RFC 9643
YANG Groupings for TCP Clients and TCP Servers
YANG Groupings for TCP Clients and TCP Servers 🎀
(part 1 of 6)
okay bestie, this one is RFC 9643 🦋 and it's giving "TCP config, but make it a template." The title is "YANG Groupings for TCP Clients and TCP Servers" 💖. The authors are K. Watsen from Watsen Networks and M. Scharf from Hochschule Esslingen 👑. It's a Standards Track document from the IETF, with ISSN 2070-1721, and it was published in October 2024 ✨. The header doesn't list anything it obsoletes or updates, so no drama there 💅.
Abstract ✨
okay so this document gives us three YANG 1.1 modules for setting up TCP clients and TCP servers 🫶. The modules cover the basic TCP connection settings that client or server apps care about, plus the client config you need to get through proxies 🌸. You can use these models on their own (say, to define one specific TCP client or server) or pair them with the config for higher-level protocols that sit on top of TCP, like SSH or TLS 💜. Examples of that higher-level config are in RFCs 9644 and 9645 💅.
Status of This Memo ✨
this is an Internet Standards Track document 🔥
it's a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and it represents the consensus of the IETF community 🌈. It got public review and was approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) 👑. If you want more on Internet Standards, check Section 2 of RFC 7841 🧚.
info about the current status of this doc, any errata, and how to send feedback lives at https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9643 🎀
Copyright Notice 💖
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. ✨
this doc is covered by BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) as they stood on the publication date 🦋. Please read them carefully, because they explain your rights and restrictions for this document 📜. Code Components pulled out of this document have to include the Revised BSD License text described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions, and they come without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License 🫶.
Table of Contents 🌸
1. Introduction
1.1. Relation to Other RFCs
1.2. Specification Language
1.3. Adherence to the NMDA
1.4. Conventions
2. The "ietf-tcp-common" Module
2.1. Data Model Overview
2.2. Example Usage
2.3. YANG Module
3. The "ietf-tcp-client" Module
3.1. Data Model Overview
3.2. Example Usage
3.3. YANG Module
4. The "ietf-tcp-server" Module
4.1. Data Model Overview
4.2. Example Usage
4.3. YANG Module
5. Security Considerations
5.1. Considerations for the "ietf-tcp-common" YANG Module
5.2. Considerations for the "ietf-tcp-client" YANG Module
5.3. Considerations for the "ietf-tcp-server" YANG Module
6. IANA Considerations
6.1. The IETF XML Registry
6.2. The YANG Module Names Registry
7. References
7.1. Normative References
7.2. Informative References
Acknowledgements
Authors' Addresses1. Introduction 🌈
okay so this doc defines three YANG 1.1 [RFC7950] modules for configuring TCP clients and TCP servers (TCP itself is defined in [RFC9293]) 💖. The data models can be used directly, like to define one specific TCP client or server, or combined with config for higher-level protocols that depend on TCP, such as SSH or TLS 🦋. Examples of that higher-level config are in [RFC9644] and [RFC9645] ✨.
the modules focus on three kinds of base TCP parameters that matter for TCP-based apps 🎀. First, there's the basic setup for a TCP client or server app, like addresses and port numbers 🌸. Second, there's a reusable grouping for tweaking app-specific TCP connection parameters, like TCP keepalives 💅. And third, there's client config for traversing proxies 🧚. Each module has a very narrow scope and only covers a minimum set of required parameters, which is very on-brand for good design 👑.
heads up: this doc supports some TCP proxy techniques, but there are other proxy techniques that aren't in here. You could add those later by augmenting the YANG module 🫶.
1.1. Relation to Other RFCs 💖
this doc presents three YANG modules [RFC7950] that are part of a bigger collection of RFCs working together to configure both the clients and servers of the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) [RFC6241] and RESTCONF [RFC8040] 🦋.
the dependency relationships between the main YANG groupings in these RFCs are shown in the diagram below ✨. Sometimes a document defines secondary groupings that bring in dependencies the diagram doesn't show 🌸. The labels in the diagram are shorthand names for the defining RFCs, and their citations are listed below the diagram 💜.
Please note that the arrows point from referencer to referenced 🎀. For example, the "crypto-types" RFC doesn't have any dependencies, whilst the "keystore" RFC depends on the "crypto-types" RFC 🔥.
crypto-types
^ ^
/ \
/ \
truststore keystore
^ ^ ^ ^
| +---------+ | |
| | | |
| +------------+ |
tcp-client-server | / | |
^ ^ ssh-client-server | |
| | ^ tls-client-server
| | | ^ ^ http-client-server
| | | | | ^
| | | +-----+ +---------+ |
| | | | | |
| +-----------|--------|--------------+ | |
| | | | | |
+-----------+ | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
netconf-client-server restconf-client-server +========================+==========================+
| Label in Diagram | Reference |
+========================+==========================+
| crypto-types | [RFC9640] |
+------------------------+--------------------------+
| truststore | [RFC9641] |
+------------------------+--------------------------+
| keystore | [RFC9642] |
+------------------------+--------------------------+
| tcp-client-server | RFC 9643 |
+------------------------+--------------------------+
| ssh-client-server | [RFC9644] |
+------------------------+--------------------------+
| tls-client-server | [RFC9645] |
+------------------------+--------------------------+
| http-client-server | [HTTP-CLIENT-SERVER] |
+------------------------+--------------------------+
| netconf-client-server | [NETCONF-CLIENT-SERVER] |
+------------------------+--------------------------+
| restconf-client-server | [RESTCONF-CLIENT-SERVER] |
+------------------------+--------------------------+
Table 1: Label in Diagram to RFC Mapping1.2. Specification Language 📜
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 read as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174], but only when they show up in all capitals, exactly like that 💅.
1.3. Adherence to the NMDA 🦋
this doc follows the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) [RFC8342] ✨. It doesn't define any protocol-accessible nodes that are "config false" 🌸.
1.4. Conventions 🎀
a bunch of the examples in here use the XML [W3C.REC-xml-20081126] encoding 🫶. Other encodings, like JSON [RFC8259], could be used instead 💜.
2. The "ietf-tcp-common" Module 💖
this section defines a YANG 1.1 module called "ietf-tcp-common" 🦋. There's a high-level overview in Section 2.1, examples of how it's used in Section 2.2 ("Example Usage"), and the actual YANG module in Section 2.3 ✨.
2.1. Data Model Overview 🌸
this section gives you an overview of the "ietf-tcp-common" module, covering its features and groupings 💅.
2.1.1. Model Scope 🧚
this doc presents a common "grouping" statement for basic TCP connection parameters that matter to apps 👑. It's "common" because both the "ietf-tcp-client" and "ietf-tcp-server" modules use this grouping 🔥. In some TCP stacks, apps can also set these parameters directly through system calls, like with the sockets API 🌈. The base YANG model here focuses on modeling TCP keepalives, and it can be extended as needed 🎀.
2.1.2. Features 💜
here's the diagram listing all the "feature" statements defined in the "ietf-tcp-common" module 🦋:
Features:
+-- keepalives-supportedthe diagram above uses syntax that's similar to, but not defined in, [RFC8340] ✨.
2.1.3. Groupings 🌸
the "ietf-tcp-common" module defines the following "grouping" statement 🫶:
- tcp-common-grouping
it's presented in the next subsection 💅.
2.1.3.1. The "tcp-common-grouping" Grouping 🧚
here's the tree diagram [RFC8340] for the "tcp-common-grouping" grouping 👑:
grouping tcp-common-grouping:
+-- keepalives! {keepalives-supported}?
+-- idle-time? uint16
+-- max-probes? uint16
+-- probe-interval? uint16comments, because I have thoughts 💖:
- The "keepalives" node is a "presence" container. That way, the mandatory descendant nodes don't imply that keepalives have to be configured 🦋.
- The "idle-time", "max-probes", and "probe-interval" nodes have the common meanings. Check the YANG module in Section 2.3 for the details ✨.
2.1.4. Protocol-Accessible Nodes 🌈
the "ietf-tcp-common" module only defines "grouping" statements, which other modules use to instantiate protocol-accessible nodes 🎀. So this module, when it's implemented, doesn't define any protocol-accessible nodes by itself 💅.
2.1.5. Guidelines for Configuring TCP Keepalives 🦋
okay bestie, so not every network stack even bothers with keepalives 🙈 it's not universal. but IF a stack does include them, [RFC9293] is very clear: the application MUST be able to turn them on or off for each TCP connection, and they MUST default to off. no cap, that's the rule ✨
keepalive mechanisms show up in lots of protocols 💅 depending on your stack, TCP keepalives might be just one option out of several. which one you use depends on the use case and what the app actually needs. if an application does need keepalives, it is RECOMMENDED that the liveness check happens only at the protocol layers that actually matter to the app 🌸
a TCP keepalive mechanism SHOULD only be invoked in server applications that might otherwise hang indefinitely and waste resources if a client crashes or aborts a connection during a network failure [RFC9293]. keepalives can eat up a lot of resources, both in the network and on endpoints (think battery power 🔋). frequent keepalives also risk network congestion 😭 the higher the frequency, the higher the overhead. so yeah, the parameters need to be configured carefully:
- the default idle interval (leaf
idle-time) is two hours, i.e., 7200 seconds [RFC9293]. a lower value MAY be configured, but idle intervals SHOULD NOT be smaller than 15 seconds. longer idle intervals SHOULD be used when possible 🌈 - the maximum number of sequential keepalive probes that can fail (leaf
max-probes) is a trade-off between responsiveness and robustness against packet loss 🧚. ACK segments that contain no data are not reliably transmitted by TCP, so if a keepalive mechanism is implemented, it MUST NOT interpret failure to respond to any specific probe as a dead connection [RFC9293]. typically, a single-digit number should suffice ✨ - TCP implementations may include a parameter for the number of seconds between TCP keepalive probes (leaf
probe-interval). to avoid congestion, the time interval between probes MUST NOT be smaller than one second. significantly longer intervals SHOULD be used. keepalive probes (or replies) can get dropped due to network congestion, and sending more probes into a congested path after a short interval, without backing off timers, could cause harm and even a congestion collapse 💀. so it is essential to pick a large, conservative value for this interval 🫶
2.2. Example Usage 🎀
this section shows an example of the tcp-common-grouping grouping filled in with some data ✨
<!-- The outermost element below doesn't exist in the data model. -->
<!-- It simulates if the "grouping" were a "container" instead. -->
<tcp-common xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tcp-common">
<keepalives>
<idle-time>7200</idle-time>
<max-probes>9</max-probes>
<probe-interval>75</probe-interval>
</keepalives>
</tcp-common>2.3. YANG Module 💜
the ietf-tcp-common YANG module references [RFC6991] and [RFC9293] 🌸
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-tcp-common@2024-10-10.yang"
module ietf-tcp-common {
yang-version 1.1;
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tcp-common";
prefix tcpcmn;
organization
"IETF NETCONF (Network Configuration) Working Group and the
IETF TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions (TCPM) Working Group";
contact
"WG Web: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/netconf
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tcpm
WG List: NETCONF WG list <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
TCPM WG list <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
Authors: Kent Watsen <mailto:kent+ietf@watsen.net>
Michael Scharf
<mailto:michael.scharf@hs-esslingen.de>";
description
"This module define a reusable 'grouping' that is common
to both TCP clients and TCP servers. This grouping statement
is used by both the 'ietf-tcp-client' and 'ietf-tcp-server'
modules.
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) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified
as authors of the code. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with
or without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and
subject to the license terms contained in, the Revised
BSD License set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's
Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
This version of this YANG module is part of RFC 9643
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9643); see the RFC
itself for full legal notices.";
revision 2024-10-10 {
description
"Initial version.";
reference
"RFC 9643: YANG Groupings for TCP Clients and TCP Servers";
}
// Features
feature keepalives-supported {
description
"Indicates that keepalives are supported.";
}
// Groupings
grouping tcp-common-grouping {
description
"A reusable grouping for configuring TCP parameters common
to TCP connections as well as the operating system as a
whole.";
container keepalives {
if-feature "keepalives-supported";
presence "Indicates that keepalives are enabled, aligning to
the requirement in Section 3.8.4 of RFC 9293 that
states keepalives are off by default.";
description
"Configures the keepalive policy to proactively test the
aliveness of the TCP peer. An unresponsive TCP peer is
dropped after approximately (idle-time + max-probes *
probe-interval) seconds. Further guidance can be found
in Section 2.1.5 of RFC 9643.";
reference
"RFC 9293: Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)";
leaf idle-time {
type uint16 {
range "1..max";
}
units "seconds";
default "7200";
description
"Sets the amount of time after which a TCP-level probe
message will be sent to test the aliveness of the TCP
peer if no data has been received from the TCP peer.
Two hours (7200 seconds) is a safe value, per Section
3.8.4 of RFC 9293.";
reference
"RFC 9293: Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)";
}
leaf max-probes {
type uint16 {
range "1..max";
}
default "9";
description
"Sets the maximum number of sequential keepalive probes
that can fail to obtain a response from the TCP peer
before assuming the TCP peer is no longer alive.";
}
leaf probe-interval {
type uint16 {
range "1..max";
}
units "seconds";
default "75";
description
"Sets the time interval between failed probes. The
interval SHOULD be significantly longer than one second
in order to avoid harm on a congested link.";
}
} // container keepalives
} // grouping tcp-common-grouping
}
<CODE ENDS>3. The "ietf-tcp-client" Module 🧚
this section defines a YANG 1.1 module called "ietf-tcp-client" ✨ you'll find a high-level overview in Section 3.1, examples of how to use it in Section 3.2 ("Example Usage"), and the YANG module itself in Section 3.3.
3.1. Data Model Overview 🦋
this section gives you an overview of the "ietf-tcp-client" module, covering its features and groupings 💖
3.1.1. Features 🌸
here's a diagram listing all the "feature" statements defined in the "ietf-tcp-client" module:
Features:
+-- local-binding-supported
+-- tcp-client-keepalives
+-- proxy-connect
+-- socks4-supported {proxy-connect}?
+-- socks4a-supported {proxy-connect}?
+-- socks5-supported {proxy-connect}?
+-- socks5-gss-api {socks5-supported}?
+-- socks5-username-password {socks5-supported}?Comments:
- the "local-binding-supported" feature indicates that the server supports configuring local bindings (i.e., the local address and local port) for TCP clients 🌈
- the "tcp-client-keepalives" feature indicates that TCP keepalive parameters are configurable for TCP clients on the server implementing this feature 💜
- the "proxy-connect" feature indicates the TCP client supports connecting through TCP proxies 🍓
- the "socks4-supported" feature indicates the TCP client supports Socks4-based proxies 🎀
- the "socks4a-supported" feature indicates the TCP client supports Socks4a-based proxies. the difference between Socks4 and Socks4a is that Socks4a enables the "remote-address" to be specified using a hostname, in addition to an IP address 👑
- the "socks5-supported" feature indicates the TCP client supports Socks5-based proxies 🫶
- the "socks5-gss-api" feature indicates that the server, when acting as a TCP client, supports authenticating to a SOCKS Version 5 proxy server using Generic Security Service Application Program Interface (GSS-API) credentials 🔥
- the "socks5-username-password" feature indicates that the server, when acting as a TCP client, supports authenticating to a SOCKS Version 5 proxy server using "username" and "password" credentials."
the diagram above uses syntax that is similar to but not defined in [RFC8340] 🙈
3.1.2. Groupings 💅
the "ietf-tcp-client" module defines the following "grouping" statement:
- tcp-client-grouping
this grouping is presented in the following subsection ✨
3.1.2.1. The "tcp-client-grouping" Grouping
Okay, this is the big one, bestie 🎀. The tree diagram [RFC8340] shows off the whole "tcp-client-grouping" grouping, so here it is:
grouping tcp-client-grouping:
+-- remote-address inet:host
+-- remote-port? inet:port-number
+-- local-address? inet:ip-address
| {local-binding-supported}?
+-- local-port? inet:port-number
| {local-binding-supported}?
+-- proxy-server! {proxy-connect}?
| +-- (proxy-type)
| +--:(socks4) {socks4-supported}?
| | +-- socks4-parameters
| | +-- remote-address inet:ip-address
| | +-- remote-port? inet:port-number
| +--:(socks4a) {socks4a-supported}?
| | +-- socks4a-parameters
| | +-- remote-address inet:host
| | +-- remote-port? inet:port-number
| +--:(socks5) {socks5-supported}?
| +-- socks5-parameters
| +-- remote-address inet:host
| +-- remote-port? inet:port-number
| +-- authentication-parameters!
| +-- (auth-type)
| +--:(gss-api) {socks5-gss-api}?
| | +-- gss-api
| +--:(username-password)
| {socks5-username-password}?
| +-- username-password
| +-- username string
| +---u ct:password-grouping
+---u tcpcmn:tcp-common-groupingNow the comments, which are where all the juicy detail lives ✨
- The
remote-addressnode is mandatory 🔥 and it can be set to an IPv4 address, an IPv6 address, or a hostname. Very flexible, very iconic. - The
remote-portleaf has neither adefaultnor amandatorystatement 🙈. YANG modules that use this grouping SHOULD refine it with adefaultstatement when the port number is well-known (for example, one IANA allocated), or with amandatorystatement if the port always needs to be configured. The SHOULD can be ignored when the port number is neither well-known nor mandatory to configure, which might happen when another grouping is the one using this grouping. Be a little flexible with it, okay? 🦋 - The
local-addressnode is turned on by thelocal-binding-supportedfeature (Section 3.1.1) 💜. It may be configured as an IPv4 address, an IPv6 address, or a wildcard value. - The
local-portnode is also controlled by thelocal-binding-supportedfeature (Section 3.1.1) 🌸. It isn't mandatory, and its default value is"0", which tells the operating system it can pick any port number it likes. Freedom, bestie 🧚 - The
proxy-servernode is switched on by afeaturestatement 💅. For servers that enable it, it's apresencecontainer. That matters because the descendantmandatory truechoice node doesn't mean the proxy-server node has to be configured. The proxy-server node uses achoicestatement so you can pick one of several proxy types. The choices in this document are Socks4, Socks4a, and Socks5, and each one is enabled by its own YANG feature (see Section 3.1.1). Future work may add other proxy types 👑. - This grouping uses the "password-grouping" grouping discussed in [RFC9640] 🌈.
- This grouping uses the "tcp-common-grouping" grouping discussed in Section 2.1.3.1 🍓.
3.1.3. Protocol-Accessible Nodes
Ngl this part is short but important ✨. The "ietf-tcp-client" module only defines grouping statements. Other modules then use those groupings to make protocol-accessible nodes. So when this module gets implemented, it doesn't define any protocol-accessible nodes by itself 💖.
3.2. Example Usage
Time for examples, and they are so cute 🎀. This section has two of them, both showing the "tcp-client-grouping" grouping filled in with some data. The first one is a TCP client that does not connect through a proxy 🦋:
<!-- The outermost element below doesn't exist in the data model. -->
<!-- It simulates if the "grouping" were a "container" instead. -->
<tcp-client xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tcp-client">
<remote-address>www.example.com</remote-address>
<remote-port>8443</remote-port>
<local-address>192.0.2.2</local-address>
<local-port>12345</local-port>
<keepalives>
<idle-time>7200</idle-time>
<max-probes>9</max-probes>
<probe-interval>75</probe-interval>
</keepalives>
</tcp-client>The second one is a TCP client that does connect through a proxy 🧚 (the main character energy is real):
<!-- The outermost element below doesn't exist in the data model. -->
<!-- It simulates if the "grouping" were a "container" instead. -->
<tcp-client xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tcp-client">
<remote-address>www.example.com</remote-address>
<remote-port>8443</remote-port>
<local-address>192.0.2.2</local-address>
<local-port>12345</local-port>
<proxy-server>
<socks5-parameters>
<remote-address>proxy.example.com</remote-address>
<remote-port>1080</remote-port>
<authentication-parameters>
<username-password>
<username>foobar</username>
<cleartext-password>secret</cleartext-password>
</username-password>
</authentication-parameters>
</socks5-parameters>
</proxy-server>
<keepalives>
<idle-time>7200</idle-time>
<max-probes>9</max-probes>
<probe-interval>75</probe-interval>
</keepalives>
</tcp-client>3.3. YANG Module
Here's the full YANG module 🌸. It references [SOCKS], [SOCKS_4A], [RFC1928], [RFC1929], [RFC2743], [RFC6991], [RFC9293], and [RFC9640]. Yes, that's a lot of references, and yes, they're all here.
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-tcp-client@2024-10-10.yang"
module ietf-tcp-client {
yang-version 1.1;
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tcp-client";
prefix tcpc;
import ietf-inet-types {
prefix inet;
reference
"RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types";
}
import ietf-crypto-types {
prefix ct;
reference
"RFC 9640: YANG Data Types and Groupings for Cryptography";
}
import ietf-tcp-common {
prefix tcpcmn;
reference
"RFC 9643: YANG Groupings for TCP Clients and TCP Servers";
}
organization
"IETF NETCONF (Network Configuration) Working Group and the
IETF TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions (TCPM) Working Group";
contact
"WG Web: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/netconf
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tcpm
WG List: NETCONF WG list <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
TCPM WG list <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
Authors: Kent Watsen <mailto:kent+ietf@watsen.net>
Michael Scharf
<mailto:michael.scharf@hs-esslingen.de>";
description
"This module defines reusable groupings for TCP clients that
can be used as a basis for specific TCP client instances.
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) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified
as authors of the code. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with
or without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and
subject to the license terms contained in, the Revised
BSD License set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's
Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
This version of this YANG module is part of RFC 9643
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9643); see the RFC
itself for full legal notices.";
revision 2024-10-10 {
description
"Initial version.";
reference
"RFC 9643: YANG Groupings for TCP Clients and TCP Servers";
}
// Features
feature local-binding-supported {
description
"Indicates that the server supports configuring local
bindings (i.e., the local address and local port) for
TCP clients.";
}
feature tcp-client-keepalives {
description
"TCP keepalive parameters are configurable for
TCP clients on the server implementing this feature.";
reference
"RFC 9293: Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)";
}
feature proxy-connect {
description
"Indicates the TCP client supports connecting through
TCP proxies.";
}
feature socks4-supported {
if-feature "proxy-connect";
description
"Indicates the TCP client supports Socks4-based proxies.";
reference
"SOCKS Proceedings: 1992 Usenix Security Symposium";
}
feature socks4a-supported {
if-feature "proxy-connect";
description
"Indicates the TCP client supports Socks4a-based proxies.";
reference
"OpenSSH message:
SOCKS 4A: A Simple Extension to SOCKS 4 Protocol
<https://www.openssh.com/txt/socks4a.protocol>";
}
feature socks5-supported {
if-feature "proxy-connect";
description
"Indicates the TCP client supports Socks5-based proxies.";
reference
"RFC 1928: SOCKS Protocol Version 5";
}
feature socks5-gss-api {
if-feature "socks5-supported";
description
"Indicates that the server, when acting as a TCP client,
supports authenticating to a SOCKS Version 5 proxy server
using GSS-API credentials.";
reference
"RFC 1928: SOCKS Protocol Version 5";
}
feature socks5-username-password {
if-feature "socks5-supported";
description
"Indicates that the server, when acting as a TCP client,
supports authenticating to a SOCKS Version 5 proxy server
using 'username' and 'password' credentials.";
reference
"RFC 1928: SOCKS Protocol Version 5";
}
// Groupings
grouping tcp-client-grouping {
description
"A reusable grouping for configuring a TCP client.
Note that this grouping uses fairly typical descendant
node names such that a stack of 'uses' statements will
have name conflicts. It is intended that the consuming
data model will resolve the issue (e.g., by wrapping
the 'uses' statement in a container called
'tcp-client-parameters'). This model purposely does
not do this itself so as to provide maximum flexibility
to consuming models."; leaf remote-address {
type inet:host;
mandatory true;
description
"The IP address or hostname of the remote peer to
establish a connection with. If a domain name is
configured, then the DNS resolution should happen on
each connection attempt. If the DNS resolution
results in multiple IP addresses, the IP addresses
are tried according to local preference order until
a connection has been established or until all IP
addresses have failed.";
}
leaf remote-port {
type inet:port-number;
description
"The port number of the remote TCP server.";
}
leaf local-address {
if-feature "local-binding-supported";
type inet:ip-address;
description
"The local IP address/interface to bind to for when
connecting to the remote peer. INADDR_ANY ('0.0.0.0') or
INADDR6_ANY ('0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0' a.k.a. '::') MAY be used to
explicitly indicate the implicit default, which the server
can bind to any IPv4 or IPv6 address.";
}
leaf local-port {
if-feature "local-binding-supported";
type inet:port-number;
default "0";
description
"The local IP port number to bind to for when connecting
to the remote peer. The port number '0', which is the
default value, indicates that any available local port
number may be used.";
}
container proxy-server {
if-feature "proxy-connect";
presence "Indicates that a proxy connection has been
configured. Present so that the mandatory
descendant nodes do not imply that this node
must be configured.";
choice proxy-type {
mandatory true;
description
"Selects a proxy connection protocol.";
case socks4 {
if-feature "socks4-supported";
container socks4-parameters {
leaf remote-address {
type inet:ip-address;
mandatory true;
description
"The IP address of the proxy server.";
}
leaf remote-port {
type inet:port-number;
default "1080";
description
"The IP port number for the proxy server.";
}
description
"Parameters for connecting to a TCP-based proxy
server using the SOCKS4 protocol.";
reference
"SOCKS Proceedings: 1992 Usenix Security Symposium";
}
}
case socks4a {
if-feature "socks4a-supported";
container socks4a-parameters {
leaf remote-address {
type inet:host;
mandatory true;
description
"The IP address or hostname of the proxy server.";
}
leaf remote-port {
type inet:port-number;
default "1080";
description
"The IP port number for the proxy server.";
}
description
"Parameters for connecting to a TCP-based proxy
server using the SOCKS4a protocol.";
reference
"SOCKS Proceedings:
1992 Usenix Security Symposium
OpenSSH message:
SOCKS 4A: A Simple Extension to SOCKS 4 Protocol
<https://www.openssh.com/txt/socks4a.protocol>";
}
}
case socks5 {
if-feature "socks5-supported";
container socks5-parameters {
leaf remote-address {
type inet:host;
mandatory true;
description
"The IP address or hostname of the proxy server.";
}
leaf remote-port {
type inet:port-number;
default "1080";
description
"The IP port number for the proxy server.";
}
container authentication-parameters {
presence "Indicates that an authentication mechanism
has been configured. Present so that the
mandatory descendant nodes do not imply that
this node must be configured.";
description
"A container for SOCKS Version 5 authentication
mechanisms.
A complete list of methods is defined at:
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/socks-methods>.";
reference
"RFC 1928: SOCKS Protocol Version 5";
choice auth-type {
mandatory true;
description
"A choice amongst supported SOCKS Version 5
authentication mechanisms.";
case gss-api {
if-feature "socks5-gss-api";
container gss-api {
description
"Contains GSS-API configuration. Defines
as an empty container to enable specific
GSS-API configuration to be augmented in
by future modules.";
reference
"RFC 1928: SOCKS Protocol Version 5
RFC 2743: Generic Security Service
Application Program Interface
Version 2, Update 1";
}
}
case username-password {
if-feature "socks5-username-password";
container username-password {
leaf username {
type string;
mandatory true;
description
"The 'username' value to use for client
identification.";
}
uses ct:password-grouping {
description
"The password to be used for client
authentication.";
}
description
"Contains username/password configuration.";
reference
"RFC 1929: Username/Password Authentication
for SOCKS V5";
}
}
}
}
description
"Parameters for connecting to a TCP-based proxy server
using the SOCKS5 protocol.";
reference
"RFC 1928: SOCKS Protocol Version 5";
}
}
}
description
"Proxy server settings.";
}
uses tcpcmn:tcp-common-grouping {
refine "keepalives" {
if-feature "tcp-client-keepalives";
description
"An 'if-feature' statement so that implementations
can choose to support TCP client keepalives.";
}
}
}
}
<CODE ENDS>4. The "ietf-tcp-server" Module ✨
This section is where we get into the server side 🎀. It defines a YANG 1.1 module called "ietf-tcp-server", and the big-picture tour lives in Section 4.1. Examples showing how it gets used are in Section 4.2 ("Example Usage") 💅, and the actual YANG module itself is in Section 4.3 🧚.
4.1. Data Model Overview 🦋
Okay so this part gives you the highlights of the "ietf-tcp-server" module, meaning its features and its groupings. Think of it as the cute little table of contents before the good stuff 💖.
4.1.1. Features 🌸
Here's the diagram that lists every single "feature" statement in the "ietf-tcp-server" module. There's only one, so it's giving minimalism 🫶:
Features:
+-- tcp-server-keepalivesQuick heads up: the diagram above uses syntax that is similar to but not defined in [RFC8340]. So it looks familiar, but it's not the official spec syntax, bestie 🙈.
4.1.2. Groupings 🍓
The "ietf-tcp-server" module defines exactly one "grouping" statement, and that's it ✨:
- tcp-server-grouping
We'll walk through it in the next subsection, so keep reading 👑.
4.1.2.1. The "tcp-server-grouping" Grouping 💜
Here's the tree diagram from [RFC8340] that shows what the "tcp-server-grouping" grouping looks like. Scroll down, it's worth it 🌈:
grouping tcp-server-grouping:
+-- local-bind* [local-address]
| +-- local-address inet:ip-address
| +-- local-port? inet:port-number
+---u tcpcmn:tcp-common-groupingNow the comments, which are where the good drama is 😭:
- The "local-address" node is mandatory, and you can set it to an IPv4 address, an IPv6 address, or a wildcard value. Iconic flexibility 🔥.
- The "local-port" leaf has neither a "default" nor a "mandatory" statement, so it's kinda open-ended. Any YANG module that uses this grouping SHOULD refine it with a "default" statement when the port number is well-known (like one IANA has allocated), or with a "mandatory" statement if the port number always needs to be configured. The SHOULD can be ignored when the port number is neither well-known nor mandatory to configure, which might happen when another grouping is the one pulling this in 🙈✨.
- This grouping uses the "tcp-common-grouping" grouping, which we covered in Section 2.1.3.1. Callback to earlier, periodt 🔁💅.
4.1.3. Protocol-Accessible Nodes 🧚
The "ietf-tcp-server" module only defines "grouping" statements. Other modules are the ones that use them to actually create protocol-accessible nodes 🦋. So when this module gets implemented, it doesn't define any protocol-accessible nodes on its own. Main character energy means knowing when you're just the supporting cast 💀.
4.2. Example Usage 🎀
This section shows an example of the "tcp-server-grouping" grouping filled in with some actual data. Let's peek 👀.
Heads up, the outermost element below isn't in the data model. The comments say it outright: it's pretending the "grouping" is a "container" instead, just so the example makes sense 🫶.
<!-- The outermost element below doesn't exist in the data model. -->
<!-- It simulates if the "grouping" were a "container" instead. -->
<tcp-server xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tcp-server">
<local-bind>
<local-address>192.0.2.2</local-address>
<local-port>49152</local-port>
</local-bind>
<keepalives>
<idle-time>7200</idle-time>
<max-probes>9</max-probes>
<probe-interval>75</probe-interval>
</keepalives>
</tcp-server>4.3. YANG Module 💖
okay bestie, the "ietf-tcp-server" YANG module references [RFC6991] and [RFC9293] 🎀. one is the common YANG types, the other is TCP itself 🦋
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-tcp-server@2024-10-10.yang"
module ietf-tcp-server {
yang-version 1.1;
namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tcp-server";
prefix tcps;
import ietf-inet-types {
prefix inet;
reference
"RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types";
}
import ietf-tcp-common {
prefix tcpcmn;
reference
"RFC 9643: YANG Groupings for TCP Clients and TCP Servers";
}
organization
"IETF NETCONF (Network Configuration) Working Group and the
IETF TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions (TCPM) Working Group";
contact
"WG Web: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/netconf
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tcpm
WG List: NETCONF WG list <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
TCPM WG list <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
Authors: Kent Watsen <mailto:kent+ietf@watsen.net>
Michael Scharf
<mailto:michael.scharf@hs-esslingen.de>";
description
"This module defines reusable groupings for TCP servers that
can be used as a basis for specific TCP server instances.
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified
as authors of the code. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with
or without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and
subject to the license terms contained in, the Revised
BSD License set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's
Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
This version of this YANG module is part of RFC 9643
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9643); see the RFC
itself for full legal notices.";
revision 2024-10-10 {
description
"Initial version.";
reference
"RFC 9643: YANG Groupings for TCP Clients and TCP Servers";
}
// Features
feature tcp-server-keepalives {
description
"TCP keepalive parameters are configurable for
TCP servers on the server implementing this feature.";
reference
"RFC 9293: Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)";
}
// Groupings
grouping tcp-server-grouping {
description
"A reusable grouping for configuring a TCP server.
Note that this grouping uses fairly typical descendant
node names such that a stack of 'uses' statements will
have name conflicts. It is intended that the consuming
data model will resolve the issue (e.g., by wrapping
the 'uses' statement in a container called
'tcp-server-parameters'). This model purposely does
not do this itself so as to provide maximum flexibility
to consuming models.";
list local-bind {
key "local-address";
min-elements 1;
description
"A list of bind (listen) points for this server
instance. A server instance may have multiple
bind points to support, e.g., the same port in
different address families or different ports
in the same address family.";
leaf local-address {
type inet:ip-address;
description
"The local IP address to listen on for incoming
TCP client connections. To configure listening
on all IPv4 addresses, the value must be '0.0.0.0'
(INADDR_ANY). To configure listening on all IPv6
addresses, the value must be '::' (INADDR6_ANY).";
}
leaf local-port {
type inet:port-number;
description
"The local port number to listen on for incoming TCP
client connections.";
}
}
uses tcpcmn:tcp-common-grouping {
refine "keepalives" {
if-feature "tcp-server-keepalives";
description
"An 'if-feature' statement so that implementations
can choose to support TCP server keepalives.";
}
}
}
}
<CODE ENDS>5. Security Considerations 💀
okay this section is SERIOUS, so read it carefully 🫶. the three YANG modules in this document only define groupings and will not be deployed as standalone modules. their security implications may depend on the context they're used in, so the designers of modules that import these groupings must do their own security analysis 🔐.
5.1. Considerations for the "ietf-tcp-common" YANG Module
this section is modeled after the template defined in Section 3.7.1 of [RFC8407] 📝.
the "ietf-tcp-common" YANG module defines "grouping" statements meant to be accessed through YANG-based management protocols, like NETCONF [RFC6241] and RESTCONF [RFC8040]. both of those protocols have mandatory-to-implement secure transport layers (like Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC4252], TLS [RFC8446], and QUIC [RFC9000]) and mandatory-to-implement mutual authentication 🔒.
the Network Configuration Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC8341] lets you restrict particular users to a preconfigured subset of all the available protocol operations and content 👑.
please be aware that this YANG module uses groupings from other YANG modules that define nodes which may be considered sensitive or vulnerable in network environments. please check the security considerations of those dependent YANG modules to see which nodes may be sensitive or vulnerable in network environments 👀.
none of the readable data nodes defined in this YANG module are considered sensitive or vulnerable in network environments. the NACM "default-deny-all" extension has not been set for any data nodes defined in this module 🌸.
none of the writable data nodes defined in this YANG module are considered sensitive or vulnerable in network environments. the NACM "default-deny-write" extension has not been set for any data nodes defined in this module ✨.
this module does not define any RPCs, actions, or notifications, so the security considerations for those are not provided here 🙈.
5.2. Considerations for the "ietf-tcp-client" YANG Module
this section is modeled after the template defined in Section 3.7.1 of [RFC8407] 📝.
the "ietf-tcp-client" YANG module defines "grouping" statements meant to be accessed through YANG-based management protocols, like NETCONF [RFC6241] and RESTCONF [RFC8040]. both of those protocols have mandatory-to-implement secure transport layers (like Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC4252], TLS [RFC8446], and QUIC [RFC9000]) and mandatory-to-implement mutual authentication 🔒.
the Network Configuration Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC8341] lets you restrict particular users to a preconfigured subset of all the available protocol operations and content 👑.
please be aware that this YANG module uses groupings from other YANG modules that define nodes which may be considered sensitive or vulnerable in network environments. please check the security considerations of those dependent YANG modules to see which nodes may be sensitive or vulnerable in network environments 👀.
one readable data node defined in this YANG module may be considered sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments 🚨. it's this one:
- The
proxy-server/socks5-parameters/authentication-parameters/username-password/passwordnode:
the "password" node defined in the "tcp-client-grouping" grouping is defined using the "password-grouping" grouping presented in [RFC9640]. this grouping lets both cleartext and encrypted passwords be configured. as the referenced document states, configuration of cleartext passwords is NOT RECOMMENDED. but if cleartext values do get configured, this node is also sensitive to read operations, so in normal use cases it should never be returned to a client. for this reason, the NACM "default-deny-all" extension has been applied to it 🔐.
none of the writable data nodes defined in this YANG module are considered sensitive or vulnerable in network environments. the NACM "default-deny-write" extension has not been set for any data nodes defined in this module 🌸.
this module does not define any RPCs, actions, or notifications, so the security considerations for those are not provided here 🙈.
implementations are RECOMMENDED to implement the "local-binding-supported" feature for cryptographically secure protocols, so they can enable more granular ingress/egress firewall rule bases 🔥. it is NOT RECOMMENDED to implement this feature for unsecure protocols, as per [RFC6056] 💅.
5.3. Considerations for the "ietf-tcp-server" YANG Module
this section is modeled after the template defined in Section 3.7.1 of [RFC8407] 📝.
the "ietf-tcp-server" YANG module defines "grouping" statements meant to be accessed through YANG-based management protocols, like NETCONF [RFC6241] and RESTCONF [RFC8040]. both of those protocols have mandatory-to-implement secure transport layers (like Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC4252], TLS [RFC8446], and QUIC [RFC9000]) and mandatory-to-implement mutual authentication 🔒.
the Network Configuration Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC8341] lets you restrict particular users to a preconfigured subset of all the available protocol operations and content 👑.
please be aware that this YANG module uses groupings from other YANG modules that define nodes which may be considered sensitive or vulnerable in network environments. please check the security considerations of those dependent YANG modules to see which nodes may be sensitive or vulnerable in network environments 👀.
none of the readable data nodes defined in this YANG module are considered sensitive or vulnerable in network environments. the NACM "default-deny-all" extension has not been set for any data nodes defined in this module 🌸.
none of the writable data nodes defined in this YANG module are considered sensitive or vulnerable in network environments. the NACM "default-deny-write" extension has not been set for any data nodes defined in this module ✨.
this module does not define any RPCs, actions, or notifications, so the security considerations for those are not provided here 🙈.
6. IANA Considerations 🌈
6.1. The IETF XML Registry
IANA has registered the following URI in the "ns" registry of the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688] 🦋.
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tcp-common
Registrant Contact: The IESG
XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tcp-client
Registrant Contact: The IESG
XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.
URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tcp-server
Registrant Contact: The IESG
XML: N/A; the requested URI is an XML namespace.6.2. The YANG Module Names Registry
IANA has registered the following three YANG modules in the "YANG Module Names" registry [RFC6020] 💜.
Name: ietf-tcp-common
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tcp-common
Prefix: tcpcmn
Reference: RFC 9643
Name: ietf-tcp-client
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tcp-client
Prefix: tcpc
Reference: RFC 9643
Name: ietf-tcp-server
Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-tcp-server
Prefix: tcps
Reference: RFC 96437. References ✨
7.1. Normative References 📚✨
Okay so these are the docs the spec literally cannot function without, bestie 🫶 Read these first or you're going to be so lost 💀
[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>.
[RFC4252] Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, Ed., "The Secure Shell (SSH)
Authentication Protocol", RFC 4252, DOI 10.17487/RFC4252,
January 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4252>.
[RFC6020] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC9000] Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based
Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9000>.
[RFC9293] Eddy, W., Ed., "Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)",
STD 7, RFC 9293, DOI 10.17487/RFC9293, August 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9293>.
[RFC9640] Watsen, K., "YANG Data Types and Groupings for
Cryptography", RFC 9640, DOI 10.17487/RFC9640, October
2024, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9640>.7.2. Informative References 🧚💜
These ones are the extra reading, the "good to know" stuff that helps you actually get the vibe of the whole thing 🌈
[HTTP-CLIENT-SERVER]
Watsen, K., "YANG Groupings for HTTP Clients and HTTP
Servers", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
netconf-http-client-server-23, 15 August 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-
http-client-server-23>.
[NETCONF-CLIENT-SERVER]
Watsen, K., "NETCONF Client and Server Models", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-
client-server-37, 14 August 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-
netconf-client-server-37>.
[RESTCONF-CLIENT-SERVER]
Watsen, K., "RESTCONF Client and Server Models", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-
client-server-38, 14 August 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-
restconf-client-server-38>.
[RFC1928] Leech, M., Ganis, M., Lee, Y., Kuris, R., Koblas, D., and
L. Jones, "SOCKS Protocol Version 5", RFC 1928,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1928, March 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1928>.
[RFC1929] Leech, M., "Username/Password Authentication for SOCKS
V5", RFC 1929, DOI 10.17487/RFC1929, March 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1929>.
[RFC2743] Linn, J., "Generic Security Service Application Program
Interface Version 2, Update 1", RFC 2743,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2743, January 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2743>.
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
[RFC6056] Larsen, M. and F. Gont, "Recommendations for Transport-
Protocol Port Randomization", BCP 156, RFC 6056,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6056, January 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6056>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC8259] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8259>.
[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>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC9641] Watsen, K., "A YANG Data Model for a Truststore",
RFC 9641, DOI 10.17487/RFC9641, October 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9641>.
[RFC9642] Watsen, K., "A YANG Data Model for a Keystore", RFC 9642,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9642, October 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9642>.
[RFC9644] Watsen, K., "YANG Groupings for SSH Clients and SSH
Servers", RFC 9644, DOI 10.17487/RFC9644, October 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9644>.
[RFC9645] Watsen, K., "YANG Groupings for TLS Clients and TLS
Servers", RFC 9645, DOI 10.17487/RFC9645, October 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9645>.
[SOCKS] Koblas, D. and M. Koblas, "SOCKS", USENIX UNIX Security
Symposium III, September 1992, <https://www.usenix.org/leg
acy/publications/library/proceedings/sec92/full_papers/
koblas.pdf>.
[SOCKS_4A] Lee, Y., "SOCKS 4A: A Simple Extension to SOCKS 4
Protocol", <https://www.openssh.com/txt/socks4a.protocol>.
[W3C.REC-xml-20081126]
Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C.M., Maler, E.,
and F. Yergeau, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0
(Fifth Edition)", World Wide Web Consortium
Recommendation REC-xml-20081126, November 2008,
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126/>.Acknowledgements 🫶🎀
The authors wanna shoutout these legends for the lively discussions on the list and in the halls (ordered by first name) 💖 They literally made this so much better, no cap:
Éric Vyncke, Joe Clarke, Jürgen Schönwälder, Ladislav Lhotka, Mallory Knodel, Martin Duke, Michael Tüxen, Mohamed Boucadair, Nancy Cam-Winget, Nick Hancock, Per Andersson, Rob Wilton, Roman Danyliw, Tom Petch, and Wim Henderickx 👑✨
Authors' Addresses 💅🦋
Here's where you can find the two people who wrote this whole thing 🧚
Kent Watsen
Watsen Networks
Email: kent+ietf@watsen.net
Michael Scharf
Hochschule Esslingen
University of Applied Sciences
Kanalstr. 33
73728 Esslingen am Neckar
Germany
Email: michael.scharf@hs-esslingen.de📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc9643 2024-10
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms