<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc [
  <!ENTITY nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
<!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc version 1.7.17 (Ruby 3.3.1) -->
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-boucadair-nmop-rfc3535-20years-later-03" category="info" consensus="true" submissionType="IETF" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true" version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.21.0 -->
  <front>
    <title abbrev="RFC 3535, 20 Years Later">RFC 3535,  20 Years Later: An Update of Operators Requirements on Network Management Protocols and Modelling</title>
    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-boucadair-nmop-rfc3535-20years-later-03"/>
    <author fullname="Mohamed Boucadair">
      <organization>Orange</organization>
      <address>
        <email>mohamed.boucadair@orange.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author fullname="Luis Miguel Contreras Murillo">
      <organization>Telefonica</organization>
      <address>
        <email>luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author fullname="Oscar Gonzalez de Dios">
      <organization>Telefonica</organization>
      <address>
        <email>oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.co</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author fullname="Thomas Graf">
      <organization>Swisscom</organization>
      <address>
        <email>thomas.graf@swisscom.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author fullname="Reshad Rahman">
      <organization>Equinix</organization>
      <address>
        <email>rrahman@equinix.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date year="2024" month="June" day="18"/>
    <keyword>network management</keyword>
    <keyword>future networks</keyword>
    <abstract>
      <?line 50?>

<t>The IAB has organized an important workshop
to establish a dialog between network operators and
protocol developers, and to guide the IETF focus on work
regarding network management.  The outcome of that workshop
was documented in the "IAB Network Management Workshop" (RFC 3535)
which was instrumental for developing NETCONF and YANG, in particular.</t>
      <t>20 years later, it is time to evaluate what has been achieved since then and
identify the operational barriers for making these
technologies widely implemented. Also, this document intends to capture new
requirements for network management operations.</t>
    </abstract>
    <note removeInRFC="true">
      <name>Discussion Venues</name>
      <t>Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
    <eref target="https://github.com/boucadair/rfc3535-20years-later"/>.</t>
    </note>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <?line 64?>

<section anchor="introduction">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>The IAB has organized a workshop (June 4-June 6, 2002)
to establish a dialog between network operators and
protocol developers, and to guide the IETF focus on work
regarding network management.  The outcome of that workshop
was documented in the "IAB Network Management Workshop" <xref target="RFC3535"/>
which was instrumental for developing NETCONF <xref target="RFC6241"/>, YANG <xref target="RFC6020"/><xref target="RFC7950"/>, and RESTCONF <xref target="RFC8040"/>.</t>
      <t>20 years later, new requirements on network management operations are emerging from the operators. This document intends to capture these requirements that reflect the progress in this area. The document also provide an assessment of the RFC3535 recommendations and to what extend that roadmap was driving network management efforts within the IETF.</t>
      <t>Early version of the document includes <strong>many placeholders on purpose</strong> as the intent is to collect inputs from interested parties. Items listed in <xref target="sec-obs"/> are provided to exemplify candidate items to discuss in that section.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="summary-of-technology-advances-since-rfc-3535">
      <name>Summary of Technology Advances Since RFC 3535</name>
      <t>To be further elaborated:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>NETCONF <xref target="RFC6241"/></t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>YANG <xref target="RFC7950"/></t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>RESTCONF  <xref target="RFC8040"/></t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>SDN &amp; Programmable Networks <xref target="RFC7149"/><xref target="RFC7426"/></t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Automation <xref target="RFC8969"/></t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Virtualization <xref target="RFC8568"/></t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Containerization <xref target="I-D.ietf-bmwg-containerized-infra"/></t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Intent-based <xref target="RFC9315"/></t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Network APIs</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>Telemetry <xref target="RFC9232"/></t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG <xref target="RFC7951"/></t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>CoAP Management Interface (CORECONF) <xref target="I-D.ietf-core-comi"/></t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>YANG to CBOR mapping <xref target="RFC9254"/></t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>YANG Schema Item iDentifier (YANG SID) <xref target="I-D.ietf-core-sid"/></t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <t>See also "An Overview of the IETF Network Management Standards" <xref target="RFC6632"/>.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="assessment-of-rfc-3535-operator-requirements">
      <name>Assessment of RFC 3535 Operator Requirements</name>
      <t><xref section="3" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC3535"/> includes the following recommendations:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>TBC</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
    </section>
    <section anchor="assessment-of-rfc-3535-recommendations">
      <name>Assessment of RFC 3535 Recommendations</name>
      <t><xref section="6" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC3535"/> includes the following recommendations:</t>
      <ol spacing="normal" type="1"><li>
          <t>The workshop recommends that the IETF stop forcing working groups
to provide writable MIB modules.  It should be the decision of
the working group whether they want to provide writable objects
or not.  </t>
          <dl>
            <dt><strong>Status Update</strong>:</dt>
            <dd>
              <t>In 2014, the IESG published a statement Writable MIB Module, which states that:
</t>
              <ul empty="true">
                <li>
                  <t>SNMP MIB modules creating and modifying configuration state should only be produced by working groups in cases of clear utility and consensus to use SNMP
 write operations for configuration, and in consultation with the OPS ADs/MIB doctors.</t>
                </li>
              </ul>
            </dd>
          </dl>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>The workshop recommends that a group be formed to investigate why
current MIB modules do not contain all the objects needed by
operators to monitor their networks.  </t>
          <t><strong>Status Update</strong>: xxx</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>The workshop recommends that a group be formed to investigate why
the current SNMP protocol does not satisfy all the monitoring
requirements of operators.  </t>
          <t><strong>Status Update</strong>: xxx</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>The workshop recommends, with strong consensus from both protocol
developers and operators, that the IETF focus resources on the
standardization of configuration management mechanisms.  </t>
          <dl>
            <dt><strong>Status Update</strong>:</dt>
            <dd>
              <t>NETCONF <xref target="RFC6241"/>, RESTCONF <xref target="RFC8040"/>, CORECONF <xref target="I-D.ietf-core-comi"/>, YANG.</t>
            </dd>
            <dt/>
            <dd>
              <t>YANG is a transport-independent data modeling language. It can be used independently of NETCONF/RESTCONF. For example, YANG can be used to define abstract data structures <xref target="RFC8791"/> that can be manipulated by other protocols (e.g., <xref target="RFC9132"/>).</t>
            </dd>
          </dl>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>The workshop recommends, with strong consensus from the operators
and rough consensus from the protocol developers, that the
IETF/IRTF should spend resources on the development and
standardization of XML-based device configuration and management
technologies (such as common XML configuration schemas, exchange
protocols and so on).  </t>
          <dl>
            <dt><strong>Status Update</strong>:</dt>
            <dd>
              <t>OK. This recommendation was also mirrored in other documents such as <xref target="RFC5706"/>.</t>
            </dd>
          </dl>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>The workshop recommends, with strong consensus from the operators
and rough consensus from the protocol developers, that the
IETF/IRTF should not spend resources on developing HTML-based or
HTTP-based methods for configuration management.  </t>
          <dl>
            <dt><strong>Status Update</strong>:</dt>
            <dd>
              <t>The IETF deviated from this recommendation, e.g., RESTCONF <xref target="RFC8040"/> or CoAP Management Interface (CORECONF) <xref target="I-D.ietf-core-comi"/>.</t>
            </dd>
          </dl>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>The workshop recommends, with rough consensus from the operators
       and strong consensus from the protocol developers, that the IETF
       should continue to spend resources on the evolution of the
       SMI/SPPI data definition languages as being done in the SMIng
       working group.  </t>
          <dl>
            <dt><strong>Status Update</strong>:</dt>
            <dd>
              <t>SMIng WG was concluded in 2003-04-04.</t>
            </dd>
          </dl>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>The workshop recommends, with split consensus from the operators
       and rough consensus from the protocol developers, that the IETF
       should spend resources on fixing the MIB development and
       standardization processs.  </t>
          <dl>
            <dt><strong>Status Update</strong>:</dt>
            <dd>
              <t>The IETF dedicated some resources to fix some SNMP shortcomings with a focus on security (e.g., Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the SNMP <xref target="RFC6353"/> or <xref target="RFC9456"/>, HMAC-SHA-2 Authentication Protocols in User-Based Security Model (USM) for SNMPv3 <xref target="RFC7860"/>).</t>
            </dd>
          </dl>
        </li>
      </ol>
      <t><xref section="6" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC3535"/> also includes the following but without tagging them as recommendations:</t>
      <ol spacing="normal" type="1"><li>
          <t>The workshop had split consensus from the operators and rough
consensus from the protocol developers, that the IETF should not
focus resources on CIM extensions.  </t>
          <dl>
            <dt><strong>Status Update</strong>:</dt>
            <dd>
              <t>The IETF didn't dedicate any resources on CIM extensions.</t>
            </dd>
          </dl>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>The workshop had rough consensus from the protocol developers
that the IETF should not spend resources on COPS-PR development.
So far, the operators have only very limited experience with
COPS-PR.  In general, however, they felt that further development
of COPS-PR might be a waste of resources as they assume that
COPS-PR does not really address their requirements.  </t>
          <dl>
            <dt><strong>Status Update</strong>:</dt>
            <dd>
              <t>The IETF has reclassified COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning <xref target="RFC3084"/>
to Historic status.</t>
            </dd>
          </dl>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>The workshop had rough consensus from the protocol developers
that the IETF should not spend resources on SPPI PIB definitions.
The operators had rough consensus that they do not care about
SPPI PIBs.  </t>
          <dl>
            <dt><strong>Status Update</strong>:</dt>
            <dd>
              <t>The IETF has reclassified Structure of Policy Provisioning Information <xref target="RFC3159"/>, as well as
three Policy Information Bases (<xref target="RFC3317"/>, <xref target="RFC3318"/>, and <xref target="RFC3571"/>) to
Historic status.</t>
            </dd>
          </dl>
        </li>
      </ol>
    </section>
    <section anchor="sec-obs">
      <name>Some Observations</name>
      <section anchor="fragmented-ecosystem">
        <name>Fragmented Ecosystem</name>
        <t>The current YANG device models ecosystem is <strong>fragmented</strong>: some
standards models are defined in the IETF while similar ones are
defined in other fora such as Openconfig or ONF. Unlike service and
network models, IETF-defined device models are not widely
implemented. There is a need to rationalize this space and
avoid redundant efforts.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="lack-of-profiling">
        <name>Lack of Profiling</name>
        <t>Many NETCONF-related features are (being) specified by the IETF,
but these features are not widely supported (e.g., Push). Editing a
profile document with a set of recommendations about core/key
features with the appropriate justification will help the
emergence of more implementations that meet the operators’
needs.</t>
        <ul empty="true">
          <li>
            <t>Examples of such profile documents are the various RFCs that were published by the behave WG <xref target="BCP127"/>.
Another approach is to consider an approach similar to the "Roadmap for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Specification Documents" <xref target="RFC7414"/>. Such a document
would serve as a guide and reference for implementers and any other parties who desire information contained in the 'NETCONF/RESTCONF/YANG'-related RFCs.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>Likewise, reassess the value of some IETF proposals vs. competing/emerging solutions would be useful (e.g., gRPC vs. YANG-Push).</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="lack-of-agile-process-for-the-maintenance-of-yang-modules">
        <name>Lack of Agile Process for (The Maintenance of) YANG Modules</name>
        <t>RFCs might not be suited for documenting YANG modules (it takes much too long, especiallly for updates). In the meantime, there is a need for
"reference models" and "sufficiently stable models". An
hybrid approach might be investigated for documenting IETF-
endorsed YANG modules, such as considering an RFC to
describe the initial module sketch and objectives and an
official IETF repository for maintaining intermediate YANG
versions.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="integration-complexity">
        <name>Integration Complexity</name>
        <t><xref section="3" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC3535"/> describes a set of network operator requirements. One of the requirements is the ease of use which, according to <xref section="3.2" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC6244"/>, is addressed by NETCONF and YANG. For configuration this holds true, for network observability it is unfortunately not yet. This has been confirmed with a set of network operators asking how long it takes from subscribing YANG data to make it accessible to the operator. Minutes, Hours, Days, or Weeks. None of them answered Minutes or Hours. All of them responded Days or Weeks. Hinting manual post processing of YANG data.</t>
        <t>Collecting YANG metrics from networks is already a struggle due to late arrival of <xref target="RFC8639"/>, <xref target="RFC8640"/>, <xref target="RFC8641"/>, <xref target="I-D.ietf-netconf-https-notif"/>, and <xref target="I-D.ietf-netconf-udp-notif"/> for configured subscription transport protocols which defined YANG-Push in the industry. This caused network vendors to implement alternative solutions to collect real-time streaming data in the meanwhile, such as gNMI which was proposed in 2018 in <xref target="I-D.openconfig-rtgwg-gnmi-spec"/> to the IETF but not followed up on. Unfortunately, these implementations differ between network Operating Systems due to the lack of standardization, specifically for the metadata which would ensure machine readability.</t>
        <t>When a set of network operators where asked to where operational YANG data needs to be integrated to, the answer homogeneously was Apache Kafka Message Broker and Time Series Databases. There is a need to specify how YANG-Push can be integrated into Apache Kafka and references needed YANG-Push extensions and YANG schema registry development. The YANG-Push extensions addressing needs to make YANG-Push messages machine readable and against semantic validate able to ensure a consistent data processing.</t>
        <t>Another challenge is that the subscribed YANG data referenced with datastore-subtree-filter or datastore-xpath-filter breaks semantic integrity which needs to be addressed by either updating <xref section="4" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC8641"/> or proposing a new YANG module being used at the YANG-Push receiver.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="yang-formatted-data-manipulation">
        <name>YANG-formatted Data Manipulation</name>
        <t>The use of a flat tree hierarchy in YANG models may induce some performance issues compared to other graph models. See, for example, <xref target="ODL"/>.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="translation-and-mapping-between-servicenetwork-and-device-models">
        <name>Translation and Mapping Between Service/Network and Device Models</name>
        <t>TBC.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="inconsistent-data-structures-in-network-protocols-for-data-export">
        <name>(In)Consistent Data Structures in Network Protocols for Data Export</name>
        <t>Network Telemetry, as described in <xref target="RFC9232"/>, involve a set of protocols. Due to the different requirements, one Network Telemetry protocol doesn't address all needs. This is mainly due to the nature of the subscribed data. BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) <xref target="RFC7854"/> adds monitoring and tracing capabilities natively to the BGP process to minimize the processing overhead. While IPFIX <xref target="RFC7011"/><xref target="RFC7012"/> can be applied according to <xref target="RFC5472"/> to gain visibility into the data and forwarding planes, due to the amount of data, sampling as defined in <xref target="RFC5476"/> and applied to IPFIX in <xref target="RFC5477"/> and aggregation as defined in <xref target="RFC7015"/> for IPFIX is needed to reduce the amount of exposed data. While YANG-Push focuses on exposing already YANG modelled data, which eases the correlation among network configuration and operational data.</t>
        <t><xref target="RFC9232"/> is an informational document and does not specify what these Network Telemetry protocols should have in common to ensure consistent data structures for data export. While data types are fairly good aligned, a lack of metadata standardization among the Network Telemetry protocols is observed. In particular describing from where the metrics has been exported from and timestamping. In <xref section="4.2" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC7854"/> timestamps are optional and sysName <xref target="RFC1213"/> is only carried in the BMP initiation message (<xref section="4.3" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC7854"/>), while the message header of IPFIX defined in <xref section="4.3" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC7011"/> lacks the sysName definition.</t>
        <t>The lack of information from where the data is being pushed from is only known to the Network Telemetry data collection due to the transport session being established from the network node exporting the information. When Network Telemetry messages are being transformed and forwarded, this information is being lost. Therefore, it is common among network operators to augment sysName and other metadata at the data collection.</t>
        <t>The same common principle applies to when observation timestamping is missing in the Network Telemetry message. Since the data collection is the closest element to the network, a time stamp is added to give the network operator at least the information when the Network Telemetry message was collected. However, since Network Telemetry addresses real-time streaming needs, this is often not accurate enough for data correlation.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="proprietary-yang-modules-cli-and-limited-abstraction">
        <name>Proprietary YANG Modules, CLI, and Limited Abstraction</name>
        <t>Pluggins/Proxy YANG/CLI is still the rule in many operations.</t>
        <t>Complexity in dev the pluggins (as you need to cover many OS/vendors).</t>
        <t>Network models for the realization provides some "level" of abstraction and then automations.</t>
        <t>TBC.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="distinct-networks-distinct-management-requirements">
        <name>Distinct Networks, Distinct Management Requirements</name>
        <t>From the time RFC 3535 was released up to now, new kind of services and applications have been developed and deployed over the time, with very diverse, and some times contradicting, requirements. Those services have been engineered on top of multi-service networks for the sake of efficiency and simplicity, accommodating such a variety of needs. As a result, services requiring mobility, data replication, large capacity, adaptability, multi-path support, determinism, etc., coexist on the same shared network, needing from it mechanisms for graceful operation.</t>
        <t>Likewise, such diversity of services also require different management capabilities. For example, session continuity, distribution trees, traffic engineering, congestion status notification, reordering, or on-time delivery impose very different management needs to be satisfied.</t>
        <t>This reality is different from the one existing at the time of <xref target="RFC3535"/>, and as such, the new identified needs can require from novel approaches to guarantee the aforementioned co-existence of services.</t>
        <t>Also, some networks have specific network management requirements such as the need for asynchronous operations or constraints on data compactness. An example of such networks is Delay-Tolerant Networking (DTN) <xref target="RFC838"/>.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="implications-of-external-dependency">
        <name>Implications of External Dependency</name>
        <t>Networks are being updated to abandon the silo approach from the past towards an increasing convergence. Specifically, there are trends towards a tighter interaction and integration of different technologies previously considered as totally separated from an operational perspective. Examples of that trends are the IP and Optical integration (e.g., the introduction of colored interfaces on routers), or the extension of deterministic-behavior features to Layer 3 networks. This kind of convergence in most cases creates dependencies on the conventional network management features, which require to incorporate or integrate functionality from other technological domains.</t>
        <t>Furthermore, such convergence is also reflected on the need of interacting and interworking with distinct network parts participating in the end-to-end service delivery. Mobile access, fixed access, data center, enterprise, radio functional split (i.e., fronthaul and midhaul), neutral exchanges, intensive data networks (e.g., scientific academic networks), content distribution, etc., represent network parts constituent of end-to-end services that can impose dependencies of the management of an intermediate network.</t>
        <t>That convergence shown the last years also implies the need of an up-to-date refresh of management capabilities and tooling of the conventional networks. Also, it highlights the need to easily map the data models that are used to manage each specific segment.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="too-much-time-between-publication-of-new-networking-functionality-and-the-associated-yang">
        <name>Too Much Time Between Publication of New Networking Functionality and the Associated YANG</name>
        <t>For example, <xref target="RFC8667"/> (IS-IS extensions for SR) was published in December 2019, while <xref target="I-D.ietf-isis-sr-yang"/> will be published ~5 years after.</t>
        <t>Consider having YANG as part of the protocol specification/change where possible, or have the YANG document progress in parallel.
That may slow down the protocol specification, though.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="open-source-tools">
        <name>Open-source Tools</name>
        <t>While there are open-source implementations for NETCONF (e.g., NETOPEER), the gRPC/gNMI suite seems to have more support for tools on the client side.
For example, "ygot" generates structures from YANG models and these can easily be used by a client to configure a device with gNMI. NETCONF is not supported though (we need the XML tags).</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="another-item">
        <name>Another Item</name>
        <t>TBC.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="some-individual-assessments">
      <name>Some Individual Assessments</name>
      <t>This section captures some early assessments. The goal is first to capture received feedback, challenge it, and then structure it.</t>
      <section anchor="what-went-well">
        <name>What Went Well</name>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>An overview of current and next possible technologies were given</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Some rather technical, technology focused input from operators were collected</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Some protocols were early on de-scoped and described why</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
      </section>
      <section anchor="what-went-wrong">
        <name>What Went Wrong</name>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>Not enough implementers (software developers implementing the standards) and users (network operators using the network management software developed based on standards) were present and were well organized. That lead to standards which are technical not implementable and implementation that are not applicable or bringing not enough added value.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>IETF is not the expert community in data engineering. The experts are in the data industry. Without them, integration in data processing chains like Data Mesh is going to be a challenge.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Closed Loop Operation and Intend Based Networking were not considered as a use case or overall non-technology related use cases were not considered.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Most drawn conclusions were not explained why the IETF community came to such conclusions.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>We were looking at the past and present and not into the distant future. What do we need in 5-10 years?</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
      </section>
      <section anchor="where-can-be-improved">
        <name>Where Can Be Improved</name>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>Focus on use cases. What goal do we need to fulfill and who can describe best: Network Operators</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Focus on how those use cases could be implemented best and what standards would help: Software and Data Engineers</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Look at current standards and see wherever those standards contribute to those implementations: IETF community</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>List what is missing and analyze why it is missing: IETF community</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Create an eco-systems of software developer and network operators which share their open source tools: IETF community</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Mandate that no network management standard is being defined without having at least two reference implementations and help the IETF community to achieve that: IESG</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="perspectives-recommendations">
      <name>Perspectives &amp; Recommendations</name>
      <t>TBC</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="security-considerations">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>TBC.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="iana-considerations">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <t>This document has no IANA actions.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>
    <references anchor="sec-informative-references">
      <name>Informative References</name>
      <reference anchor="ODL" target="https://docs.opendaylight.org/projects/bgpcep/en/latest/graph/graph-user-guide-graph-model.html#">
        <front>
          <title>Graph Model Overview</title>
          <author>
            <organization/>
          </author>
          <date year="2023"/>
        </front>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC3535">
        <front>
          <title>Overview of the 2002 IAB Network Management Workshop</title>
          <author fullname="J. Schoenwaelder" initials="J." surname="Schoenwaelder"/>
          <date month="May" year="2003"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document provides an overview of a workshop held by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) on Network Management. The workshop was hosted by CNRI in Reston, VA, USA on June 4 thru June 6, 2002. The goal of the workshop was to continue the important dialog started between network operators and protocol developers, and to guide the IETFs focus on future work regarding network management. This report summarizes the discussions and lists the conclusions and recommendations to the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) community. This memo provides information for the Internet community.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3535"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC3535"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC6241">
        <front>
          <title>Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)</title>
          <author fullname="R. Enns" initials="R." role="editor" surname="Enns"/>
          <author fullname="M. Bjorklund" initials="M." role="editor" surname="Bjorklund"/>
          <author fullname="J. Schoenwaelder" initials="J." role="editor" surname="Schoenwaelder"/>
          <author fullname="A. Bierman" initials="A." role="editor" surname="Bierman"/>
          <date month="June" year="2011"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>The Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) defined in this document provides mechanisms to install, manipulate, and delete the configuration of network devices. It uses an Extensible Markup Language (XML)-based data encoding for the configuration data as well as the protocol messages. The NETCONF protocol operations are realized as remote procedure calls (RPCs). This document obsoletes RFC 4741. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6241"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6241"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC6020">
        <front>
          <title>YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)</title>
          <author fullname="M. Bjorklund" initials="M." role="editor" surname="Bjorklund"/>
          <date month="October" year="2010"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>YANG is a data modeling language used to model configuration and state data manipulated by the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF), NETCONF remote procedure calls, and NETCONF notifications. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6020"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6020"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC7950">
        <front>
          <title>The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language</title>
          <author fullname="M. Bjorklund" initials="M." role="editor" surname="Bjorklund"/>
          <date month="August" year="2016"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>YANG is a data modeling language used to model configuration data, state data, Remote Procedure Calls, and notifications for network management protocols. This document describes the syntax and semantics of version 1.1 of the YANG language. YANG version 1.1 is a maintenance release of the YANG language, addressing ambiguities and defects in the original specification. There are a small number of backward incompatibilities from YANG version 1. This document also specifies the YANG mappings to the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF).</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7950"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7950"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC8040">
        <front>
          <title>RESTCONF Protocol</title>
          <author fullname="A. Bierman" initials="A." surname="Bierman"/>
          <author fullname="M. Bjorklund" initials="M." surname="Bjorklund"/>
          <author fullname="K. Watsen" initials="K." surname="Watsen"/>
          <date month="January" year="2017"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document describes an HTTP-based protocol that provides a programmatic interface for accessing data defined in YANG, using the datastore concepts defined in the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF).</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8040"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8040"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC7149">
        <front>
          <title>Software-Defined Networking: A Perspective from within a Service Provider Environment</title>
          <author fullname="M. Boucadair" initials="M." surname="Boucadair"/>
          <author fullname="C. Jacquenet" initials="C." surname="Jacquenet"/>
          <date month="March" year="2014"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>Software-Defined Networking (SDN) has been one of the major buzz words of the networking industry for the past couple of years. And yet, no clear definition of what SDN actually covers has been broadly admitted so far. This document aims to clarify the SDN landscape by providing a perspective on requirements, issues, and other considerations about SDN, as seen from within a service provider environment.</t>
            <t>It is not meant to endlessly discuss what SDN truly means but rather to suggest a functional taxonomy of the techniques that can be used under an SDN umbrella and to elaborate on the various pending issues the combined activation of such techniques inevitably raises. As such, a definition of SDN is only mentioned for the sake of clarification.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7149"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7149"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC7426">
        <front>
          <title>Software-Defined Networking (SDN): Layers and Architecture Terminology</title>
          <author fullname="E. Haleplidis" initials="E." role="editor" surname="Haleplidis"/>
          <author fullname="K. Pentikousis" initials="K." role="editor" surname="Pentikousis"/>
          <author fullname="S. Denazis" initials="S." surname="Denazis"/>
          <author fullname="J. Hadi Salim" initials="J." surname="Hadi Salim"/>
          <author fullname="D. Meyer" initials="D." surname="Meyer"/>
          <author fullname="O. Koufopavlou" initials="O." surname="Koufopavlou"/>
          <date month="January" year="2015"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>Software-Defined Networking (SDN) refers to a new approach for network programmability, that is, the capacity to initialize, control, change, and manage network behavior dynamically via open interfaces. SDN emphasizes the role of software in running networks through the introduction of an abstraction for the data forwarding plane and, by doing so, separates it from the control plane. This separation allows faster innovation cycles at both planes as experience has already shown. However, there is increasing confusion as to what exactly SDN is, what the layer structure is in an SDN architecture, and how layers interface with each other. This document, a product of the IRTF Software-Defined Networking Research Group (SDNRG), addresses these questions and provides a concise reference for the SDN research community based on relevant peer-reviewed literature, the RFC series, and relevant documents by other standards organizations.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7426"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7426"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC8969">
        <front>
          <title>A Framework for Automating Service and Network Management with YANG</title>
          <author fullname="Q. Wu" initials="Q." role="editor" surname="Wu"/>
          <author fullname="M. Boucadair" initials="M." role="editor" surname="Boucadair"/>
          <author fullname="D. Lopez" initials="D." surname="Lopez"/>
          <author fullname="C. Xie" initials="C." surname="Xie"/>
          <author fullname="L. Geng" initials="L." surname="Geng"/>
          <date month="January" year="2021"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>Data models provide a programmatic approach to represent services and networks. Concretely, they can be used to derive configuration information for network and service components, and state information that will be monitored and tracked. Data models can be used during the service and network management life cycle (e.g., service instantiation, service provisioning, service optimization, service monitoring, service diagnosing, and service assurance). Data models are also instrumental in the automation of network management, and they can provide closed-loop control for adaptive and deterministic service creation, delivery, and maintenance.</t>
            <t>This document describes a framework for service and network management automation that takes advantage of YANG modeling technologies. This framework is drawn from a network operator perspective irrespective of the origin of a data model; thus, it can accommodate YANG modules that are developed outside the IETF.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8969"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8969"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC8568">
        <front>
          <title>Network Virtualization Research Challenges</title>
          <author fullname="CJ. Bernardos" initials="CJ." surname="Bernardos"/>
          <author fullname="A. Rahman" initials="A." surname="Rahman"/>
          <author fullname="JC. Zuniga" initials="JC." surname="Zuniga"/>
          <author fullname="LM. Contreras" initials="LM." surname="Contreras"/>
          <author fullname="P. Aranda" initials="P." surname="Aranda"/>
          <author fullname="P. Lynch" initials="P." surname="Lynch"/>
          <date month="April" year="2019"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document describes open research challenges for network virtualization. Network virtualization is following a similar path as previously taken by cloud computing. Specifically, cloud computing popularized migration of computing functions (e.g., applications) and storage from local, dedicated, physical resources to remote virtual functions accessible through the Internet. In a similar manner, network virtualization is encouraging migration of networking functions from dedicated physical hardware nodes to a virtualized pool of resources. However, network virtualization can be considered to be a more complex problem than cloud computing as it not only involves virtualization of computing and storage functions but also involves abstraction of the network itself. This document describes current research and engineering challenges in network virtualization including the guarantee of quality of service, performance improvement, support for multiple domains, network slicing, service composition, device virtualization, privacy and security, separation of control concerns, network function placement, and testing. In addition, some proposals are made for new activities in the IETF and IRTF that could address some of these challenges. This document is a product of the Network Function Virtualization Research Group (NFVRG).</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8568"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8568"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="I-D.ietf-bmwg-containerized-infra">
        <front>
          <title>Considerations for Benchmarking Network Performance in Containerized Infrastructures</title>
          <author fullname="Trần Minh Ngọc" initials="T. M." surname="Ngọc">
            <organization>Soongsil University</organization>
          </author>
          <author fullname="Sridhar Rao" initials="S." surname="Rao">
            <organization>The Linux Foundation</organization>
          </author>
          <author fullname="Jangwon Lee" initials="J." surname="Lee">
            <organization>Soongsil University</organization>
          </author>
          <author fullname="Younghan Kim" initials="Y." surname="Kim">
            <organization>Soongsil University</organization>
          </author>
          <date day="17" month="June" year="2024"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>   Recently, the Benchmarking Methodology Working Group has extended the
   laboratory characterization from physical network functions (PNFs) to
   virtual network functions (VNFs).  Considering the network function
   implementation trend moving from virtual machine-based to container-
   based, system configurations and deployment scenarios for
   benchmarking will be partially changed by how the resources
   allocation and network technologies are specified for containerized
   network functions.  This draft describes additional considerations
   for benchmarking network performance when network functions are
   containerized and performed in general-purpose hardware.

            </t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-bmwg-containerized-infra-01"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC9315">
        <front>
          <title>Intent-Based Networking - Concepts and Definitions</title>
          <author fullname="A. Clemm" initials="A." surname="Clemm"/>
          <author fullname="L. Ciavaglia" initials="L." surname="Ciavaglia"/>
          <author fullname="L. Z. Granville" initials="L. Z." surname="Granville"/>
          <author fullname="J. Tantsura" initials="J." surname="Tantsura"/>
          <date month="October" year="2022"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>Intent and Intent-Based Networking are taking the industry by storm. At the same time, terms related to Intent-Based Networking are often used loosely and inconsistently, in many cases overlapping and confused with other concepts such as "policy." This document clarifies the concept of "intent" and provides an overview of the functionality that is associated with it. The goal is to contribute towards a common and shared understanding of terms, concepts, and functionality that can be used as the foundation to guide further definition of associated research and engineering problems and their solutions.</t>
            <t>This document is a product of the IRTF Network Management Research Group (NMRG). It reflects the consensus of the research group, having received many detailed and positive reviews by research group participants. It is published for informational purposes.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9315"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9315"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC9232">
        <front>
          <title>Network Telemetry Framework</title>
          <author fullname="H. Song" initials="H." surname="Song"/>
          <author fullname="F. Qin" initials="F." surname="Qin"/>
          <author fullname="P. Martinez-Julia" initials="P." surname="Martinez-Julia"/>
          <author fullname="L. Ciavaglia" initials="L." surname="Ciavaglia"/>
          <author fullname="A. Wang" initials="A." surname="Wang"/>
          <date month="May" year="2022"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>Network telemetry is a technology for gaining network insight and facilitating efficient and automated network management. It encompasses various techniques for remote data generation, collection, correlation, and consumption. This document describes an architectural framework for network telemetry, motivated by challenges that are encountered as part of the operation of networks and by the requirements that ensue. This document clarifies the terminology and classifies the modules and components of a network telemetry system from different perspectives. The framework and taxonomy help to set a common ground for the collection of related work and provide guidance for related technique and standard developments.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9232"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9232"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC7951">
        <front>
          <title>JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG</title>
          <author fullname="L. Lhotka" initials="L." surname="Lhotka"/>
          <date month="August" year="2016"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document defines encoding rules for representing configuration data, state data, parameters of Remote Procedure Call (RPC) operations or actions, and notifications defined using YANG as JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) text.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7951"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7951"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="I-D.ietf-core-comi">
        <front>
          <title>CoAP Management Interface (CORECONF)</title>
          <author fullname="Michel Veillette" initials="M." surname="Veillette">
            <organization>Trilliant Networks Inc.</organization>
          </author>
          <author fullname="Peter Van der Stok" initials="P." surname="Van der Stok">
            <organization>consultant</organization>
          </author>
          <author fullname="Alexander Pelov" initials="A." surname="Pelov">
            <organization>IMT Atlantique</organization>
          </author>
          <author fullname="Andy Bierman" initials="A." surname="Bierman">
            <organization>YumaWorks</organization>
          </author>
          <author fullname="Carsten Bormann" initials="C." surname="Bormann">
            <organization>Universität Bremen TZI</organization>
          </author>
          <date day="4" month="March" year="2024"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>   This document describes a network management interface for
   constrained devices and networks, called CoAP Management Interface
   (CORECONF).  The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) is used to
   access datastore and data node resources specified in YANG, or SMIv2
   converted to YANG.  CORECONF uses the YANG to CBOR mapping and
   converts YANG identifier strings to numeric identifiers for payload
   size reduction.  CORECONF extends the set of YANG based protocols,
   NETCONF and RESTCONF, with the capability to manage constrained
   devices and networks.

            </t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-core-comi-17"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC9254">
        <front>
          <title>Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG in the Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)</title>
          <author fullname="M. Veillette" initials="M." role="editor" surname="Veillette"/>
          <author fullname="I. Petrov" initials="I." role="editor" surname="Petrov"/>
          <author fullname="A. Pelov" initials="A." surname="Pelov"/>
          <author fullname="C. Bormann" initials="C." surname="Bormann"/>
          <author fullname="M. Richardson" initials="M." surname="Richardson"/>
          <date month="July" year="2022"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>YANG (RFC 7950) is a data modeling language used to model configuration data, state data, parameters and results of Remote Procedure Call (RPC) operations or actions, and notifications.</t>
            <t>This document defines encoding rules for YANG in the Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) (RFC 8949).</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9254"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9254"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="I-D.ietf-core-sid">
        <front>
          <title>YANG Schema Item iDentifier (YANG SID)</title>
          <author fullname="Michel Veillette" initials="M." surname="Veillette">
            <organization>Trilliant Networks Inc.</organization>
          </author>
          <author fullname="Alexander Pelov" initials="A." surname="Pelov">
            <organization>IMT Atlantique</organization>
          </author>
          <author fullname="Ivaylo Petrov" initials="I." surname="Petrov">
            <organization>Google Switzerland GmbH</organization>
          </author>
          <author fullname="Carsten Bormann" initials="C." surname="Bormann">
            <organization>Universität Bremen TZI</organization>
          </author>
          <author fullname="Michael Richardson" initials="M." surname="Richardson">
            <organization>Sandelman Software Works</organization>
          </author>
          <date day="22" month="December" year="2023"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>   YANG Schema Item iDentifiers (YANG SID) are globally unique 63-bit
   unsigned integers used to identify YANG items, as a more compact
   method to identify YANG items that can be used for efficiency and in
   constrained environments (RFC 7228).  This document defines the
   semantics, the registration, and assignment processes of YANG SIDs
   for IETF managed YANG modules.  To enable the implementation of these
   processes, this document also defines a file format used to persist
   and publish assigned YANG SIDs.


   // The present version (–24) is intended to address the remaining
   // IESG comments.

            </t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-core-sid-24"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC6632">
        <front>
          <title>An Overview of the IETF Network Management Standards</title>
          <author fullname="M. Ersue" initials="M." role="editor" surname="Ersue"/>
          <author fullname="B. Claise" initials="B." surname="Claise"/>
          <date month="June" year="2012"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document gives an overview of the IETF network management standards and summarizes existing and ongoing development of IETF Standards Track network management protocols and data models. The document refers to other overview documents, where they exist and classifies the standards for easy orientation. The purpose of this document is, on the one hand, to help system developers and users to select appropriate standard management protocols and data models to address relevant management needs. On the other hand, the document can be used as an overview and guideline by other Standard Development Organizations or bodies planning to use IETF management technologies and data models. This document does not cover Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) technologies on the data-path, e.g., OAM of tunnels, MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) OAM, and pseudowire as well as the corresponding management models. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6632"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6632"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC8791">
        <front>
          <title>YANG Data Structure Extensions</title>
          <author fullname="A. Bierman" initials="A." surname="Bierman"/>
          <author fullname="M. Björklund" initials="M." surname="Björklund"/>
          <author fullname="K. Watsen" initials="K." surname="Watsen"/>
          <date month="June" year="2020"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document describes YANG mechanisms for defining abstract data structures with YANG.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8791"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8791"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC9132">
        <front>
          <title>Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) Signal Channel Specification</title>
          <author fullname="M. Boucadair" initials="M." role="editor" surname="Boucadair"/>
          <author fullname="J. Shallow" initials="J." surname="Shallow"/>
          <author fullname="T. Reddy.K" initials="T." surname="Reddy.K"/>
          <date month="September" year="2021"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document specifies the Distributed Denial-of-Service Open Threat Signaling (DOTS) signal channel, a protocol for signaling the need for protection against Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attacks to a server capable of enabling network traffic mitigation on behalf of the requesting client.</t>
            <t>A companion document defines the DOTS data channel, a separate reliable communication layer for DOTS management and configuration purposes.</t>
            <t>This document obsoletes RFC 8782.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9132"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9132"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC5706">
        <front>
          <title>Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management of New Protocols and Protocol Extensions</title>
          <author fullname="D. Harrington" initials="D." surname="Harrington"/>
          <date month="November" year="2009"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>New protocols or protocol extensions are best designed with due consideration of the functionality needed to operate and manage the protocols. Retrofitting operations and management is sub-optimal. The purpose of this document is to provide guidance to authors and reviewers of documents that define new protocols or protocol extensions regarding aspects of operations and management that should be considered. This memo provides information for the Internet community.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5706"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5706"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC6353">
        <front>
          <title>Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)</title>
          <author fullname="W. Hardaker" initials="W." surname="Hardaker"/>
          <date month="July" year="2011"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document describes a Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP), that uses either the Transport Layer Security protocol or the Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) protocol. The TLS and DTLS protocols provide authentication and privacy services for SNMP applications. This document describes how the TLS Transport Model (TLSTM) implements the needed features of an SNMP Transport Subsystem to make this protection possible in an interoperable way.</t>
            <t>This Transport Model is designed to meet the security and operational needs of network administrators. It supports the sending of SNMP messages over TLS/TCP and DTLS/UDP. The TLS mode can make use of TCP's improved support for larger packet sizes and the DTLS mode provides potentially superior operation in environments where a connectionless (e.g., UDP) transport is preferred. Both TLS and DTLS integrate well into existing public keying infrastructures.</t>
            <t>This document also defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols. In particular, it defines objects for managing the TLS Transport Model for SNMP. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="STD" value="78"/>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6353"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6353"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC9456">
        <front>
          <title>Updates to the TLS Transport Model for SNMP</title>
          <author fullname="K. Vaughn" initials="K." role="editor" surname="Vaughn"/>
          <date month="November" year="2023"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document updates RFC 6353 ("Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)") to reflect changes necessary to support Transport Layer Security version 1.3 (TLS 1.3) and Datagram Transport Layer Security version 1.3 (DTLS 1.3), which are jointly known as "(D)TLS 1.3". This document is compatible with (D)TLS 1.2 and is intended to be compatible with future versions of SNMP and (D)TLS.</t>
            <t>This document updates the SNMP-TLS-TM-MIB as defined in RFC 6353.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9456"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9456"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC7860">
        <front>
          <title>HMAC-SHA-2 Authentication Protocols in User-Based Security Model (USM) for SNMPv3</title>
          <author fullname="J. Merkle" initials="J." role="editor" surname="Merkle"/>
          <author fullname="M. Lochter" initials="M." surname="Lochter"/>
          <date month="April" year="2016"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document specifies several authentication protocols based on the SHA-2 hash functions for the User-based Security Model (USM) for SNMPv3 defined in RFC 3414. It obsoletes RFC 7630, in which the MIB MODULE-IDENTITY value was incorrectly specified.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7860"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7860"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC3084">
        <front>
          <title>COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning (COPS-PR)</title>
          <author fullname="K. Chan" initials="K." surname="Chan"/>
          <author fullname="J. Seligson" initials="J." surname="Seligson"/>
          <author fullname="D. Durham" initials="D." surname="Durham"/>
          <author fullname="S. Gai" initials="S." surname="Gai"/>
          <author fullname="K. McCloghrie" initials="K." surname="McCloghrie"/>
          <author fullname="S. Herzog" initials="S." surname="Herzog"/>
          <author fullname="F. Reichmeyer" initials="F." surname="Reichmeyer"/>
          <author fullname="R. Yavatkar" initials="R." surname="Yavatkar"/>
          <author fullname="A. Smith" initials="A." surname="Smith"/>
          <date month="March" year="2001"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document describes the use of the Common Open Policy Service (COPS) protocol for support of policy provisioning (COPS-PR). [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3084"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC3084"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC3159">
        <front>
          <title>Structure of Policy Provisioning Information (SPPI)</title>
          <author fullname="K. McCloghrie" initials="K." surname="McCloghrie"/>
          <author fullname="M. Fine" initials="M." surname="Fine"/>
          <author fullname="J. Seligson" initials="J." surname="Seligson"/>
          <author fullname="K. Chan" initials="K." surname="Chan"/>
          <author fullname="S. Hahn" initials="S." surname="Hahn"/>
          <author fullname="R. Sahita" initials="R." surname="Sahita"/>
          <author fullname="A. Smith" initials="A." surname="Smith"/>
          <author fullname="F. Reichmeyer" initials="F." surname="Reichmeyer"/>
          <date month="August" year="2001"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document, the Structure of Policy Provisioning Information (SPPI), defines the adapted subset of SNMP's Structure of Management Information (SMI) used to write Policy Information Base (PIB) modules. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3159"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC3159"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC3317">
        <front>
          <title>Differentiated Services Quality of Service Policy Information Base</title>
          <author fullname="K. Chan" initials="K." surname="Chan"/>
          <author fullname="R. Sahita" initials="R." surname="Sahita"/>
          <author fullname="S. Hahn" initials="S." surname="Hahn"/>
          <author fullname="K. McCloghrie" initials="K." surname="McCloghrie"/>
          <date month="March" year="2003"/>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3317"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC3317"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC3318">
        <front>
          <title>Framework Policy Information Base</title>
          <author fullname="R. Sahita" initials="R." role="editor" surname="Sahita"/>
          <author fullname="S. Hahn" initials="S." surname="Hahn"/>
          <author fullname="K. Chan" initials="K." surname="Chan"/>
          <author fullname="K. McCloghrie" initials="K." surname="McCloghrie"/>
          <date month="March" year="2003"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document defines a set of PRovisioning Classes (PRCs) and textual conventions that are common to all clients that provision policy using Common Open Policy Service (COPS) protocol for Provisioning.</t>
            <t>Structure of Policy Provisioning Information (SPPI) describes a structure for specifying policy information that can then be transmitted to a network device for the purpose of configuring policy at that device. The model underlying this structure is one of well-defined (PRCs) and instances of these classes (PRIs) residing in a virtual information store called the Policy Information Base (PIB).</t>
            <t>One way to provision policy is by means of the (COPS) protocol with the extensions for provisioning. This protocol supports multiple clients, each of which may provision policy for a specific policy domain such as QoS, virtual private networks, or security.</t>
            <t>As described in COPS usage for Policy Provisioning (COPS-PR), each client supports a non-overlapping and independent set of PIB modules. However, some PRovisioning Classes are common to all subject-categories (client-types) and need to be present in each.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3318"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC3318"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC3571">
        <front>
          <title>Framework Policy Information Base for Usage Feedback</title>
          <author fullname="D. Rawlins" initials="D." surname="Rawlins"/>
          <author fullname="A. Kulkarni" initials="A." surname="Kulkarni"/>
          <author fullname="K. Ho Chan" initials="K." surname="Ho Chan"/>
          <author fullname="M. Bokaemper" initials="M." surname="Bokaemper"/>
          <author fullname="D. Dutt" initials="D." surname="Dutt"/>
          <date month="August" year="2003"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document describes a portion of the Policy Information Base (PIB) to control policy usage collection and reporting in a device. The provisioning classes specified here allow a Policy Decision Point (PDP) to select which policy objects should collect usage information, what information should be collected and when it should be reported. This PIB requires the presence of other PIBs (defined elsewhere) that provide the policy objects from which usage information is collected. This memo provides information for the Internet community.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3571"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC3571"/>
      </reference>
      <referencegroup anchor="BCP127" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp127">
        <reference anchor="RFC4787" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4787">
          <front>
            <title>Network Address Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP</title>
            <author fullname="F. Audet" initials="F." role="editor" surname="Audet"/>
            <author fullname="C. Jennings" initials="C." surname="Jennings"/>
            <date month="January" year="2007"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document defines basic terminology for describing different types of Network Address Translation (NAT) behavior when handling Unicast UDP and also defines a set of requirements that would allow many applications, such as multimedia communications or online gaming, to work consistently. Developing NATs that meet this set of requirements will greatly increase the likelihood that these applications will function properly. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="127"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4787"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4787"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC6888" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6888">
          <front>
            <title>Common Requirements for Carrier-Grade NATs (CGNs)</title>
            <author fullname="S. Perreault" initials="S." role="editor" surname="Perreault"/>
            <author fullname="I. Yamagata" initials="I." surname="Yamagata"/>
            <author fullname="S. Miyakawa" initials="S." surname="Miyakawa"/>
            <author fullname="A. Nakagawa" initials="A." surname="Nakagawa"/>
            <author fullname="H. Ashida" initials="H." surname="Ashida"/>
            <date month="April" year="2013"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document defines common requirements for Carrier-Grade NATs (CGNs). It updates RFC 4787.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="127"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6888"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6888"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC7857" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7857">
          <front>
            <title>Updates to Network Address Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements</title>
            <author fullname="R. Penno" initials="R." surname="Penno"/>
            <author fullname="S. Perreault" initials="S." surname="Perreault"/>
            <author fullname="M. Boucadair" initials="M." role="editor" surname="Boucadair"/>
            <author fullname="S. Sivakumar" initials="S." surname="Sivakumar"/>
            <author fullname="K. Naito" initials="K." surname="Naito"/>
            <date month="April" year="2016"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document clarifies and updates several requirements of RFCs 4787, 5382, and 5508 based on operational and development experience. The focus of this document is Network Address Translation from IPv4 to IPv4 (NAT44).</t>
              <t>This document updates RFCs 4787, 5382, and 5508.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="127"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7857"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7857"/>
        </reference>
      </referencegroup>
      <reference anchor="RFC7414">
        <front>
          <title>A Roadmap for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Specification Documents</title>
          <author fullname="M. Duke" initials="M." surname="Duke"/>
          <author fullname="R. Braden" initials="R." surname="Braden"/>
          <author fullname="W. Eddy" initials="W." surname="Eddy"/>
          <author fullname="E. Blanton" initials="E." surname="Blanton"/>
          <author fullname="A. Zimmermann" initials="A." surname="Zimmermann"/>
          <date month="February" year="2015"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document contains a roadmap to the Request for Comments (RFC) documents relating to the Internet's Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). This roadmap provides a brief summary of the documents defining TCP and various TCP extensions that have accumulated in the RFC series. This serves as a guide and quick reference for both TCP implementers and other parties who desire information contained in the TCP-related RFCs.</t>
            <t>This document obsoletes RFC 4614.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7414"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7414"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC6244">
        <front>
          <title>An Architecture for Network Management Using NETCONF and YANG</title>
          <author fullname="P. Shafer" initials="P." surname="Shafer"/>
          <date month="June" year="2011"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>The Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) gives access to native capabilities of the devices within a network, defining methods for manipulating configuration databases, retrieving operational data, and invoking specific operations. YANG provides the means to define the content carried via NETCONF, both data and operations. Using both technologies, standard modules can be defined to give interoperability and commonality to devices, while still allowing devices to express their unique capabilities.</t>
            <t>This document describes how NETCONF and YANG help build network management applications that meet the needs of network operators. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6244"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6244"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC8639">
        <front>
          <title>Subscription to YANG Notifications</title>
          <author fullname="E. Voit" initials="E." surname="Voit"/>
          <author fullname="A. Clemm" initials="A." surname="Clemm"/>
          <author fullname="A. Gonzalez Prieto" initials="A." surname="Gonzalez Prieto"/>
          <author fullname="E. Nilsen-Nygaard" initials="E." surname="Nilsen-Nygaard"/>
          <author fullname="A. Tripathy" initials="A." surname="Tripathy"/>
          <date month="September" year="2019"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document defines a YANG data model and associated mechanisms enabling subscriber-specific subscriptions to a publisher's event streams. Applying these elements allows a subscriber to request and receive a continuous, customized feed of publisher-generated information.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8639"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8639"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC8640">
        <front>
          <title>Dynamic Subscription to YANG Events and Datastores over NETCONF</title>
          <author fullname="E. Voit" initials="E." surname="Voit"/>
          <author fullname="A. Clemm" initials="A." surname="Clemm"/>
          <author fullname="A. Gonzalez Prieto" initials="A." surname="Gonzalez Prieto"/>
          <author fullname="E. Nilsen-Nygaard" initials="E." surname="Nilsen-Nygaard"/>
          <author fullname="A. Tripathy" initials="A." surname="Tripathy"/>
          <date month="September" year="2019"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document provides a Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) binding to the dynamic subscription capability of both subscribed notifications and YANG-Push.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8640"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8640"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC8641">
        <front>
          <title>Subscription to YANG Notifications for Datastore Updates</title>
          <author fullname="A. Clemm" initials="A." surname="Clemm"/>
          <author fullname="E. Voit" initials="E." surname="Voit"/>
          <date month="September" year="2019"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document describes a mechanism that allows subscriber applications to request a continuous and customized stream of updates from a YANG datastore. Providing such visibility into updates enables new capabilities based on the remote mirroring and monitoring of configuration and operational state.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8641"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8641"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="I-D.ietf-netconf-https-notif">
        <front>
          <title>An HTTPS-based Transport for YANG Notifications</title>
          <author fullname="Mahesh Jethanandani" initials="M." surname="Jethanandani">
            <organization>Kloud Services</organization>
          </author>
          <author fullname="Kent Watsen" initials="K." surname="Watsen">
            <organization>Watsen Networks</organization>
          </author>
          <date day="1" month="February" year="2024"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>   This document defines a protocol for sending asynchronous event
   notifications similar to notifications defined in RFC 5277, but over
   HTTPS.  YANG modules for configuring publishers are also defined.
   Examples are provided illustrating how to configure various
   publishers.

   This document requires that the publisher is a "server" (e.g., a
   NETCONF or RESTCONF server), but does not assume that the receiver is
   a server.

            </t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-netconf-https-notif-15"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="I-D.ietf-netconf-udp-notif">
        <front>
          <title>UDP-based Transport for Configured Subscriptions</title>
          <author fullname="Guangying Zheng" initials="G." surname="Zheng">
            <organization>Huawei</organization>
          </author>
          <author fullname="Tianran Zhou" initials="T." surname="Zhou">
            <organization>Huawei</organization>
          </author>
          <author fullname="Thomas Graf" initials="T." surname="Graf">
            <organization>Swisscom</organization>
          </author>
          <author fullname="Pierre Francois" initials="P." surname="Francois">
            <organization>INSA-Lyon</organization>
          </author>
          <author fullname="Alex Huang Feng" initials="A. H." surname="Feng">
            <organization>INSA-Lyon</organization>
          </author>
          <author fullname="Paolo Lucente" initials="P." surname="Lucente">
            <organization>NTT</organization>
          </author>
          <date day="21" month="January" year="2024"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>   This document describes a UDP-based protocol for YANG notifications
   to collect data from network nodes.  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.


            </t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif-12"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="I-D.openconfig-rtgwg-gnmi-spec">
        <front>
          <title>gRPC Network Management Interface (gNMI)</title>
          <author fullname="Rob Shakir" initials="R." surname="Shakir">
            <organization>Google</organization>
          </author>
          <author fullname="Anees Shaikh" initials="A." surname="Shaikh">
            <organization>Google</organization>
          </author>
          <author fullname="Paul Borman" initials="P." surname="Borman">
            <organization>Google</organization>
          </author>
          <author fullname="Marcus Hines" initials="M." surname="Hines">
            <organization>Google</organization>
          </author>
          <author fullname="Carl Lebsack" initials="C." surname="Lebsack">
            <organization>Google</organization>
          </author>
          <author fullname="Chris Morrow" initials="C." surname="Morrow">
            <organization>Google</organization>
          </author>
          <date day="5" month="March" year="2018"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>   This document describes the gRPC Network Management Interface (gNMI),
   a network management protocol based on the gRPC framework.  gNMI
   supports retrieval and manipulation of state from network elements
   where the data is represented by a tree structure, and addressable by
   paths.  The gNMI service defines operations for configuration
   management, operational state retrieval, and bulk data collection via
   streaming telemetry.  The authoritative gNMI specification is
   maintained at [GNMI-SPEC].

            </t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-openconfig-rtgwg-gnmi-spec-01"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC7854">
        <front>
          <title>BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP)</title>
          <author fullname="J. Scudder" initials="J." role="editor" surname="Scudder"/>
          <author fullname="R. Fernando" initials="R." surname="Fernando"/>
          <author fullname="S. Stuart" initials="S." surname="Stuart"/>
          <date month="June" year="2016"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document defines the BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP), which can be used to monitor BGP sessions. BMP is intended to provide a convenient interface for obtaining route views. Prior to the introduction of BMP, screen scraping was the most commonly used approach to obtaining such views. The design goals are to keep BMP simple, useful, easily implemented, and minimally service affecting. BMP is not suitable for use as a routing protocol.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7854"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7854"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC7011">
        <front>
          <title>Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information</title>
          <author fullname="B. Claise" initials="B." role="editor" surname="Claise"/>
          <author fullname="B. Trammell" initials="B." role="editor" surname="Trammell"/>
          <author fullname="P. Aitken" initials="P." surname="Aitken"/>
          <date month="September" year="2013"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document specifies the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) protocol, which serves as a means for transmitting Traffic Flow information over the network. In order to transmit Traffic Flow information from an Exporting Process to a Collecting Process, a common representation of flow data and a standard means of communicating them are required. This document describes how the IPFIX Data and Template Records are carried over a number of transport protocols from an IPFIX Exporting Process to an IPFIX Collecting Process. This document obsoletes RFC 5101.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="STD" value="77"/>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7011"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7011"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC7012">
        <front>
          <title>Information Model for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)</title>
          <author fullname="B. Claise" initials="B." role="editor" surname="Claise"/>
          <author fullname="B. Trammell" initials="B." role="editor" surname="Trammell"/>
          <date month="September" year="2013"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document defines the data types and management policy for the information model for the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) protocol. This information model is maintained as the IANA "IPFIX Information Elements" registry, the initial contents of which were defined by RFC 5102. This information model is used by the IPFIX protocol for encoding measured traffic information and information related to the traffic Observation Point, the traffic Metering Process, and the Exporting Process. Although this model was developed for the IPFIX protocol, it is defined in an open way that allows it to be easily used in other protocols, interfaces, and applications. This document obsoletes RFC 5102.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7012"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7012"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC5472">
        <front>
          <title>IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Applicability</title>
          <author fullname="T. Zseby" initials="T." surname="Zseby"/>
          <author fullname="E. Boschi" initials="E." surname="Boschi"/>
          <author fullname="N. Brownlee" initials="N." surname="Brownlee"/>
          <author fullname="B. Claise" initials="B." surname="Claise"/>
          <date month="March" year="2009"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>In this document, we describe the applicability of the IP Flow Information eXport (IPFIX) protocol for a variety of applications. We show how applications can use IPFIX, describe the relevant Information Elements (IEs) for those applications, and present opportunities and limitations of the protocol. Furthermore, we describe relations of the IPFIX framework to other architectures and frameworks. This memo provides information for the Internet community.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5472"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5472"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC5476">
        <front>
          <title>Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Protocol Specifications</title>
          <author fullname="B. Claise" initials="B." role="editor" surname="Claise"/>
          <author fullname="A. Johnson" initials="A." surname="Johnson"/>
          <author fullname="J. Quittek" initials="J." surname="Quittek"/>
          <date month="March" year="2009"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document specifies the export of packet information from a Packet SAMPling (PSAMP) Exporting Process to a PSAMP Collecting Process. For export of packet information, the IP Flow Information eXport (IPFIX) protocol is used, as both the IPFIX and PSAMP architecture match very well, and the means provided by the IPFIX protocol are sufficient. The document specifies in detail how the IPFIX protocol is used for PSAMP export of packet information. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5476"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5476"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC5477">
        <front>
          <title>Information Model for Packet Sampling Exports</title>
          <author fullname="T. Dietz" initials="T." surname="Dietz"/>
          <author fullname="B. Claise" initials="B." surname="Claise"/>
          <author fullname="P. Aitken" initials="P." surname="Aitken"/>
          <author fullname="F. Dressler" initials="F." surname="Dressler"/>
          <author fullname="G. Carle" initials="G." surname="Carle"/>
          <date month="March" year="2009"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This memo defines an information model for the Packet SAMPling (PSAMP) protocol. It is used by the PSAMP protocol for encoding sampled packet data and information related to the Sampling process. As the PSAMP protocol is based on the IP Flow Information eXport (IPFIX) protocol, this information model is an extension to the IPFIX information model. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5477"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5477"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC7015">
        <front>
          <title>Flow Aggregation for the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol</title>
          <author fullname="B. Trammell" initials="B." surname="Trammell"/>
          <author fullname="A. Wagner" initials="A." surname="Wagner"/>
          <author fullname="B. Claise" initials="B." surname="Claise"/>
          <date month="September" year="2013"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document provides a common implementation-independent basis for the interoperable application of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) protocol to the handling of Aggregated Flows, which are IPFIX Flows representing packets from multiple Original Flows sharing some set of common properties. It does this through a detailed terminology and a descriptive Intermediate Aggregation Process architecture, including a specification of methods for Original Flow counting and counter distribution across intervals.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7015"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7015"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC1213">
        <front>
          <title>Management Information Base for Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets: MIB-II</title>
          <author fullname="K. McCloghrie" initials="K." surname="McCloghrie"/>
          <author fullname="M. Rose" initials="M." surname="Rose"/>
          <date month="March" year="1991"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This memo defines the second version of the Management Information Base (MIB-II) for use with network management protocols in TCP/IP-based internets. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="STD" value="17"/>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="1213"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC1213"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC838">
        <front>
          <title>Who talks TCP?</title>
          <author fullname="D. Smallberg" initials="D." surname="Smallberg"/>
          <date month="January" year="1983"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This RFC is a survey of hosts to identify the implementation status of Telnet, FTP, and Mail on TCP. The list of hosts was taken from the NIC hostname table of 31-Dec-82. The tests were run on 18-Jan-83.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="838"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC0838"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC8667">
        <front>
          <title>IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing</title>
          <author fullname="S. Previdi" initials="S." role="editor" surname="Previdi"/>
          <author fullname="L. Ginsberg" initials="L." role="editor" surname="Ginsberg"/>
          <author fullname="C. Filsfils" initials="C." surname="Filsfils"/>
          <author fullname="A. Bashandy" initials="A." surname="Bashandy"/>
          <author fullname="H. Gredler" initials="H." surname="Gredler"/>
          <author fullname="B. Decraene" initials="B." surname="Decraene"/>
          <date month="December" year="2019"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>Segment Routing (SR) allows for a flexible definition of end-to-end paths within IGP topologies by encoding paths as sequences of topological sub-paths, called "segments". These segments are advertised by the link-state routing protocols (IS-IS and OSPF).</t>
            <t>This document describes the IS-IS extensions that need to be introduced for Segment Routing operating on an MPLS data plane.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8667"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8667"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="I-D.ietf-isis-sr-yang">
        <front>
          <title>A YANG Data Model for IS-IS Segment Routing for the MPLS Data Plane</title>
          <author fullname="Stephane Litkowski" initials="S." surname="Litkowski">
            <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
          </author>
          <author fullname="Yingzhen Qu" initials="Y." surname="Qu">
            <organization>Futurewei Technologies</organization>
          </author>
          <author fullname="Pushpasis Sarkar" initials="P." surname="Sarkar">
            <organization>Individual</organization>
          </author>
          <author fullname="Ing-Wher (Helen) Chen" initials="H." surname="Chen">
            <organization>The MITRE Corporation</organization>
          </author>
          <author fullname="Jeff Tantsura" initials="J." surname="Tantsura">
            <organization>Nvidia</organization>
          </author>
          <date day="22" month="January" year="2024"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>   This document defines a YANG data module that can be used to
   configure and manage IS-IS Segment Routing for MPLS data plane.

            </t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-isis-sr-yang-21"/>
      </reference>
    </references>
    <?line 356?>

<section numbered="false" anchor="acknowledgments">
      <name>Acknowledgments</name>
      <t>TODO acknowledge.</t>
    </section>
  </back>
  <!-- ##markdown-source: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-->

</rfc>
