Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) A. Clemm
Request for Comments: 9144 Y. Qu
Category: Standards Track Futurewei
ISSN: 2070-1721 J. Tantsura
Microsoft
A. Bierman
YumaWorks
November
December 2021
Comparison of Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)
Datastores
Abstract
This document defines a Remote Procedure Call (RPC) operation to
compare management datastores that comply with the Network Management
Datastore Architecture (NMDA).
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9144.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Key Words
3. Acronyms
4. Data Model Overview
5.
4. YANG Data Model
6.
5. Example
7.
6. Performance Considerations
8.
7. IANA Considerations
8.1.
7.1. Update to the IETF XML Registry
8.2.
7.2. Update to the YANG Module Names Registry
9.
8. Security Considerations
10.
9. References
10.1.
9.1. Normative References
10.2.
9.2. Informative References
Appendix A. Possible Future Extensions
Acknowledgments
Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction
The revised NMDA [RFC8342] introduces a set of new datastores that
each hold YANG-defined data [RFC7950] and represent a different
"viewpoint" on the data that is maintained by a server. New YANG
datastores that are introduced include <intended>, which contains
validated configuration data that a client application intends to be
in effect, and <operational>, which contains operational state data
(such as statistics) as well as configuration data that is actually
in effect.
NMDA introduces, in effect, a concept of "lifecycle" for management
data, distinguishing between data that is part of a configuration
that was supplied by a user, configuration data that has actually
been successfully applied and that is part of the operational state,
and the overall operational state that includes applied configuration
data as well as status and statistics.
As a result, data from the same management model can be reflected in
multiple datastores. Clients need to specify the target datastore to
be specific about which viewpoint of the data they want to access.
For example, a client application can differentiate whether they are
interested in the configuration that is supplied to a server and is
supposed to be in effect or the configuration that has been applied
and is actually in effect on the server.
Due to the fact that data can propagate from one datastore to
another, it is possible for differences between datastores to occur.
Some of this is entirely expected, as there may be a time lag between
when a configuration is given to the device and reflected in
<intended> until when it actually takes effect and is reflected in
<operational>. However, there may be cases when a configuration item
that was to be applied may not actually take effect at all or needs
an unusually long time to do so. This can be the case due to certain
conditions not being met, certain parts of the configuration not
propagating because they are considered inactive, resource
dependencies not being resolved, or even implementation errors in
corner conditions.
When the configuration that is in effect is different from the
configuration that was applied, many issues can result. It becomes
more difficult to operate the network properly due to limited
visibility of the actual operational status, which makes it more
difficult to analyze and understand what is going on in the network.
Services may be negatively affected (for example, degrading or
breaking a customer service), and network resources may be
misallocated.
Applications can potentially analyze any differences between two
datastores by retrieving the contents from both datastores and
comparing them. However, in many cases, this will be both costly and
extremely wasteful.
This document introduces a YANG data model that defines RPCs, RPCs intended
to be used in conjunction with NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF
[RFC8040], that
[RFC8040]. These RPCs allow a client to request that a server to compare
two NMDA datastores and report any differences.
2. Key Words
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.
3. Acronyms
NMDA: Network Management Datastore Architecture
RPC: Remote Procedure Call
4. Data Model Overview
The core of the solution is a new management operation, <compare>,
that compares the data tree contents of two datastores. The
operation checks whether there are any differences in values or in
data nodes that are contained in either datastore and returns any
differences as output. The output is returned in the format
specified in YANG Patch [RFC8072].
The YANG data model defines the <compare> operation as a new RPC.
The operation takes the following input parameters:
source: The source identifies the datastore that will to serve as the
reference for the comparison -- for example, <intended>.
target: The target identifies the datastore to compare against the
source -- for example, <operational>.
filter-spec: This is a choice between different filter constructs to
identify the parts of the datastore to be retrieved. It acts as a
node selector that specifies which data nodes are within the scope
of the comparison and which nodes are outside the scope. This
allows a comparison operation to be applied only to a specific
part of the datastore that is of interest, such as a particular
subtree. Note that the filter does not allow expressions that
match against data node values, since this may incur
implementation difficulties and is not required for normal use
cases.
all: When set, this parameter indicates that all differences should
be included, including differences pertaining to schema nodes that
exist in only one of the datastores. When this parameter is not
included, a prefiltering step is automatically applied to exclude
data from the comparison that does not pertain to both datastores:
if the same schema node is not present in both datastores, then
all instances of that schema node and all its descendants are
excluded from the comparison. This allows client applications to
focus on the differences that constitute true mismatches of
instance data without needing to specify more complex filter
constructs.
report-origin: When set, this parameter indicates that origin
metadata should be included as part of RPC output. When this
parameter is omitted, origin metadata in comparisons that involve
<operational> is by default omitted. Note that origin metadata
only applies to <operational>; it is therefore also omitted in
comparisons that do not involve <operational> regardless of
whether or not the parameter is set.
The operation provides the following output parameter:
differences: This parameter contains the list of differences. Those
differences are encoded per the YANG Patch data model defined in
[RFC8072]. When a datastore node in the source of the comparison
is not present in the target of the comparison, this can be
indicated either as a "delete" or as a "remove" in the patch as
there is no differentiation between those operations for the
purposes of the comparison. The YANG Patch data model is
augmented to indicate the value of source datastore nodes in
addition to the patch itself that would need to be applied to the
source to produce the target. When the target datastore is
<operational> and the input parameter "report-origin" is set,
origin metadata is included as part of the patch. Including
origin metadata can help explain the cause of a difference in some
cases -- for example, when a data node is part of <intended> but
the origin of the same data node in <operational> is reported as
"system".
The data model is defined in the ietf-nmda-compare YANG module. Its
structure is shown in the following figure. The notation syntax
follows [RFC8340].
module: ietf-nmda-compare
rpcs:
+---x compare
+---w input
| +---w source identityref
| +---w target identityref
| +---w all? empty
| +---w report-origin? empty
| +---w (filter-spec)?
| +--:(subtree-filter)
| | +---w subtree-filter?
| +--:(xpath-filter)
| +---w xpath-filter? yang:xpath1.0 {nc:xpath}?
+--ro output
+--ro (compare-response)?
+--:(no-matches)
| +--ro no-matches? empty
+--:(differences)
+--ro differences
+--ro yang-patch
+--ro patch-id string
+--ro comment? string
+--ro edit* [edit-id]
+--ro edit-id string
+--ro operation enumeration
+--ro target target-resource-offset
+--ro point? target-resource-offset
+--ro where? enumeration
+--ro value?
+--ro source-value?
Figure 1: Structure of ietf-nmda-compare
5.
4. YANG Data Model
This YANG module includes references to [RFC6991], [RFC8342],
[RFC8072], and [RFC6241].
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-nmda-compare@2021-11-17.yang"
module ietf-nmda-compare {
yang-version 1.1;
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-nmda-compare";
prefix cmp;
import ietf-yang-types {
prefix yang;
reference
"RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types";
}
import ietf-datastores {
prefix ds;
reference
"RFC 8342: Network Management Datastore
Architecture (NMDA)";
}
import ietf-yang-patch {
prefix ypatch;
reference
"RFC 8072: YANG Patch Media Type";
}
import ietf-netconf {
prefix nc;
reference
"RFC 6241: Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)";
}
organization
"IETF";
"IETF NETMOD (Network Modeling) Working Group";
contact
"WG Web: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/netconf/> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/netmod/>
WG List: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org> <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
Author: Alexander Clemm
<mailto:ludwig@clemm.org>
Author: Yingzhen Qu
<mailto:yqu@futurewei.com>
Author: Jeff Tantsura
<mailto:jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
Author: Andy Bierman
<mailto:andy@yumaworks.com>";
description
"The YANG data model defines a new operation, <compare>, that
can be used to compare NMDA datastores.
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
authors of the code. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject to
the license terms contained in, the Revised BSD License set
forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
This version of this YANG module is part of RFC 9144; see the
RFC itself for full legal notices.";
revision 2021-11-17 {
description
"Initial revision.";
reference
"RFC 9144: Comparison of Network Management Datastore
Architecture (NMDA) Datastores";
}
/* RPC */
rpc compare {
description
"NMDA datastore compare operation.";
input {
leaf source {
type identityref {
base ds:datastore;
}
mandatory true;
description
"The source datastore to be compared.";
}
leaf target {
type identityref {
base ds:datastore;
}
mandatory true;
description
"The target datastore to be compared.";
}
leaf all {
type empty;
description
"When this leaf is provided, all data nodes are compared,
whether their schema node pertains to both datastores or
not. When this leaf is omitted, a prefiltering step is
automatically applied that excludes data nodes from the
comparison that can occur in only one datastore but not
the other. Specifically, if one of the datastores
(source or target) contains only configuration data and
the other datastore is <operational>, data nodes for
the config that is false are excluded from the
comparison.";
}
leaf report-origin {
type empty;
description
"When this leaf is provided, origin metadata is
included as part of RPC output. When this leaf is
omitted, origin metadata in comparisons that involve
<operational> is by default omitted.";
}
choice filter-spec {
description
"Identifies the portions of the datastores to be
compared.";
anydata subtree-filter {
description
"This parameter identifies the portions of the
target datastore to retrieve.";
reference
"RFC 6241, Section 6.";
}
leaf xpath-filter {
if-feature "nc:xpath";
type yang:xpath1.0;
description
"This parameter contains an XPath expression
identifying the portions of the target
datastore to retrieve.";
reference
"RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types";
}
}
}
output {
choice compare-response {
description
"Comparison results.";
leaf no-matches {
type empty;
description
"This leaf indicates that the filter did not match
anything and nothing was compared.";
}
container differences {
description
"The list of differences, encoded per RFC 8072 with an
augmentation to include source values where applicable.
When a datastore node in the source is not present in
the target, this can be indicated either as a 'delete'
or as a 'remove' as there is no difference between
them for the purposes of the comparison.";
uses ypatch:yang-patch {
augment "yang-patch/edit" {
description
"Provide
"Provides the value of the source of the patch,
respectively of the source of the comparison, in
addition to the target value, where applicable.";
anydata source-value {
when "../operation = 'delete'"
+ "or ../operation = 'merge'"
+ "or ../operation = 'move'"
+ "or ../operation = 'replace'"
+ "or ../operation = 'remove'";
description
"The anydata 'value' is only used for 'delete',
'move', 'merge', 'replace', and 'remove'
operations.";
}
reference
"RFC 8072: YANG Patch Media Type";
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
6.
5. Example
The following example compares the difference between <operational>
and <intended> for a subtree under "interfaces". The subtree
contains a subset of objects that are defined in a YANG data model
for the management of interfaces defined in [RFC8343]. For the
purposes of understanding the subsequent example, the following
excerpt of the data model whose instantiation is the basis of the
comparison is provided:
container interfaces {
description
"Interface parameters.";
list interface {
key "name";
leaf name {
type string;
description
"The name of the interface". interface.";
}
leaf description {
type string;
description
"A textual description of the interface.";
}
leaf enabled {
type boolean;
default "true";
description
"This leaf contains the configured, desired state of the
interface.";"
interface.";
}
}
}
The contents of <intended> and <operational> datastores: datastores in XML
[W3C.REC-xml-20081126]:
<!--INTENDED-->
<interfaces xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-interfaces">
<interface>
<name>eth0</name>
<enabled>false</enabled>
<description>ip interface</description>
</interface>
</interfaces>
<!--OPERATIONAL-->
<interfaces
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-interfaces"
xmlns:or="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-origin">
<interface or:origin="or:learned">
<name>eth0</name>
<enabled>true</enabled>
</interface>
</interfaces>
<operational> does not contain an instance for leaf "description"
that is contained in <intended>. Another leaf, "enabled", has
different values in the two datastores, being "true" in <operational>
and "false" in <intended>. A third leaf, "name", is the same in both
cases. The origin of the leaf instances in <operational> is
"learned", which may help explain the discrepancies.
RPC request to compare <operational> (source of the comparison) with
<intended> (target of the comparison):
<rpc message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<compare xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-nmda-compare"
xmlns:ds="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-datastores">
<source>ds:operational</source>
<target>ds:intended</target>
<report-origin/>
<xpath-filter
xmlns:if="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-interfaces">
/if:interfaces
</xpath-filter>
</compare>
</rpc>
RPC reply when a difference is detected:
<rpc-reply
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"
message-id="101">
<differences
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-nmda-compare"
xmlns:or="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-origin">
<yang-patch>
<patch-id>interface status</patch-id>
<comment>
diff between operational (source) and intended (target)
</comment>
<edit>
<edit-id>1</edit-id>
<operation>replace</operation>
<target>/ietf-interfaces:interface=eth0/enabled</target>
<value>
<if:enabled>false</if:enabled>
</value>
<source-value>
<if:enabled or:origin="or:learned">true</if:enabled>
</source-value>
</edit>
<edit>
<edit-id>2</edit-id>
<operation>create</operation>
<target>/ietf-interfaces:interface=eth0/description</target>
<value>
<if:description>ip interface</if:description>
</value>
</edit>
</yang-patch>
</differences>
</rpc-reply>
The same request in RESTCONF (using JSON format): format [RFC7951]):
POST /restconf/operations/ietf-nmda-compare:compare HTTP/1.1
Host: example.com
Content-Type: application/yang-data+json
Accept: application/yang-data+json
{ "ietf-nmda-compare:input" : {
"source" : "ietf-datastores:operational",
"target" : "ietf-datastores:intended",
"report-origin" : null,
"xpath-filter" : "/ietf-interfaces:interfaces"
}
}
The same response in RESTCONF (using JSON format):
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 20:56:30 GMT
Server: example-server
Content-Type: application/yang-data+json
{ "ietf-nmda-compare:output" : {
"differences" : {
"ietf-yang-patch:yang-patch" : {
"patch-id" : "interface status",
"comment" : "diff between intended (source) and operational",
"edit" : [
{
"edit-id" : "1",
"operation" : "replace",
"target" : "/ietf-interfaces:interface=eth0/enabled",
"value" : {
"ietf-interfaces:interface/enabled" : "false"
},
"source-value" : {
"ietf-interfaces:interface/enabled" : "true",
"@ietf-interfaces:interface/enabled" : {
"ietf-origin:origin" : "ietf-origin:learned"
}
}
},
{
"edit-id" : "2",
"operation" : "create",
"target" : "/ietf-interfaces:interface=eth0/description",
"value" : {
"ietf-interface:interface/description" : "ip interface"
}
}
]
}
}
}
}
7.
6. Performance Considerations
The <compare> operation can be computationally expensive. While
responsible client applications are expected to use the operation
responsibly and sparingly only when warranted, implementations need
to be aware of the fact that excessive invocation of this operation
will burden system resources and need to ensure that system
performance will not be adversely impacted. One possibility for an
implementation to mitigate against this is to limit the number of
requests that are served to a client, or to any number of clients, in
any one time interval, by rejecting requests made at a higher
frequency than the implementation can reasonably sustain.
While useful, tools such as YANG data models that allow for the
monitoring of server resources, system performance, and statistics
about RPCs and RPC rates are outside the scope of this document.
When defined, any such model should be general in nature and not
limited to the RPC operation defined in this document.
8.
7. IANA Considerations
8.1.
7.1. Update to the IETF XML Registry
IANA has registered the following URI in the "IETF XML Registry"
[RFC3688]:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-nmda-compare
Registrant Contact: The IESG.
XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.
8.2.
7.2. Update to the YANG Module Names Registry
IANA has registered the following YANG module in the "YANG Module
Names" registry [RFC6020]:
name: ietf-nmda-compare
namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-nmda-compare
prefix: cmp
reference: RFC 9144
9.
8. Security Considerations
The YANG module specified in this document defines a schema for data
that is designed to be accessed via network management protocols such
as NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040]. The lowest NETCONF layer
is the secure transport layer, and the mandatory-to-implement secure
transport is Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC6242]. The lowest RESTCONF layer
is HTTPS, and the mandatory-to-implement secure transport is TLS
[RFC8446].
The Network Configuration Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC8341]
provides the means to restrict access for particular NETCONF or
RESTCONF users to a preconfigured subset of all available NETCONF or
RESTCONF protocol operations and content.
NACM specifies access for the server in its entirety, and the same
access rules apply to all datastores. Any subtrees to which a
requestor does not have read access are silently skipped and not
included in the comparison.
The RPC operation defined in this YANG module, <compare>, may be
considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. It
is thus important to control access to this operation. This is the
sensitivity/vulnerability of RPC operation <compare>:
Comparing datastores for differences requires a certain amount of
processing resources at the server. An attacker could attempt to
attack a server by making a high volume of comparison requests.
Server implementations can guard against such scenarios in several
ways. For one, they can implement the NACM in order to require
proper authorization for requests to be made. Second, server
implementations can limit the number of requests that they serve to a
client in any one time interval, rejecting requests made at a higher
frequency than the implementation can reasonably sustain.
10.
9. References
10.1.
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
[RFC6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure
Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC6242, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6242>.
[RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types",
RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6991>.
[RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7950>.
[RFC7951] Lhotka, L., "JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG",
RFC 7951, DOI 10.17487/RFC7951, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7951>.
[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.
[RFC8072] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "YANG Patch
Media Type", RFC 8072, DOI 10.17487/RFC8072, February
2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8072>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8340] Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams",
BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8340>.
[RFC8341] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration
Access Control Model", STD 91, RFC 8341,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8341, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8341>.
[RFC8342] Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K.,
and R. Wilton, "Network Management Datastore Architecture
(NMDA)", RFC 8342, DOI 10.17487/RFC8342, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8342>.
[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
10.2.
[W3C.REC-xml-20081126]
Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, M., Maler, E., and
F. Yergeau, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fifth
Edition)", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-
xml-20081126, November 2008,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126>.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC8343] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
Management", RFC 8343, DOI 10.17487/RFC8343, March 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8343>.
Appendix A. Possible Future Extensions
It is conceivable to extend the <compare> operation with a number of
possible additional features in the future.
Specifically, it is possible to define an extension with an optional
feature for dampening. This will allow clients to specify a minimum
time period for which a difference must persist for it to be
reported. This will enable clients to distinguish between
differences that are only fleeting from ones that are not and that
may represent a real operational issue and inconsistency within the
device.
For this purpose, an additional input parameter can be added to
specify the dampening period. Only differences that pertain for at
least the dampening time are reported. A value of 0 or omission of
the parameter indicates no dampening. Reporting of differences MAY
correspondingly be delayed by the dampening period from the time the
request is received.
To implement this feature, a server implementation might run a
comparison when the RPC is first invoked and temporarily store the
result. Subsequently, it could wait until after the end of the
dampening period to check whether the same differences are still
observed. The differences that still persist are then returned.
Acknowledgments
We thank Rob Wilton, Martin Bjorklund, Mahesh Jethanandani, Lou
Berger, Kent Watsen, Phil Shafer, Ladislav Lhotka, Tim Carey, and
Reshad Rahman for their valuable feedback and suggestions.
Authors' Addresses
Alexander Clemm
Futurewei
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95050
United States of America
Email: ludwig@clemm.org
Yingzhen Qu
Futurewei
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95050
United States of America
Email: yqu@futurewei.com
Jeff Tantsura
Microsoft
Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
Andy Bierman
YumaWorks
Email: andy@yumaworks.com