doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 2299 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc8533.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc8533.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c0e9595
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc8533.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,2299 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                          D. Kumar
+Request for Comments: 8533                                         Cisco
+Category: Standards Track                                        M. Wang
+ISSN: 2070-1721                                               Q. Wu, Ed.
+                                                                  Huawei
+                                                               R. Rahman
+                                                             S. Raghavan
+                                                                   Cisco
+                                                              April 2019
+
+
+     A YANG Data Model for Retrieval Methods for the Management of
+      Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Protocols
+                 That Use Connectionless Communications
+
+Abstract
+
+   This document presents a retrieval method YANG data model for
+   connectionless Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
+   protocols.  It provides technology-independent RPC operations for OAM
+   protocols that use connectionless communication.  The retrieval
+   methods model herein presented can be extended to include technology-
+   specific details.  There are two key benefits of this approach:
+   First, it leads to uniformity between OAM protocols.  Second, it
+   supports both nested OAM workflows (i.e., performing OAM functions at
+   different or the same levels through a unified interface) as well as
+   interactive OAM workflows (i.e., performing OAM functions at the same
+   levels through a unified interface).
+
+Status of This Memo
+
+   This is an Internet Standards Track document.
+
+   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
+   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
+   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
+   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
+   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
+
+   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
+   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
+   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8533.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kumar, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 1]
+
+RFC 8533         YANG Model for CL OAM Retrieval Methods      April 2019
+
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (c) 2019 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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
+   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
+   described in the Simplified BSD License.
+
+Table of Contents
+
+   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
+   2.  Conventions Used in This document . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
+     2.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
+     2.2.  Tree Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
+   3.  Overview of the Connectionless OAM Retrieval Methods Model  .   4
+     3.1.  RPC Operation Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
+     3.2.  OAM Retrieval Methods Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
+   4.  OAM Retrieval Methods YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
+   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
+   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
+   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
+     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
+     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
+   Appendix A.  Extending Connectionless OAM Method Module Example .  29
+     A.1.  Example of New Retrieval Procedures Model . . . . . . . .  29
+   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
+   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kumar, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 2]
+
+RFC 8533         YANG Model for CL OAM Retrieval Methods      April 2019
+
+
+1.  Introduction
+
+   Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) are important
+   networking functions that allow operators to:
+
+   1.  monitor network communications (i.e., reachability verification
+       and Continuity Check)
+
+   2.  troubleshoot failures (i.e., fault verification and localization)
+
+   3.  monitor service-level agreements and performance (i.e.,
+       performance management)
+
+   An overview of OAM tools is presented in [RFC7276].
+
+   Ping and Traceroute [RFC4443], as well as Bidirectional Forwarding
+   Detection (BFD) [RFC5880], are well-known fault verification and
+   isolation tools, respectively, for IP networks [RFC792].  Over the
+   years, different technologies have developed similar toolsets for
+   equivalent purposes.
+
+   This document presents an on-demand retrieval method YANG data model
+   for OAM protocols that use connectionless communication.  This model
+   provides technology-independent RPC operations for OAM protocols that
+   use connectionless communication (i.e., connectionless OAM).  It is
+   separated from the generic YANG data model for connectionless OAM
+   [RFC8532] and can avoid mixing the models for the retrieved data from
+   the retrieval procedures.  It is expected that retrieval procedures
+   will evolve faster than the data model [RFC8532] and will allow new
+   procedures to be defined for retrieval of the same data defined by
+   the generic YANG data model for connectionless OAM.
+
+2.  Conventions Used in This document
+
+   The following terms are defined in [RFC6241] and are used in this
+   document:
+
+   o  client
+
+   o  configuration data
+
+   o  server
+
+   o  state data
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kumar, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 3]
+
+RFC 8533         YANG Model for CL OAM Retrieval Methods      April 2019
+
+
+   The following terms are defined in [RFC6020] and are used in this
+   document:
+
+   o  augment
+
+   o  data model
+
+   o  data node
+
+   The terminology for describing YANG data models is found in
+   [RFC6020].
+
+2.1.  Terminology
+
+   TP - Test Point
+
+   MAC - Media Access Control
+
+   RPC - Remote Procedure Call
+
+   RPC Operation - A specific Remote Procedure Call
+
+2.2.  Tree Diagrams
+
+   Tree diagrams used in this document follow the notation defined in
+   [RFC8340].
+
+3.  Overview of the Connectionless OAM Retrieval Methods Model
+
+   This document describes an on-demand retrieval method YANG data model
+   for OAM protocols that use connectionless communication.  This model
+   provides technology-independent retrieval procedures (RPC operations)
+   for connectionless OAM protocols.  It provides a flexible way to
+   retrieve the data that is defined by the "ietf-connectionless-
+   oam.yang" module [RFC8532].
+
+3.1.  RPC Operation Definitions
+
+   The RPC model facilitates issuing commands to a Network Configuration
+   Protocol (NETCONF) server (in this case to the device that needs to
+   execute the OAM command) and obtaining a response.
+
+   Under the "connectionless-oam-methods" module, we summarize common
+   OAM functions and define two generic RPC operations: 'continuity-
+   check' and 'path-discovery'.  In practice, these RPC operations are
+   activated on demand and are supported by corresponding technology-
+   specific OAM tools [RFC7276].  For example, for the IP OAM model, the
+   Continuity Check RPC corresponds to the IP Ping [RFC792] [RFC4443],
+
+
+
+Kumar, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 4]
+
+RFC 8533         YANG Model for CL OAM Retrieval Methods      April 2019
+
+
+   while the path discovery RPC operation corresponds to IP Traceroute
+   [RFC792] [RFC4443].
+
+   Note that the RPC operation presented in this document is the base
+   building block, which is used to derive a model for a technology-
+   specific OAM (i.e., ICMP Ping [RFC792] [RFC4443] and Label Switched
+   Path (LSP) Ping [RFC8029]).  This base building block should be
+   extended with corresponding technology-specific parameters.  To
+   facilitate this for future enhancements to data retrieval methods,
+   the RPCs are captured under a separate module.
+
+   The generic 'tp-address' grouping is used as data input from
+   different RPCs described in this document.  The generic 'path-
+   discovery-data' and 'continuity-check-data' groupings defined by the
+   "ietf-connectionless-oam.yang" module [RFC8532] are used as data
+   outputs from different RPCs described in this document.  Similar
+   methods, including other RPCs, can retrieve the data using the same
+   data model (i.e., the "ietf-connectionless-oam.yang" module).
+
+        rpc continuity-check {
+         if-feature cl-oam:continuity-check;
+         description
+           "Continuity Check RPC operation as per RFC 7276.";
+         reference
+           "RFC 7276: An Overview of Operations, Administration, and
+            Maintenance (OAM) Tools";
+         input {
+         uses rpc-input-parameters;
+         ....
+         }
+       output {
+         container response-info {
+           leaf protocol-id {
+             type identityref {
+               base protocol-id;
+             }
+             mandatory true;
+             description
+               "Protocol used in the Continuity Check. ";
+           }
+           leaf protocol-id-meta-data {
+              type identityref {
+               base protocol-id-meta-data;
+               }
+                description
+                "An optional metadata related to the protocol ID.";
+           }
+           leaf status-code {
+
+
+
+Kumar, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 5]
+
+RFC 8533         YANG Model for CL OAM Retrieval Methods      April 2019
+
+
+             type identityref{
+            base status-code;
+          }
+             mandatory true;
+             description
+               "Status code for Continuity Check RPC operation.";
+           }
+           leaf status-sub-code {
+             type identityref{
+             base status-sub-code;
+          }
+             mandatory true;
+             description
+               "Status-sub-code for Continuity Check RPC operation.";
+           }
+           description
+             "Status code and status-sub-code for Continuity Check RPC
+              operation.";
+         }
+         uses cl-oam:continuity-check-data;
+       }
+     }
+
+       rpc path-discovery {
+         description
+           "Path discovery RPC operation as per RFC 7276.";
+         reference
+           "RFC 7276: An Overview of Operations, Administration, and
+            Maintenance (OAM) Tools";
+         input {
+         uses rpc-input-parameters;
+         .....
+         }
+       output {
+         list response-list {
+           key "response-index";
+           description
+             "Path discovery response list.";
+           leaf response-index {
+             type uint32;
+             mandatory true;
+             description
+               "Response index.";
+           }
+           leaf protocol-id {
+             type identityref {
+               base protocol-id;
+             }
+
+
+
+Kumar, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 6]
+
+RFC 8533         YANG Model for CL OAM Retrieval Methods      April 2019
+
+
+             mandatory true;
+             description
+               "Protocol used in path discovery. ";
+           }
+           leaf protocol-id-meta-data {
+              type identityref {
+               base protocol-id-meta-data;
+               }
+                description
+                "An optional metadata related to the protocol ID.";
+           }
+           leaf status-code {
+             type identityref{
+             base status-code;
+           }
+             mandatory true;
+             description
+               "Status code for path discovery RPC operation. ";
+           }
+           leaf status-sub-code {
+             type identityref{
+             base status-sub-code;
+          }
+             mandatory true;
+             description
+               "Status-sub-code for path discovery RPC operation. ";
+           }
+         }
+         uses cl-oam:path-discovery-data;
+       }
+     }
+
+            Snippet of Data Hierarchy Related to RPC Operations
+
+3.2.  OAM Retrieval Methods Hierarchy
+
+   The complete data hierarchy related to the Connectionless OAM
+   Retrieval Methods YANG data model is presented below.
+
+   module: ietf-connectionless-oam-methods
+
+     rpcs:
+       +---x continuity-check {cl-oam:continuity-check}?
+       |  +---w input
+       |  |  +---w destination-tp
+       |  |  |  +---w tp-location-type    identityref
+       |  |  |  +---w mac-address
+       |  |  |  |  +---w mac-address    yang:mac-address
+
+
+
+Kumar, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 7]
+
+RFC 8533         YANG Model for CL OAM Retrieval Methods      April 2019
+
+
+       |  |  |  +---w ipv4-address
+       |  |  |  |  +---w ipv4-address    inet:ipv4-address
+       |  |  |  +---w ipv6-address
+       |  |  |  |  +---w ipv6-address    inet:ipv6-address
+       |  |  |  +---w tp-attribute
+       |  |  |  |  +---w tp-attribute-type?
+       |  |  |  |  |       address-attribute-type
+       |  |  |  |  +---w (tp-attribute-value)?
+       |  |  |  |     +--:(ip-prefix)
+       |  |  |  |     |  +---w ip-prefix?
+       |  |  |  |     |          inet:ip-prefix
+       |  |  |  |     +--:(bgp)
+       |  |  |  |     |  +---w bgp?
+       |  |  |  |     |          inet:ip-prefix
+       |  |  |  |     +--:(tunnel)
+       |  |  |  |     |  +---w tunnel-interface?         uint32
+       |  |  |  |     +--:(pw)
+       |  |  |  |     |  +---w remote-pe-address?
+       |  |  |  |     |  |       inet:ip-address
+       |  |  |  |     |  +---w pw-id?                    uint32
+       |  |  |  |     +--:(vpls)
+       |  |  |  |     |  +---w route-distinguisher?
+       |  |  |  |     |  |       rt:route-distinguisher
+       |  |  |  |     |  +---w sender-ve-id?             uint16
+       |  |  |  |     |  +---w receiver-ve-id?           uint16
+       |  |  |  |     +--:(mpls-mldp)
+       |  |  |  |        +---w (root-address)?
+       |  |  |  |           +--:(ip-address)
+       |  |  |  |           |  +---w source-address?
+       |  |  |  |           |  |       inet:ip-address
+       |  |  |  |           |  +---w group-ip-address?
+       |  |  |  |           |          inet:ip-address
+       |  |  |  |           +--:(vpn)
+       |  |  |  |           |  +---w as-number?
+       |  |  |  |           |          inet:as-number
+       |  |  |  |           +--:(global-id)
+       |  |  |  |              +---w lsp-id?             string
+       |  |  |  +---w system-info
+       |  |  |     +---w router-id?   rt:router-id
+       |  |  +---w source-interface      if:interface-ref
+       |  |  +---w outbound-interface    if:interface-ref
+       |  |  +---w vrf?
+       |  |  |       cl-oam:routing-instance-ref
+       |  |  +---w session-type?         enumeration
+       |  |  +---w count?                uint32
+       |  |  +---w ttl?                  uint8
+       |  |  +---w packet-size?          uint32
+       |  +--ro output
+
+
+
+Kumar, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 8]
+
+RFC 8533         YANG Model for CL OAM Retrieval Methods      April 2019
+
+
+       |     +--ro response-info
+       |     |  +--ro protocol-id              identityref
+       |     |  +--ro protocol-id-meta-data?   identityref
+       |     |  +--ro status-code              identityref
+       |     |  +--ro status-sub-code          identityref
+       |     +--ro src-test-point
+       |     |  +--ro ni?                 routing-instance-ref
+       |     |  +--ro tp-location-type    identityref
+       |     |  +--ro mac-address
+       |     |  |  +--ro mac-address    yang:mac-address
+       |     |  +--ro ipv4-address
+       |     |  |  +--ro ipv4-address    inet:ipv4-address
+       |     |  +--ro ipv6-address
+       |     |  |  +--ro ipv6-address    inet:ipv6-address
+       |     |  +--ro tp-attribute
+       |     |  |  +--ro tp-attribute-type?
+       |     |  |  |       address-attribute-type
+       |     |  |  +--ro (tp-attribute-value)?
+       |     |  |     +--:(ip-prefix)
+       |     |  |     |  +--ro ip-prefix?
+       |     |  |     |          inet:ip-prefix
+       |     |  |     +--:(bgp)
+       |     |  |     |  +--ro bgp?
+       |     |  |     |          inet:ip-prefix
+       |     |  |     +--:(tunnel)
+       |     |  |     |  +--ro tunnel-interface?         uint32
+       |     |  |     +--:(pw)
+       |     |  |     |  +--ro remote-pe-address?
+       |     |  |     |  |       inet:ip-address
+       |     |  |     |  +--ro pw-id?                    uint32
+       |     |  |     +--:(vpls)
+       |     |  |     |  +--ro route-distinguisher?
+       |     |  |     |  |       rt:route-distinguisher
+       |     |  |     |  +--ro sender-ve-id?             uint16
+       |     |  |     |  +--ro receiver-ve-id?           uint16
+       |     |  |     +--:(mpls-mldp)
+       |     |  |        +--ro (root-address)?
+       |     |  |           +--:(ip-address)
+       |     |  |           |  +--ro source-address?
+       |     |  |           |  |       inet:ip-address
+       |     |  |           |  +--ro group-ip-address?
+       |     |  |           |          inet:ip-address
+       |     |  |           +--:(vpn)
+       |     |  |           |  +--ro as-number?
+       |     |  |           |          inet:as-number
+       |     |  |           +--:(global-id)
+       |     |  |              +--ro lsp-id?             string
+       |     |  +--ro system-info
+
+
+
+Kumar, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 9]
+
+RFC 8533         YANG Model for CL OAM Retrieval Methods      April 2019
+
+
+       |     |  |  +--ro router-id?   rt:router-id
+       |     |  +--ro egress-intf-name?   if:interface-ref
+       |     +--ro dest-test-point
+       |     |  +--ro ni?                  routing-instance-ref
+       |     |  +--ro tp-location-type     identityref
+       |     |  +--ro mac-address
+       |     |  |  +--ro mac-address    yang:mac-address
+       |     |  +--ro ipv4-address
+       |     |  |  +--ro ipv4-address    inet:ipv4-address
+       |     |  +--ro ipv6-address
+       |     |  |  +--ro ipv6-address    inet:ipv6-address
+       |     |  +--ro tp-attribute
+       |     |  |  +--ro tp-attribute-type?
+       |     |  |  |       address-attribute-type
+       |     |  |  +--ro (tp-attribute-value)?
+       |     |  |     +--:(ip-prefix)
+       |     |  |     |  +--ro ip-prefix?
+       |     |  |     |          inet:ip-prefix
+       |     |  |     +--:(bgp)
+       |     |  |     |  +--ro bgp?
+       |     |  |     |          inet:ip-prefix
+       |     |  |     +--:(tunnel)
+       |     |  |     |  +--ro tunnel-interface?         uint32
+       |     |  |     +--:(pw)
+       |     |  |     |  +--ro remote-pe-address?
+       |     |  |     |  |       inet:ip-address
+       |     |  |     |  +--ro pw-id?                    uint32
+       |     |  |     +--:(vpls)
+       |     |  |     |  +--ro route-distinguisher?
+       |     |  |     |  |       rt:route-distinguisher
+       |     |  |     |  +--ro sender-ve-id?             uint16
+       |     |  |     |  +--ro receiver-ve-id?           uint16
+       |     |  |     +--:(mpls-mldp)
+       |     |  |        +--ro (root-address)?
+       |     |  |           +--:(ip-address)
+       |     |  |           |  +--ro source-address?
+       |     |  |           |  |       inet:ip-address
+       |     |  |           |  +--ro group-ip-address?
+       |     |  |           |          inet:ip-address
+       |     |  |           +--:(vpn)
+       |     |  |           |  +--ro as-number?
+       |     |  |           |          inet:as-number
+       |     |  |           +--:(global-id)
+       |     |  |              +--ro lsp-id?             string
+       |     |  +--ro system-info
+       |     |  |  +--ro router-id?   rt:router-id
+       |     |  +--ro ingress-intf-name?   if:interface-ref
+       |     +--ro sequence-number?             uint64
+
+
+
+Kumar, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 10]
+
+RFC 8533         YANG Model for CL OAM Retrieval Methods      April 2019
+
+
+       |     +--ro hop-cnt?                     uint8
+       |     +--ro session-packet-statistics
+       |     |  +--ro rx-packet-count?    uint32
+       |     |  +--ro tx-packet-count?    uint32
+       |     |  +--ro rx-bad-packet?      uint32
+       |     |  +--ro tx-packet-failed?   uint32
+       |     +--ro session-error-statistics
+       |     |  +--ro packet-loss-count?          uint32
+       |     |  +--ro loss-ratio?                 percentage
+       |     |  +--ro packet-reorder-count?       uint32
+       |     |  +--ro packets-out-of-seq-count?   uint32
+       |     |  +--ro packets-dup-count?          uint32
+       |     +--ro session-delay-statistics
+       |     |  +--ro time-unit-value?       identityref
+       |     |  +--ro min-delay-value?       uint32
+       |     |  +--ro max-delay-value?       uint32
+       |     |  +--ro average-delay-value?   uint32
+       |     +--ro session-jitter-statistics
+       |        +--ro unit-value?             identityref
+       |        +--ro min-jitter-value?       uint32
+       |        +--ro max-jitter-value?       uint32
+       |        +--ro average-jitter-value?   uint32
+       +---x path-discovery {cl-oam:path-discovery}?
+          +---w input
+          |  +---w destination-tp
+          |  |  +---w tp-location-type    identityref
+          |  |  +---w mac-address
+          |  |  |  +---w mac-address    yang:mac-address
+          |  |  +---w ipv4-address
+          |  |  |  +---w ipv4-address    inet:ipv4-address
+          |  |  +---w ipv6-address
+          |  |  |  +---w ipv6-address    inet:ipv6-address
+          |  |  +---w tp-attribute
+          |  |  |  +---w tp-attribute-type?
+          |  |  |  |       address-attribute-type
+          |  |  |  +---w (tp-attribute-value)?
+          |  |  |     +--:(ip-prefix)
+          |  |  |     |  +---w ip-prefix?
+          |  |  |     |          inet:ip-prefix
+          |  |  |     +--:(bgp)
+          |  |  |     |  +---w bgp?
+          |  |  |     |          inet:ip-prefix
+          |  |  |     +--:(tunnel)
+          |  |  |     |  +---w tunnel-interface?         uint32
+          |  |  |     +--:(pw)
+          |  |  |     |  +---w remote-pe-address?
+          |  |  |     |  |       inet:ip-address
+          |  |  |     |  +---w pw-id?                    uint32
+
+
+
+Kumar, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 11]
+
+RFC 8533         YANG Model for CL OAM Retrieval Methods      April 2019
+
+
+          |  |  |     +--:(vpls)
+          |  |  |     |  +---w route-distinguisher?
+          |  |  |     |  |       rt:route-distinguisher
+          |  |  |     |  +---w sender-ve-id?             uint16
+          |  |  |     |  +---w receiver-ve-id?           uint16
+          |  |  |     +--:(mpls-mldp)
+          |  |  |        +---w (root-address)?
+          |  |  |           +--:(ip-address)
+          |  |  |           |  +---w source-address?
+          |  |  |           |  |       inet:ip-address
+          |  |  |           |  +---w group-ip-address?
+          |  |  |           |          inet:ip-address
+          |  |  |           +--:(vpn)
+          |  |  |           |  +---w as-number?
+          |  |  |           |          inet:as-number
+          |  |  |           +--:(global-id)
+          |  |  |              +---w lsp-id?             string
+          |  |  +---w system-info
+          |  |     +---w router-id?   rt:router-id
+          |  +---w source-interface      if:interface-ref
+          |  +---w outbound-interface    if:interface-ref
+          |  +---w vrf?
+          |  |       cl-oam:routing-instance-ref
+          |  +---w session-type?         enumeration
+          |  +---w max-ttl?              uint8
+          +--ro output
+             +--ro response-list* [response-index]
+             |  +--ro response-index           uint32
+             |  +--ro protocol-id              identityref
+             |  +--ro protocol-id-meta-data?   identityref
+             |  +--ro status-code              identityref
+             |  +--ro status-sub-code          identityref
+             +--ro src-test-point
+             |  +--ro ni?                 routing-instance-ref
+             |  +--ro tp-location-type    identityref
+             |  +--ro mac-address
+             |  |  +--ro mac-address    yang:mac-address
+             |  +--ro ipv4-address
+             |  |  +--ro ipv4-address    inet:ipv4-address
+             |  +--ro ipv6-address
+             |  |  +--ro ipv6-address    inet:ipv6-address
+             |  +--ro tp-attribute
+             |  |  +--ro tp-attribute-type?
+             |  |  |       address-attribute-type
+             |  |  +--ro (tp-attribute-value)?
+             |  |     +--:(ip-prefix)
+             |  |     |  +--ro ip-prefix?
+             |  |     |          inet:ip-prefix
+
+
+
+Kumar, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 12]
+
+RFC 8533         YANG Model for CL OAM Retrieval Methods      April 2019
+
+
+             |  |     +--:(bgp)
+             |  |     |  +--ro bgp?
+             |  |     |          inet:ip-prefix
+             |  |     +--:(tunnel)
+             |  |     |  +--ro tunnel-interface?         uint32
+             |  |     +--:(pw)
+             |  |     |  +--ro remote-pe-address?
+             |  |     |  |       inet:ip-address
+             |  |     |  +--ro pw-id?                    uint32
+             |  |     +--:(vpls)
+             |  |     |  +--ro route-distinguisher?
+             |  |     |  |       rt:route-distinguisher
+             |  |     |  +--ro sender-ve-id?             uint16
+             |  |     |  +--ro receiver-ve-id?           uint16
+             |  |     +--:(mpls-mldp)
+             |  |        +--ro (root-address)?
+             |  |           +--:(ip-address)
+             |  |           |  +--ro source-address?
+             |  |           |  |       inet:ip-address
+             |  |           |  +--ro group-ip-address?
+             |  |           |          inet:ip-address
+             |  |           +--:(vpn)
+             |  |           |  +--ro as-number?
+             |  |           |          inet:as-number
+             |  |           +--:(global-id)
+             |  |              +--ro lsp-id?             string
+             |  +--ro system-info
+             |     +--ro router-id?   rt:router-id
+             +--ro dest-test-point
+             |  +--ro ni?                 routing-instance-ref
+             |  +--ro tp-location-type    identityref
+             |  +--ro mac-address
+             |  |  +--ro mac-address    yang:mac-address
+             |  +--ro ipv4-address
+             |  |  +--ro ipv4-address    inet:ipv4-address
+             |  +--ro ipv6-address
+             |  |  +--ro ipv6-address    inet:ipv6-address
+             |  +--ro tp-attribute
+             |  |  +--ro tp-attribute-type?
+             |  |  |       address-attribute-type
+             |  |  +--ro (tp-attribute-value)?
+             |  |     +--:(ip-prefix)
+             |  |     |  +--ro ip-prefix?
+             |  |     |          inet:ip-prefix
+             |  |     +--:(bgp)
+             |  |     |  +--ro bgp?
+             |  |     |          inet:ip-prefix
+             |  |     +--:(tunnel)
+
+
+
+Kumar, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 13]
+
+RFC 8533         YANG Model for CL OAM Retrieval Methods      April 2019
+
+
+             |  |     |  +--ro tunnel-interface?         uint32
+             |  |     +--:(pw)
+             |  |     |  +--ro remote-pe-address?
+             |  |     |  |       inet:ip-address
+             |  |     |  +--ro pw-id?                    uint32
+             |  |     +--:(vpls)
+             |  |     |  +--ro route-distinguisher?
+             |  |     |  |       rt:route-distinguisher
+             |  |     |  +--ro sender-ve-id?             uint16
+             |  |     |  +--ro receiver-ve-id?           uint16
+             |  |     +--:(mpls-mldp)
+             |  |        +--ro (root-address)?
+             |  |           +--:(ip-address)
+             |  |           |  +--ro source-address?
+             |  |           |  |       inet:ip-address
+             |  |           |  +--ro group-ip-address?
+             |  |           |          inet:ip-address
+             |  |           +--:(vpn)
+             |  |           |  +--ro as-number?
+             |  |           |          inet:as-number
+             |  |           +--:(global-id)
+             |  |              +--ro lsp-id?             string
+             |  +--ro system-info
+             |     +--ro router-id?   rt:router-id
+             +--ro sequence-number?             uint64
+             +--ro hop-cnt?                     uint8
+             +--ro session-packet-statistics
+             |  +--ro rx-packet-count?    uint32
+             |  +--ro tx-packet-count?    uint32
+             |  +--ro rx-bad-packet?      uint32
+             |  +--ro tx-packet-failed?   uint32
+             +--ro session-error-statistics
+             |  +--ro packet-loss-count?          uint32
+             |  +--ro loss-ratio?                 percentage
+             |  +--ro packet-reorder-count?       uint32
+             |  +--ro packets-out-of-seq-count?   uint32
+             |  +--ro packets-dup-count?          uint32
+             +--ro session-delay-statistics
+             |  +--ro time-unit-value?       identityref
+             |  +--ro min-delay-value?       uint32
+             |  +--ro max-delay-value?       uint32
+             |  +--ro average-delay-value?   uint32
+             +--ro session-jitter-statistics
+             |  +--ro unit-value?             identityref
+             |  +--ro min-jitter-value?       uint32
+             |  +--ro max-jitter-value?       uint32
+             |  +--ro average-jitter-value?   uint32
+             +--ro path-verification
+
+
+
+Kumar, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 14]
+
+RFC 8533         YANG Model for CL OAM Retrieval Methods      April 2019
+
+
+             |  +--ro flow-info?
+             |  |       string
+             |  +--ro session-path-verification-statistics
+             |     +--ro verified-count?   uint32
+             |     +--ro failed-count?     uint32
+             +--ro path-trace-info
+                +--ro path-trace-info-list* [index]
+                   +--ro index                   uint32
+                   +--ro ni?
+                   |       routing-instance-ref
+                   +--ro tp-location-type        identityref
+                   +--ro mac-address
+                   |  +--ro mac-address    yang:mac-address
+                   +--ro ipv4-address
+                   |  +--ro ipv4-address    inet:ipv4-address
+                   +--ro ipv6-address
+                   |  +--ro ipv6-address    inet:ipv6-address
+                   +--ro tp-attribute
+                   |  +--ro tp-attribute-type?
+                   |  |       address-attribute-type
+                   |  +--ro (tp-attribute-value)?
+                   |     +--:(ip-prefix)
+                   |     |  +--ro ip-prefix?
+                   |     |          inet:ip-prefix
+                   |     +--:(bgp)
+                   |     |  +--ro bgp?
+                   |     |          inet:ip-prefix
+                   |     +--:(tunnel)
+                   |     |  +--ro tunnel-interface?
+                   |     |          uint32
+                   |     +--:(pw)
+                   |     |  +--ro remote-pe-address?
+                   |     |  |       inet:ip-address
+                   |     |  +--ro pw-id?
+                   |     |          uint32
+                   |     +--:(vpls)
+                   |     |  +--ro route-distinguisher?
+                   |     |  |       rt:route-distinguisher
+                   |     |  +--ro sender-ve-id?
+                   |     |  |       uint16
+                   |     |  +--ro receiver-ve-id?
+                   |     |          uint16
+                   |     +--:(mpls-mldp)
+                   |        +--ro (root-address)?
+                   |           +--:(ip-address)
+                   |           |  +--ro source-address?
+                   |           |  |       inet:ip-address
+                   |           |  +--ro group-ip-address?
+
+
+
+Kumar, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 15]
+
+RFC 8533         YANG Model for CL OAM Retrieval Methods      April 2019
+
+
+                   |           |          inet:ip-address
+                   |           +--:(vpn)
+                   |           |  +--ro as-number?
+                   |           |          inet:as-number
+                   |           +--:(global-id)
+                   |              +--ro lsp-id?
+                   |                      string
+                   +--ro system-info
+                   |  +--ro router-id?   rt:router-id
+                   +--ro timestamp-type?         identityref
+                   +--ro timestamp-64bit
+                   |  +--ro timestamp-sec?       uint32
+                   |  +--ro timestamp-nanosec?   uint32
+                   +--ro timestamp-80bit {ptp-long-format}?
+                   |  +--ro timestamp-sec?       uint64
+                   |  +--ro timestamp-nanosec?   uint32
+                   +--ro ntp-timestamp-32bit
+                   |       {ntp-short-format}?
+                   |  +--ro timestamp-sec?       uint16
+                   |  +--ro timestamp-nanosec?   uint16
+                   +--ro icmp-timestamp-32bit {icmp-timestamp}?
+                   |  +--ro timestamp-millisec?   uint32
+                   +--ro ingress-intf-name?
+                   |       if:interface-ref
+                   +--ro egress-intf-name?
+                   |       if:interface-ref
+                   +--ro queue-depth?            uint32
+                   +--ro transit-delay?          uint32
+                   +--ro app-meta-data?          uint64
+
+                  Data Hierarchy of OAM Retrieval Methods
+
+4.  OAM Retrieval Methods YANG Module
+
+   <CODE BEGINS> file
+      "ietf-connectionless-oam-methods@2019-04-16.yang"
+
+module ietf-connectionless-oam-methods {
+  namespace
+    "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-connectionless-oam-methods";
+  prefix cloam-methods;
+
+  import ietf-interfaces {
+    prefix if;
+  }
+  import ietf-connectionless-oam {
+    prefix cl-oam;
+  }
+
+
+
+Kumar, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 16]
+
+RFC 8533         YANG Model for CL OAM Retrieval Methods      April 2019
+
+
+  organization
+    "IETF LIME Working Group";
+  contact
+    "WG Web:   <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/lime>
+     WG List:  <mailto:lmap@ietf.org>
+
+     Deepak Kumar <dekumar@cisco.com>
+     Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
+     Srihari Raghavan <rihari@cisco.com>
+     Michael Wang <wangzitao@huawei.com>
+     Reshad Rahman <rrahman@cisco.com>";
+  description
+    "This YANG module defines the RPC operations for
+     connectionless OAM to be used within the IETF
+     in a protocol-independent manner.  It is
+     assumed that each protocol maps corresponding
+     abstracts to its native format.  Each protocol
+     may extend the YANG data model defined here to
+     include protocol-specific extensions.
+
+     Copyright (c) 2019 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 Simplified BSD License
+     set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
+     Relating to IETF Documents
+     (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
+
+     This version of this YANG module is part of RFC 8533; see
+     the RFC itself for full legal notices.";
+
+  revision 2019-04-16 {
+    description
+      "Initial revision.";
+    reference
+      "RFC 8533: Retrieval Methods YANG Data Model for the Management
+       of Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
+       Protocols That Use Connectionless Communications";
+  }
+
+  identity protocol-id {
+    description
+      "This is the base identity for a generic protocol
+       ID.  The protocol registry can be found at
+       https://www.iana.org/protocols.";
+  }
+
+
+
+Kumar, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 17]
+
+RFC 8533         YANG Model for CL OAM Retrieval Methods      April 2019
+
+
+  identity protocol-id-internet {
+    base protocol-id;
+    description
+      "Identity for Internet Protocols.";
+  }
+
+  identity protocol-id-proprietary {
+    base protocol-id;
+    description
+      "Identity for proprietary protocols (e.g.,
+       IP SLA).";
+  }
+
+  identity protocol-id-sfc {
+    base protocol-id;
+    description
+      "Identity for Service Function Chaining.";
+  }
+
+  identity protocol-id-mpls {
+    base protocol-id;
+    description
+      "The MPLS protocol.";
+  }
+
+  identity protocol-id-mpls-tp {
+    base protocol-id;
+    description
+      "The MPLS-TP protocol.";
+  }
+
+  identity protocol-id-twamp {
+    base protocol-id;
+    description
+      "The Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)
+       protocol.";
+  }
+
+  identity protocol-id-bier {
+    base protocol-id;
+    description
+      "The Bit Index Explicit Replication (BIER)
+       protocol.";
+  }
+
+  identity status-code {
+    description
+      "This is base identity for a status code.";
+
+
+
+Kumar, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 18]
+
+RFC 8533         YANG Model for CL OAM Retrieval Methods      April 2019
+
+
+  }
+
+  identity success-reach {
+    base status-code;
+    description
+      "Indicates that the destination being verified
+       is reachable (see RFC 7276).";
+    reference
+      "RFC 7276: An Overview of Operations, Administration, and
+       Maintenance (OAM) Tools";
+  }
+
+  identity fail-reach {
+    base status-code;
+    description
+      "Indicates that the destination being verified
+       is not reachable (see RFC 7276).";
+    reference
+      "RFC 7276: An Overview of Operations, Administration, and
+       Maintenance (OAM) Tools";
+  }
+
+  identity success-path-verification {
+    base status-code;
+    description
+      "Indicates that the path verification is performed
+       successfully (see RFC 7276).";
+    reference
+      "RFC 7276: An Overview of Operations, Administration, and
+       Maintenance (OAM) Tools";
+  }
+
+  identity fail-path-verification {
+    base status-code;
+    description
+      "Indicates that the path verification fails
+       (see RFC 7276).";
+    reference
+      "RFC 7276: An Overview of Operations, Administration, and
+       Maintenance (OAM) Tools";
+  }
+
+  identity status-sub-code {
+    description
+      "IdentityBase status-sub-code.";
+  }
+
+  identity invalid-cc {
+
+
+
+Kumar, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 19]
+
+RFC 8533         YANG Model for CL OAM Retrieval Methods      April 2019
+
+
+    base status-sub-code;
+    description
+      "Indicates that the Continuity Check message is invalid
+       (see RFC 7276).";
+    reference
+      "RFC 7276: An Overview of Operations, Administration, and
+       Maintenance (OAM) Tools";
+  }
+
+  identity invalid-pd {
+    base status-sub-code;
+    description
+      "Indicates that the path discovery message is invalid
+       (see RFC 7276).";
+    reference
+      "RFC 7276: An Overview of Operations, Administration, and
+       Maintenance (OAM) Tools";
+  }
+
+  identity protocol-id-meta-data {
+    description
+      "This is the base identity for metadata that corresponds
+       to the protocol ID.";
+  }
+
+  identity protocol-internet-number {
+    base protocol-id-meta-data;
+    description
+      "Internet Protocol number for standard
+       Internet Protocols (IANA-assigned Internet
+       Protocol numbers) to help in protocol processing.
+       The Protocol Numbers registry can be found at
+       https://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers.";
+  }
+
+  grouping rpc-input-parameters {
+    container destination-tp {
+      uses cl-oam:tp-address;
+      description
+        "Destination test point.";
+    }
+    leaf source-interface {
+      type if:interface-ref;
+      mandatory true;
+      description
+        "Source interface.";
+    }
+    leaf outbound-interface {
+
+
+
+Kumar, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 20]
+
+RFC 8533         YANG Model for CL OAM Retrieval Methods      April 2019
+
+
+      type if:interface-ref;
+      mandatory true;
+      description
+        "Outbound interface.";
+    }
+    leaf vrf {
+      type cl-oam:routing-instance-ref;
+      description
+        "Virtual Routing and Forwarding (VRF) instance.";
+    }
+    description
+      "Grouping for RPC input parameters";
+  }
+
+  rpc continuity-check {
+    if-feature "cl-oam:continuity-check";
+    description
+      "Continuity Check RPC operation as per RFC 7276.";
+    reference
+      "RFC 7276: An Overview of Operations, Administration, and
+       Maintenance (OAM) Tools";
+    input {
+      uses rpc-input-parameters;
+      uses cl-oam:session-type {
+        description
+          "If session-type is specified, then session-type
+              must be set to on demand";
+      }
+      leaf count {
+        type uint32 {
+          range "0..4294967295" {
+            description
+              "The overall number of packets to be transmitted
+               by the sender.  The value of the count will be set
+               to zero (0) on creation and will thereafter
+               increase monotonically until it reaches a maximum
+               value of 2^32-1 (4294967295 decimal), when it wraps
+               around and starts increasing again from zero.";
+          }
+        }
+        default "5";
+        description
+          "Specifies the number of
+           packets that will be sent.  By
+           default, the packet number is
+           set to 5.";
+      }
+      leaf ttl {
+
+
+
+Kumar, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 21]
+
+RFC 8533         YANG Model for CL OAM Retrieval Methods      April 2019
+
+
+        type uint8;
+        default "255";
+        description
+          "Time to live (TTL) used to limit the lifetime
+           of data packets transmitted in the network
+           to prevent looping.  The TTL value is decremented
+           for every hop that the packet traverses.  If the
+           TTL is zero, the data packet will be discarded.";
+      }
+      leaf packet-size {
+        type uint32 {
+          range "64..10000";
+        }
+        default "64";
+        description
+          "Packet size of the Continuity Check message, in octets.
+           By default, the packet size is set to 64 octets.";
+      }
+    }
+    output {
+      container response-info {
+        leaf protocol-id {
+          type identityref {
+            base protocol-id;
+          }
+          mandatory true;
+          description
+            "Protocol used in the Continuity Check message.
+             This could be a standard protocol (e.g.,
+             TCP/IP protocols, MPLS, etc.) or a proprietary
+             protocol as identified by this field.";
+        }
+        leaf protocol-id-meta-data {
+          type identityref {
+            base protocol-id-meta-data;
+          }
+          description
+            "An optional metadata related to the protocol ID.
+             For example, this could be the Internet Protocol
+             number for standard Internet Protocols used for
+             help with protocol processing.";
+        }
+        leaf status-code {
+          type identityref {
+            base status-code;
+          }
+          mandatory true;
+          description
+
+
+
+Kumar, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 22]
+
+RFC 8533         YANG Model for CL OAM Retrieval Methods      April 2019
+
+
+            "Status code for Continuity Check RPC operation.
+             This could be a basic status code (e.g., destination
+             is reachable or destination is not reachable; see RFC 7276)
+             or some customized status code as identified by this
+             field.";
+          reference
+            "RFC 7276: An Overview of Operations, Administration, and
+             Maintenance (OAM) Tools";
+        }
+        leaf status-sub-code {
+          type identityref {
+            base status-sub-code;
+          }
+          mandatory true;
+          description
+            "An optional status-sub-code for Continuity Check
+             RPC operation.  If the basic status code is destination
+             reachable, this status-sub-code doesn't need to be
+             specified.  If the basic status code is destination
+             unreachable, the status-sub-code can be used to specify
+             the detailed reasons.  This could be a basic
+             sub-status-code (such as an invalid Continuity Check) or
+             other error codes specific to the protocol under use for
+             the Continuity Checks.  For example, if ICMP is the
+             protocol under use, the error codes defined in RFC 4443
+             can be used to specify the reasons specific to ICMP.
+             This technology-specific status-sub-code can be
+             defined in technology-specific models.";
+          reference
+            "RFC 4443: The IETF Administrative Oversight Committee
+             (IAOC) Member Selection Guidelines and Process.";
+        }
+        description
+          "Status code and status-sub-code for Continuity Check RPC
+           operation.";
+      }
+      uses cl-oam:continuity-check-data;
+    }
+  }
+
+  rpc path-discovery {
+    if-feature "cl-oam:path-discovery";
+    description
+      "Path discovery RPC operation as per RFC 7276.";
+    reference
+      "RFC 7276: An Overview of Operations, Administration, and
+       Maintenance (OAM) Tools";
+    input {
+
+
+
+Kumar, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 23]
+
+RFC 8533         YANG Model for CL OAM Retrieval Methods      April 2019
+
+
+      uses rpc-input-parameters;
+      uses cl-oam:session-type {
+        description
+          "If session-type is specified, then session-type
+            must be set to on demand";
+      }
+      leaf max-ttl {
+        type uint8;
+        default "255";
+        description
+          "Maximum TTL indicates the maximum number of hops that
+           a packet is permitted to travel before being discarded
+           by a router.  By default, the maximum TTL is set to
+           255.";
+      }
+    }
+    output {
+      list response-list {
+        key "response-index";
+        description
+          "Path discovery response list.";
+        leaf response-index {
+          type uint32;
+          mandatory true;
+          description
+            "Response index.";
+        }
+        leaf protocol-id {
+          type identityref {
+            base protocol-id;
+          }
+          mandatory true;
+          description
+            "Protocol used in path discovery.  This could be a
+             standard protocol (e.g., TCP/IP protocols, MPLS, etc.)
+             or a proprietary protocol as identified by
+             this field.";
+        }
+        leaf protocol-id-meta-data {
+          type identityref {
+            base protocol-id-meta-data;
+          }
+          description
+            "An optional metadata related to the protocol ID.
+             For example, this could be the Internet Protocol
+             number for standard Internet Protocols used for
+             help with protocol processing.";
+        }
+
+
+
+Kumar, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 24]
+
+RFC 8533         YANG Model for CL OAM Retrieval Methods      April 2019
+
+
+        leaf status-code {
+          type identityref {
+            base status-code;
+          }
+          mandatory true;
+          description
+            "Status code for Continuity Check RPC operation.
+             This could be a basic status code (e.g., destination
+             is reachable or destination is not reachable) or some
+             customized status code as identified by this field.";
+        }
+        leaf status-sub-code {
+          type identityref {
+            base status-sub-code;
+          }
+          mandatory true;
+          description
+            "An optional status-sub-code for Continuity Check
+             RPC operation.  If the basic status code is destination
+             reachable, this status-sub-code doesn't need to be
+             specified.  If the basic status code is destination
+             unreachable, the status-sub-code can be used to specify
+             the detailed reasons.  This could be a basic
+             sub-status-code (such as an invalid Continuity Check) or
+             other error codes specific to the protocol under use for
+             Continuity Checks.  For example, if ICMP is the protocol
+             under use, the error codes defined in RFC 4443
+             can be used to specify the reasons specific to ICMP.
+             This technology-specific status-sub-code can be defined
+             in technology-specific models.";
+          reference
+            "RFC 4443: The IETF Administrative Oversight Committee
+             (IAOC) Member Selection Guidelines and Process.";
+        }
+      }
+      uses cl-oam:path-discovery-data;
+    }
+  }
+}
+
+<CODE ENDS>
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kumar, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 25]
+
+RFC 8533         YANG Model for CL OAM Retrieval Methods      April 2019
+
+
+5.  Security Considerations
+
+   The YANG module specified in this document defines a schema for data
+   that is designed to be accessed via network management protocols such
+   as NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040].  The lowest NETCONF layer
+   is the secure transport layer, and the mandatory-to-implement secure
+   transport is Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC6242].  The lowest RESTCONF layer
+   is HTTPS, and the mandatory-to-implement secure transport is TLS
+   [RFC8446].
+
+   The Network Configuration Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC8341]
+   provides the means to restrict access for particular NETCONF or
+   RESTCONF users to a preconfigured subset of all available NETCONF or
+   RESTCONF protocol operations and content.
+
+   Some of the RPC operations in this YANG module may be considered
+   sensitive or vulnerable in some network environments.  It is thus
+   important to control access to these operations.  These are the
+   operations and their sensitivity/vulnerability:
+
+   o  continuity-check: Generates Continuity Check.
+
+   o  path-discovery: Generates path discovery.
+
+   These operations are used to retrieve the data from the device that
+   needs to execute the OAM command.  Unauthorized source access to some
+   sensitive information in the above data may be used for network
+   reconnaissance or lead to denial-of-service attacks on both the local
+   device and the network.
+
+6.  IANA Considerations
+
+   This document registers a URI in the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688].
+   The following registration has been made:
+
+   URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-connectionless-oam-methods
+   Registrant Contact: The IESG.  XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML
+   namespace.
+
+   This document registers a YANG module in the "YANG Module Names"
+   registry [RFC6020].
+
+   name: ietf-connectionless-oam-methods
+   namespace:
+      urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-connectionless-oam-methods
+   prefix: cloam-methods
+   reference: RFC 8533
+
+
+
+
+Kumar, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 26]
+
+RFC 8533         YANG Model for CL OAM Retrieval Methods      April 2019
+
+
+7.  References
+
+7.1.  Normative References
+
+   [RFC3688]  Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
+              DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
+
+   [RFC6020]  Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
+              the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
+              DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, October 2010,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6020>.
+
+   [RFC6241]  Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
+              and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
+              (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
+
+   [RFC6242]  Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure
+              Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC6242, June 2011,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6242>.
+
+   [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/info/rfc7011>.
+
+   [RFC792]   Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
+              RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981.
+
+   [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>.
+
+   [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>.
+
+   [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>.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kumar, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 27]
+
+RFC 8533         YANG Model for CL OAM Retrieval Methods      April 2019
+
+
+   [RFC8532]  Kumar, D., Wang, M., Wu, Q., Ed., Rahman, R., and
+              S. Raghavan, "Generic YANG Data Model for the Management of
+              Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
+              Protocols That Use Connectionless Communications",
+              RFC 8532, DOI 10.17487/RFC8532, April 2019,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8532>.
+
+7.2.  Informative References
+
+   [RFC4443]  Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
+              Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
+              Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89,
+              RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.
+
+   [RFC5880]  Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
+              (BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.
+
+   [RFC7276]  Mizrahi, T., Sprecher, N., Bellagamba, E., and Y.
+              Weingarten, "An Overview of Operations, Administration,
+              and Maintenance (OAM) Tools", RFC 7276,
+              DOI 10.17487/RFC7276, June 2014,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7276>.
+
+   [RFC8029]  Kompella, K., Swallow, G., Pignataro, C., Ed., Kumar, N.,
+              Aldrin, S., and M. Chen, "Detecting Multiprotocol Label
+              Switched (MPLS) Data-Plane Failures", RFC 8029,
+              DOI 10.17487/RFC8029, March 2017,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8029>.
+
+   [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>.
+
+   [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>.
+
+   [YANG-Push]
+              Clemm, A., Voit, E., Prieto, A., Tripathy, A., Nilsen-
+              Nygaard, E., Bierman, A., and B. Lengyel, "Subscription to
+              YANG Datastores", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-netconf-
+              yang-push-22, February 2019.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kumar, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 28]
+
+RFC 8533         YANG Model for CL OAM Retrieval Methods      April 2019
+
+
+Appendix A.  Extending Connectionless OAM Method Module Example
+
+   The following is an example of extensions possible to the
+   "ietf-connectionless-oam-methods" YANG data model defined in this document.
+
+   The snippet below depicts an example of augmenting the
+   "ietf-connectionless-oam-methods" YANG data model with ICMP ping
+   attributes:
+
+   augment "/cloam-methods:continuity-check"
+   +"/cloam-methods:output"{
+     container session-rtt-statistics{
+      leaf min-rtt{
+       type uint32;
+    description
+    "This minimum ping round-trip-time (RTT) received.";
+      }
+      leaf max-rtt{
+       type uint32;
+    description
+    "This maximum ping RTT received.";
+      }
+      leaf avg-rtt{
+       type uint32;
+    description
+     "The current average ping RTT.";
+      }
+      description
+      "This container presents the ping RTT statistics.";
+     }
+   }
+
+A.1.  Example of New Retrieval Procedures Model
+
+   As discussed in the Introduction section of this document, the new
+   retrieval procedures can be defined for retrieval of the same data
+   defined by the base YANG data model for connectionless OAM protocols.
+   This appendix demonstrates how the base connectionless OAM data model
+   can be extended to support persistent data retrieval besides
+   on-demand retrieval procedures defined in Section 3, i.e., first
+   retrieve a persistent-id based on the destination test point location
+   information, and then retrieve the export details based on
+   persistent-id.  Internet Protocol Flow Information Export (IPFIX)
+   [RFC7011] or YANG-Push [YANG-Push] are currently outlined here as
+   data export options.  Additional export options can be added in the
+   future.
+
+
+
+
+
+Kumar, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 29]
+
+RFC 8533         YANG Model for CL OAM Retrieval Methods      April 2019
+
+
+   The YANG module "example-cl-oam-persistent-methods" shown below is
+   intended as an illustration rather than a real definition of an RPC
+   operation model for persistent data retrieval.  For the sake of
+   brevity, this module does not obey all the guidelines specified in
+   [RFC8407].
+
+   module example-cl-oam-persistent-methods {
+     namespace "http://example.com/cl-oam-persistent-methods";
+     prefix pcloam-methods;
+
+     import ietf-interfaces {
+       prefix if;
+     }
+     import ietf-connectionless-oam {
+       prefix cl-oam;
+     }
+     import ietf-yang-types {
+       prefix yang;
+     }
+
+     identity export-method {
+       description
+         "Base identity to represent a conceptual
+          export-method.";
+     }
+
+     identity ipfix-export {
+       base export-method;
+       description
+         "IPFIX-based export.  Configuration provided
+          separately.";
+     }
+
+     identity yang-push-export {
+       base export-method;
+       description
+         "YANG-Push from draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push.";
+     }
+
+     identity protocol-id {
+       description
+         "A generic protocol identifier.";
+     }
+
+     identity status-code {
+       description
+         "Base status code.";
+     }
+
+
+
+Kumar, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 30]
+
+RFC 8533         YANG Model for CL OAM Retrieval Methods      April 2019
+
+
+     identity success-reach {
+       base status-code;
+       description
+         "Indicates that the destination being verified
+          is reachable.";
+     }
+
+     identity fail-reach {
+       base status-code;
+       description
+         "Indicates that the destination being verified
+          is not reachable";
+     }
+
+     identity success-path-verification {
+       base status-code;
+       description
+         "Indicates that the path verification is performed
+          successfully.";
+     }
+
+     identity fail-path-verification {
+       base status-code;
+       description
+         "Indicates that the path verification fails.";
+     }
+
+     identity status-sub-code {
+       description
+         "Base status-sub-code.";
+     }
+
+     identity invalid-cc {
+       base status-sub-code;
+       description
+         "Indicates that the Continuity Check message is
+          invalid.";
+     }
+
+     identity invalid-pd {
+       base status-sub-code;
+       description
+         "Indicates that the path discovery message is invalid.";
+     }
+
+     typedef export-method {
+       type identityref {
+         base export-method;
+
+
+
+Kumar, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 31]
+
+RFC 8533         YANG Model for CL OAM Retrieval Methods      April 2019
+
+
+       }
+       description
+         "Export method type.";
+     }
+
+     typedef change-type {
+       type enumeration {
+         enum create {
+           description
+             "Change due to a create.";
+         }
+         enum delete {
+           description
+             "Change due to a delete.";
+         }
+         enum modify {
+           description
+             "Change due to an update.";
+         }
+       }
+       description
+         "Different types of changes that may occur.";
+     }
+
+     rpc cc-get-persistent-id {
+       if-feature "cl-oam:continuity-check";
+       description
+         "Obtains Continuity Check persistent identification
+          given mapping parameters as input.";
+       input {
+         container destination-tp {
+           uses cl-oam:tp-address;
+           description
+             "Destination test point.";
+         }
+         uses cl-oam:session-type;
+         leaf source-interface {
+           type if:interface-ref;
+           description
+             "Source interface.";
+         }
+         leaf outbound-interface {
+           type if:interface-ref;
+           description
+             "Outbound interface.";
+         }
+         leaf vrf {
+           type cl-oam:routing-instance-ref;
+
+
+
+Kumar, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 32]
+
+RFC 8533         YANG Model for CL OAM Retrieval Methods      April 2019
+
+
+           description
+             "VRF instance.";
+         }
+       }
+       output {
+         container error-code {
+           leaf protocol-id {
+             type identityref {
+               base protocol-id;
+             }
+             mandatory true;
+             description
+               "Protocol used.  This could be a standard
+                protocol (e.g., TCP/IP protocols, MPLS, etc.)
+                or a proprietary protocol as identified by
+                this field.";
+           }
+           leaf protocol-id-meta-data {
+             type uint64;
+             description
+               "An optional metadata related to the protocol ID.
+                For example, this could be the Internet Protocol
+                number for standard Internet Protocols used for
+                help with protocol processing.";
+           }
+           leaf status-code {
+             type identityref {
+               base status-code;
+             }
+             mandatory true;
+             description
+               "Status code.";
+           }
+           leaf status-sub-code {
+             type identityref {
+               base status-sub-code;
+             }
+             mandatory true;
+             description
+               "Sub code for the Continuity Check.";
+           }
+           description
+             "Status code and sub code.";
+         }
+         leaf cc-persistent-id {
+           type string;
+           description
+             "Id to act as a cookie.";
+
+
+
+Kumar, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 33]
+
+RFC 8533         YANG Model for CL OAM Retrieval Methods      April 2019
+
+
+         }
+       }
+     }
+
+     rpc cc-persistent-get-export-details {
+       if-feature "cl-oam:continuity-check";
+       description
+         "Given the persistent ID, gets the configuration
+          options and details related to the configured data
+          export.";
+       input {
+         leaf cc-persistent-id {
+           type string;
+           description
+             "Persistent ID for use as a key in search.";
+         }
+       }
+       output {
+         container error-code {
+           leaf protocol-id {
+             type identityref {
+               base protocol-id;
+             }
+             mandatory true;
+             description
+               "Protocol used.  This could be a standard
+                protocol (e.g., TCP/IP protocols, MPLS, etc.)
+                or a proprietary protocol as identified by
+                this field.";
+           }
+           leaf protocol-id-meta-data {
+             type uint64;
+             description
+               "An optional metadata related to the protocol ID.
+                For example, this could be the Internet Protocol
+                number for standard Internet Protocols used for
+                help with protocol processing.";
+           }
+           leaf status-code {
+             type identityref {
+               base status-code;
+             }
+             mandatory true;
+             description
+               "Status code.";
+           }
+           leaf status-sub-code {
+             type identityref {
+
+
+
+Kumar, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 34]
+
+RFC 8533         YANG Model for CL OAM Retrieval Methods      April 2019
+
+
+               base status-sub-code;
+             }
+             mandatory true;
+             description
+               "Sub code for the Continuity Check.";
+           }
+           description
+             "Status code and sub code.";
+         }
+         leaf data-export-method {
+           type export-method;
+           description
+             "Type of export in use.";
+         }
+         choice cc-trigger {
+           description
+             "Necessary conditions for
+              periodic or on-change trigger.";
+           case periodic {
+             description
+               "Periodic reports.";
+             leaf period {
+               type yang:timeticks;
+               description
+                 "Time interval between reports.";
+             }
+             leaf start-time {
+               type yang:date-and-time;
+               description
+                 "Timestamp from which reports were started.";
+             }
+           }
+           case on-change {
+             description
+               "On-change trigger and not periodic.";
+             leaf all-data-on-start {
+               type boolean;
+               description
+                 "Full update done on start or not.";
+             }
+             leaf-list excluded-change {
+               type change-type;
+               description
+                 "Changes that will not trigger an update.";
+             }
+           }
+         }
+       }
+
+
+
+Kumar, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 35]
+
+RFC 8533         YANG Model for CL OAM Retrieval Methods      April 2019
+
+
+     }
+
+     rpc pd-get-persistent-id {
+       if-feature "cl-oam:path-discovery";
+       description
+         "Obtains persistent path discovery identification.";
+       input {
+         container destination-tp {
+           uses cl-oam:tp-address;
+           description
+             "Destination test point.";
+         }
+         uses cl-oam:session-type;
+         leaf source-interface {
+           type if:interface-ref;
+           description
+             "Source interface.";
+         }
+         leaf outbound-interface {
+           type if:interface-ref;
+           description
+             "Outbound interface.";
+         }
+         leaf vrf {
+           type cl-oam:routing-instance-ref;
+           description
+             "VRF";
+         }
+       }
+       output {
+         list response-list {
+           key "response-index";
+           description
+             "Path discovery response list.";
+           leaf response-index {
+             type uint32;
+             mandatory true;
+             description
+               "Response index.";
+           }
+           leaf protocol-id {
+             type identityref {
+               base protocol-id;
+             }
+             mandatory true;
+             description
+               "Protocol used.  This could be a standard
+                protocol (e.g., TCP/IP protocols, MPLS, etc.)
+
+
+
+Kumar, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 36]
+
+RFC 8533         YANG Model for CL OAM Retrieval Methods      April 2019
+
+
+                or a proprietary protocol as identified by
+                this field.";
+           }
+           leaf protocol-id-meta-data {
+             type uint64;
+             description
+               "An optional metadata related to the protocol ID.
+                For example, this could be the Internet Protocol
+                number for standard Internet Protocols used for
+                help with protocol processing.";
+           }
+           leaf status-code {
+             type identityref {
+               base status-code;
+             }
+             mandatory true;
+             description
+               "Status code for persistent path discovery
+                information.";
+           }
+           leaf status-sub-code {
+             type identityref {
+               base status-sub-code;
+             }
+             mandatory true;
+             description
+               "Sub code for persistent path discovery
+                information.";
+           }
+           leaf pd-persistent-id {
+             type string;
+             description
+               "Id to act as a cookie.";
+           }
+         }
+       }
+     }
+
+     rpc pd-persistent-get-export-details {
+       if-feature "cl-oam:path-discovery";
+       description
+         "Given the persistent ID, gets the configuration
+          options and details related to the configured data
+          export.";
+       input {
+         leaf cc-persistent-id {
+           type string;
+           description
+
+
+
+Kumar, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 37]
+
+RFC 8533         YANG Model for CL OAM Retrieval Methods      April 2019
+
+
+             "Persistent ID for use as a key in search.";
+         }
+       }
+       output {
+         list response-list {
+           key "response-index";
+           description
+             "Path discovery response list.";
+           leaf response-index {
+             type uint32;
+             mandatory true;
+             description
+               "Response index.";
+           }
+           leaf protocol-id {
+             type identityref {
+               base protocol-id;
+             }
+             mandatory true;
+             description
+               "Protocol used.  This could be a standard
+                protocol (e.g., TCP/IP protocols, MPLS, etc.)
+                or a proprietary protocol as identified by
+                this field.";
+           }
+           leaf protocol-id-meta-data {
+             type uint64;
+             description
+               "An optional metadata related to the protocol ID.
+                For example, this could be the Internet Protocol
+                number for standard Internet Protocols used for
+                help with protocol processing.";
+           }
+           leaf status-code {
+             type identityref {
+               base status-code;
+             }
+             mandatory true;
+             description
+               "Status code for persistent path discovery
+                creation.";
+           }
+           leaf status-sub-code {
+             type identityref {
+               base status-sub-code;
+             }
+             mandatory true;
+             description
+
+
+
+Kumar, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 38]
+
+RFC 8533         YANG Model for CL OAM Retrieval Methods      April 2019
+
+
+               "Sub code for persistent path discovery
+                creation.";
+           }
+           leaf data-export-method {
+             type export-method;
+             description
+               "Type of export.";
+           }
+           choice pd-trigger {
+             description
+               "Necessary conditions
+                for periodic or on-change
+                trigger.";
+             case periodic {
+               description
+                 "Periodic reports.";
+               leaf period {
+                 type yang:timeticks;
+                 description
+                   "Time interval between reports.";
+               }
+               leaf start-time {
+                 type yang:date-and-time;
+                 description
+                   "Timestamp from which reports are started.";
+               }
+             }
+             case on-change {
+               description
+                 "On-change trigger and not periodic.";
+               leaf all-data-on-start {
+                 type boolean;
+                 description
+                   "Full update done on start or not.";
+               }
+               leaf-list excluded-change {
+                 type change-type;
+                 description
+                   "Changes that will not trigger an update.";
+               }
+             }
+           }
+         }
+       }
+     }
+   }
+
+
+
+
+
+Kumar, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 39]
+
+RFC 8533         YANG Model for CL OAM Retrieval Methods      April 2019
+
+
+Acknowledgements
+
+   The authors of this document would like to thank Elwyn Davies, Alia
+   Atlas, Brian E. Carpenter, Greg Mirsky, Adam Roach, Alissa Cooper,
+   Eric Rescorla, Ben Campbell, Benoit Claise, Kathleen Moriarty, Carlos
+   Pignataro, Benjamin Kaduk, and others for their substantive review,
+   comments, and proposals to improve the document.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kumar, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 40]
+
+RFC 8533         YANG Model for CL OAM Retrieval Methods      April 2019
+
+
+Authors' Addresses
+
+   Deepak Kumar
+   CISCO Systems
+   510 McCarthy Blvd.
+   Milpitas, CA  95035
+   United States of America
+
+   Email: dekumar@cisco.com
+
+
+   Michael Wang
+   Huawei Technologies, Co., Ltd
+   101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
+   Nanjing  210012
+   China
+
+   Email: wangzitao@huawei.com
+
+
+   Qin Wu (editor)
+   Huawei
+   101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
+   Nanjing, Jiangsu  210012
+   China
+
+   Email: bill.wu@huawei.com
+
+
+   Reshad Rahman
+   CISCO Systems
+   2000 Innovation Drive
+   Kanata, Ontario  K2K 3E8
+   Canada
+
+   Email: rrahman@cisco.com
+
+
+   Srihari Raghavan
+   CISCO Systems
+   Tril Infopark Sez, Ramanujan IT City
+   Neville Block, 2nd floor, Old Mahabalipuram Road
+   Chennai, Tamil Nadu  600113
+   India
+
+   Email: srihari@cisco.com
+
+
+
+
+
+Kumar, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 41]
+