octets, including both the fixed header and the options.
Zheng, et al. Expires 15 August 2025 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft UDP-Notif February 2025
* Message Length (16-bit) records the total length of the UDP-Notif
message within one UDP datagram, measured in octets, including the
message header. When the notification message is segmented using
the Segmentation Options defined in Section 4.1, the Message
Length is the total length of the current UDP-Notif segment, not
the length of the entire notification message.
* Message Publisher ID is a 32-bit identifier defined in
[I-D.ietf-netconf-distributed-notif]. This identifier is locally
unique to the publisher node. It identifies the software process
generating the stream of UDP-Notif messages and allow the
disambiguation of an information source. Message unicity is
obtained from the conjunction of the Message Publisher ID and the
Message ID field. If Message Publisher ID unicity is not
preserved through the collection domain, the source IP address of
the UDP datagram MUST be used in addition to the Message Publisher
ID to identify the information source. If a transport layer relay
is used, Message Publisher ID unicity must be preserved through
the collection domain.
* The Message ID is increased monotonically by the publisher of UDP-
Notif messages and MUST start at 1 with the first message. A
publisher MUST use different Message IDs for different messages
generated with the same Message Publisher ID. Note that the main
purpose of the Message ID is to reconstruct messages which are
segmented using the segmentation option described in Section 4.1.
The Message ID values SHOULD be incremented by one for successive
messages originated with the same Message Publisher ID, so that
message loss can be detected at data collection. When the last
value (2^32-1) of Message ID has been reached, the Message ID
wraps around and restarts at 0.
* Options are 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. Options are described in Section 4.
All the binary fields MUST be encoded in network byte order (big
endian).
Zheng, et al. Expires 15 August 2025 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft UDP-Notif February 2025
3.3. Data Encoding
UDP-Notif message data can be encoded in XML, JSON or CBOR format.
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.
When new encodings are defined, a new registration in the IANA
registry "UDP-Notif media types" MUST be allocated (Section 8.1).
Subscribed Notifications [RFC8639] states that a transport MUST
identify a default encoding. However, as per [Errata-6211],
Subscribed Notifications does not require to define a default
encoding.
Private encodings can be used by enabling the S-flag of the header.
When the S-flag is set, the value of the MT field is left to be
defined and agreed upon by the users of the private encoding. The MT
field only allows for 16 private encodings when S-flag is set. If
users need more than 16 private encodings, an option is defined in
Section 4.2 to be freely used to define more encoding flavors. Users
defining a private encoding MAY use any combination of MT and private
encoding option fitting their needs.
The encoding of a message data is configured on a subscription basis
and each subscription reference a receiver instance. Publishers MUST
NOT be configured to send notification messages with more than one
encoding to the same receivers.
4. Options
All the options are defined with the format shown 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. The values of the Type
field are allocated by the IANA regsitry "UDP-Notif options types"
(Section 8.1).
* 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 data.
Zheng, et al. Expires 15 August 2025 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft UDP-Notif February 2025
When more than one option are used in a UDP-Notif header, the
segmentation option defined in Section 4.1 MUST be placed first.
Placing the segmentation option first can simplify some
implementations for both the publisher and the receiver, notably
those assuming a fixed location for the segmentation option.
Segmented messages without the segmentation option located as the
first option, MAY be dropped by the receiver.
4.1. Segmentation Option
The UDP payload length is limited to 65527 bytes (65535 - 8 bytes).
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 [BCP230].
Implementations MUST provide a configurable parameter to control the
maximum size of a UDP-Notif segment. This parameter is defined as
"max-segment-size" in the YANG module specified in Section 7.1.
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 (Figure 4) is included when the message
content is segmented into multiple segments. Different segments of
one message share the same Message ID. The fields of this option are
as follows:
* Type: indicates a Segmentation Option. The value is TBD1.
* Length: indicates the length of this option, in octets. It MUST
be set to 4 octets.
* 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. The segment number cannot wrap around.
Zheng, et al. Expires 15 August 2025 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft UDP-Notif February 2025
* L: indicates 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.
Implementations MUST NOT rely on IP fragmentation to carry large
messages. Implementations MUST either restrict the size of
individual messages to a value that will not lead to IP fragmentation
as per Section 5.2, or support the segmentation option. In the
latter case, the parameter "max-segment-size" MUST be set so that the
size of a UDP-Notif segment and the size of the IP layer together do
not exceed the MTU of the egress interface.
When a message has multiple options and is segmented, all the options
MUST be present on the first segment. The rest of segmented messages
MAY include all the options. The segmentation option MUST be placed
first in all segments.
The receiver SHOULD support the reception of unordered segments. The
implementation of the receiver SHOULD provide an option to discard
the received segments if, after some time, one of the segments is
still missing and the reassembly of the message is not possible. No
retransmission of lost segments are expected from the publisher. If
the receiver collects a segment more than once, the implementation
SHOULD drop the duplicate segment.
To reassemble segmented UDP-Notif messages, the receiver should first
identify UDP-Notif segments belonging to the same message by using
the combination of the Message Publisher ID and Message ID. The
receiver SHOULD wait for all the segments before starting the
reassembly process. Once all the segments are collected, the
receiver should create a new UDP-Notif header with the same Ver,
S-flag, MT, Message Publisher ID and Message ID values. When UDP-
Notif options other than the segmentation option are present in the
first segment, these options need to be appended to the newly created
UDP-Notif header. To reconstruct the original notification message,
the receiver must concatenate the notification message of each UDP-
Notif segments in an ascending order based on the Segment Number.
The new concatenated notification message becomes the notification
message of the newly created UDP-Notif message. The Header Length
and Message Length are then updated accordingly.
Zheng, et al. Expires 15 August 2025 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft UDP-Notif February 2025
4.2. Private Encoding Option
The space to describe private encodings in the MT field of the UDP-
Notif header is limited to 16 values. When users need more than 16
private encoding values, an additional private encoding option can be
used to extend the amount of encodings flavors. 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 in octets. It is a variable value.
* Variable length enc. descr.: Field to be freely used by the
implementor when defining a new encoding flavor. This field MAY
be used together the MT field. The values to be used for such
private encodings is left to be defined by the users of private
encodings.
This option MUST only be used when the S-flag bit of the header is
set. The definition of the content of the field Variable length enc.
descr. is out of scope of this document. An example of usage is
shown in Appendix A.4.
5. Applicability
This section provides an applicability for the UDP-Notif mechanism,
following the recommendations of [RFC8085].
The 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 be deployed in
controlled environments", as defined in [RFC8085]. Implementations
SHOULD thus follow the recommendations in place for such specific
applications. We discuss recommendations on congestion control in
Section 5.1, message size guidelines in Section 5.2 and reliability
considerations in Section 5.3.
Zheng, et al. Expires 15 August 2025 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft UDP-Notif February 2025
The main use case of the UDP-Notif mechanism is the collection of
statistical metrics for accounting purposes, where potential loss is
not a concern, but should however be reported (such as IPFIX Flow
Records exported with UDP [RFC7011]). Such metrics are typically
exported in a periodical subscription as described in Section 3.1 of
[RFC8641].
5.1. Congestion Control
The above application falls into the category of applications
performing transfer of large amounts of data. It is expected that
the operator using the solution configures dedicated class of
services 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 UDP-Notif 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 SHOULD NOT push unbounded volumes 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 publisher to use a
lower streaming rate. The interaction to control the streaming rate
on the publisher 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.
Zheng, et al. Expires 15 August 2025 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft UDP-Notif February 2025
It is RECOMMENDED that the size of a Notification Message is small
and segmentation does not result in segmenting the message into too
many segments to avoid dropping the entire message when there is a
lost segment.
A receiver collecting segmented UDP-Notif messages SHOULD have a
configurable parameter to discard segments when they exceed a certain
amount of segments. The generation of too many segments by a
publisher can be used as an abuse to require computation resources
for reassembling large messages at the receiver.
5.3. Reliability
A receiver implementation SHOULD discard packets that were received
but cannot be re-assembled as a complete message within a given
amount of time. This time SHOULD be configurable.
6. Secured layer for UDP-Notif
In unsecured networks, which are not authenticated and encrypted on
layers below transport, UDP-Notif messages MUST be encrypted. In
this section, a mechanism using DTLS [RFC6347][RFC9147] to secure
UDP-Notif protocol is presented.
Implementations using DTLS to secure UDP-Notif messages MUST use DTLS
1.2 [RFC6347] or later, and SHOULD use DTLS 1.3 [RFC9147]. No DTLS
extensions are defined in this document.
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 configured 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
number, but MAY be configurable to send messages to a different port.
The publisher MAY use any source UDP port for transmitting messages.
6.1. Session Lifecycle
This section describes the lifecycle of UDP-Notif messages when they
are encrypted using DTLS.
6.1.1. 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 1.2 and DTLS 1.3 if a
given deployment can ensure that DoS attacks are not a concern.
Zheng, et al. Expires 15 August 2025 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft UDP-Notif February 2025
In DTLS 1.3 when the denial of service countermeasures are
implemented, the Receiver responds with a DTLS HelloRetryRequest
containing a stateless cookie. The publisher sends then a second
DTLS ClientHello message containing the received cookie. Details can
be found in Section 5.1 of [RFC9147].
When DTLS is implemented, the publisher MUST NOT send any UDP-Notif
messages before the DTLS handshake has successfully completed.
Implementations MUST NOT use the early data mechanism (also known as
0-RTT data) defined in DTLS 1.3 [RFC9147].
Implementations of this security layer MUST support DTLS 1.2
[RFC6347] or later, and SHOULD support DTLS 1.3 [RFC9147].
Implementations MUST follow recommendations defined by [BCP195]. If
other cipher suites than the ones recommended by [BCP195] are used,
then implementations MUST NOT negotiate a cipher suite that employs
NULL integrity or authentication algorithms.
Where confidentiality protection with DTLS is required,
implementations must negotiate a cipher suite that employs a non-NULL
encryption algorithm.
6.1.2. 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
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.
Zheng, et al. Expires 15 August 2025 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft UDP-Notif February 2025
6.1.3. 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.
6.1.4. DTLS Fragmentation
DTLS 1.2 [RFC6347] and DTLS 1.3 [RFC9147] states that DTLS message
may be fragmented into multiple DTLS records. A DTLS message
carrying a UDP-Notif message SHOULD fit within a single datagram to
avoid DTLS fragmentation. Implementations SHOULD account for DTLS
overhead when determining the maximum UDP-Notif notification message
size.
7. A YANG Data Model for Management of UDP-Notif
7.1. YANG Module for configuring UDP-Notif
The YANG model described in Section 7.2 defines a new receiver
instance for UDP-Notif transport. When this transport is used, four
new leaves and a dtls container allow configuring UDP-Notif receiver
parameters.
The source address of the UDP-Notif message can be configured using
the "source-address" leaf at the subscription level as defined in
Section 2.5 of [RFC8639] or by setting the leaf "local-address" using
the "ietf-udp-notif-transport" YANG module. When both are
configured, the UDP-Notif message MUST use the address configured in
the "local-address" leaf defined in the "ietf-udp-notif-transport"
YANG module.
Zheng, et al. Expires 15 August 2025 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft UDP-Notif February 2025
module: ietf-udp-notif-transport
augment /sn:subscriptions/snr:receiver-instances
/snr:receiver-instance/snr:transport-type:
+--:(udp-notif)
+--rw udp-notif-receiver
+--rw remote-address inet:host
+--rw remote-port inet:port-number
+--rw local-address? inet:ip-address
| {local-binding}?
+--rw local-port? inet:port-number
| {local-binding}?
+--rw dtls! {dtls}?
| +--rw client-identity!
| | +--rw (auth-type)
| | +--:(certificate) {client-ident-x509-cert}?
| | | ...
| | +--:(raw-public-key)
| | | {client-ident-raw-public-key}?
| | | ...
| | +--:(tls12-psk) {client-ident-tls12-psk}?
| | | ...
| | +--:(tls13-epsk) {client-ident-tls13-epsk}?
| | ...
| +--rw server-authentication
| | +--rw ca-certs! {server-auth-x509-cert}?
| | | +--rw (inline-or-truststore)
| | | ...
| | +--rw ee-certs! {server-auth-x509-cert}?
| | | +--rw (inline-or-truststore)
| | | ...
| | +--rw raw-public-keys! {server-auth-raw-public-key}?
| | | +--rw (inline-or-truststore)
| | | ...
| | +--rw tls12-psks? empty
| | | {server-auth-tls12-psk}?
| | +--rw tls13-epsks? empty
| | {server-auth-tls13-epsk}?
| +--rw hello-params {tlscmn:hello-params}?
| +--rw tls-versions
| | +--rw min? identityref
| | +--rw max? identityref
| +--rw cipher-suites
| +--rw cipher-suite*
| tlscsa:tls-cipher-suite-algorithm
+--rw enable-segmentation? boolean
+--rw max-segment-size? uint16
Zheng, et al. Expires 15 August 2025 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft UDP-Notif February 2025
7.2. YANG Module
This YANG module is used to configure, on a publisher, a receiver
willing to consume notification messages. This module augments the
"ietf-subscribed-notif-receivers" module to define a UDP-Notif
transport receiver. The grouping "udp-notif-receiver" defines the
necessary parameters to configure the transport defined in this
document using the generic "udp-client" grouping from the "ietf-udp-
client" module [I-D.ietf-netconf-udp-client-server] and the "tls-
client-grouping" defined in the "ietf-tls-client" module [RFC9645].
<CODE BEGINS> file "[email protected]"
module ietf-udp-notif-transport {
yang-version 1.1;
namespace
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-udp-notif-transport";
prefix unt;
import ietf-subscribed-notifications {
prefix sn;
reference
"RFC 8639: Subscription to YANG Notifications";
}
import ietf-subscribed-notif-receivers {
prefix snr;
reference
"RFC YYYY: An HTTPS-based Transport for
Configured Subscriptions";
}
import ietf-udp-client {
prefix udpc;
reference
"RFC ZZZZ: YANG Grouping for UDP Clients and UDP Servers";
}
import ietf-tls-client {
prefix tlsc;
reference
"RFC 9645: YANG Groupings for TLS Clients and TLS Servers";
}
organization "IETF NETCONF (Network Configuration) Working Group";
contact
"WG Web: <http:/tools.ietf.org/wg/netconf/>
WG List: <mailto:[email protected]>