An Update of Operators Requirements on Network Management Protocols and Modelling
draft-ietf-nmop-rfc3535-20years-later-04
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (nmop WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Mohamed Boucadair , Luis M. Contreras , Oscar Gonzalez de Dios , Thomas Graf , Reshad Rahman | ||
| Last updated | 2026-05-05 | ||
| Replaces | draft-boucadair-nmop-rfc3535-20years-later | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources |
GitHub Repository
Mailing list discussion |
||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-nmop-rfc3535-20years-later-04
Network Working Group M. Boucadair
Internet-Draft Orange
Intended status: Informational L. M. Contreras
Expires: 7 November 2026 O. G. D. Dios
Telefonica
T. Graf
Swisscom
R. Rahman
Equinix
6 May 2026
An Update of Operators Requirements on Network Management Protocols and
Modelling
draft-ietf-nmop-rfc3535-20years-later-04
Abstract
This document identifies a list of operators requirements for network
management operations. These requirements reflect advances in this
field since the publication of "IAB Network Management Workshop" (RFC
3535), which was instrumental for developing many key technologies
that are widely deployed.
Discussion Venues
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/boucadair/rfc3535-20years-later.
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 7 November 2026.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RFC 3535, 20 Years Later May 2026
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Observations and Operators Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. On the Importance of Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Fragmented Ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3. The Network Becomes Consumable . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4. Network APIfication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.5. Lack of Profiling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.6. Lack of Agile Process for (The Maintenance of) YANG
Modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.7. Integration Complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.8. YANG-formatted Data Manipulation . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.9. Translation and Mapping Between Service/Network and Device
Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.10. (In)Consistent Data Structures in Network Protocols for
Data Export . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.11. Proprietary YANG Modules, CLI, and Limited Abstraction . 10
2.12. Distinct Networks, Distinct Management Requirements . . . 11
2.13. Implications of External Dependency . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.14. Too Much Time Between Publication of New Networking
Functionality and the Associated YANG . . . . . . . . . 12
2.15. Lack of Implementation of Proposed Solutions . . . . . . 12
2.16. Tooling & Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.16.1. Integration with "native" IT Tooling . . . . . . . . 13
2.16.2. IETF Support for Better YANG Integration . . . . . . 13
2.16.3. Open-source Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.16.4. Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.17. New Service Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.18. Many Solutions for the Same Problem, but Lack of Clear
Applicably Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3. Updated Operators' Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.1. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.2. Categorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Boucadair, et al. Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft RFC 3535, 20 Years Later May 2026
3.3. Overall New Requirements Levels: Operators View . . . . . 18
3.4. Consolidated Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1. Introduction
The IAB organized a workshop (June 4-June 6, 2002) to establish a
dialog between network operators and protocol developers, and to
guide the IETF to focus on work regarding network management. The
outcome of that workshop was documented in the "IAB Network
Management Workshop" [RFC3535] which was instrumental for developing
NETCONF [RFC6241] and YANG [RFC6020][RFC7950], in particular.
Since the publication of [RFC3535] major advances were achieved in
the network managment area, such as (but not limited to):
* SDN and Programmable Networks [RFC7149][RFC7426]
* Automation [RFC8969]
* Intent-based approaches [RFC9315]
* Telemetry [RFC9232]
* NETCONF [RFC6241]
* RESTCONF [RFC8040]
* CoAP Management Interface (CORECONF) [I-D.ietf-core-comi]
* YANG [RFC7950]
* JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG [RFC7951]
* YANG Schema Item iDentifier (YANG SID) [RFC9595]
* YANG to CBOR mapping [RFC9254]
* Models for management of services, networks, and devices
[RFC8199][RFC8309]
Boucadair, et al. Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft RFC 3535, 20 Years Later May 2026
* Network APIs (e.g., [CAMARA])
* Virtualization [RFC8568]
* Containerization [I-D.ietf-bmwg-containerized-infra]
See also "An Overview of the IETF Network Management Standards"
[RFC6632].
More than 20 years later after the publication of [RFC3535], new
requirements on network management operations are emerging from the
operators. This document captures these requirements that reflect
the progress in this area. Readers may also refer to
[I-D.iab-nemops-workshop-report].
2. Observations and Operators Requirements
2.1. On the Importance of Data Models
An appealing aspect about network automation techniques is that they
almost apply to any kind of network. From that perspective, the
functional component of a network automation framework that probably
matters the most, and independent of the underlying interfaces and
protocols, are the data models. Concretely, data models are
instrumental in the automation of networks, service delivery, and
infrastructures in general, especially that they can provide closed-
loop control for adaptive and deterministic service creation,
delivery, and maintenance.
Data models can be used to derive required configuration information
for both network and service components, and state information that
will be monitored and tracked. Likewise, they can be used during the
service/network management life cycle (e.g., service instantiation,
provisioning, optimization, monitoring, diagnostic, and assurance).
More than three decades of "Internet standardization" have shown that
the specification of data models is not that straightforward. This
is because of at least two major reasons:
* For more than 30 years, legacy network equipment manufacturers
have considered their technology as a competitive advantage,
thereby leading to proprietary, vendor-specific, data models and
the burden of vendor lock-ins. For example, there are more YANG
proprietary modules than standarized ones. At the time of
writing, [YC] lists 13661 unique proprietary YANG modules vs. 991
Standards modules.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft RFC 3535, 20 Years Later May 2026
* Over the same period, operators have also developed their savoir-
faire as a key competitive advantage. Such savoir-faire had to
rely upon these proprietary data models (and their own ones).
Operators were reluctant in the past to share their design and
management practices.
The situation has changed since network "softwarization" strategies
have been disclosed by vendors and operators. From a business
standpoint, network "softwarization" is seen as a major
transformation effort by operators, because of the flexibility and
the "a la carte" approach that is promoted by "X-as-a-service" (XaaS)
designs, "X" being network, platform, Network Slice [RFC9543], etc.
XaaS designs assume the availability of data models that are
dynamically instantiated (along with a set of relevant policies) as a
function of the "X" (and its design, for that matter). XaaS services
cannot be designed, delivered, and operated without data models.
Standard data models are thus key as they allow to:
* Ease mapping among many (network/service) layers.
* Ease data correlation from distinct sources.
* Soften dependency on CLI specifics to vendors.
* Support both top-down and bottom-up approaches for operating
services:
* Accurate control loops for adaptive and deterministic service
creation, delivery, and maintenance.
* Feed an intelligence that will drive appropriate actions to adjust
the current status to align with the intended status.
OPS-REQ-STRENGTHEN-DM: Network softwarization can only happen with a
strong, committed standardization effort, complemented by active
involvement in open-source projects that facilitate access to
code.
Particularly, without data models, a Network API is essentially
useless (see also Section 2.4).
Boucadair, et al. Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft RFC 3535, 20 Years Later May 2026
2.2. Fragmented Ecosystem
The current YANG device models ecosystem is fragmented: some
standards data models are defined through the IETF, while similar
ones are defined in other fora such as Openconfig [OC]. Unlike
service and network models, IETF-defined device models are not widely
implemented.
OPS-REQ-DM-RATIONALIZE: There is a need to rationalize this space
and avoid redundant efforts.
2.3. The Network Becomes Consumable
Network connectivity can support tailored services in terms of
Service Level Obejctives (SLOs), for instance, by means of Network
Slice Services [RFC9543]. This approach of "consuming the network"
flexibly and dynamically is made possible by enabling means of
exposing network capabilities to either internal or external
applications. Then, network management is no longer limited to
collect network status information, but it should be extended to
permit the exposure of resources, capabilities, functionality, and
associated information (e.g., inventory-based data).
OPS-REQ-EASE-EXPOSURE: Focus on protocols and data models to expose
network/service capabilities, network-wide services, and related
operations.
OPS-REQ-NW-API-DISCOVERY: Define a reference approach for service
exposure discovery (APIs discovery).
2.4. Network APIfication
APIs are getting momentum as means of interworking between parties,
also at the time of providing network services. As an example,
[I-D.ietf-grow-peering-api] defines an API for dynamically
establishing BGP interconnection sessions between Autonomous Systems
of different administrative domains. That same objective is also
covered by the YANG data model defined in [RFC9834] as exemplified in
its Appendix A.10. Tools such as YANG/OpenAPI transforms are key to
leverage existing data models and allow for better integration and
mapping to actual realization models.
OPS-REQ-DM2API: Readily available API specifications should be
generalized from YANG modules for fast development, prototyping,
and validation.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft RFC 3535, 20 Years Later May 2026
2.5. Lack of Profiling
Many NETCONF-related features are (being) specified by the IETF, but
these features are not widely supported (e.g., YANG-Push [RFC8639]).
Some of these are not implemented because of the unbalance between
actual operational need vs. complexity.
OPS-REQ-GUIDE-AND-PROFILE: The target application/applicability of a
network management approach should be documented (e.g., edit
profile documents that outline a set of recommendations for core/
key features, along with appropriate justifications, will help
foster more implementations that meet operators’ needs). This
also covers security management aspects of network management.
Additionaly, consider independent compliance suites to validate
functions/features/etc.
OPS-REQ-ARCH: Need to promote more architecture and framework
documents to exemplify the intended use.
Examples of such profile documents are the various RFCs that were
published by the Behavior Engineering for Hindrance Avoidance
(behave) WG [BCP127]. Another approach is to consider a model
similar to the "Roadmap for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
Specification Documents" [RFC7414]. Such a document would serve
as a guide and reference for implementers and others seeking
information on 'NETCONF/RESTCONF/YANG'-related RFCs.
OPS-REQ-REASSESS: Additionally, reassessing the value of some IETF
proposals compared to competing or emerging solutions (e.g., gRPC
vs. YANG-Push) would be beneficial.
2.6. Lack of Agile Process for (The Maintenance of) YANG Modules
RFCs might not be suited for documenting YANG modules (it takes much
too long, especiallly for updates). In the meantime, there is a need
for reference data models and "sufficiently stable data models".
An hybrid approach might be investigated for documenting IETF-
endorsed YANG modules, such as considering an RFC to describe the
initial module sketch and objectives and an official IETF repository
for maintaining intermediate YANG versions.
By drawing a parallel between YANG data models and the concept of
ontology used in the field of Semantic Web, the topic of YANG module
maintenance could greatly benefit from proven methodologies in
knowledge engineering such as [LOT2019] and automatic documentation
tools like [Widoco2017].
Boucadair, et al. Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft RFC 3535, 20 Years Later May 2026
OPS-REQ-QUICK-BUT-WELL: Develop a more agile process for the
development and maintenance of YANG modules in the IETF. RFCs
might not be suited for documenting YANG modules.
2.7. Integration Complexity
One of the requirements listed in Section 3 of [RFC3535] is the ease
of use which, according to Section 3.2 of [RFC6244], is claimed to be
addressed by NETCONF and YANG. For configuration this holds true,
for network observability it is unfortunately not yet. This has been
confirmed with a set of network operators asking how long it takes
from subscribing YANG data to make it accessible to the operator.
Minutes, Hours, Days, or Weeks. None of them answered Minutes or
Hours. All of them responded Days or Weeks. Hinting manual post
processing of YANG data.
Collecting YANG metrics from networks is already a struggle due to
late arrival of [RFC8639], [RFC8640], [RFC8641],
[I-D.ietf-netconf-https-notif], and [I-D.ietf-netconf-udp-notif] for
configured subscription transport protocols which defined YANG-Push
in the industry. This caused network vendors to implement
alternative solutions to collect real-time streaming data in the
meanwhile, such as gNMI which was proposed in 2018 in
[I-D.openconfig-rtgwg-gnmi-spec] to the IETF but not followed up on.
Unfortunately, these implementations differ between network Operating
Systems (OSes) due to the lack of standardization, specifically for
the metadata which would ensure machine readability.
When a set of network operators where asked to where operational YANG
data needs to be integrated to, the answer homogeneously was Apache
Kafka Message Broker and Time Series Databases. There is a need to
specify how YANG-Push can be integrated into Apache Kafka and
references needed YANG-Push extensions and YANG schema registry
development. The YANG-Push extensions addressing needs to make YANG-
Push messages machine readable and against semantic validate able to
ensure a consistent data processing.
Another challenge is that the subscribed YANG data referenced with
'datastore-subtree-filter' or 'datastore-xpath-filter' breaks
semantic integrity which needs to be addressed by either updating
Section 4 of [RFC8641] or proposing a new YANG module being used at
the YANG-Push receiver.
OPS-REQ-INTEGRATION: Consider approaches to ease integration by-
design (e.g., protocols and data models).
OPS-REQ-ITERATE: Need a velocity and approach to standardization
that allows for business goals to be incrementally realized.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft RFC 3535, 20 Years Later May 2026
2.8. YANG-formatted Data Manipulation
The use of a flat tree hierarchy in YANG data models may induce some
performance issues compared to other graph models. This can be the
case, for example, during a path calculation on a network topology.
Different approaches using graph theory and compatible with YANG are
currently available, but require further experimentation to
generalize their adoption. For instance, OpenDaylight [ODL]
implements an in-memory connected graph version of YANG-based data to
enable fast breadth-first search (BFS).
OPS-REQ-Y2KG: Need for a reference specification to translate YANG-
based data into the Knowledge Graph (KG).
For example, [I-D.marcas-nmop-knowledge-graph-yang] and
[I-D.tailhardat-nmop-incident-management-noria] discuss YANG-2-KG
proposals to leverage automated reasoning and graph traversal
techniques.
OPS-REQ-SCALE: Consider approaches for YANG data models to scale.
2.9. Translation and Mapping Between Service/Network and Device Models
Navigating among multiple levels of the hierarchy (service, network,
device) relies currently on proprietary solutions to graft and
translate between two layers. There is no programmatic approach to
ensure lossless mappings.
OPS-REQ-LOSSLESS: Consider programmatic approaches to ensure
lossless mappings between service/network/device data models.
Means to detect, characterize, and expose loss may be considered.
Note that lossless mapping is an enabler for support of
deterministic verification, auditing, and tracing back along
layers/models.
2.10. (In)Consistent Data Structures in Network Protocols for Data
Export
Network Telemetry, as described in [RFC9232], involve a set of
protocols. Due to the different requirements, one Network Telemetry
protocol doesn't address all needs. This is mainly due to the nature
of the subscribed data. BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) [RFC7854] adds
monitoring and tracing capabilities natively to the BGP process to
minimize the processing overhead. While IPFIX [RFC7011][RFC7012] can
be applied according to [RFC5472] to gain visibility into the data
and forwarding planes, due to the amount of data, sampling as defined
in [RFC5476] and applied to IPFIX in [RFC5477] and aggregation as
defined in [RFC7015] for IPFIX is needed to reduce the amount of
Boucadair, et al. Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft RFC 3535, 20 Years Later May 2026
exposed data. While YANG-Push focuses on exposing already YANG
modelled data, which eases the correlation among network
configuration and operational data.
[RFC9232] is an informational document and does not specify what
these Network Telemetry protocols should have in common to ensure
consistent data structures for data export. While data types are
fairly good aligned, a lack of metadata standardization among the
Network Telemetry protocols is observed. In particular describing
from where the metrics has been exported from and timestamping. In
Section 4.2 of [RFC7854] timestamps are optional and sysName
[RFC1213] is only carried in the BMP initiation message (Section 4.3
of [RFC7854]), while the message header of IPFIX defined in
Section 4.3 of [RFC7011] lacks the 'sysName' definition.
The lack of information from where the data is being pushed from is
only known to the Network Telemetry data collection due to the
transport session being established from the network node exporting
the information. When Network Telemetry messages are being
transformed and forwarded, this information is being lost.
Therefore, it is common among network operators to augment 'sysName'
and other metadata at the data collection.
The same common principle applies to when observation timestamping is
missing in the Network Telemetry message. Since the data collection
is the closest element to the network, a time stamp is added to give
the network operator at least the information when the Network
Telemetry message was collected. However, since Network Telemetry
addresses real-time streaming needs, this is often not accurate
enough for data correlation.
OPS-REQ-REUSABILITY: Consider approach to ensure reuse/consistent
data structure.
2.11. Proprietary YANG Modules, CLI, and Limited Abstraction
Leveraging on pluggins, propietary YANG data models or even CLI is
still the rule in many operations, sometimes forced by the need of
operating legacy infrastructures.
The complexity of developing and maintaining these means of operation
is huge, as it is required to to cover many OSes and vendors along
the lifetime of the network device.
Network models for the realization of services provide some "level"
of abstraction and then allows for for more automation.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft RFC 3535, 20 Years Later May 2026
2.12. Distinct Networks, Distinct Management Requirements
From the time [RFC3535] was released up to now, new kind of services
and applications have been developed and deployed over the time, with
very diverse, and some times contradicting, requirements. Those
services have been engineered on top of multi-service networks for
the sake of efficiency and simplicity, accommodating such a variety
of needs. As a result, services requiring mobility, data
replication, large capacity, adaptability, multi-path support,
determinism, etc., coexist on the same shared network, needing from
it mechanisms for graceful operation.
Likewise, such diversity of services also require different
management capabilities. For example, session continuity,
distribution trees, traffic engineering, congestion status
notification, reordering, or on-time delivery impose very different
management needs to be satisfied.
This reality is different from the one existing at the time of
[RFC3535], and as such, the new identified needs can require from
novel approaches to guarantee the aforementioned co-existence of
services. Some networks have specific network management
requirements such as the need for asynchronous operations or
constraints on data compactness. An example of such networks is
Delay-Tolerant Networking (DTN) [RFC4838] or DetNet [RFC8557].
OPS-REQ-NEW-NEED: Profiling main network management technologies
(e.g., recommend customized transport parameters such as timeouts
and transport services) is recommended than defining network
management technologies that are applicable to a single deployment
context.
2.13. Implications of External Dependency
Networks are being updated to abandon the silo approach from the past
towards an increasing convergence. Specifically, there are trends
towards a tighter interaction and integration of different
technologies previously considered as totally separated from an
operational perspective. Examples of that trends are the IP and
Optical integration (e.g., the introduction of colored interfaces on
routers), or the extension of deterministic-behavior features to
Layer 3 networks. This kind of convergence in most cases creates
dependencies on the conventional network management features, which
require to incorporate or integrate functionality from other
technological domains.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft RFC 3535, 20 Years Later May 2026
Such convergence is also reflected on the need of interacting and
interworking with distinct network parts participating in the end-to-
end service delivery. Mobile access, fixed access, data center,
enterprise, radio functional split (i.e., fronthaul and midhaul),
neutral exchanges, intensive data networks (e.g., scientific academic
networks), content distribution, etc., represent network parts
constituent of end-to-end services that can impose dependencies of
the management of an intermediate network.
OPS-REQ-UNSILO: The convergence observed in recent years also
implies the need for an up-to-date refresh of management
capabilities and tools for conventional networks.
It highlights the necessity to handle the heterogeneity of data,
configuration, and network management/requirements.
From a YANG perspective, this involves easily mapping and relating
the data models used to manage each specific segment.
Resolving such issue could draw on insights from parallel
technical fields such as knowledge engineering practices and
concepts associated with Linked Data in the Semantic Web, areas
where it is common to manage problems of heterogeneity and data
reconciliation across various application domains.
2.14. Too Much Time Between Publication of New Networking Functionality
and the Associated YANG
For example, [RFC8667] (IS-IS extensions for SR) was published in
December 2019, while [I-D.ietf-isis-sr-yang] will be published ~5
years after. There are cases where modules are not published after
more than a decade of WG adoption (e.g., [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-model]).
OPS-REQ-TIMELY-DM: Consider having YANG as part of the protocol
specification/change where possible, or have the YANG document
progress in parallel. That may slow down the protocol
specification, though.
2.15. Lack of Implementation of Proposed Solutions
New solutions proposed by WGs such as NETMOD and NETCONF very often
lack an implementation or only have a partial implementation. The
situation has improved with the last hackathons (e.g., for YANG-
Push), but these solutions became RFCs without a known
implementation:
* YANG-Push [RFC8641]
Boucadair, et al. Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft RFC 3535, 20 Years Later May 2026
* Schema-mount [RFC8528]
* NMDA [RFC8342]
Schema-mount allegedly has only one known implementation because of
the complexity of the solution. That means the IETF most likely
spent lots of cycles for something which won't be deployed ever.
While hackathons have improved the situation, the availablability of
implementations is concerning. For open-source, 'sysrepo'/'libyang'
are decent choices.
OPS-REQ-READILY-IMPLEM: The availablability of implementations is
concerning. Consider catalyst approaches to trigger more (open)
implementations, especially during the development of protocols/
extensions.
2.16. Tooling & Skills
2.16.1. Integration with "native" IT Tooling
OPS-REQ-IT-INTEGRATION: There is a need to ease the integration of
low-level/network-oriented solution with native "IT tooling"
(e.g., "https://opentelemetry.io/").
2.16.2. IETF Support for Better YANG Integration
OPS-REQ-IETF-TOOLS Ease exposure of libraries and host tools (e.g.,
yangkit) to ease integration.
2.16.3. Open-source Tools
While there are open-source implementations for NETCONF (e.g.,
NETOPEER), the gRPC/gNMI suite seems to have more support for tools
on the client side. For example, "ygot" generates structures from
YANG models and these can easily be used by a client to configure a
device with gNMI. NETCONF is not supported though (the XML tags are
needed).
OPS-REQ-CLIENT-TOOLS: Focus on tooling is needed, especially on the
client side.
2.16.4. Skills
The IETF is not the expert community in data engineering. The
experts are in the data industry. Without them, integration in data
processing chains like Data Mesh is going to be a challenge.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft RFC 3535, 20 Years Later May 2026
OPS-REQ-BRIDGE: Create an eco-system where data and networking
engineers can collaborate.
2.17. New Service Approaches
The virtualization trend have made posible to dynamically instantiate
Service Functions (SFs) in distributed compute facilities in the form
of virtual machines or containers, as micro-services. The
instantiation of the SFs is governed by cloud management systems, as
it is the connectivity among the different instances or micro-
services. That connectivity is typically realized by using overlay
mechanisms, without any further interaction with the network.
However, this appraoch seems to be insuficient for future services
demanding stringent requirements in terms of SLOs.
OPS-REQ-GLUE: The distinct approaches followed in both the compute
and the network environments makes necessary to define suitable
mechanisms for enabling an efficient interplay, while highly
automating the overall service delivery procedure.
2.18. Many Solutions for the Same Problem, but Lack of Clear Applicably
Guidance
There are several solutions that were standardized for network
management purposes. For example, management of ACLs by means to BGP
FlowSpec [RFC8955][RFC8956] or by means of NETCONF/YANG [RFC8519].
There is no cross referencing between the two standards or delimits
its applicability scope vs the other approach.
Likewise, BGP FlowSpec did not reuse the IPFIX Information Elements.
OPS-REQ-GUIDANCE: The target application/applicability of a network
management approach should be integrated in the specification
itself.
3. Updated Operators' Requirements
3.1. Summary
A summary of the operators' requirements discussed in the previous
section is provided below:
OPS-REQ-STRENGTHEN-DM: Network softwarization can only happen with a
strong, committed standardization effort, complemented by active
involvement in open-source projects that facilitate access to
code.
OPS-REQ-DM-RATIONALIZE: Rationalize this space and avoid redundant
Boucadair, et al. Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft RFC 3535, 20 Years Later May 2026
efforts (in almost all layers (IP, optic, etc.)). Unlike service
and network models, Standard-based device models are not widely
implemented.
OPS-REQ-EASE-EXPOSURE: Focus on protocols and data models to expose
network/service capabilities, network-wide services, and related
operations.
OPS-REQ-NW-API-DISCOVERY: Define a reference approach/process for
service exposure discovery (APIs discovery).
OPS-REQ-DM2API: Readily available API specifications should be
generalized from YANG modules for fast development, prototyping,
and validation.
OPS-REQ-GUIDE-AND-PROFILE: The target application/applicability of a
network management approach should be documented (e.g., edit
profile documents that outline a set of recommendations for core/
key features, along with appropriate justifications, will help
foster more implementations that meet operators’ needs). This
also covers security management aspects of network management.
Additionaly, consider independent compliance suites to validate
functions/features/etc.
OPS-REQ-ARCH: Need to promote more architecture and framework
documents to exemplify the intended use.
OPS-REQ-REASSESS: Reassess the value of some IETF proposals,
including compared to competing or emerging solutions (e.g.,
gNMI).
OPS-REQ-QUICK-BUT-WELL: Develop a more agile process for the
development and maintenance of YANG modules in the IETF. RFCs
might not be suited for documenting YANG modules.
OPS-REQ-INTEGRATION: Consider approaches to ease integration by-
design (e.g., protocols and data models). The integration covers
both horizontal and vertical realms. For example, there is a lack
of enablement of this integration across standard bodies that
operators are left to solve.
OPS-REQ-ITERATE: Need a velocity and approach to standardization
that allows for business goals to be incrementally realized.
OPS-REQ-Y2KG: Need for reference specifications to translate YANG-
based data into the Knowledge Graph. Sample use cases to
illustrate the intended use should be considered as well.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft RFC 3535, 20 Years Later May 2026
OPS-REQ-SCALE: Consider approaches for YANG data models to scale,
including protocol considerations (transactions, etc.).
Specifically, address telemetry scalability enhancements.
OPS-REQ-LOSSLESS: Consider programmatic approaches to ensure
lossless mappings between service/network/device data models.
Means to detect, characterize, and expose loss may be considered.
Note that lossless mapping is an enabler for support of
deterministic verification, auditing, and tracing back along
layers/models.
OPS-REQ-REUSABILITY: Consider approaches to ensure reuse/consistent
data structure across various network management segments. This
will ease correlating data learned using different means (IPFIX
[RFC7011], BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) [RFC7854], SYSLOG
[RFC5424], etc.).
OPS-REQ-NEW-NEED: Profiling main network management technologies
(e.g., recommend customized transport parameters such as timeouts
and transport services) is recommended than defining network
management technologies that are applicable to a single deployment
context.
OPS-REQ-UNSILO: Necessity to handle the heterogeneity of data,
configuration, and network management/requirements. Resolving
such issue could draw on insights from parallel technical fields
such as knowledge engineering practices and concepts associated
with Linked Data in the Semantic Web, areas where it is common to
manage problems of heterogeneity and data reconciliation across
various application domains.
OPS-REQ-TIMELY-DM: Consider having YANG as part of the protocol
specification/change where possible, or have the YANG document
progress in parallel.
OPS-REQ-READILY-IMPLEM: The availability of implementation is
concerning. Consider catalyst approaches to trigger more (open)
implementations, especially during the development of protocols/
extensions.
OPS-REQ-IT-INTEGRATION: There is a need to ease the integration of
low-level/network-oriented solution with native "IT tooling"
(e.g., https://opentelemetry.io/).
OPS-REQ-IETF-TOOLS: Ease exposure of libraries and host tools (e.g.,
yangkit) to ease integration.
OPS-REQ-CLIENT-TOOLS: Focus on tooling is needed, especially on the
Boucadair, et al. Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft RFC 3535, 20 Years Later May 2026
client side. There is a need for tools that are easy to use.
Likewise, there is need for support for multiple friendly, stable,
and feature-rich libraries for programming languages.
OPS-REQ-BRIDGE: Create an eco-system where data and networking
engineers can collaborate.
OPS-REQ-GLUE: Distinct approaches followed in both the compute and
the network environments make necessary to define suitable
mechanisms for enabling an efficient interplay, while highly
automating the overall service delivery procedure.
OPS-REQ-GUIDANCE: The target application/applicability of a network
management approach should be integrated in the specification
itself.
3.2. Categorization
Table 1 provides a classification of the requirements listed in
Section 3.1. It specifically tag whether a requirement:
* Belongs to data modeling (DM)
* Requires protocol work (Proto)
* Impacts deployability of standardized approaches (Deploy)
* Has implications on integration effort by operators (Int)
* Requires some adaptations to a Standards Developing Organization
(SDO) process (Process)
* Allows better coordination (Collaboration & Cooperation (C&C))
* Is relevant to skill transformations (Skills)
+==========================+==+=====+======+===+=======+===+======+
| Ops Requirement Label |DM|Proto|Deploy|Int|Process|C&C|Skills|
+==========================+==+=====+======+===+=======+===+======+
| OPS-REQ-STRENGTHEN-DM |X | | X | | | | |
+--------------------------+--+-----+------+---+-------+---+------+
| OPS-REQ-DM-RATIONALIZE |X | | X | | X | X | |
+--------------------------+--+-----+------+---+-------+---+------+
| OPS-REQ-EASE-EXPOSURE |X | X | X | X | | | |
+--------------------------+--+-----+------+---+-------+---+------+
| OPS-REQ-NW-API-DISCOVERY | | | X | X | | | |
+--------------------------+--+-----+------+---+-------+---+------+
| OPS-REQ-DM2API | | | X | | | | |
Boucadair, et al. Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft RFC 3535, 20 Years Later May 2026
+--------------------------+--+-----+------+---+-------+---+------+
| OPS-REQ-GUIDE-PROFILE |X | X | X | | | | |
+--------------------------+--+-----+------+---+-------+---+------+
| OPS-REQ-ARCH | | X | X | | | | |
+--------------------------+--+-----+------+---+-------+---+------+
| OPS-REQ-REASSESS | | X | | | | | |
+--------------------------+--+-----+------+---+-------+---+------+
| OPS-REQ-QUICK-BUT-WELL |X | X | X | | | | |
+--------------------------+--+-----+------+---+-------+---+------+
| OPS-REQ-INTEGRATION | | | X | X | X | | |
+--------------------------+--+-----+------+---+-------+---+------+
| OPS-REQ-ITERATE | | | | | X | X | |
+--------------------------+--+-----+------+---+-------+---+------+
| OPS-REQ-Y2KG | | | X | X | | | |
+--------------------------+--+-----+------+---+-------+---+------+
| OPS-REQ-SCALE |X | X | | | | | |
+--------------------------+--+-----+------+---+-------+---+------+
| OPS-REQ-LOSSLESS | | | X | X | X | | |
+--------------------------+--+-----+------+---+-------+---+------+
| OPS-REQ-REUSABILITY | | X | | X | X | | |
+--------------------------+--+-----+------+---+-------+---+------+
| OPS-REQ-NEW-NEED | | X | | | | | |
+--------------------------+--+-----+------+---+-------+---+------+
| OPS-REQ-UNSILO | | | X | X | | | |
+--------------------------+--+-----+------+---+-------+---+------+
| OPS-REQ-TIMELY-DM |X | | X | | | | |
+--------------------------+--+-----+------+---+-------+---+------+
| OPS-REQ-READILY-IMPLEM |X | X | X | | X | | |
+--------------------------+--+-----+------+---+-------+---+------+
| OPS-REQ-IT-INTEGRATION | | | X | X | | | |
+--------------------------+--+-----+------+---+-------+---+------+
| OPS-REQ-IETF-TOOLS | | | | | X | | X |
+--------------------------+--+-----+------+---+-------+---+------+
| OPS-REQ-CLIENT-TOOLS | | | X | X | | | X |
+--------------------------+--+-----+------+---+-------+---+------+
| OPS-REQ-BRIDGE | | | | | | X | X |
+--------------------------+--+-----+------+---+-------+---+------+
| OPS-REQ-GLUE | | | | X | | | X |
+--------------------------+--+-----+------+---+-------+---+------+
| OPS-REQ-GUIDANCE | | | X | | | | |
+--------------------------+--+-----+------+---+-------+---+------+
Table 1: Requirements Classification
3.3. Overall New Requirements Levels: Operators View
Table 2 provides the requirement level of Section 3.1 from an
operator perspective.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft RFC 3535, 20 Years Later May 2026
+===========================+=========================+
| Ops Requirement Label | Overall Operators Level |
+===========================+=========================+
| OPS-REQ-STRENGTHEN-DM | Strong |
+---------------------------+-------------------------+
| OPS-REQ-DM-RATIONALIZE | Strong |
+---------------------------+-------------------------+
| OPS-REQ-EASE-EXPOSURE | Strong |
+---------------------------+-------------------------+
| OPS-REQ-NW-API-DISCOVERY | Nice to have |
+---------------------------+-------------------------+
| OPS-REQ-DM2API | Strong |
+---------------------------+-------------------------+
| OPS-REQ-GUIDE-AND-PROFILE | Nice to have |
+---------------------------+-------------------------+
| OPS-REQ-ARCH | Strong |
+---------------------------+-------------------------+
| OPS-REQ-REASSESS | Strong |
+---------------------------+-------------------------+
| OPS-REQ-QUICK-BUT-WELL | Strong |
+---------------------------+-------------------------+
| OPS-REQ-INTEGRATION | Strong |
+---------------------------+-------------------------+
| OPS-REQ-ITERATE | Strong |
+---------------------------+-------------------------+
| OPS-REQ-Y2KG | Nice to have |
+---------------------------+-------------------------+
| OPS-REQ-SCALE | Strong |
+---------------------------+-------------------------+
| OPS-REQ-LOSSLESS | Nice to have |
+---------------------------+-------------------------+
| OPS-REQ-REUSABILITY | Strong |
+---------------------------+-------------------------+
| OPS-REQ-NEW-NEED | Nice to have |
+---------------------------+-------------------------+
| OPS-REQ-UNSILO | Strong |
+---------------------------+-------------------------+
| OPS-REQ-TIMELY-DM | Strong |
+---------------------------+-------------------------+
| OPS-REQ-READILY-IMPLEM | Strong |
+---------------------------+-------------------------+
| OPS-REQ-IT-INTEGRATION | Nice to have |
+---------------------------+-------------------------+
| OPS-REQ-IETF-TOOLS | Nice to have |
+---------------------------+-------------------------+
| OPS-REQ-CLIENT-TOOLS | Strong |
+---------------------------+-------------------------+
| OPS-REQ-BRIDGE | Strong |
Boucadair, et al. Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft RFC 3535, 20 Years Later May 2026
+---------------------------+-------------------------+
| OPS-REQ-GLUE | Nice to have |
+---------------------------+-------------------------+
| OPS-REQ-GUIDANCE | Nice to have |
+---------------------------+-------------------------+
Table 2: Operators Requirements Levels
3.4. Consolidated Requirements
This section provides a consolidated view of main requirements that
takes into account inputs from actors beyond operators:
* Put more focus on service and network data models (OPS-REQ-EASE-
EXPOSURE, OPS-REQ-STRENGTHEN-DM) while ensuring that the
realization of these abstractions can be easily correlated with
underlying functionalities (OPS-REQ-INTEGRATION).
* Progress much faster (OPS-REQ-QUICK-BUT-WELL, OPS-REQ-TIMELY-DM).
* Implement minimal functionality, not bells and whistles (OPS-REQ-
ITERATE).
* Have running code while a specification is under development (OPS-
REQ-READILY-IMPLEM, OPS-REQ-TOOLS).
* Have vendors and operators on board at the time of developing a
network management solution.
* Provide independent compliance suites to validate features (OPS-
REQ-GUIDE-AND-PROFILE).
* Need for means to correlate data learned from different means
(OPS-REQ-REUSABILITY).
* Investigate approaches to ease adoption and integration into an
operator’s environments (OPS-REQ-EASE-EXPOSURE, OPS-REQ-DM2API,
OPS-REQ-INTEGRATION).
* Network-centric approaches have limits, need to better integrate
and learn from techniques in other domains (OPS-REQ-BRIDGE).
4. Operational Considerations
This document exclusively focuses on operations and management
requirements. These considerations (deployability, integration,
complexity, etc.) are not repeated here.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft RFC 3535, 20 Years Later May 2026
5. Security Considerations
This document does not define any protocol or architecture.
6. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC3535] Schoenwaelder, J., "Overview of the 2002 IAB Network
Management Workshop", RFC 3535, DOI 10.17487/RFC3535, May
2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3535>.
7.2. Informative References
[BCP127] Best Current Practice 127,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp127>.
At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following:
Audet, F., Ed. and C. Jennings, "Network Address
Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast
UDP", BCP 127, RFC 4787, DOI 10.17487/RFC4787, January
2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4787>.
Perreault, S., Ed., Yamagata, I., Miyakawa, S., Nakagawa,
A., and H. Ashida, "Common Requirements for Carrier-Grade
NATs (CGNs)", BCP 127, RFC 6888, DOI 10.17487/RFC6888,
April 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6888>.
Penno, R., Perreault, S., Boucadair, M., Ed., Sivakumar,
S., and K. Naito, "Updates to Network Address Translation
(NAT) Behavioral Requirements", BCP 127, RFC 7857,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7857, April 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7857>.
[CAMARA] "CAMARA", <https://camaraproject.org/>.
[I-D.iab-nemops-workshop-report]
Hardaker, W. and D. Dhody, "Report from the IAB Workshop
on the Next Era of Network Management Operations
(NEMOPS)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-iab-
nemops-workshop-report-04, 29 August 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-iab-nemops-
workshop-report-04>.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft RFC 3535, 20 Years Later May 2026
[I-D.ietf-bmwg-containerized-infra]
Ngọc, T. M., Ko, 7. 9. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 3. 7., Rao, S., Lee,
J., and Y. Kim, "Considerations for Benchmarking Network
Performance in Containerized Infrastructures", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-bmwg-containerized-
infra-09, 12 April 2026,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bmwg-
containerized-infra-09>.
[I-D.ietf-core-comi]
Veillette, M., Van der Stok, P., Pelov, A., Bierman, A.,
and C. Bormann, "CoAP Management Interface (CORECONF)",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-core-comi-21,
2 March 2026, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-core-comi-21>.
[I-D.ietf-grow-peering-api]
Aguado, C., Griswold, M., Ramseyer, J., Servin, A.,
Strickx, T., and Q. Misell, "Peering API", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-grow-peering-api-01,
4 July 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
ietf-grow-peering-api-01>.
[I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-model]
Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., Hares, S., and J. Haas, "YANG
Model for Border Gateway Protocol (BGP-4)", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model-19, 2
March 2026, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
ietf-idr-bgp-model-19>.
[I-D.ietf-isis-sr-yang]
Litkowski, S., Qu, Y., Lindem, A., Chen, H., and J.
Tantsura, "A YANG Data Model for IS-IS Segment Routing
over the MPLS Data Plane", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-isis-sr-yang-31, 6 May 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-isis-sr-
yang-31>.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-https-notif]
Jethanandani, M. and K. Watsen, "An HTTPS-based Transport
for YANG Notifications", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-netconf-https-notif-15, 1 February 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-
https-notif-15>.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-udp-notif]
Feng, A. H., Francois, P., Zhou, T., Graf, T., and P.
Lucente, "UDP-based Transport for Configured
Boucadair, et al. Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft RFC 3535, 20 Years Later May 2026
Subscriptions", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-netconf-udp-notif-25, 28 January 2026,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-
udp-notif-25>.
[I-D.marcas-nmop-knowledge-graph-yang]
Martinez-Casanueva, I. D., Cabanillas, L., and P.
Martinez-Julia, "Knowledge Graphs for YANG-based Network
Management", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
marcas-nmop-knowledge-graph-yang-05, 21 October 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-marcas-nmop-
knowledge-graph-yang-05>.
[I-D.openconfig-rtgwg-gnmi-spec]
Shakir, R., Shaikh, A., Borman, P., Hines, M., Lebsack,
C., and C. Morrow, "gRPC Network Management Interface
(gNMI)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
openconfig-rtgwg-gnmi-spec-01, 5 March 2018,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-openconfig-
rtgwg-gnmi-spec-01>.
[I-D.tailhardat-nmop-incident-management-noria]
Tailhardat, L., Troncy, R., Chabot, Y., Ramparany, F.,
Folz, P., and B. Kavanagh, "Knowledge Graphs for Enhanced
Cross-Operator Incident Management and Network Design",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-tailhardat-nmop-
incident-management-noria-04, 9 February 2026,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-tailhardat-
nmop-incident-management-noria-04>.
[LOT2019] Poveda-Villalon, M., Fernandez-Izquierdo, A., Fernandez-
Lopez, M., and R. Garcia-Castro, "LOT: An industrial
oriented ontology engineering framework", 2022,
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2022.104755>.
[OC] "Openconfig", <https://www.openconfig.net/>.
[ODL] "Graph Model Overview", 2023,
<https://docs.opendaylight.org/projects/bgpcep/en/latest/
graph/graph-user-guide-graph-model.html#>.
[RFC1213] McCloghrie, K. and M. Rose, "Management Information Base
for Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets: MIB-II",
STD 17, RFC 1213, DOI 10.17487/RFC1213, March 1991,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1213>.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft RFC 3535, 20 Years Later May 2026
[RFC4838] Cerf, V., Burleigh, S., Hooke, A., Torgerson, L., Durst,
R., Scott, K., Fall, K., and H. Weiss, "Delay-Tolerant
Networking Architecture", RFC 4838, DOI 10.17487/RFC4838,
April 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4838>.
[RFC5424] Gerhards, R., "The Syslog Protocol", RFC 5424,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5424, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5424>.
[RFC5472] Zseby, T., Boschi, E., Brownlee, N., and B. Claise, "IP
Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Applicability", RFC 5472,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5472, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5472>.
[RFC5476] Claise, B., Ed., Johnson, A., and J. Quittek, "Packet
Sampling (PSAMP) Protocol Specifications", RFC 5476,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5476, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5476>.
[RFC5477] Dietz, T., Claise, B., Aitken, P., Dressler, F., and G.
Carle, "Information Model for Packet Sampling Exports",
RFC 5477, DOI 10.17487/RFC5477, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5477>.
[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/rfc/rfc6020>.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6241>.
[RFC6244] Shafer, P., "An Architecture for Network Management Using
NETCONF and YANG", RFC 6244, DOI 10.17487/RFC6244, June
2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6244>.
[RFC6632] Ersue, M., Ed. and B. Claise, "An Overview of the IETF
Network Management Standards", RFC 6632,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6632, June 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6632>.
[RFC7011] Claise, B., Ed., Trammell, B., Ed., and P. Aitken,
"Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information", STD 77,
RFC 7011, DOI 10.17487/RFC7011, September 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7011>.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft RFC 3535, 20 Years Later May 2026
[RFC7012] Claise, B., Ed. and B. Trammell, Ed., "Information Model
for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 7012,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7012, September 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7012>.
[RFC7015] Trammell, B., Wagner, A., and B. Claise, "Flow Aggregation
for the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol",
RFC 7015, DOI 10.17487/RFC7015, September 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7015>.
[RFC7149] Boucadair, M. and C. Jacquenet, "Software-Defined
Networking: A Perspective from within a Service Provider
Environment", RFC 7149, DOI 10.17487/RFC7149, March 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7149>.
[RFC7414] Duke, M., Braden, R., Eddy, W., Blanton, E., and A.
Zimmermann, "A Roadmap for Transmission Control Protocol
(TCP) Specification Documents", RFC 7414,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7414, February 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7414>.
[RFC7426] Haleplidis, E., Ed., Pentikousis, K., Ed., Denazis, S.,
Hadi Salim, J., Meyer, D., and O. Koufopavlou, "Software-
Defined Networking (SDN): Layers and Architecture
Terminology", RFC 7426, DOI 10.17487/RFC7426, January
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7426>.
[RFC7854] Scudder, J., Ed., Fernando, R., and S. Stuart, "BGP
Monitoring Protocol (BMP)", RFC 7854,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7854, June 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7854>.
[RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language",
RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7950>.
[RFC7951] Lhotka, L., "JSON Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG",
RFC 7951, DOI 10.17487/RFC7951, August 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7951>.
[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8040>.
[RFC8199] Bogdanovic, D., Claise, B., and C. Moberg, "YANG Module
Classification", RFC 8199, DOI 10.17487/RFC8199, July
2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8199>.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft RFC 3535, 20 Years Later May 2026
[RFC8309] Wu, Q., Liu, W., and A. Farrel, "Service Models
Explained", RFC 8309, DOI 10.17487/RFC8309, January 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8309>.
[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/rfc/rfc8342>.
[RFC8519] Jethanandani, M., Agarwal, S., Huang, L., and D. Blair,
"YANG Data Model for Network Access Control Lists (ACLs)",
RFC 8519, DOI 10.17487/RFC8519, March 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8519>.
[RFC8528] Bjorklund, M. and L. Lhotka, "YANG Schema Mount",
RFC 8528, DOI 10.17487/RFC8528, March 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8528>.
[RFC8557] Finn, N. and P. Thubert, "Deterministic Networking Problem
Statement", RFC 8557, DOI 10.17487/RFC8557, May 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8557>.
[RFC8568] Bernardos, CJ., Rahman, A., Zuniga, JC., Contreras, LM.,
Aranda, P., and P. Lynch, "Network Virtualization Research
Challenges", RFC 8568, DOI 10.17487/RFC8568, April 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8568>.
[RFC8639] Voit, E., Clemm, A., Gonzalez Prieto, A., Nilsen-Nygaard,
E., and A. Tripathy, "Subscription to YANG Notifications",
RFC 8639, DOI 10.17487/RFC8639, September 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8639>.
[RFC8640] Voit, E., Clemm, A., Gonzalez Prieto, A., Nilsen-Nygaard,
E., and A. Tripathy, "Dynamic Subscription to YANG Events
and Datastores over NETCONF", RFC 8640,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8640, September 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8640>.
[RFC8641] Clemm, A. and E. Voit, "Subscription to YANG Notifications
for Datastore Updates", RFC 8641, DOI 10.17487/RFC8641,
September 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8641>.
[RFC8667] Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L., Ed., Filsfils, C.,
Bashandy, A., Gredler, H., and B. Decraene, "IS-IS
Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8667,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8667, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8667>.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft RFC 3535, 20 Years Later May 2026
[RFC8955] Loibl, C., Hares, S., Raszuk, R., McPherson, D., and M.
Bacher, "Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules",
RFC 8955, DOI 10.17487/RFC8955, December 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8955>.
[RFC8956] Loibl, C., Ed., Raszuk, R., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed.,
"Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules for IPv6",
RFC 8956, DOI 10.17487/RFC8956, December 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8956>.
[RFC8969] Wu, Q., Ed., Boucadair, M., Ed., Lopez, D., Xie, C., and
L. Geng, "A Framework for Automating Service and Network
Management with YANG", RFC 8969, DOI 10.17487/RFC8969,
January 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8969>.
[RFC9232] Song, H., Qin, F., Martinez-Julia, P., Ciavaglia, L., and
A. Wang, "Network Telemetry Framework", RFC 9232,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9232, May 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9232>.
[RFC9254] Veillette, M., Ed., Petrov, I., Ed., Pelov, A., Bormann,
C., and M. Richardson, "Encoding of Data Modeled with YANG
in the Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)",
RFC 9254, DOI 10.17487/RFC9254, July 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9254>.
[RFC9315] Clemm, A., Ciavaglia, L., Granville, L. Z., and J.
Tantsura, "Intent-Based Networking - Concepts and
Definitions", RFC 9315, DOI 10.17487/RFC9315, October
2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9315>.
[RFC9543] Farrel, A., Ed., Drake, J., Ed., Rokui, R., Homma, S.,
Makhijani, K., Contreras, L., and J. Tantsura, "A
Framework for Network Slices in Networks Built from IETF
Technologies", RFC 9543, DOI 10.17487/RFC9543, March 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9543>.
[RFC9595] Veillette, M., Ed., Pelov, A., Ed., Petrov, I., Ed.,
Bormann, C., and M. Richardson, "YANG Schema Item
iDentifier (YANG SID)", RFC 9595, DOI 10.17487/RFC9595,
July 2024, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9595>.
[RFC9834] Boucadair, M., Ed., Roberts, R., Ed., Gonzalez de Dios,
O., Barguil, S., and B. Wu, "YANG Data Models for Bearers
and Attachment Circuits as a Service (ACaaS)", RFC 9834,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9834, September 2025,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9834>.
Boucadair, et al. Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft RFC 3535, 20 Years Later May 2026
[Widoco2017]
Garijo, D., "WIDOCO: a wizard for documenting ontologies",
2017, <http://dgarijo.com/papers/widoco-iswc2017.pdf>.
[YC] "YANG Catalog, YANG Modules Stats", 2026,
<https://www.yangcatalog.org/private-page>.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Christian Jacquenet and Jean-Michel Combes for their
inputs.
Thanks to Benoît Claise and Alex Clemm for the comments.
Many of the requirements were extracted from contributions to the IAB
Next Era of Network Management Operations (NEMOPS) Workshop
[I-D.iab-nemops-workshop-report].
Thanks to Ian Farrer, Brad Peters, Chongfeng Xie, and Qin Wu for
their contribution to consolidate the requirements.
Contributors
Lionel Tailhardat
Orange
Email: lionel.tailhardat@orange.com
Authors' Addresses
Mohamed Boucadair
Orange
Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Luis M. Contreras
Telefonica
Email: luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
Telefonica
Email: oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com
Thomas Graf
Swisscom
Email: thomas.graf@swisscom.com
Boucadair, et al. Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft RFC 3535, 20 Years Later May 2026
Reshad Rahman
Equinix
Email: rrahman@equinix.com
Boucadair, et al. Expires 7 November 2026 [Page 29]