Network Working Group M. Bjorklund
Internet-Draft Tail-f Systems
Updates: 8040 (if approved) J. Schoenwaelder
Intended status: Standards Track Jacobs University
Expires: May 3, 2018 P. Shafer
K. Watsen
Juniper Networks
R. Wilton
Cisco Systems
October 30, 2017

RESTCONF Update to Support the NMDA


This document updates RESTCONF [RFC8040] in order to support the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) defined in [I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores].

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

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 May 3, 2018.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2017 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 ( 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

This document updates RESTCONF [RFC8040] in order to support the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) defined in [I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores].

The solution presented in this document is backwards compatible with [RFC8040]. This is achieved by it only adding new top-level resources, and thereby leaving the semantics of all existing resources alone.

1.1. 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 defined in [I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores] and are not redefined here:

2. Summary of Updates to RFC 8040

This document updates [RFC8040] in the following ways:

3. Conformance

RFC Ed.: Update 201X-XX-XX below with correct date.

An NMDA-compliant RESTCONF server MUST support the operational state datastore. Such a server identifies that it supports NMDA both by implementing the {+restconf}/ds/ietf-datastores:operational resource, and by implementing at least revision 201X-XX-XX of the "ietf‑yang‑library" module, as specified in [I-D.nmdsdt-netconf-rfc7895bis].

A RESTCONF client can test if a server supports the NMDA by using either the HEAD or GET methods on {+restconf}/ds/ietf-datastores:operational.

4. The {+restconf}/ds/<datastore> Resources

This document defines a set of new resources representing datastores as defined in [I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores]. These resources are available using the resource path template:


Where <datastore> is encoded as an "identity" according to the JSON encoding rules for identities, defined in Section 4 of [RFC7951]. Such an identity MUST be derived from the "datastore" identity in "ietf‑datastores" [I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores].


An NMDA-compliant server MUST implement {+restconf}/ds/ietf-datastores:operational. Other datastore resources are optional to implement.

If a server implements the example datastore "ds‑ephemeral" in the module "example‑ds‑ephemeral", it would implement the resource {+restconf}/ds/example-ds-ephemeral:ds-ephemeral.

5. Protocol Operations

All existing protocol operations defined in [RFC8040] for the {+restconf}/data resource are available for all of the new datastore resources with the following exceptions:

5.1. The "with‑origin" query parameter

The GET operation adds a new query parameter named "with‑origin", which if present, requests that the server includes "origin" metadata anotations in its response, as detailed in the NMDA. This parameter is only valid when querying {+restconf}/ds/ietf-datastores:operational or any datastores with identities derived from the "operational" identity. Otherwise, if an invalid datastore is specified then the server MUST return a response witha a "400 Bad Request" status-line, using an error-tag value of "invalid‑value". "origin" metadata annotations are not included unless a client explicitly requests them.

Data from <operational> can come from multiple sources. The server should return the most accurate value for the "origin" metadata annotation as possible, indicating the source of the operational value, as specified in section 5.3.4 of the NMDA.

When encoding the origin metadata annotation for a hierarchy of returned nodes, the annotation may be omitted for a child node when the value matches that of the parent node (as described in ietf-origin@2017-08-17). [RFC Editor, please check published revision date.]

The "with‑origin" query parameter is optional to support. It is identified with the URI:


6. Security Considerations


7. IANA Considerations

This document defines one capability in the "RESTCONF Capability URNs" registry defined in [RFC8040]:

  Index          Capability Identifier

  :with-origin   urn:ietf:params:restconf:capability:with-origin:1.0

8. Normative References

[I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores] Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K. and R. Wilton, "Network Management Datastore Architecture", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-05, October 2017.
[I-D.nmdsdt-netconf-rfc7895bis] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M. and K. Watsen, "YANG Library", Internet-Draft draft-nmdsdt-netconf-rfc7895bis-01, July 2017.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997.
[RFC7951] Lhotka, L., "JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG", RFC 7951, DOI 10.17487/RFC7951, August 2016.
[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M. and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017.

Appendix A. Example


Authors' Addresses

Martin Bjorklund Tail-f Systems EMail:
Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University EMail:
Phil Shafer Juniper Networks EMail:
Kent Watsen Juniper Networks EMail:
Robert Wilton Cisco Systems EMail: