Interface to the Routing System (I2RS) Traceability: Framework and Information Model
RFC 7922
| Document | Type | RFC - Informational (June 2016; No errata) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Joe Clarke , Gonzalo Salgueiro , Carlos Pignataro | ||
| Last updated | 2016-06-30 | ||
| Replaces | draft-clarke-i2rs-traceability | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Susan Hares | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2016-01-04) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 7922 (Informational) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus Boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | Alia Atlas | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
| IANA action state | No IANA Actions | ||
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Clarke
Request for Comments: 7922 G. Salgueiro
Category: Informational C. Pignataro
ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco
June 2016
Interface to the Routing System (I2RS)
Traceability: Framework and Information Model
Abstract
This document describes a framework for traceability in the Interface
to the Routing System (I2RS) and the information model for that
framework. It specifies the motivation, requirements, and use cases,
and defines an information model for recording interactions between
elements implementing the I2RS protocol. This framework provides a
consistent tracing interface for components implementing the I2RS
architecture to record what was done, by which component, and when.
It aims to improve the management of I2RS implementations, and can be
used for troubleshooting, auditing, forensics, and accounting
purposes.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
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). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
Standard; see 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
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7922.
Clarke, et al. Informational [Page 1]
RFC 7922 I2RS Traceability June 2016
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
(http://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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................3
2. Terminology and Conventions .....................................3
3. Motivation ......................................................4
4. Use Cases .......................................................4
5. Information Model ...............................................5
5.1. I2RS Traceability Framework ................................5
5.2. I2RS Trace Log Fields ......................................7
5.3. End of Message Marker .....................................11
6. Examples .......................................................11
7. Operational Guidance ...........................................11
7.1. Trace Log Creation ........................................12
7.2. Trace Log Temporary Storage ...............................12
7.3. Trace Log Rotation ........................................13
7.4. Trace Log Retrieval .......................................13
7.4.1. Retrieval via Syslog ...............................14
7.4.2. Retrieval via I2RS Information Collection ..........14
7.4.3. Retrieval via I2RS Pub/Sub .........................14
8. Security Considerations ........................................15
9. References .....................................................16
9.1. Normative References ......................................16
9.2. Informative References ....................................16
Acknowledgments ...................................................17
Authors' Addresses ................................................17
Clarke, et al. Informational [Page 2]
RFC 7922 I2RS Traceability June 2016
1. Introduction
The architecture for the Interface to the Routing System [RFC7921]
specifies that I2RS clients wishing to retrieve or change the routing
state on a routing element MUST authenticate to an I2RS agent. The
I2RS client will have a unique identity it provides for
authentication, and should provide another opaque identity for
applications communicating through it. The programming of routing
state will produce a return code containing the results of the
specified operation and associated reason(s) for the result. All of
this is critical information to be used for understanding the history
of I2RS interactions.
This document defines the framework necessary to trace those
interactions between the I2RS client and I2RS agent. It goes on to
describe use cases for traceability within I2RS. Based on these use
cases, the document proposes an information model and reporting
requirements to provide for effective recording of I2RS interactions.
In this context, effective troubleshooting means being able to
identify what operation was performed by a specific I2RS client via
the I2RS agent, what was the result of the operation, and when that
operation was performed.
2. Terminology and Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
The architecture specification for I2RS [RFC7921] defines additional
terms used in this document that are specific to the I2RS domain,
such as "I2RS agent", "I2RS client", etc. The reader is expected to
be familiar with the terminology and concepts defined in [RFC7921].
Clarke, et al. Informational [Page 3]
RFC 7922 I2RS Traceability June 2016
3. Motivation
As networks scale and policy becomes an increasingly important part
of the control plane that creates and maintains the forwarding state,
operational complexity increases as well. I2RS offers more granular
and coherent control over policy and control-plane state, but it also
removes or reduces the locality of the policy that has been applied
to the control plane at any individual forwarding device. The
ability to automate and abstract even complex policy-based controls
highlights the need for an equally scalable traceability function to
provide recording at event-level granularity of the evolution of the
routing system compliant with the requirements of I2RS (Section 5 of
[RFC7920]).
4. Use Cases
An obvious motivation for I2RS traceability is the need to
troubleshoot and identify root causes of problems in these
increasingly complex routing systems. For example, since I2RS is a
high-throughput multi-channel, full duplex, and highly responsive
interface, I2RS clients may be performing a large number of
operations on I2RS agents concurrently or at nearly the same time and
quite possibly in very rapid succession. As these many changes are
made, the network reacts accordingly. These changes might lead to a
race condition, performance issues, data loss, or disruption of
services. In order to isolate the root cause of these issues, it is
critical that a network operator or administrator has visibility into
what changes were made via I2RS at a specific time.
Some network environments have strong auditing requirements for
configuration and runtime changes. Other environments have policies
that require saving logging information for operational or regulatory
compliance considerations. These requirements therefore demand that
I2RS provides an account of changes made to network element routing
systems.
As I2RS becomes increasingly pervasive in routing environments, a
traceability model that supports controllable trace log retention
using a standardized structured data format offers significant
advantages, such as the ability to create common tools supporting
automated testing, and facilitates the following use cases:
Clarke, et al. Informational [Page 4]
RFC 7922 I2RS Traceability June 2016
o real-time monitoring and troubleshooting of router events;
o automated event correlation, trend analysis, and anomaly
detection;
o offline (manual or tools-based) analysis of router state evolution
from the retained trace logs;
o enhanced network audit, management, and forensic analysis
capabilities;
o improved accounting of routing system operations; and
o providing a standardized format for incident reporting and test
logging.
5. Information Model
These sections describe the I2RS traceability information model and
the details about each of the fields to be logged.
5.1. I2RS Traceability Framework
This section describes a framework for I2RS traceability based on the
I2RS Architecture.
The interaction between the optional network application that drives
client activity, I2RS client, I2RS agent, the Routing System, and the
data captured in the I2RS trace log is shown in Figure 1.
Clarke, et al. Informational [Page 5]
RFC 7922 I2RS Traceability June 2016
+---------------+
+----------------+ |
|Application | |
|.............. | | 0 or more Applications
| Application ID | +
+----------------+
^
|
|
v
+-------------+
+-------------+ |
|I2RS Client | |
|.............| | 1 or more Clients
| Client ID | +
+-------------+
^
|
|
v
+-------------+ +-----------------------------+
|I2RS Agent |---------------->|Trace Log |
| | |.............................|
+-------------+ |Log Entry [1 .. N] |
| ^ |.............................|
| | |Event ID |
| | |Starting Timestamp |
| | |Request State |
| | |Client ID |
| | |Client Priority |
| | |Secondary ID |
Operation + | | Result Code |Client Address |
Op Data | | |Requested Operation |
| | |Applied Operation |
| | |Operation Data Present |
| | |Requested Operation Data |
| | |Applied Operation Data |
| | |Transaction ID |
| | |Result Code |
| | |Ending Timestamp |
| | |Timeout Occurred |
v | |End Of Message |
+-------------+ +-----------------------------+
|Routing |
|System |
+-------------+
Figure 1: I2RS Interaction Trace Log Capture
Clarke, et al. Informational [Page 6]
RFC 7922 I2RS Traceability June 2016
5.2. I2RS Trace Log Fields
The following fields comprise an I2RS trace log. These fields ensure
that each I2RS interaction can be properly traced back to the client
that made the request at a specific point in time.
The list below describes the fields captured in the I2RS trace log.
This list represents a common set of fields that MUST appear in all
I2RS trace logs. In addition to these fields, I2RS agent
implementations MAY choose to log additional fields such as I2RS
client vendor or agent statistics like free memory, performance
metrics, etc.
Event ID: This is a unique identifier for each event in the I2RS
trace log. An event can be a client authenticating with the
agent, a client to agent operation, or a client disconnecting from
an agent. Operation events can either be logged atomically upon
completion (in which case they will have both a Starting and an
Ending Timestamp field) or they can be logged at the beginning of
each Request State transition. Since operations can occur from
the same client at the same time, it is important to have an
identifier that can be unambiguously associated to a specific
entry. If each state transition is logged for an operation, the
same ID MUST be used for each of the Request State log entries.
In this way, the life of a request can be easily followed in the
I2RS trace log. Beyond the requirement that the Event ID MUST be
unique for each event, the specific type and value is left up to
the implementation.
Starting Timestamp: The specific time at which the I2RS operation
enters the specified Request State within the agent. If the log
entry covers the entire duration of the request, then this will be
the time that it was first received by the agent. This field MUST
be present in all entries that specify the beginning of the state
transition, as well as those entries that log the entire duration
of the request. The time is passed in the full timestamp format
[RFC3339], including the date and offset from Coordinated
Universal Time (UTC). Given that many I2RS operations can occur
in rapid succession, the fractional seconds element of the
timestamp MUST be used to provide adequate granularity.
Fractional seconds SHOULD be expressed with at least three
significant digits in second.microsecond format.
Clarke, et al. Informational [Page 7]
RFC 7922 I2RS Traceability June 2016
Request State: The state of the given operation within the I2RS
agent state machine at the specified Starting or Ending
Timestamps. The I2RS agent SHOULD generate a log entry at the
moment a request enters and exits a state. Upon entering a new
state, the log entry will have a Starting Timestamp set to the
time of entry and no Ending Timestamp. Upon exiting a state, the
log entry will have an Ending Timestamp set to the time of exit
and no Starting Timestamp. The progression of the request through
its various states can be linked using the Event ID. The states
can be one of the following values:
PENDING: The request has been received and queued for
processing.
IN PROCESS: The request is currently being handled by the I2RS
agent.
COMPLETED: The request has reached a terminal point.
Every state transition SHOULD be logged unless doing so will put
an undue performance burden on the I2RS agent. However, an entry
with the Request State set to COMPLETED MUST be logged for all
operations. If the COMPLETED state is the only entry for a given
request, then it MUST have both Starting and Ending Timestamps
that cover the entire duration of the request from ingress to the
agent until completion.
Client Identity: The I2RS client identity used to authenticate the
client to the I2RS agent.
Client Priority: The I2RS client priority assigned by the access
control model that authenticates the client. For example, this
can be set by the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) Access
Control Model (NACM) as described in [RFC6536].
Secondary Identity: This is an opaque identity that may be known to
the client from a controlling network application. This is used
to trace the network application driving the actions of the
client. The client may not provide this identity to the agent if
there is no external network application driving the client.
However, this field MUST be logged even if the client does not
provide a Secondary Identity. In that case, the field will be
logged with an empty value.
Client Address: This is the network address of the client that
connected to the agent. For example, this may be an IPv4 or an
IPv6 address.
Clarke, et al. Informational [Page 8]
RFC 7922 I2RS Traceability June 2016
Requested Operation: This is the I2RS operation that was requested
to be performed. For example, this may be an add route operation
if a route is being inserted into a routing table. This may not
be the operation that was actually applied to the agent.
In the case of a client authenticating to the agent, the Requested
Operation MUST be "CLIENT AUTHENTICATE". In the case of a client
disconnecting from the agent, the Requested Operation MUST be
"CLIENT DISCONNECT".
Applied Operation: This is the I2RS operation that was actually
performed. This can differ from the Requested Operation in cases
where the agent cannot satisfy the Requested Operation. This
field may not be logged unless the Request State is COMPLETED.
Operation Data Present: This is a Boolean field that indicates
whether or not additional per-Operation Data is present.
Requested Operation Data: This field comprises the data passed to
the agent to complete the desired operation. For example, if the
operation is a route add operation, the Operation Data would
include the route prefix, prefix length, and next-hop information
to be inserted as well as the specific routing table to which the
route will be added. If Operation Data is provided, then the
Operation Data Present field MUST be set to TRUE. Some operations
may not provide operation data. In those cases, the Operation
Data Present field MUST be set to FALSE, and this field MUST be
empty. This may not represent the data that was used for the
operation that was actually applied on the agent.
When a client authenticates to the agent, the Requested Operation
Data MUST contain the client priority. Other attributes such as
credentials used for authentication MAY be logged.
Applied Operation Data: This field comprises the data that was
actually applied as part of the Applied Operation. If the agent
cannot satisfy the Requested Operation with the Requested
Operation Data, then this field can differ from the Requested
Operation Data. This field will be empty unless the Requested
Operation Data was specified. This field may not be logged unless
the Request State is COMPLETED.
Clarke, et al. Informational [Page 9]
RFC 7922 I2RS Traceability June 2016
Transaction ID: The Transaction Identity represents that this
particular operation is part of a long-running I2RS transaction
that can consist of multiple, related I2RS operations. Using this
value, one can relate multiple log entries together as they are
part of a single, overall I2RS operation. This is an optional
field that may not be logged unless the event is part of a long-
running transaction.
Result Code: This field holds the result of the operation once the
Request State is COMPLETED. In the case of Routing Information
Base (RIB) operations, this MUST be the return code as specified
in Section 4 of [RIBINFO]. The operation may not complete with a
result code in the case of a timeout. If the operation fails to
complete, it MUST still log the attempted operation with an
appropriate result code.
Timeout Occurred: This is a Boolean field that indicates whether or
not a timeout occurred in the operation. When this is true, the
value of the Ending Timestamp MUST be set to the time the agent
recorded for the timeout occurrence. This field may not be logged
unless the Request State is COMPLETED.
Ending Timestamp: The specific time at which the I2RS operation
exits the specified Request State within the I2RS agent. If the
log entry covers the entire duration of the request, then this
will be the time that the request reached a terminal point within
the agent. This field MUST be present in all entries that specify
the ending of the state transition, as well as those entries that
log the entire duration of the request. The time is passed in the
full timestamp format [RFC3339], including the date and offset
from Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). See the description for
Starting Timestamp above for the proper format of the Ending
Timestamp.
End Of Message: Each log entry SHOULD have an appropriate End Of
Message (EOM) indicator. See Section 5.3 below for more details.
Clarke, et al. Informational [Page 10]
RFC 7922 I2RS Traceability June 2016
5.3. End of Message Marker
Because of variability within I2RS trace log fields, implementors
MUST use a format-appropriate End Of Message (EOM) indicator in order
to signify the end of a particular record. That is, regardless of
format, the I2RS trace log MUST provide a distinct way of
distinguishing between the end of one record and the beginning of
another. For example, in a linear-formatted log (similar to a
syslog) the EOM marker may be a newline character. In an XML-
formatted log, the schema would provide for element tags that denote
the beginning and end of records. In a JSON-formatted log, the
syntax would provide record separation (likely by comma-separated
array elements).
6. Examples
This section shows a sample of what the fields and values could look
like.
Event ID: 1
Starting Timestamp: 2013-09-03T12:00:01.21+00:00
Request State: COMPLETED
Client ID: 5CEF1870-0326-11E2-A21F-0800200C9A66
Client Priority: 100
Secondary ID: com.example.RoutingApp
Client Address: 2001:db8:c0c0::2
Requested Operation: ROUTE_ADD
Applied Operation: ROUTE_ADD
Operation Data Present: TRUE
Requested Operation Data: PREFIX 2001:db8:feed:: PREFIX-LEN 64
NEXT-HOP 2001:db8:cafe::1
Applied Operation Data: PREFIX 2001:db8:feed:: PREFIX-LEN 64
NEXT-HOP 2001:db8:cafe::1
Transaction ID: 2763461
Result Code: SUCCESS(0)
Timeout Occurred: FALSE
Ending Timestamp: 2013-09-03T12:00:01.23+00:00
7. Operational Guidance
Specific operational procedures regarding temporary log storage,
rollover, retrieval, and access of I2RS trace logs is out of scope
for this document. Organizations employing I2RS trace logging are
responsible for establishing proper operational procedures that are
appropriately suited to their specific requirements and operating
environment. In this section, we only provide fundamental and
generalized operational guidelines that are implementation
independent.
Clarke, et al. Informational [Page 11]
RFC 7922 I2RS Traceability June 2016
7.1. Trace Log Creation
The I2RS agent interacts with the Routing and Signaling functions of
the Routing Element. Since the I2RS agent is responsible for
actually making the routing changes on the associated network device,
it creates and maintains a log of operations that can be retrieved to
troubleshoot I2RS-related impact to the network. Changes that occur
to the network element's local configuration outside of the I2RS
protocol that preempt I2RS state will only be logged if the network
element notifies the I2RS agent.
7.2. Trace Log Temporary Storage
The trace information may be temporarily stored either in an
in-memory buffer or as a file local to the agent. Care should be
given to the number of I2RS operations expected on a given agent so
that the appropriate storage medium is used, and to maximize the
effectiveness of the log while not impacting the performance and
health of the agent. client requests may not always be processed
synchronously or within a bounded time period. Consequently, to
ensure that trace log fields, such as "Operation" and "Result Code",
are part of the same trace log record, buffering of the trace log
entries may be required. This buffering may result in additional
resource load on the agent and the network element.
Section 7.3 discusses rotating the trace log in order to preserve the
operation history without exhausting agent or network device
resources. It is perfectly acceptable, therefore, to use both an
in-memory buffer for recent operations while rotating or archiving
older operations to a local file.
It is outside the scope of this document to specify the
implementation details (i.e., size, throughput, data protection,
etc.) for the physical storage of the I2RS log file. In terms of
data retention, attention should be paid to the length of time that
the I2RS trace log data is kept when that data contains security- or
privacy-sensitive attributes. The longer this data is retained, the
higher the impact if it were to be leaked. It is also possible that
legislation may impose some additional requirements on the minimum
and/or maximum durations for which some kinds of data may be
retained.
Clarke, et al. Informational [Page 12]
RFC 7922 I2RS Traceability June 2016
7.3. Trace Log Rotation
In order to prevent the exhaustion of resources on the I2RS agent or
its associated network device, it is RECOMMENDED that the I2RS agent
implements trace log rotation. The details on how this is achieved
are left to the implementation and are outside the scope of this
document. However, it should be possible to do a file rotation based
on either the time or size of the current trace log. If file
rollover is supported, multiple archived log files should be
supported in order to maximize the troubleshooting and accounting
benefits of the trace log.
7.4. Trace Log Retrieval
Implementors are free to provide their own, proprietary interfaces
and develop custom tools to retrieve and display the I2RS trace log.
These may include the display of the I2RS trace log as command-line
interface (CLI) output. However, a key intention of defining this
information model is to establish a vendor-agnostic and consistent
interface to collect I2RS trace data. Correspondingly, retrieval of
the data should also be made vendor-agnostic.
Despite the fact that export of I2RS trace log information could be
an invaluable diagnostic tool for off-box analysis, exporting this
information MUST NOT interfere with the ability of the agent to
process new incoming operations.
The following three sections describe potential ways the trace log
can be accessed. The use of I2RS pub/sub for accessing trace log
data is mandatory-to-implement, while others are optional.
Clarke, et al. Informational [Page 13]
RFC 7922 I2RS Traceability June 2016
7.4.1. Retrieval via Syslog
The syslog protocol [RFC5424] is a standard way of sending event
notification messages from a host to a collector. However, the
protocol does not define any standard format for storing the
messages, and thus implementors of I2RS tracing would be left to
define their own format. So, while the data contained within the
syslog message would adhere to this information model, and may be
consumable by a human operator, it would not be easily parseable by a
machine. Syslog MAY be employed as a means of retrieving or
disseminating the I2RS trace log contents.
If syslog is used for trace log retrieval, then existing logging
infrastructure and capabilities of syslog [RFC5424] should be
leveraged without the need to define or extend existing formats.
That is, the various fields described in Section 5.2 SHOULD be
modeled and encoded as Structured Data Elements (referred to as
"SD-ELEMENT"), as described in Section 6.3.1 of [RFC5424].
7.4.2. Retrieval via I2RS Information Collection
Section 7.7 of the I2RS architecture [RFC7921] defines a mechanism
for information collection. The information collected includes
obtaining a snapshot of a large amount of data from the network
element. It is the intent of I2RS to make this data available in an
implementor-agnostic fashion. Therefore, the I2RS trace log SHOULD
be made available via the I2RS information collection mechanism
either as a single snapshot or via a subscription stream.
7.4.3. Retrieval via I2RS Pub/Sub
Section 7.6 of the I2RS architecture [RFC7921] goes on to describe
notification mechanisms for a feed of changes happening within the
I2RS layer. Specifically, the requirements for a publish-subscribe
system for I2RS are defined in [RFC7923]. I2RS agents MUST support
publishing I2RS trace log information to that feed as described in
[RFC7923]. Subscribers would then receive a live stream of I2RS
interactions in trace log format and could flexibly choose to do a
number of things with the log messages. For example, the subscribers
could log the messages to a datastore, aggregate, and summarize
interactions from a single client, etc. The full range of potential
activities is virtually limitless and the details of how they are
performed are outside the scope of this document, however.
Clarke, et al. Informational [Page 14]
RFC 7922 I2RS Traceability June 2016
8. Security Considerations
The I2RS trace log, like any log file, reveals the state of the
entity producing it as well as the identifying information elements
and detailed interactions of the system containing it. The
information model described in this document does not itself
introduce any security issues, but it does define the set of
attributes that make up an I2RS log file. These attributes may
contain sensitive information, and thus should adhere to the
security, privacy, and permission policies of the organization making
use of the I2RS log file.
It is outside the scope of this document to specify how to protect
the stored log file, but it is expected that adequate precautions and
security best practices such as disk encryption, appropriately
restrictive file/directory permissions, suitable hardening and
physical security of logging entities, mutual authentication,
transport encryption, channel confidentiality, and channel integrity
if transferring log files. Additionally, the potentially sensitive
information contained in a log file SHOULD be adequately anonymized
or obfuscated by operators to ensure its privacy.
Clarke, et al. Informational [Page 15]
RFC 7922 I2RS Traceability June 2016
9. References
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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet:
Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3339>.
[RFC5424] Gerhards, R., "The Syslog Protocol", RFC 5424,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5424, March 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5424>.
[RFC7921] Atlas, A., Halpern, J., Hares, S., Ward, D., and T.
Nadeau, "An Architecture for the Interface to the Routing
System", RFC 7921, DOI 10.17487/RFC7921, June 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7921>.
[RFC7923] Voit, E., Clemm, A., and A. Gonzalez Prieto, "Requirements
for Subscription to YANG Datastores", RFC 7923,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7923, June 2016.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC6536] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration
Protocol (NETCONF) Access Control Model", RFC 6536,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6536, March 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6536>.
[RFC7920] Atlas, A., Ed., Nadeau, T., Ed., and D. Ward, "Problem
Statement for the Interface to the Routing System",
RFC 7923, DOI 10.17487/RFC7923, June 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7920>.
[RIBINFO] Bahadur, N., Ed., Kini, S., Ed., and J. Medved, "Routing
Information Base Info Model", Work in Progress,
draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-info-model-08, October 2015.
Clarke, et al. Informational [Page 16]
RFC 7922 I2RS Traceability June 2016
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Alia Atlas for her initial feedback
and overall support for this work. Additionally, the authors
acknowledge Alvaro Retana, Russ White, Matt Birkner, Jeff Haas, Joel
Halpern, Dean Bogdanovich, Ignas Bagdonas, Nobo Akiya, Kwang-koog
Lee, Sue Hares, Mach Chen, Alex Clemm, Stephen Farrell, Benoit
Claise, Les Ginsberg, Suresh Krishnan, and Elwyn Davies for their
reviews, contributed text, and suggested improvements to this
document.
Authors' Addresses
Joe Clarke
Cisco Systems, Inc.
7200-12 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
United States
Phone: +1-919-392-2867
Email: jclarke@cisco.com
Gonzalo Salgueiro
Cisco Systems, Inc.
7200-12 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
United States
Email: gsalguei@cisco.com
Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems, Inc.
7200-11 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
United States
Email: cpignata@cisco.com
Clarke, et al. Informational [Page 17]