Internet-Draft immutable flag September 2024
Ma, et al. Expires 31 March 2025 [Page]
Workgroup:
netmod
Internet-Draft:
draft-ietf-netmod-immutable-flag-02
Updates:
6241, 8040, 8526 (if approved)
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Authors:
Q. Ma, Ed.
Huawei
Q. Wu
Huawei
B. Lengyel, Ed.
Ericsson
H. Li
HPE

YANG Metadata Annotation for Immutable Flag

Abstract

This document defines a way to formally document an existing behavior, implemented by servers in production, on the immutability of some system-provided nodes, using a YANG metadata annotation called "immutable" to flag which nodes are immutable.

Clients may use "immutable" annotations provided by the server, to know beforehand why certain otherwise valid configuration requests will cause the server to return an error.

The immutable flag is descriptive, documenting an existing behavior, not proscriptive, dictating server behaviors.

This document updates [RFC6241], [RFC8040], and [RFC8526].

Discussion Venues

This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

Discussion of this document takes place on the Network Modeling Working Group mailing list (netmod@ietf.org), which is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/.

Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/netmod-wg/immutable-flag.

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 31 March 2025.

▲

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

This document defines a YANG metadata annotation [RFC7952] to formally document an existing model handling behavior that has been used by multiple standard organizations and vendors. It is the aim to create one single standard solution for documenting non-modifiable system data declared as configuration, instead of the multiple existing vendor and organization specific solutions.

YANG [RFC7950] is a data modeling language used to model both state and configuration data, based on the "config" statement. However, there exists some system configuration data that cannot be modified by the client (it is immutable), but still needs to be declared as "config true" to:

If the server always rejects a client's attempt to override some system-provided data because it internally thinks immutable, it should document it towards the clients in a machine-readable way rather than writing as plain text in the "description" statement.

This document defines a way to formally document the existing behavior, implemented by servers in production, on the immutability of some system-provided nodes, using a YANG metadata annotation [RFC7952] called "immutable" to flag which nodes are immutable.

This document does not apply to the server not having any immutable system configuration. While in some cases immutability may be needed, it also has disadvantages, therefore it SHOULD be avoided wherever possible.

The following is a list of already implemented and potential use cases:

Appendix A describes the use cases in detail.

1.1. Updates to RFC 6241 and RFC 8526

This document updates [RFC6241] and [RFC8526]. The NETCONF <get> and <get-config> operations defined in [RFC6241], and <get-data> operation defined in [RFC8526] are augmented with an additional input parameter named "with-immutable", as specified in Section 4.2.1.

1.2. Updates to RFC 8040

This document updates Sections 4.8 and 9.1.1 of [RFC8040] to add an additional input parameter named "with-immutable", as specified in Section 4.2.2.

1.3. Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)

Note to the RFC Editor: This section is to be removed prior to publication.

This document contains placeholder values that need to be replaced with finalized values at the time of publication. This note summarizes all of the substitutions that are needed. No other RFC Editor instructions are specified elsewhere in this document.

Please apply the following replacements:

  • XXXX --> the assigned RFC number for this draft

  • 2024-06-04 --> the actual date of the publication of this document

2. Conventions and Definitions

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

The document uses the following definition in [RFC6241]:

The document uses the following definition in [RFC7950]:

The document uses the following definition in [RFC8341]:

This document defines the following term:

immutable flag:

A read-only state value the server provides to describe immutability of the configuration, which is conveyed via a YANG metadata annotation called "immutable" with a boolean value.

3. Applicability

While immutable flag applies to all configuration nodes, its value "true" can only be used for system configuration.

The immutable flag is also visible in read-only datastores like <system> (if implemented, see [I-D.ietf-netmod-system-config]), <intended> and <operational> when a "with-immutable" parameter is carried (Section 4.2), however this only serves as descriptive information about the instance node itself, but has no effect on the handling of the read-only datastore.

An instance has the same immutability if it appears in different writable datastores, the immutability of data object is also protocol and user independent. The immutability and configured value of an existing node MUST only change via software upgrade, hardware resources change, or license change.

4. "Immutable" Metadata Annotation

4.1. Definition

The immutable flag which is defined as the metadata annotation takes a boolean value, and it is returned as requested by the client using a "with-immutable" parameter (Section 4.2). If the "immutable" metadata annotation for a configuration node is not specified, the default "immutable" value is the same as the value of its parent node in the data tree (Section 6). The immutable metadata annotation value for a top-level instance node is "false" if not specified.

Note that "immutable" metadata annotations are used to annotate data node instances. A list may have multiple instances in the data tree, servers may annotate some of the instances as immutable, while others as mutable.

Servers MUST ignore any immutable annotations sent from the client.

4.2. "with-immutable" Parameter

This section specifies the NETCONF [RFC6241] and RESTCONF [RFC8040] protocol extensions to support the "with-immutable" parameter. The "immutable" metadata annotations are not returned in a response unless explicitly requested by the client using this parameter.

4.2.1. NETCONF Extensions to Support "with-immutable"

This doument updates [RFC6241] to augment the <get-config> and <get> operations with an additional parameter named "with-immutable". The <get-data> operation defined in [RFC8526] is also updated to support this parameter. If present, this parameter requests that the server includes the "immutable" metadata annotations in its response.

Figure 1 provides the tree structure [RFC8340] of augmentations to NETCONF operations, as defined in the "ietf-immutable" module (Section 9).

module: ietf-immutable
  augment /ncds:get-data/ncds:input:
    +---w with-immutable?   empty {immutable}?
  augment /nc:get-config/nc:input:
    +---w with-immutable?   empty {immutable}?
  augment /nc:get/nc:input:
    +---w with-immutable?   empty {immutable}?
Figure 1: Augmentations to NETCONF Operations

Servers' support for accepting "with-immutable" parameter and returning "immutable" annotations is identified with the feature "immutable".

4.2.2. RESTCONF Extensions to Support "with-immutable"

This document extends Sections 4.8 and 9.1.1 of [RFC8040] to add a query parameter named "with-immutable" to the GET operation. If present, this parameter requests that the server includes the "immutable" metadata annotations in its response. This parameter is only allowed with no values carried. If it has any unexpected value, then a "404 Bad Request" status-line is returned.

To enable a RESTCONF client to discover if the "with-immutable" query parameter is supported by the server, the following capability URI is defined:

    urn:ietf:params:restconf:capability:with-immutable:1.0

5. Use of Immutable Flag for Different Statements

This section defines what the immutable flag means to the client for each instance of YANG data node statement.

Throughout this section, the word "change" refers to create, update, and delete.

5.1. The "leaf" Statement

When a leaf node instance is immutable, its value cannot change.

5.2. The "leaf-list" Statement

When a leaf-list node instance is immutable, its value cannot change.

The immutable annotation attached to the individual leaf-list instance provides immutability with respect to the instance itself. If a leaf-list inherits immutability from an ancestor (e.g., container), it is identical to each individual leaf-list entry being annotated without any bearing on the entry ordering and addition of new entries.

5.3. The "container" Statement

When a container node instance is immutable, it cannot change, unless the immutability of its descendant node is toggled.

By default, as with all interior nodes, immutability is recursively applied to descendants (Section 6).

5.4. The "list" Statement

When a list node instance is immutable, it cannot change, unless the immutability of its descendant node is toggled.

By default, as with all interior nodes, immutability is recursively applied to descendants (Section 6).

The immutable annotation attached to the individual list instance provides immutability with respect to the instance itself. If a list inherits immutability from an ancestor (e.g., container), it is identical to each individual list entry being annotated without any bearing on the entry ordering and addition of new entries.

5.5. The "anydata" Statement

When an anydata node instance is immutable, it cannot change. Additionally, as with all interior nodes, immutability is recursively applied to descendants (Section 6).

5.6. The "anyxml" Statement

When an "anyxml" node instance is immutable, it cannot change. Additionally, as with all interior nodes, immutability is recursively applied to descendants (Section 6).

6. Immutability of Interior Nodes

Immutability is a conceptual operational state value that is recursively applied to descendants, which may reset the immutability state as needed, thereby affecting their descendants. There is no limit to the number of times the immutability state may change in a data tree.

If the "immutable" metadata annotation for returned child node is omitted, it has the same immutability as its parent node. The immutability of top hierarchy of returned nodes is false by default. Servers may suppress the annotation if it is inherited from its parent node or uses the default value as the top-level node, but are not precluded from returning the annotation on every single element.

For example, the following XML snippets shows application configuration a server might return:

<applications im:immutable="false">
<application im:immutable="true">
  <name>ssh</name>
  <protocol>tcp</protocol>
  <port-number im:immutable="false">22</port-number>
</application>
<application im:immutable="false">
  <name>my-ssh</name>
  <protocol>tcp</protocol>
  <port-number>10022</port-number>
</application>
</applications>

In the example, there are two "application" list entries inside "applications" container node. The "immutable" metadata attribute for applications container instance is "false", which is also its default value as the top-level element, and thus can be omitted. The "application" list entry named "ssh" is immutable with the immutability of its child node "port-number" being explicitly toggled. The other child nodes inside "ssh" application instance inherit immutability from their parent node thus are also immutable. The "immutable" metadata attribute for application list entry named "my-ssh" is "false", which is also the same value as its parent node, and thus can be omitted.

7. System Configuration Datastore Interactions

Immutable configuration can only be created, updated and deleted by the server, and it is present in <system>, if implemented. That said, the existence of immutable configuration is independent of whether <system> is implemented or not. Not all system configuration data is immutable. Immutable configuration does not appear in <running> unless it is explicitly configured.

A client may create/delete immutable nodes with same values as found in <system> (if implemented) in read-write configuration datastore (e.g., <candidate>, <running>), which merely mean making immutable nodes visible/invisible in the datastore.

8. NACM Interactions

The server rejects an operation request due to immutability when it tries to perform the operation on the request data. It happens after any access control processing, if the Network Configuration Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC8341] is implemented on a server. For example, if an operation requests to override an immutable configuration data, but the server checks the user is not authorized to perform the requested access operation on the request data, the request is rejected with an "access-denied" error.

9. YANG Module

This module imports definitions from [RFC6241] and [RFC8526].

<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-immutable@2024-06-04.yang"

module ietf-immutable {
  yang-version 1.1;
  namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-immutable";
  prefix im;

  import ietf-yang-metadata {
    prefix md;
  }
  import ietf-netconf {
    prefix nc;
    reference
      "RFC 6241: Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)";
  }
  import ietf-netconf-nmda {
    prefix ncds;
    reference
      "RFC 8526: NETCONF Extensions to Support the Network
       Management Datastore Architecture";
  }
  organization
    "IETF Network Modeling (NETMOD) Working Group";

  contact
    "WG Web: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/netmod/>
     WG List: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
     Author: Qiufang Ma
             <mailto:maqiufang1@huawei.com>
     Author: Qin Wu
             <mailto:bill.wu@huawei.com>
     Author: Balazs Lengyel
             <mailto:balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com>
     Author: Hongwei Li
             <mailto:flycoolman@gmail.com>";

  description
    "This module defines a metadata annotation called 'immutable'
     to allow the server to formally document existing behavior on
     the mutability of some system configuration. Clients may use
     'immutable' metadata annotation provided by the server to know
     beforehand why certain otherwise valid configuration requests
     will cause the server to return an error.

     Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified
     as authors of the code. All rights reserved.

     Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with
     or without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and
     subject to the license terms contained in, the Revised
     BSD License set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's
     Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
     (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).

     This version of this YANG module is part of RFC HHHH
     (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcHHHH); see the RFC
     itself for full legal notices.

     The key words 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', 'REQUIRED', 'SHALL',
     'SHALL NOT', 'SHOULD', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED',
     'NOT RECOMMENDED', 'MAY', and 'OPTIONAL' in this document
     are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 (RFC 2119)
     (RFC 8174) when, and only when, they appear in all
     capitals, as shown here.";

  revision 2024-06-04 {
    description
      "Initial revision.";
    // RFC Ed.: replace XXXX and remove this comment
    reference
      "RFC XXXX: YANG Metadata Annotation for Immutable Flag";
  }

  md:annotation immutable {
    type boolean;
    description
      "The 'immutable' metadata annotation indicates the
       immutability of an instantiated data node. It takes as a
       value 'true' or 'false'. If the 'immutable' metadata
       annotation is not specified, the default value is the
       same as the value of its parent node in the data tree. The
       default value for a top-level instance node is false if not
       specified.";
  }

  feature immutable {
    description
      "Indicates that the server supports the 'immutable' metadata
       annotation.";
  }

  grouping with-immutable-grouping {
    description
      "Grouping for the with-immutable parameter that augments the
       RPC operations.";
    leaf with-immutable {
      type empty;
      description
        "If this parameter is present, the server returns the
         'immutable' annotation for configuration that it
         internally thinks immutable.";
    }
  }
  augment "/ncds:get-data/ncds:input" {
    if-feature "immutable";
    description
      "Allows the server to include 'immutable' metadata
       annotations in its response to get-data operation.";
    uses with-immutable-grouping;
  }
  augment "/nc:get-config/nc:input" {
    if-feature "immutable";
    description
      "Allows the server to include 'immutable' metadata
       annotations in its response to get-config operation.";
    uses with-immutable-grouping;
  }
  augment "/nc:get/nc:input" {
    if-feature "immutable";
    description
      "Allows the server to include 'immutable' metadata
       annotations in its response to get operation.";
    uses with-immutable-grouping;
  }
}

<CODE ENDS>

10. Security Considerations

This section is modeled after the template described in Section 3.7 of [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis].

The "ietf-immutable" YANG module defines a data model that is designed to be accessed via YANG-based management protocols, such as NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040]. These protocols have to use a secure transport layer (e.g., SSH [RFC4252], TLS [RFC8446], and QUIC [RFC9000]) and have to use mutual authentication.

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.

The YANG module specified in this document defines a metadata annotation, it also extends the RPC operations of the NETCONF protocol in [RFC6241] and [RFC8526].

The security considerations for the Defining and Using Metadata with YANG (see Section 9 of [RFC7952]) apply to the metadata annotation defined in this document.

The security considerations for the NETCONF protocol operations (see Section 9 of [RFC6241] and Section 6 of [RFC8526]) still apply to the operations extended in this document.

11. IANA Considerations

11.1. The "IETF XML" Registry

This document registers one XML namespace URN in the 'IETF XML registry', following the format defined in [RFC3688].

        URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-immutable
        Registrant Contact: The IESG.
        XML: N/A, the requested URIs are XML namespaces.

11.2. The "YANG Module Names" Registry

This document registers one module name in the 'YANG Module Names' registry, defined in [RFC6020].

        name: ietf-immutable
        prefix: im
        namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-immutable
        RFC: XXXX

11.3. RESTCONF Capability URN Registry

This document defines the following capability identifier URNs in the "RESTCONF Capability URNs" registry defined in [RFC8040]:

Index           Capability Identifier
----------------------------------------------------------------------
:with-immutable urn:ietf:params:restconf:capability:with-immutable:1.0

12. References

12.1. Normative References

[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC3688]
Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3688>.
[RFC6020]
Bjorklund, M., Ed., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6020, DOI 10.17487/RFC6020, , <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, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6241>.
[RFC7950]
Bjorklund, M., Ed., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language", RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7950>.
[RFC7952]
Lhotka, L., "Defining and Using Metadata with YANG", RFC 7952, DOI 10.17487/RFC7952, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7952>.
[RFC8040]
Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8040>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
[RFC8341]
Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration Access Control Model", STD 91, RFC 8341, DOI 10.17487/RFC8341, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8341>.
[RFC8526]
Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Shafer, P., Watsen, K., and R. Wilton, "NETCONF Extensions to Support the Network Management Datastore Architecture", RFC 8526, DOI 10.17487/RFC8526, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8526>.

12.2. Informative References

[I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis]
Bierman, A., Boucadair, M., and Q. Wu, "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of Documents Containing YANG Data Models", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-16, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-16>.
[I-D.ietf-netmod-system-config]
Ma, Q., Wu, Q., and C. Feng, "System-defined Configuration", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-netmod-system-config-08, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-system-config-08>.
[RFC4252]
Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, Ed., "The Secure Shell (SSH) Authentication Protocol", RFC 4252, DOI 10.17487/RFC4252, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4252>.
[RFC8340]
Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams", BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8340>.
[RFC8343]
Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface Management", RFC 8343, DOI 10.17487/RFC8343, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8343>.
[RFC8446]
Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8446>.
[RFC8530]
Berger, L., Hopps, C., Lindem, A., Bogdanovic, D., and X. Liu, "YANG Model for Logical Network Elements", RFC 8530, DOI 10.17487/RFC8530, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8530>.
[RFC9000]
Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000, DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9000>.
[TR-531]
ONF, "UML to YANG Mapping Guidelines", , <https://wiki.opennetworking.org/download/attachments/376340494/Draft_TR-531_UML-YANG_Mapping_Gdls_v1.1.03.docx?version=5&modificationDate=1675432243513&api=v2>.
[TS28.623]
3GPP, "Telecommunication management; Generic Network Resource Model (NRM) Integration Reference Point (IRP); Solution Set (SS) definitions", <https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/28_series/28.623/28623-i02.zip>.
[TS32.156]
3GPP, "Telecommunication management; Fixed Mobile Convergence (FMC) Model repertoire", <https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/32_series/32.156/32156-h10.zip>.

Appendix A. Detailed Use Cases

A.1. UC1 - Modeling of server capabilities

System capabilities might be represented as immutable configuration. Configurable data nodes might need constraints specified as "when", "must" or "path" statements to ensure that configuration is set according to the system's capabilities. For example,

  • A timer can support the values 1,5,8 seconds. This is defined in the leaf-list 'supported-timer-values'.

  • When the configurable 'interface-timer' leaf is set, it should be ensured that one of the supported values is used. The natural solution would be to make the 'interface-timer' a leaf-ref pointing at the 'supported-timer-values'.

However, this is not possible as 'supported-timer-values' must be read-only thus config=false while 'interface-timer' must be writable thus config=true. According to the rules of YANG it is not allowed to put a constraint between config true and false data nodes.

The solution is that the supported-timer-values data node in the YANG Model shall be defined as "config true" and shall also be marked with the "immutable" annotation making it unchangeable. After this the 'interface-timer' shall be defined as a leaf-ref pointing at the 'supported-timer-values'.

A.2. UC2 - Hardware based auto-configuration - Interface Example

[RFC8343] defines a YANG data model for the management of network interfaces. When a system-controlled interface is physically present, the system creates an interface entry with valid name and type values in <system> (if exists, see [I-D.ietf-netmod-system-config]).

The system-generated type value is dependent on and represents the hardware present, and as a consequence cannot be changed by the client. If a client tries to set the type of an interface to a value that can never be used by the system, the request will be rejected by the server. The data is modeled as "config true" and thus should be annotated as immutable.

Seemingly an alternative would be to model the list and these leaves as "config false", but that does not work because:

  • The list cannot be marked as "config false", because it needs to contain configurable child nodes, e.g., ip-address or enabled;

  • The key leaf (name) cannot be marked as "config false" as the list itself is config true;

  • The type cannot be marked "config false", because we MAY need to reference the type to make different configuration nodes conditionally available.

A.3. UC3 - Predefined Administrator Roles

User and group management is fundamental for setting up access control rules (see Section 2.5 of [RFC8341]).

A device may provide a predefined user account (e.g., a system administrator that is always available and has full privileges) for initial system set up and management of other users/groups. It is possible that a new user/group can be defined granted particular privileges, but the predefined administrator account and its granted access are immutable.

A.4. UC4 - Declaring immutable system configuration from an LNE's perspective

An logical network element (LNE) is an independently managed virtual network device made up of resources allocated to it from its host or parent network device [RFC8530]. The host device may allocate some resources to an LNE, which from an LNE's perspective is provided by the system and may not be modifiable.

For example, a host may allocate an interface to an LNE with a valid MTU value as its management interface, so that the allocated interface should then be accessible as the LNE-specific instance of the interface model. The assigned MTU value is system-created and immutable from the context of the LNE.

Appendix B. Existing Implementations

Note to the RFC Editor: Please remove this section prior to publication.

There are already a number of full or partial implementations of immutability:

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Kent Watsen, Jan Lindblad, Jason Sterne, Robert Wilton, Andy Bierman, Juergen Schoenwaelder, Reshad Rahman, Anthony Somerset, Lou Berger, Joe Clarke, and Scott Mansfield for reviewing, and providing important inputs to this document.

Authors' Addresses

Qiufang Ma (editor)
Huawei
101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing, Jiangsu
210012
China
Qin Wu
Huawei
101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing, Jiangsu
210012
China
Balazs Lengyel (editor)
Ericsson
Hongwei Li
HPE