I2NSF Registration Interface YANG Data Model
draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-18
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Active".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Sangwon Hyun , Jaehoon Paul Jeong , TaeKyun Roh , Sarang Wi , Park Jung-Soo | ||
| Last updated | 2022-06-16 | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2022-05-18 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-18
I2NSF Working Group S. Hyun, Ed.
Internet-Draft Myongji University
Intended status: Standards Track J. Jeong, Ed.
Expires: 18 December 2022 T. Roh
S. Wi
Sungkyunkwan University
J. Park
ETRI
16 June 2022
I2NSF Registration Interface YANG Data Model
draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-18
Abstract
This document defines an information model and a YANG data model for
Registration Interface between Security Controller and Developer's
Management System (DMS) in the Interface to Network Security
Functions (I2NSF) framework to register Network Security Functions
(NSF) of the DMS with the Security Controller. The objective of
these information and data models is to support NSF capability
registration and query via I2NSF Registration Interface.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 18 December 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Hyun, et al. Expires 18 December 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Registration Interface YANG Data Model June 2022
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
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Information Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. NSF Capability Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1.1. NSF Capability Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.2. NSF Access Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. NSF Capability Query . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Data Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. YANG Tree Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1.1. Definition of Symbols in Tree Diagrams . . . . . . . 8
5.1.2. I2NSF Registration Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1.3. NSF Capability Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1.4. NSF Access Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. YANG Data Modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Appendix A. XML Examples of I2NSF Registration Interface Data
Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Appendix B. NSF Lifecycle Management in NFV Environments . . . . 25
Appendix C. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Appendix D. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Appendix E. Changes from
draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-17 . . . . . . 26
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1. Introduction
A number of Network Security Functions (NSF) may exist in the
Interface to Network Security Functions (I2NSF) framework [RFC8329].
Since each of these NSFs likely has different security capabilities
from each other, it is important to register the security
capabilities of the NSF with the security controller. In addition,
it is required to search NSFs of some required security capabilities
Hyun, et al. Expires 18 December 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Registration Interface YANG Data Model June 2022
on demand. As an example, if additional security capabilities are
required to serve some security service request(s) from an I2NSF
user, the security controller SHOULD be able to request the DMS for
NSFs that have the required security capabilities.
This document describes an information model (see Section 4) and a
YANG [RFC7950] data model (see Section 5) for the I2NSF Registration
Interface [RFC8329] between the security controller and the
developer's management system (DMS) to support NSF capability
registration and query via the registration interface. It also
describes the operations which SHOULD be performed by the security
controller and the DMS via the Registration Interface using the
defined model.
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "m=" section for the added RtpTransceiver as if the
"m=" section were being added to the session description
(including a new MID value) and placing it at the same index as
the "m=" section with a zero port.
* If an RtpTransceiver is stopped and is not associated with an "m="
section, an "m=" section MUST NOT be generated for it. This
prevents adding back RtpTransceivers whose "m=" sections were
recycled and used for a new RtpTransceiver in a previous offer/
answer exchange, as described above.
* If an RtpTransceiver has been stopped and is associated with an
"m=" section, and the "m=" section is not being recycled as
described above, an "m=" section MUST be generated for it with the
port set to zero and all "a=msid" lines removed.
* For RtpTransceivers that are not stopped, the "a=msid" line or
lines MUST stay the same if they are present in the current
description, regardless of changes to the transceiver's direction
or track. If no "a=msid" line is present in the current
description, "a=msid" line(s) MUST be generated according to the
same rules as for an initial offer.
* Each "m=" and "c=" line MUST be filled in with the port, relevant
RTP profile, and address of the default candidate for the "m="
section, as described in [RFC8839], Section 4.2.1.2 and clarified
in Section 5.1.2. If no RTP candidates have yet been gathered,
default values MUST still be used, as described above.
Uberti, et al. Expires 25 March 2023 [Page 46]
RFC 8829 JSEP September 2022
* Each "a=mid" line MUST stay the same.
* Each "a=ice-ufrag" and "a=ice-pwd" line MUST stay the same, unless
the ICE configuration has changed (e.g., changes to either the
supported STUN/TURN servers or the ICE candidate policy) or the
IceRestart option (Section 5.2.3.1) was specified. If the "m="
section is bundled into another "m=" section, it still MUST NOT
contain any ICE credentials.
* If the "m=" section is not bundled into another "m=" section, its
"a=rtcp" attribute line MUST be filled in with the port and
address of the default RTCP candidate, as indicated in [RFC5761],
Section 5.1.3. If no RTCP candidates have yet been gathered,
default values MUST be used, as described in Section 5.2.1 above.
* If the "m=" section is not bundled into another "m=" section, for
each candidate that has been gathered during the most recent
gathering phase (see Section 3.5.1), an "a=candidate" line MUST be
added, as defined in [RFC8839], Section 5.1. If candidate
gathering for the section has completed, an "a=end-of-candidates"
attribute MUST be added, as described in [RFC8840], Section 8.2.
If the "m=" section is bundled into another "m=" section, both
"a=candidate" and "a=end-of-candidates" MUST be omitted.
* For RtpTransceivers that are still present, the "a=rid" lines MUST
stay the same.
* For RtpTransceivers that are still present, any "a=simulcast" line
MUST stay the same.
If the previous offer was applied using setLocalDescription, and a
corresponding answer from the remote side has been applied using
setRemoteDescription, meaning the PeerConnection is in the "have-
remote-pranswer" state or the "stable" state, an offer is generated
based on the negotiated session descriptions by following the steps
mentioned for the "have-local-offer" state above.
In addition, for each existing, non-recycled, non-rejected "m="
section in the new offer, the following adjustments are made based on
the contents of the corresponding "m=" section in the current local
or remote description, as appropriate:
* The "m=" line and corresponding "a=rtpmap" and "a=fmtp" lines MUST
only include media formats that have not been excluded by the
codec preferences of the associated transceiver and also MUST
include all currently available formats. Media formats that were
previously offered but are no longer available (e.g., a shared
hardware codec) MAY be excluded.
Uberti, et al. Expires 25 March 2023 [Page 47]
RFC 8829 JSEP September 2022
* Unless codec preferences have been set for the associated
transceiver, the media formats on the "m=" line MUST be generated
in the same order as in the most recent answer. Any media formats
that were not present in the most recent answer MUST be added
after all existing formats.
* The RTP header extensions MUST only include those that are present
in the most recent answer.
* The RTCP feedback mechanisms MUST only include those that are
present in the most recent answer, except for the case of format-
specific mechanisms that are referencing a newly added media
format.
* The "a=rtcp" line MUST NOT be added if the most recent answer
included an "a=rtcp-mux" line.
* The "a=rtcp-mux" line MUST be the same as that in the most recent
answer.
* The "a=rtcp-mux-only" line MUST NOT be added.
* The "a=rtcp-rsize" line MUST NOT be added unless present in the
most recent answer.
* An "a=bundle-only" line, as defined in [RFC9143], Section 6, MUST
NOT be added. Instead, JSEP implementations MUST simply omit
parameters in the IDENTICAL and TRANSPORT categories for bundled
"m=" sections, as described in [RFC9143], Section 7.1.3.
* Note that if media "m=" sections are bundled into a data "m="
section, then certain TRANSPORT and IDENTICAL attributes may
appear in the data "m=" section even if they would otherwise only
be appropriate for a media "m=" section (e.g., "a=rtcp-mux").
This cannot happen in initial offers because in the initial offer
JSEP implementations always list media "m=" sections (if any)
before the data "m=" section (if any), and at least one of those
media "m=" sections will not have the "a=bundle-only" attribute.
Therefore, in initial offers, any "a=bundle-only" "m=" sections
will be bundled into a preceding non-bundle-only media "m="
section.
The "a=group:BUNDLE" attribute MUST include the MID identifiers
specified in the bundle group in the most recent answer, minus any
"m=" sections that have been marked as rejected, plus any newly added
or re-enabled "m=" sections. In other words, the bundle attribute
MUST contain all "m=" sections that were previously bundled, as long
as they are still alive, as well as any new "m=" sections.
Uberti, et al. Expires 25 March 2023 [Page 48]
RFC 8829 JSEP September 2022
Note that if bundling has been negotiated, unbundling is no longer
possible, and media sections will not be marked as bundle-only. This
is by design, but could cause issues in the rare case of sending a
subsequent offer as an initial offer to a non-bundle-aware endpoint
via Third Party Call Control (3PCC), as discussed in [RFC9143],
Section 7.6.
"a=group:LS" attributes are generated in the same way as for initial
offers, with the additional stipulation that any lip sync groups that
were present in the most recent answer MUST continue to exist and
MUST contain any previously existing MID identifiers, as long as the
identified "m=" sections still exist and are not rejected, and the
group still contains at least two MID identifiers. This ensures that
any synchronized "recvonly" "m=" sections continue to be synchronized
in the new offer.
5.2.3. Options Handling
The createOffer method takes as a parameter an RTCOfferOptions
object. Special processing is performed when generating an SDP
description if the following options are present.
5.2.3.1. IceRestart
If the IceRestart option is specified, with a value of "true", the
offer MUST indicate an ICE restart by generating new ICE ufrag and
pwd attributes, as specified in [RFC8839], Section 4.4.3.1.1. If
this option is specified on an initial offer, it has no effect (since
a new ICE ufrag and pwd are already generated). Similarly, if the
ICE configuration has changed, this option has no effect, since new
ufrag and pwd attributes will be generated automatically. This
option is primarily useful for reestablishing connectivity in cases
where failures are detected by the application.
5.2.3.2. VoiceActivityDetection
Silence suppression, also known as discontinuous transmission
("DTX"), can reduce the bandwidth used for audio by switching to a
special encoding when voice activity is not detected, at the cost of
some fidelity.
If the "VoiceActivityDetection" option is specified, with a value of
"true", the offer MUST indicate support for silence suppression in
the audio it receives by including comfort noise ("CN") codecs for
each offered audio codec, as specified in [RFC3389], Section 5.1,
except for codecs that have their own internal silence suppression
support. For codecs that have their own internal silence suppression
support, the appropriate fmtp parameters for that codec MUST be
Uberti, et al. Expires 25 March 2023 [Page 49]
RFC 8829 JSEP September 2022
specified to indicate that silence suppression for received audio is
desired. For example, when using the Opus codec [RFC6716], the
"usedtx=1" parameter, specified in [RFC7587], would be used in the
offer.
If the "VoiceActivityDetection" option is specified, with a value of
"false", the JSEP implementation MUST NOT emit "CN" codecs. For
codecs that have their own internal silence suppression support, the
appropriate fmtp parameters for that codec MUST be specified to
indicate that silence suppression for received audio is not desired.
For example, when using the Opus codec, the "usedtx=0" parameter
would be specified in the offer. In addition, the implementation
MUST NOT use silence suppression for media it generates, regardless
of whether the "CN" codecs or related fmtp parameters appear in the
peer's description. The impact of these rules is that silence
suppression in JSEP depends on mutual agreement of both sides, which
ensures consistent handling regardless of which codec is used.
The "VoiceActivityDetection" option does not have any impact on the
setting of the "vad" value in the signaling of the client-to-mixer
audio level header extension described in [RFC6464], Section 4.
5.3. Generating an Answer
When createAnswer is called, a new SDP description MUST be created
that is compatible with the supplied remote description as well as
the requirements specified in [RFC8834]. The exact details of this
process are explained below.
5.3.1. Initial Answers
When createAnswer is called for the first time after a remote
description has been provided, the result is known as the initial
answer. If no remote description has been installed, an answer
cannot be generated, and an error MUST be returned.
Note that the remote description SDP may not have been created by a
JSEP endpoint and may not conform to all the requirements listed in
Section 5.2. For many cases, this is not a problem. However, if any
mandatory SDP attributes are missing or functionality listed as
mandatory-to-use above is not present, this MUST be treated as an
error and MUST cause the affected "m=" sections to be marked as
rejected.
The first step in generating an initial answer is to generate
session-level attributes. The process here is identical to that
indicated in Section 5.2.1 above, except that the "a=ice-options"
line, with the "trickle" option as specified in [RFC8840],
Uberti, et al. Expires 25 March 2023 [Page 50]
RFC 8829 JSEP September 2022
Section 4.1.3 and the "ice2" option as specified in [RFC8445],
Section 10, is only included if such an option was present in the
offer.
The next step is to generate session-level lip sync groups, as
defined in [RFC5888], Section 7. For each group of type "LS" present
in the offer, select the local RtpTransceivers that are referenced by
the MID values in the specified group, and determine which of them
either reference a common local MediaStream (specified in the calls
to addTrack/addTransceiver used to create them) or have no
MediaStream to reference because they were not created by addTrack/
addTransceiver. If at least two such RtpTransceivers exist, a group
of type "LS" with the MID values of these RtpTransceivers MUST be
added. Otherwise, the offered "LS" group MUST be ignored and no
corresponding group generated in the answer.
As a simple example, consider the following offer of a single audio
and single video track contained in the same MediaStream. SDP lines
not relevant to this example have been removed for clarity. As
explained in Section 5.2, a group of type "LS" has been added that
references each track's RtpTransceiver.
a=group:LS a1 v1
m=audio 10000 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 0
a=mid:a1
a=msid:ms1
m=video 10001 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 96
a=mid:v1
a=msid:ms1
If the answerer uses a single MediaStream when it adds its tracks,
both of its transceivers will reference this stream, and so the
subsequent answer will contain a "LS" group identical to that in the
offer, as shown below:
a=group:LS a1 v1
m=audio 20000 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 0
a=mid:a1
a=msid:ms2
m=video 20001 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 96
a=mid:v1
a=msid:ms2
However, if the answerer groups its tracks into separate
MediaStreams, its transceivers will reference different streams, and
so the subsequent answer will not contain a "LS" group.
Uberti, et al. Expires 25 March 2023 [Page 51]
RFC 8829 JSEP September 2022
m=audio 20000 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 0
a=mid:a1
a=msid:ms2a
m=video 20001 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 96
a=mid:v1
a=msid:ms2b
Finally, if the answerer does not add any tracks, its transceivers
will not reference any MediaStreams, causing the preferences of the
offerer to be maintained, and so the subsequent answer will contain
an identical "LS" group.
a=group:LS a1 v1
m=audio 20000 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 0
a=mid:a1
a=recvonly
m=video 20001 UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF 96
a=mid:v1
a=recvonly
The example in Section 7.2 shows a more involved case of "LS" group
generation.
The next step is to generate a "m=" section for each "m=" section
that is present in the remote offer, as specified in [RFC3264],
Section 6. For the purposes of this discussion, any session-level
attributes in the offer that are also valid as media-level attributes
are considered to be present in each "m=" section. Each offered "m="
section will have an associated RtpTransceiver, as described in
Section 5.10. If there are more RtpTransceivers than there are "m="
sections, the unmatched RtpTransceivers will need to be associated in
a subsequent offer.
For each offered "m=" section, if any of the following conditions are
true, the corresponding "m=" section in the answer MUST be marked as
rejected by setting the <port> in the "m=" line to zero, as indicated
in [RFC3264], Section 6, and further processing for this "m=" section
can be skipped:
* The associated RtpTransceiver has been stopped.
* There is no offered media format that is both supported and, if
applicable, allowed by codec preferences.
* The bundle policy is "must-bundle", and this is not the first "m="
section or in the same bundle group as the first "m=" section.
Uberti, et al. Expires 25 March 2023 [Page 52]
RFC 8829 JSEP September 2022
* The bundle policy is "balanced", and this is not the first "m="
section for this media type or in the same bundle group as the
first "m=" section for this media type.
* This "m=" section is in a bundle group, and the group's offerer
tagged "m=" section is being rejected due to one of the above
reasons. This requires all "m=" sections in the bundle group to
be rejected, as specified in [RFC9143], Section 7.3.3.
Otherwise, each "m=" section in the answer MUST then be generated as
specified in [RFC3264], Section 6.1. For the "m=" line itself, the
following rules MUST be followed:
* The <port> value would normally be set to the port of the default
ICE candidate for this "m=" section, but given that no candidates
are available yet, the default <port> value of 9 (Discard) MUST be
used, as indicated in [RFC8840], Section 4.1.1.
* The <proto> field MUST be set to exactly match the <proto> field
for the corresponding "m=" line in the offer.
* If codec preferences have been set for the associated transceiver,
media formats MUST be generated in the corresponding order,
regardless of what was offered, and MUST exclude any codecs not
present in the codec preferences.
* Otherwise, the media formats on the "m=" line MUST be generated in
the same order as those offered in the current remote description,
excluding any currently unsupported formats. Any currently
available media formats that are not present in the current remote
description MUST be added after all existing formats.
* In either case, the media formats in the answer MUST include at
least one format that is present in the offer but MAY include
formats that are locally supported but not present in the offer,
as mentioned in [RFC3264], Section 6.1. If no common format
exists, the "m=" section is rejected as described above.
The "m=" line MUST be followed immediately by a "c=" line, as
specified in [RFC4566], Section 5.7. Again, as no candidates are
available yet, the "c=" line MUST contain the default value "IN IP4
0.0.0.0", as defined in [RFC8840], Section 4.1.3.
If the offer supports bundle, all "m=" sections to be bundled MUST
use the same ICE credentials and candidates; all "m=" sections not
being bundled MUST use unique ICE credentials and candidates. Each
"m=" section MUST contain the following attributes (which are of
attribute types other than IDENTICAL or TRANSPORT):
Uberti, et al. Expires 25 March 2023 [Page 53]
RFC 8829 JSEP September 2022
* If and only if present in the offer, an "a=mid" line, as specified
in [RFC5888], Section 9.1. The MID value MUST match that
specified in the offer.
* A direction attribute, determined by applying the rules regarding
the offered direction specified in [RFC3264], Section 6.1, and
then intersecting with the direction of the associated
RtpTransceiver. For example, in the case where an "m=" section is
offered as "sendonly" and the local transceiver is set to
"sendrecv", the result in the answer is a "recvonly" direction.
* For each media format on the "m=" line, "a=rtpmap" and "a=fmtp"
lines, as specified in [RFC4566], Section 6 and [RFC3264],
Section 6.1.
* If "rtx" is present in the offer, for each primary codec where RTP
retransmission should be used, a corresponding "a=rtpmap" line
indicating "rtx" with the clock rate of the primary codec and an
"a=fmtp" line that references the payload type of the primary
codec, as specified in [RFC4588], Section 8.1.
* For each supported FEC mechanism, "a=rtpmap" and "a=fmtp" lines,
as specified in [RFC4566], Section 6. The FEC mechanisms that
MUST be supported are specified in [RFC8854], Section 7, and
specific usage for each media type is outlined in Sections 4 and
5.
* If this "m=" section is for media with configurable durations of
media per packet, e.g., audio, an "a=maxptime" line, as described
in Section 5.2.
* If this "m=" section is for video media and there are known
limitations on the size of images that can be decoded, an
"a=imageattr" line, as specified in Section 3.6.
* For each supported RTP header extension that is present in the
offer, an "a=extmap" line, as specified in [RFC5285], Section 5.
The list of header extensions that SHOULD/MUST be supported is
specified in [RFC8834], Section 5.2. Any header extensions that
require encryption MUST be specified as indicated in [RFC6904],
Section 4.
* For each supported RTCP feedback mechanism that is present in the
offer, an "a=rtcp-fb" line, as specified in [RFC4585],
Section 4.2. The list of RTCP feedback mechanisms that SHOULD/
MUST be supported is specified in [RFC8834], Section 5.1.
* If the RtpTransceiver has a sendrecv or sendonly direction:
Uberti, et al. Expires 25 March 2023 [Page 54]
RFC 8829 JSEP September 2022
- For each MediaStream that was associated with the transceiver
when it was created via addTrack or addTransceiver, an "a=msid"
line, as specified in [RFC8830], Section 2, but omitting the
"appdata" field.
Each "m=" section that is not bundled into another "m=" section MUST
contain the following attributes (which are of category IDENTICAL or
TRANSPORT):
* "a=ice-ufrag" and "a=ice-pwd" lines, as specified in [RFC8839],
Section 5.4.
* For each desired digest algorithm, one or more "a=fingerprint"
lines for each of the endpoint's certificates, as specified in
[RFC8122], Section 5.
* An "a=setup" line, as specified in [RFC4145], Section 4 and
clarified for use in DTLS-SRTP scenarios in [RFC5763], Section 5.
The role value in the answer MUST be "active" or "passive". When
the offer contains the "actpass" value, as will always be the case
with JSEP endpoints, the answerer SHOULD use the "active" role.
Offers from non-JSEP endpoints MAY send other values for
"a=setup", in which case the answer MUST use a value consistent
with the value in the offer.
* An "a=tls-id" line, as specified in [RFC8842], Section 5.3.
* If present in the offer, an "a=rtcp-mux" line, as specified in
[RFC5761], Section 5.1.3. Otherwise, an "a=rtcp" line, as
specified in [RFC3605], Section 2.1, containing the default value
"9 IN IP4 0.0.0.0" (because no candidates have yet been gathered).
* If present in the offer, an "a=rtcp-rsize" line, as specified in
[RFC5506], Section 5.
If a data channel "m=" section has been offered, an "m=" section MUST
also be generated for data. The <media> field MUST be set to
"application", and the <proto> and <fmt> fields MUST be set to
exactly match the fields in the offer.
Within the data "m=" section, an "a=mid" line MUST be generated and
included as described above, along with an "a=sctp-port" line
referencing the SCTP port number, as defined in [RFC8841],
Section 5.1; and, if appropriate, an "a=max-message-size" line, as
defined in [RFC8841], Section 6.1.
Uberti, et al. Expires 25 March 2023 [Page 55]
RFC 8829 JSEP September 2022
As discussed above, the following attributes of category IDENTICAL or
TRANSPORT are included only if the data "m=" section is not bundled
into another "m=" section:
* "a=ice-ufrag"
* "a=ice-pwd"
* "a=fingerprint"
* "a=setup"
* "a=tls-id"
Note that if media "m=" sections are bundled into a data "m="
section, then certain TRANSPORT and IDENTICAL attributes may also
appear in the data "m=" section even if they would otherwise only be
appropriate for a media "m=" section (e.g., "a=rtcp-mux").
If "a=group" attributes with semantics of "BUNDLE" are offered,
corresponding session-level "a=group" attributes MUST be added as
specified in [RFC5888]. These attributes MUST have semantics
"BUNDLEquot;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.
This document uses the following terms defined in [RFC8329] and
[I-D.ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model].
* Network Security Function (NSF): A function that is responsible
for a specific treatment of received packets. A Network Security
Function can act at various layers of a protocol stack (e.g., at
the network layer or other OSI layers). Sample Network Security
Service Functions are as follows: Firewall, Intrusion Prevention/
Detection System (IPS/IDS), Deep Packet Inspection (DPI),
Application Visibility and Control (AVC), network virus and
malware scanning, sandbox, Data Loss Prevention (DLP), Distributed
Denial of Service (DDoS) mitigation and TLS proxy.
* Data Model: A data model is a representation of concepts of
interest to an environment in a form that is dependent on data
repository, data definition language, query language,
implementation language, and protocol.
* Information Model: An information model is a representation of
concepts of interest to an environment in a form that is
independent of data repository, data definition language, query
language, implementation language, and protocol.
Hyun, et al. Expires 18 December 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Registration Interface YANG Data Model June 2022
* YANG: This document follows the guidelines of [RFC8407], uses the
common YANG types defined in [RFC6991], and adopts the Network
Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) [RFC8342]. The meaning
of the symbols in tree diagrams is defined in [RFC8340].
3. Objectives
* Registering NSFs to I2NSF framework: Developer's Management System
(DMS) in I2NSF framework is typically run by an NSF vendor, and
uses Registration Interface to provide NSFs developed by the NSF
vendor to Security Controller. DMS registers NSFs and their
capabilities to I2NSF framework through Registration Interface.
For the registered NSFs, Security Controller maintains a catalog
of the capabilities of those NSFs.
* Updating the capabilities of registered NSFs: After an NSF is
registered into Security Controller, some modifications on the
capability of the NSF MAY be required later. In this case, DMS
uses Registration Interface to update the capability of the NSF,
and this update SHOULD be reflected in the catalog of NSFs.
* Asking DMS about some required capabilities: In cases that some
security capabilities are required to serve the security service
request from an I2NSF user, Security Controller searches through
the registered NSFs to find ones that can provide the required
capabilities. But Security Controller might fail to find any NSFs
having the required capabilities among the registered NSFs. In
this case, Security Controller needs to request DMS for additional
NSF(s) that can provide the required security capabilities via
Registration Interface.
4. Information Model
The I2NSF registration interface is used by Security Controller and
Developer's Management System (DMS) in I2NSF framework. The
following summarizes the operations done through the registration
interface:
1) DMS registers NSFs and their capabilities to Security Controller
via the registration interface. DMS also uses the registration
interface to update the capabilities of the NSFs registered
previously.
2) In case that Security Controller fails to find some required
capabilities from any registered NSF that can provide, Security
Controller queries DMS about NSF(s) having the required
capabilities via the registration interface.
Hyun, et al. Expires 18 December 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Registration Interface YANG Data Model June 2022
Figure 1 shows the information model of the I2NSF registration
interface, which consists of two submodels: NSF capability
registration and NSF capability query. Each submodel is used for the
operations listed above. The remainder of this section will provide
in-depth explanations of each submodel.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| I2NSF Registration Interface Information Model |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| | NSF Capability | | NSF Capability | |
| | Registration | | Query | |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: I2NSF Registration Interface Information Model
4.1. NSF Capability Registration
This submodel is used by DMS to register an NSF with Security
Controller. Figure 2 shows how this submodel is constructed. The
most important part in Figure 2 is the NSF capability, and this
specifies the set of capabilities that the NSF to be registered can
offer. The NSF Name contains a unique name of this NSF with the
specified set of capabilities. When registering the NSF, DMS
additionally includes the network access information of the NSF which
is required to enable network communications with the NSF.
The following will further explain the NSF capability information and
the NSF access information in more detail.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NSF Capability |
| Registration |
+-+-+-+-+^+-+-+-+-+
|
+---------------------+--------------------+
| | |
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NSF | | NSF Capability| | NSF Access |
| Name | | Information | | Information |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: NSF Capability Registration Sub-Model
Hyun, et al. Expires 18 December 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Registration Interface YANG Data Model June 2022
4.1.1. NSF Capability Information
NSF Capability Information basically describes the security
capabilities of an NSF. In Figure 3, we show capability objects of
an NSF. Following the information model of NSF capabilities defined
in [I-D.ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model], we share the same I2NSF
security capabilities: Directional Capabilities, Event Capabilities,
Condition Capabilities, Action Capabilities, Resolution Strategy
Capabilities, Default Action Capabilities. Also, NSF Capability
Information additionally contains the performance capabilities of an
NSF as shown in Figure 3.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| NSF Capability |
| Information |
+-+-+-+-^-+-+-+-+-+
|
|
+----------------------+----------------------+
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| I2NSF | | Performance |
| Capabilities | | Capabilities |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|
+------+-------------+----------------+----------------+-------+
| | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| Directional | | Event | | Condition | | Action | |
| Capabilities| | Capabilities| | Capabilities| | Capabilities| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
|
+--------------------+--------------------+-------+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Resolution | | Default |
| Strategy | | Action |
| Capabilities| | Capabilities|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: NSF Capability Information
Hyun, et al. Expires 18 December 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Registration Interface YANG Data Model June 2022
4.1.1.1. Performance Capabilities
This information represents the processing capability of an NSF.
Assuming that the current workload status of each NSF is being
collected through NSF monitoring
[I-D.ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model], this capability
information of the NSF can be used to determine whether the NSF is in
congestion by comparing it with the current workload of the NSF.
Moreover, this information can specify an available amount of each
type of resource, such as processing power which are available on the
NSF. (The registration interface can control the usages and
limitations of the created instance and make the appropriate request
according to the status.) As illustrated in Figure 4, this
information consists of two items: Processing and Bandwidth.
Processing information describes the NSF's available processing
power. Bandwidth describes the information about available network
amount in two cases, outbound, inbound. These two information can be
used for the NSF's instance request.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Performance |
| Capabilities |
+-+-+-+-^-+-+-+-+-+
|
+----------------------------+
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Processing | | Bandwidth |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: Performance Capability Overview
4.1.2. NSF Access Information
NSF Access Information contains the followings that are required to
communicate with an NSF: IPv4 address, IPv6 address, port number, and
supported transport protocol(s) (e.g., Virtual Extensible LAN (VXLAN)
[RFC7348], Generic Protocol Extension for VXLAN (VXLAN-GPE)
[I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe], Generic Route Encapsulation (GRE), and
Ethernet). In this document, NSF Access Information is used to
identify a specific NSF instance (i.e., NSF Access Information is the
signature (unique identifier) of an NSF instance in the overall
system).
Hyun, et al. Expires 18 December 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Registration Interface YANG Data Model June 2022
4.2. NSF Capability Query
Security Controller MAY require some additional capabilities to serve
the security service request from an I2NSF user, but none of the
registered NSFs has the required capabilities. In this case,
Security Controller makes a description of the required capabilities
by using the NSF capability information sub-model in Section 4.1.1,
and sends DMS a query about which NSF(s) can provide these
capabilities.
5. Data Model
5.1. YANG Tree Diagram
This section provides the YANG Tree diagram of the I2NSF registration
interface.
5.1.1. Definition of Symbols in Tree Diagrams
A simplified graphical representation of the data model is used in
this section. The meaning of the symbols used in the following
diagrams [RFC8431] is as follows:
Brackets "[" and "]" enclose list keys.
Abbreviations before data node names: "rw" means configuration
(read-write) and "ro" state data (read-only).
Symbols after data node names: "?" means an optional node and "*"
denotes a "list" and "leaf-list".
Parentheses enclose choice and case nodes, and case nodes are also
marked with a colon (":").
Ellipsis ("...") stands for contents of subtrees that are not
shown.
5.1.2. I2NSF Registration Interface
module : ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface
+--rw nsf-capability-registration
| uses nsf-registrations
rpcs :
+---x i2nsf-capability-query
| uses nsf-capability-query
Figure 5: YANG Tree of I2NSF Registration Interface
Hyun, et al. Expires 18 December 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Registration Interface YANG Data Model June 2022
The I2NSF registration interface is used for the following purposes.
Developer's Management System (DMS) registers NSFs and their
capabilities into Security Controller via the registration interface.
In case that Security Controller fails to find any NSF among the
registered NSFs which can provide some required capabilities,
Security Controller uses the registration interface to query DMS
about NSF(s) having the required capabilities. The following
sections describe the YANG data models to support these operations.
5.1.2.1. NSF Capability Registration
This section expands the i2nsf-nsf-registrations in Figure 5.
NSF Capability Registration
+--rw nsf-registrations
+--rw nsf-information* [nsf-name]
+--rw nsf-name string
+--rw nsf-capability-info
| uses nsf-capability-info
+--rw security-capability
| uses ietf-i2nsf-capability
+--rw performance-capability
| uses performance-capability
+--rw nsf-access-info
+--rw ip
+--rw port
Figure 6: YANG Tree of NSF Capability Registration Module
When registering an NSF to Security Controller, DMS uses this module
to describe what capabilities the NSF can offer. DMS includes the
network access information of the NSF which is required to make a
network connection with the NSF as well as the capability description
of the NSF.
5.1.2.2. NSF Capability Query
This section expands the nsf-capability-query in Figure 5.
Hyun, et al. Expires 18 December 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Registration Interface YANG Data Model June 2022
I2NSF Capability Query
+---x nsf-capability-query
+---w input
| +---w query-nsf-capability
| | uses ietf-i2nsf-capability
+--ro output
+--ro nsf-access-info
+--rw nsf-name
+--rw ip
+--rw port
Figure 7: YANG Tree of NSF Capability Query Module
Security Controller MAY require some additional capabilities to
provide the security service requested by an I2NSF user, but none of
the registered NSFs has the required capabilities. In this case,
Security Controller makes a description of the required capabilities
using this module and then queries DMS about which NSF(s) can provide
these capabilities. Use NETCONF RPCs to send a NSF capability query.
Input data is query-i2nsf-capability-info and output data is nsf-
access-info. In Figure 7, the ietf-i2nsf-capability refers to the
module defined in [I-D.ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model].
5.1.3. NSF Capability Information
This section expands the nsf-capability-info in Figure 6 and
Figure 7.
NSF Capability Information
+--rw nsf-capability-info
+--rw security-capability
| uses ietf-i2nsf-capability
+--rw performance-capability
| uses nsf-performance-capability
Figure 8: YANG Tree of I2NSF NSF Capability Information
In Figure 8, the ietf-i2nsf-capability refers to the module defined
in [I-D.ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model]. The performance-
capability is used to specify the performance capability of an NSF.
5.1.3.1. NSF Performance Capability
This section expands the nsf-performance-capability in Figure 8.
Hyun, et al. Expires 18 December 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Registration Interface YANG Data Model June 2022
NSF Performance Capability
+--rw nsf-performance-capability
+--rw processing
| +--rw processing-average uint16
| +--rw processing-peak uint16
+--rw bandwidth
| +--rw outbound
| | +--rw outbound-average uint16
| | +--rw outbound-peak uint16
| +--rw inbound
| | +--rw inbound-average uint16
| | +--rw inbound-peak uint16
Figure 9: YANG Tree of I2NSF NSF Performance Capability
This module is used to specify the performance capabilities of an NSF
when registering or initiating the NSF.
5.1.4. NSF Access Information
This section expands the nsf-access-info in Figure 6.
NSF Access Information
+--rw nsf-access-info
+--rw ip inet:ip-address-no-zone
+--rw port inet:port-number
Figure 10: YANG Tree of I2NSF NSF Access Informantion
This module contains the network access information of an NSF that is
required to enable network communications with the NSF. The field of
ip can have either an IPv4 address or an IPv6 address.
5.2. YANG Data Modules
This section provides a YANG module of the data model for the
registration interface between Security Controller and Developer's
Management System, as defined in Section 4.
This YANG module imports from [RFC6991] and
[I-D.ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model].
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface@2022-06-16.yang"
module ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface {
yang-version 1.1;
namespace
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface";
Hyun, et al. Expires 18 December 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Registration Interface YANG Data Model June 2022
prefix
i2nsfri;
//RFC Ed.: replace occurences of XXXX with actual RFC number and
//remove this note
import ietf-inet-types {
prefix inet;
reference "RFC 6991";
}
import ietf-i2nsf-capability {
prefix i2nsfcap;
// RFC Ed.: replace YYYY with actual RFC number of
// draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model and remove this note.
reference "RFC YYYY: I2NSF Capability YANG Data Model";
}
organization
"IETF I2NSF (Interface to Network Security Functions)
Working Group";
contact
"WG Web: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/i2nsf>
WG List: <mailto:i2nsf@ietf.org>
Editor: Sangwon Hyun
<mailto:shyun@mju.ac.kr>
Editor: Jaehoon Paul Jeong
<mailto:pauljeong@skku.edu>";
description
"This module defines a YANG data model for I2NSF
Registration Interface.
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
(RFC 2119) (RFC 8174) when, and only when, they appear
in all capitals, as shown here.
Copyright (c) 2022 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
Hyun, et al. Expires 18 December 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Registration Interface YANG Data Model June 2022
set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX; see
the RFC itself for full legal notices.";
revision "2022-06-16" {
description "Initial revision";
reference
"RFC XXXX: I2NSF Registration Interface YANG Data Model";
// RFC Ed.: replace XXXX with actual RFC number and remove
// this note
}
grouping nsf-performance-capability {
description
"Description of the performance capabilities of an NSF";
container processing {
description
"Processing power of an NSF in the unit of GHz (gigahertz)";
leaf processing-average {
type uint16;
units "GHz";
description
"Average processing power";
}
leaf processing-peak {
type uint16;
units "GHz";
description
"Peak processing power";
}
}
container bandwidth {
description
"Network bandwidth available on an NSF
in the unit of Mbps (megabits per second)";
container outbound {
description
"Outbound network bandwidth";
leaf outbound-average {
type uint32;
units "Mbps";
Hyun, et al. Expires 18 December 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Registration Interface YANG Data Model June 2022
description
"Average outbound bandwidth";
}
leaf outbound-peak {
type uint32;
units "Mbps";
description
"Peak outbound bandwidth";
}
}
container inbound {
description
"Inbound network bandwidth";
leaf inbound-average {
type uint32;
units "Mbps";
description
"Average inbound bandwidth";
}
leaf inbound-peak {
type uint32;
units "Mbps";
description
"Peak inbound bandwidth";
}
}
}
}
grouping nsf-capability-info {
description
"Capability description of an NSF";
container security-capability {
description
"Description of the security capabilities of an NSF";
uses i2nsfcap:nsf-capabilities;
reference "RFC YYYY: I2NSF Capability YANG Data Model";
// RFC Ed.: replace YYYY with actual RFC number of
// draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model and remove this note.
}
container performance-capability {
description
"Description of the performance capabilities of an NSF";
uses nsf-performance-capability;
}
}
Hyun, et al. Expires 18 December 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Registration Interface YANG Data Model June 2022
grouping nsf-access-info {
description
"Information required to access an NSF";
leaf ip {
type inet:ip-address-no-zone;
description
"Either an IPv4 address or an IPv6 address of this NSF";
}
leaf port {
type inet:port-number;
description
"Port available on this NSF";
}
}
container nsf-registrations {
description
"Information of an NSF that DMS registers
to Security Controller";
list nsf-information {
key "nsf-name";
description
"Required information for registration";
leaf nsf-name {
type string;
description
"The name of this registered NSF. The NSF name MUST be unique
to identify the NSF with the capability. The name can be an
arbitrary string including FQDN (Fully Qualified Domain
Name).";
}
container nsf-capability-info {
description
"Capability description of this NSF";
uses nsf-capability-info;
}
container nsf-access-info {
description
"Network access information of this NSF";
uses nsf-access-info;
}
}
}
rpc nsf-capability-query {
description
Uberti, et al. Expires 25 March 2023 [Page 56]
RFC 8829 JSEP September 2022
* The fields of the "o=" line MUST stay the same except for the
<session-version> field, which MUST increment if the session
description changes in any way from the previously generated
answer.
If any session description was previously supplied to
setLocalDescription, an answer is generated by following the steps in
the "have-remote-offer" state above, along with these exceptions:
* The "s=" and "t=" lines MUST stay the same.
* Each "m=" and "c=" line MUST be filled in with the port and
address of the default candidate for the "m=" section, as
described in [RFC8839], Section 4.2.1.2. Note that in certain
cases, the "m=" line protocol may not match that of the default
candidate, because the "m=" line protocol value MUST match what
was supplied in the offer, as described above.
* Each "a=ice-ufrag" and "a=ice-pwd" line MUST stay the same, unless
the "m=" section is restarting, in which case new ICE credentials
MUST be created as specified in [RFC8839], Section 4.4.1.1.1. If
the "m=" section is bundled into another "m=" section, it still
MUST NOT contain any ICE credentials.
* Each "a=tls-id" line MUST stay the same, unless the offerer's
"a=tls-id" line changed, in which case a new tls-id value MUST be
created, as described in [RFC8842], Section 5.2.
* Each "a=setup" line MUST use an "active" or "passive" role value
consistent with the existing DTLS association, if the association
is being continued by the offerer.
* RTCP multiplexing MUST be used, and an "a=rtcp-mux" line inserted
if and only if the "m=" section previously used RTCP multiplexing.
* If the "m=" section is not bundled into another "m=" section and
RTCP multiplexing is not active, an "a=rtcp" attribute line MUST
be filled in with the port and address of the default RTCP
candidate. If no RTCP candidates have yet been gathered, default
values MUST be used, as described in Section 5.3.1 above.
Uberti, et al. Expires 25 March 2023 [Page 57]
RFC 8829 JSEP September 2022
* If the "m=" section is not bundled into another "m=" section, for
each candidate that has been gathered during the most recent
gathering phase (see Section 3.5.1), an "a=candidate" line MUST be
added, as defined in [RFC8839], Section 5.1. If candidate
gathering for the section has completed, an "a=end-of-candidates"
attribute MUST be added, as described in [RFC8840], Section 8.2.
If the "m=" section is bundled into another "m=" section, both
"a=candidate" and "a=end-of-candidates" MUST be omitted.
* For RtpTransceivers that are not stopped, the "a=msid" line(s)
MUST stay the same, regardless of changes to the transceiver's
direction or track. If no "a=msid" line is present in the current
description, "a=msid" line(s) MUST be generated according to the
same rules as for an initial answer.
5.3.3. Options Handling
The createAnswer method takes as a parameter an RTCAnswerOptions
object. The set of parameters for RTCAnswerOptions is different than
those supported in RTCOfferOptions; the IceRestart option is
unnecessary, as ICE credentials will automatically be changed for all
"m=" sections where the offerer chose to perform ICE restart.
The following options are supported in RTCAnswerOptions.
5.3.3.1. VoiceActivityDetection
Silence suppression in the answer is handled as described in
Section 5.2.3.2, with one exception: if support for silence
suppression was not indicated in the offer, the
VoiceActivityDetection parameter has no effect, and the answer MUST
be generated as if VoiceActivityDetection was set to "false". This
is done on a per-codec basis (e.g., if the offerer somehow offered
support for CN but set "usedtx=0" for Opus, setting
VoiceActivityDetection to "true" would result in an answer with CN
codecs and "usedtx=0"). The impact of this rule is that an answerer
will not try to use silence suppression with any endpoint that does
not offer it, making silence suppression support bilateral even with
non-JSEP endpoints.
5.4. Modifying an Offer or Answer
The SDP returned from createOffer or createAnswer MUST NOT be changed
before passing it to setLocalDescription. If precise control over
the SDP is needed, the aforementioned createOffer/createAnswer
options or RtpTransceiver APIs MUST be used.
Uberti, et al. Expires 25 March 2023 [Page 58]
RFC 8829 JSEP September 2022
After calling setLocalDescription with an offer or answer, the
application MAY modify the SDP to reduce its capabilities before
sending it to the far side, as long as it follows the rules above
that define a valid JSEP offer or answer. Likewise, an application
that has received an offer or answer from a peer MAY modify the
received SDP, subject to the same constraints, before calling
setRemoteDescription.
As always, the application is solely responsible for what it sends to
the other party, and all incoming SDP will be processed by the JSEP
implementation to the extent of its capabilities. It is an error to
assume that all SDP is well formed; however, one should be able to
assume that any implementation of this specification will be able to
process, as a remote offer or answer, unmodified SDP coming from any
other implementation of this specification.
5.5. Processing a Local Description
When a SessionDescription is supplied to setLocalDescription, the
following steps MUST be performed:
* If the description is of type "rollback", follow the processing
defined in Section 5.7 and skip the processing described in the
rest of this section.
* Otherwise, the type of the SessionDescription is checked against
the current state of the PeerConnection:
- If the type is "offer", the PeerConnection state MUST be either
"stable" or "have-local-offer".
- If the type is "pranswer" or "answer", the PeerConnection state
MUST be either "have-remote-offer" or "have-local-pranswer".
* If the type is not correct for the current state, processing MUST
stop and an error MUST be returned.
* The SessionDescription is then checked to ensure that its contents
are identical to those generated in the last call to createOffer/
createAnswer, and thus have not been altered, as discussed in
Section 5.4; otherwise, processing MUST stop and an error MUST be
returned.
* Next, the SessionDescription is parsed into a data structure, as
described in Section 5.8 below.
* Finally, the parsed SessionDescription is applied as described in
Section 5.9 below.
Uberti, et al. Expires 25 March 2023 [Page 59]
RFC 8829 JSEP September 2022
5.6. Processing a Remote Description
When a SessionDescription is supplied to setRemoteDescription, the
following steps MUST be performed:
* If the description is of type "rollback", follow the processing
defined in Section 5.7 and skip the processing described in the
rest of this section.
* Otherwise, the type of the SessionDescription is checked against
the current state of the PeerConnection:
- If the type is "offer", the PeerConnection state MUST be either
"stable" or "have-remote-offer".
- If the type is "pranswer" or "answer", the PeerConnection state
MUST be either &"Description of the capabilities that the
Security Controller requests to the DMS";
Hyun, et al. Expires 18 December 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Registration Interface YANG Data Model June 2022
input {
container query-nsf-capability {
description
"Description of the capabilities to request";
uses i2nsfcap:nsf-capabilities;
reference "RFC YYYY: I2NSF Capability YANG Data Model";
//RFC Ed.: replace YYYY with actual RFC number of
//draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model and remove this note.
}
}
output {
container nsf-access-info {
description
"Network access information of an NSF
with the requested capabilities";
leaf nsf-name {
type string;
description
"The name of this registered NSF. The NSF name MUST be
unique to identify the NSF with the capability. The name
can be an arbitrary string including FQDN (Fully Qualified
Domain Name).";
}
uses nsf-access-info;
}
}
}
}
<CODE ENDS>
Figure 11: Registration Interface YANG Data Model
6. IANA Considerations
This document requests IANA to register the following URI in the
"IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688]:
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface
Registrant Contact: The IESG.
XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.
This document requests IANA to register the following YANG module in
the "YANG Module Names" registry [RFC7950][RFC8525]:
Hyun, et al. Expires 18 December 2022 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Registration Interface YANG Data Model June 2022
Name: ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface
Prefix: i2nsfri
Reference: RFC XXXX
// RFC Ed.: replace XXXX with actual RFC number and remove
// this note
7. Security Considerations
The YANG module specified in this document defines a data schema
designed to be accessed through network management protocols such as
NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040]. The lowest NETCONF layer is
the secure transport layer, and the required secure transport is
Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC6242]. The lowest RESTCONF layer is HTTPS,
and the required secure transport is TLS [RFC8446].
The NETCONF access control model [RFC8341] provides a means of
restricting access to specific NETCONF or RESTCONF users to a
preconfigured subset of all available NETCONF or RESTCONF protocol
operations and content.
There are a number of data nodes defined in this YANG module that are
writable/creatable/deletable (i.e., config true, which is the
default). These data nodes MAY be considered sensitive or vulnerable
in some network environments. Write operations (e.g., edit-config)
to these data nodes without proper protection can have a negative
effect on network operations. These are the subtrees and data nodes
and their sensitivity/vulnerability:
* nsf-registrations: The attacker MAY exploit this to register a
compromised or malicious NSF instead of a legitimate NSF with the
Security Controller.
* nsf-performance-capability: The attacker MAY provide incorrect
information of the performance capability of any target NSF by
illegally modifying this.
* nsf-capability-info: The attacker MAY provide incorrect
information of the security capability of any target NSF by
illegally modifying this.
* nsf-access-info: The attacker MAY provide incorrect network access
information of any target NSF by illegally modifying this.
Hyun, et al. Expires 18 December 2022 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Registration Interface YANG Data Model June 2022
Some of the readable data nodes in this YANG module MAY be considered
sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments. It is thus
important to control read access (e.g., via get, get-config, or
notification) to these data nodes. These are the subtrees and data
nodes and their sensitivity/vulnerability:
* nsf-registrations: The attacker MAY try to gather some sensitive
information of a registered NSF by sniffing this.
* nsf-performance-capability: The attacker MAY gather the
performance capability information of any target NSF and misuse
the information for subsequent attacks.
* nsf-capability-info: The attacker MAY gather the security
capability information of any target NSF and misuse the
information for subsequent attacks.
* nsf-access-info: The attacker MAY gather the network access
information of any target NSF and misuse the information for
subsequent attacks.
The RPC operation in this YANG module MAY be considered sensitive or
vulnerable in some network environments. It is thus important to
control access to this operation. The following is the operation and
its sensitivity/vulnerability:
* nsf-capability-query: The attacker MAY exploit this RPC operation
to deteriorate the availability of the DMS and/or gather the
information of some interested NSFs from the DMS.
8. References
8.1. 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>.
[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>.
Hyun, et al. Expires 18 December 2022 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Registration Interface YANG Data Model June 2022
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC8329] Lopez, D., Lopez, E., Dunbar, L., Strassner, J., and R.
Kumar, "Framework for Interface to Network Security
Functions", RFC 8329, DOI 10.17487/RFC8329, February 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8329>.
[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>.
[RFC8407] Bierman, A., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of
Documents Containing YANG Data Models", BCP 216, RFC 8407,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8407, October 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8407>.
[RFC8431] Wang, L., Chen, M., Dass, A., Ananthakrishnan, H., Kini,
S., and N. Bahadur, "A YANG Data Model for the Routing
Information Base (RIB)", RFC 8431, DOI 10.17487/RFC8431,
September 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8431>.
Hyun, et al. Expires 18 December 2022 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Registration Interface YANG Data Model June 2022
[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>.
[RFC8525] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Watsen, K.,
and R. Wilton, "YANG Library", RFC 8525,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8525, March 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8525>.
[I-D.ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model]
Hares, S., Jeong, J. P., Kim, J. T., Moskowitz, R., and Q.
Lin, "I2NSF Capability YANG Data Model", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-32,
23 May 2022, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-
i2nsf-capability-data-model-32.txt>.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC3849] Huston, G., Lord, A., and P. Smith, "IPv6 Address Prefix
Reserved for Documentation", RFC 3849,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3849, July 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3849>.
[RFC5737] Arkko, J., Cotton, M., and L. Vegoda, "IPv4 Address Blocks
Reserved for Documentation", RFC 5737,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5737, January 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5737>.
[RFC7348] Mahalingam, M., Dutt, D., Duda, K., Agarwal, P., Kreeger,
L., Sridhar, T., Bursell, M., and C. Wright, "Virtual
eXtensible Local Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for
Overlaying Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3
Networks", RFC 7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7348>.
[I-D.ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model]
Jeong, J. P., Lingga, P., Hares, S., Xia, L. F., and H.
Birkholz, "I2NSF NSF Monitoring Interface YANG Data
Model", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-20, 1 June 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-
monitoring-data-model-20.txt>.
Hyun, et al. Expires 18 December 2022 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Registration Interface YANG Data Model June 2022
[I-D.ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe]
(Editor), F. M., (editor), L. K., and U. E. (editor),
"Generic Protocol Extension for VXLAN (VXLAN-GPE)", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-12,
22 September 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-
ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-12.txt>.
[nfv-framework]
"Network Functions Virtualisation (NFV); Architectureal
Framework", ETSI GS NFV 002 ETSI GS NFV 002 V1.1.1,
October 2013.
Appendix A. XML Examples of I2NSF Registration Interface Data Model
This section shows XML examples of the I2NSF Registration Interface
data model for registering the capabilities in either IPv4 networks
[RFC5737] or IPv6 networks [RFC3849] with Security Controller.
<nsf-registrations
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface"
xmlns:i2nsfcap="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2nsf-capability">
<nsf-information>
<nsf-name>general_firewall</nsf-name>
<nsf-capability-info>
<security-capability>
<condition-capabilities>
<generic-nsf-capabilities>
<ipv4-capability>i2nsfcap:next-header</ipv4-capability>
<ipv4-capability>i2nsfcap:source-address</ipv4-capability>
<ipv4-capability>i2nsfcap:destination-address</ipv4-capability>
<tcp-capability>i2nsfcap:source-port-number</tcp-capability>
<tcp-capability>i2nsfcap:destination-port-number</tcp-capability>
</generic-nsf-capabilities>
</condition-capabilities>
<action-capabilities>
<ingress-action-capability>
i2nsfcap:pass
</ingress-action-capability>
<ingress-action-capability>
i2nsfcap:drop
</ingress-action-capability>
<ingress-action-capability>
i2nsfcap:mirror
</ingress-action-capability>
<egress-action-capability>
i2nsfcap:pass
</egress-action-capability>
<egress-action-capability>
Hyun, et al. Expires 18 December 2022 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Registration Interface YANG Data Model June 2022
i2nsfcap:drop
</egress-action-capability>
<egress-action-capability>
i2nsfcap:mirror
</egress-action-capability>
</action-capabilities>
</security-capability>
<performance-capability>
<processing>
<processing-average>1000</processing-average>
<processing-peak>5000</processing-peak>
</processing>
"have-local-offer" or "have-remote-pranswer".
* If the type is not correct for the current state, processing MUST
stop and an error MUST be returned.
* Next, the SessionDescription is parsed into a data structure, as
described in Section 5.8 below. If parsing fails for any reason,
processing MUST stop and an error MUST be returned.
* Finally, the parsed SessionDescription is applied as described in
Section 5.10 below.
5.7. Processing a Rollback
A rollback may be performed if the PeerConnection is in any state
except for "stable". This means that both offers and provisional
answers can be rolled back. Rollback can only be used to cancel
proposed changes; there is no support for rolling back from a
"stable" state to a previous "stable" state. If a rollback is
attempted in the "stable" state, processing MUST stop and an error
MUST be returned. Note that this implies that once the answerer has
performed setLocalDescription with its answer, this cannot be rolled
back.
The effect of rollback MUST be the same regardless of whether
setLocalDescription or setRemoteDescription is called.
Uberti, et al. Expires 25 March 2023 [Page 60]
RFC 8829 JSEP September 2022
In order to process rollback, a JSEP implementation abandons the
current offer/answer transaction, sets the signaling state to
"stable", and sets the pending local and/or remote description (see
Sections 4.1.14 and 4.1.16) to "null". Any resources or candidates
that were allocated by the abandoned local description are discarded;
any media that is received is processed according to the previous
local and remote descriptions.
A rollback disassociates any RtpTransceivers that were associated
with "m=" sections by the application of the rolled-back session
description (see Sections 5.10 and 5.9). This means that some
RtpTransceivers that were previously associated will no longer be
associated with any "m=" section; in such cases, the value of the
RtpTransceiver's mid property MUST be set to "null", and the mapping
between the transceiver and its "m=" section index MUST be discarded.
RtpTransceivers that were created by applying a remote offer that was
subsequently rolled back MUST be stopped and removed from the
PeerConnection. However, an RtpTransceiver MUST NOT be removed if a
track was attached to the RtpTransceiver via the addTrack method.
This is so that an application may call addTrack, then call
setRemoteDescription with an offer, then roll back that offer, then
call createOffer and have an "m=" section for the added track appear
in the generated offer.
5.8. Parsing a Session Description
The SDP contained in the session description object consists of a
sequence of text lines, each containing a key-value expression, as
described in [RFC4566], Section 5. The SDP is read, line by line,
and converted to a data structure that contains the deserialized
information. However, SDP allows many types of lines, not all of
which are relevant to JSEP applications. For each line, the
implementation will first ensure that it is syntactically correct
according to its defining ABNF, check that it conforms to the
semantics used in [RFC4566] and [RFC3264], and then either parse and
store or discard the provided value, as described below.
If any line is not well formed or cannot be parsed as described, the
parser MUST stop with an error and reject the session description,
even if the value is to be discarded. This ensures that
implementations do not accidentally misinterpret ambiguous SDP.
Uberti, et al. Expires 25 March 2023 [Page 61]
RFC 8829 JSEP September 2022
5.8.1. Session-Level Parsing
First, the session-level lines are checked and parsed. These lines
MUST occur in a specific order, and with a specific syntax, as
defined in [RFC4566], Section 5. Note that while the specific line
types (e.g., "v=", "c=") MUST occur in the defined order, lines of
the same type (typically "a=") can occur in any order.
The following non-attribute lines are not meaningful in the JSEP
context and MAY be discarded once they have been checked.
* The "c=" line MUST be checked for syntax, but its value is only
used for ICE mismatch detection, as defined in [RFC8445],
Section 5.4. Note that JSEP implementations should never
encounter this condition because ICE is required for WebRTC.
* The "i=", "u=", "e=", "p=", "t=", "r=", "z=", and "k=" lines MUST
be checked for syntax, but their values are not otherwise used.
The remaining non-attribute lines are processed as follows:
* The "v=" line MUST have a version of 0, as specified in [RFC4566],
Section 5.1.
* The "o=" line MUST be parsed as specified in [RFC4566],
Section 5.2.
* The "b=" line, if present, MUST be parsed as specified in
[RFC4566], Section 5.8, and the bwtype and bandwidth values
stored.
Finally, the attribute lines are processed. Specific processing MUST
be applied for the following session-level attribute ("a=") lines:
* Any "a=group" lines are parsed as specified in [RFC5888],
Section 5, and the group's semantics and mids are stored.
* If present, a single "a=ice-lite" line is parsed as specified in
[RFC8839], Section 5.3, and a value indicating the presence of
ice-lite is stored.
* If present, a single "a=ice-ufrag" line is parsed as specified in
[RFC8839], Section 5.4, and the ufrag value is stored.
* If present, a single "a=ice-pwd" line is parsed as specified in
[RFC8839], Section 5.4, and the password value is stored.
Uberti, et al. Expires 25 March 2023 [Page 62]
RFC 8829 JSEP September 2022
* If present, a single "a=ice-options" line is parsed as specified
in [RFC8839], Section 5.6, and the set of specified options is
stored.
* Any "a=fingerprint" lines are parsed as specified in [RFC8122],
Section 5, and the set of fingerprint and algorithm values is
stored.
* If present, a single "a=setup" line is parsed as specified in
[RFC4145], Section 4, and the setup value is stored.
* If present, a single "a=tls-id" line is parsed as specified in
[RFC8842], Section 5, and the attribute value is stored.
* Any "a=identity" lines are parsed and the identity values stored
for subsequent verification, as specified in [RFC8827], Section 5.
* Any "a=extmap" lines are parsed as specified in [RFC5285],
Section 5, and their values are stored.
Other attributes that are not relevant to JSEP may also be present,
and implementations SHOULD process any that they recognize. As
required by [RFC4566], Section 5.13, unknown attribute lines MUST be
ignored.
Once all the session-level lines have been parsed, processing
continues with the lines in "m=" sections.
5.8.2. Media Section Parsing
Like the session-level lines, the media section lines MUST occur in
the specific order and with the specific syntax defined in [RFC4566],
Section 5.
The "m=" line itself MUST be parsed as described in [RFC4566],
Section 5.14, and the <media>, <port>, <proto>, and <fmt> values
stored.
Following the "m=" line, specific processing MUST be applied for the
following non-attribute lines:
* As with the "c=" line at the session level, the "c=" line MUST be
parsed according to [RFC4566], Section 5.7, but its value is not
used.
* The "b=" line, if present, MUST be parsed as specified in
[RFC4566], Section 5.8, and the bwtype and bandwidth values
stored.
Uberti, et al. Expires 25 March 2023 [Page 63]
RFC 8829 JSEP September 2022
Specific processing MUST also be applied for the following attribute
lines:
* If present, a single "a=ice-ufrag" line is parsed as specified in
[RFC8839], Section 5.4, and the ufrag value is stored.
* If present, a single "a=ice-pwd" line is parsed as specified in
[RFC8839], Section 5.4, and the password value is stored.
* If present, a single "a=ice-options" line is parsed as specified
in [RFC8839], Section 5.6, and the set of specified options is
stored.
* Any "a=candidatelt;bandwidth>
<outbound>
<outbound-average>1000</outbound-average>
<outbound-peak>5000</outbound-peak>
</outbound>
<inbound>
<inbound-average>1000</inbound-average>
<inbound-peak>5000</inbound-peak>
</inbound>
</bandwidth>
</performance-capability>
</nsf-capability-info>
<nsf-access-info>
<ip>192.0.2.11</ip>
<port>49152</port>
</nsf-access-info>
</nsf-information>
</nsf-registrations>
Figure 12: Configuration XML for Registration of a General
Firewall in an IPv4 Network
Figure 12 shows the configuration XML for registering a general
firewall in an IPv4 network [RFC5737] and its capabilities as
follows.
1. The instance name of the NSF is general_firewall.
2. The NSF can inspect IPv4 protocol header field, source
address(es), and destination address(es).
3. The NSF can inspect the port number(s) for the transport layer
protocol, i.e., TCP.
4. The NSF can determine whether the packets are allowed to pass,
drop, or mirror.
Hyun, et al. Expires 18 December 2022 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Registration Interface YANG Data Model June 2022
5. The NSF can have processing power and bandwidth.
6. The IPv4 address of the NSF is 192.0.2.11.
7. The port of the NSF is 49152.
<nsf-registrations
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface"
xmlns:i2nsfcap="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2nsf-capability">
<nsf-information>
<nsf-name>general_firewall</nsf-name>
<nsf-capability-info>
<security-capability>
<condition-capabilities>
<generic-nsf-capabilities>
<ipv6-capability>i2nsfcap:next-header</ipv6-capability>
<ipv6-capability>i2nsfcap:source-address</ipv6-capability>
<ipv6-capability>i2nsfcap:destination-address</ipv6-capability>
<tcp-capability>i2nsfcap:source-port-number</tcp-capability>
<tcp-capability>i2nsfcap:destination-port-number</tcp-capability>
</generic-nsf-capabilities>
</condition-capabilities>
<action-capabilities>
<ingress-action-capability>
i2nsfcap:pass
</ingress-action-capability>
<ingress-action-capability>
i2nsfcap:drop
</ingress-action-capability>
<ingress-action-capability>
i2nsfcap:mirror
</ingress-action-capability>
<egress-action-capability>
i2nsfcap:pass
</egress-action-capability>
<egress-action-capability>
i2nsfcap:drop
</egress-action-capability>
<egress-action-capability>
i2nsfcap:mirror
</egress-action-capability>
</action-capabilities>
</security-capability>
<performance-capability>
<processing>
<processing-average>1000</processing-average>
<processing-peak>5000</processing-peak>
</processing>
Hyun, et al. Expires 18 December 2022 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Registration Interface YANG Data Model June 2022
<bandwidth>
<outbound>
<outbound-average>1000</outbound-average>
<outbound-peak>5000</outbound-peak>
</outbound>
<inbound>
<inbound-average>1000</inbound-average>
<inbound-peak>5000</inbound-peak>
</inbound>
</bandwidth>
</performance-capability>
</nsf-capability-info>
<nsf-access-info>
<ip>2001:db8:0:1::11</ip>
<port>49152</port>
</nsf-access-info>
</nsf-information>
</nsf-registrations>
Figure 13: Configuration XML for Registration of a General
Firewall in an IPv6 Network
In addition, Figure 13 shows the configuration XML for registering a
general firewall in an IPv6 network [RFC3849] and its capabilities as
follows.
1. The instance name of the NSF is general_firewall.
2. The NSF can inspect IPv6 next header, flow direction, source
address(es), and destination address(es)
3. The NSF can inspect the port number(s) and flow direction for the
transport layer protocol, i.e., TCP and UDP.
4. The NSF can determine whether the packets are allowed to pass,
drop, or mirror.
5. The NSF can have processing power and bandwidth.
6. The IPv6 address of the NSF is 2001:db8:0:1::11.
7. The port of the NSF is 49152.
Hyun, et al. Expires 18 December 2022 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Registration Interface YANG Data Model June 2022
Appendix B. NSF Lifecycle Management in NFV Environments
Network Functions Virtualization (NFV) can be used to implement I2NSF
framework. In NFV environments, NSFs are deployed as virtual network
functions (VNFs). Security Controller can be implemented as an
Element Management (EM) of the NFV architecture, and is connected
with the VNF Manager (VNFM) via the Ve-Vnfm interface
[nfv-framework]. Security Controller can use this interface for the
purpose of the lifecycle management of NSFs. If some NSFs need to be
instantiated to enforce security policies in the I2NSF framework,
Security Controller could request the VNFM to instantiate them
through the Ve-Vnfm interface. Or if an NSF, running as a VNF, is
not used by any traffic flows for a time period, Security Controller
MAY request deinstantiating it through the interface for efficient
resource utilization.
Appendix C. Acknowledgments
This document is a product by the I2NSF Working Group (WG) including
WG Chairs (i.e., Linda Dunbar and Yoav Nir) and Diego Lopez. This
document took advantage of the review and comments from the following
people: Roman Danyliw, Reshad Rahman (YANG doctor), and Tom Petch.
We authors sincerely appreciate their sincere efforts and kind help.
This work was supported by Institute of Information & Communications
Technology Planning & Evaluation (IITP) grant funded by the Korea
MSIT (Ministry of Science and ICT) (No. 2016-0-00078, Cloud Based
Security Intelligence Technology Development for the Customized
Security Service Provisioning). This work was supported in part by
the IITP (2020-0-00395-003, Standard Development of Blockchain based
Network Management Automation Technology).
Appendix D. Contributors
The following are co-authors of this document:
Patrick Lingga - Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
Sungkyunkwan University, 2066 Seo-ro Jangan-gu, Suwon, Gyeonggi-do
16419, Republic of Korea, EMail: patricklink@skku.edu
Jinyong (Tim) Kim - Department of Electronic, Electrical and Computer
Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University, 2066 Seo-ro Jangan-gu, Suwon,
Gyeonggi-do 16419, Republic of Korea, EMail: timkim@skku.edu
Chaehong Chung - Department of Electronic, Electrical and Computer
Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University, 2066 Seo-ro Jangan-gu, Suwon,
Gyeonggi-do 16419, Republic of Korea, EMail: darkhong@skku.edu
Hyun, et al. Expires 18 December 2022 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Registration Interface YANG Data Model June 2022
Susan Hares - Huawei, 7453 Hickory Hill, Saline, MI 48176, USA,
EMail: shares@ndzh.com
Diego R. Lopez - Telefonica I+D, Jose Manuel Lara, 9, Seville,
41013, Spain, EMail: diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com
Appendix E. Changes from draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-interface-dm-17
The following changes are made from draft-ietf-i2nsf-registration-
interface-dm-17:
* Appendices A.2 through A.6 are removed as the examples shown in
those Appendices are redundant since basic examples are shown in
Appendix A.1. Also, the contents of Appendix A.1 are merged to
Appendix A.
Authors' Addresses
Sangwon Hyun (editor)
Department of Computer Engineering
Myongji University
116 Myongji-ro, Cheoin-gu
Yongin
Gyeonggi-do
17058
Republic of Korea
Email: shyun@mju.ac.kr
Jaehoon Paul Jeong (editor)
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Sungkyunkwan University
2066 Seobu-Ro, Jangan-Gu
Suwon
Gyeonggi-Do
16419
Republic of Korea
Phone: +82 31 299 4957
Email: pauljeong@skku.edu
URI: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php
Hyun, et al. Expires 18 December 2022 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Registration Interface YANG Data Model June 2022
Taekyun Roh
Department of Electronic, Electrical and Computer Engineering
Sungkyunkwan University
2066 Seobu-Ro, Jangan-Gu
Suwon
Gyeonggi-Do
16419
Republic of Korea
Phone: +82 31 290 7222
Email: tkroh0198@skku.edu
Sarang Wi
Department of Electronic, Electrical and Computer Engineering
Sungkyunkwan University
2066 Seobu-Ro, Jangan-Gu
Suwon
Gyeonggi-Do
16419
Republic of Korea
Phone: +82 31 290 7222
Email: dnl9795@skku.edu
Jung-Soo Park
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute
218 Gajeong-Ro, Yuseong-Gu
Daejeon
305-700
Republic of Korea
Phone: +82 42 860 6514
Email: pjs@etri.re.kr
Hyun, et al. Expires 18 December 2022 [Page 27]