Network Working Group J. Dai
Internet-Draft CICT
Intended status: Standards Track S. Yu
Expires: 23 November 2025 PCL
W. Cheng
China Mobile
M. Blanchet
Viagenie
P. Andersson
Cisco systems
22 May 2025
NETCONF over QUIC
draft-ietf-netconf-over-quic-04
Abstract
This document specifies how to use QUIC as a secure transport for
exchanging Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) messages. QUIC
provides encryption properties similar to TLS, while eliminating TCP
head-of-line blocking issues and also providing more loss detection
and congestion control than UDP. NETCONF over QUIC has privacy
properties similar to NETCONF over TLS.
Editorial note (to be removed by the RFC Editor
This draft 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.
Artwork in this document contains shorthand references to drafts in
progress. Please apply the following replacements:
* AAAA --> the assigned RFC value for this draft
* BBBB --> the assigned RFC value for draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-
client-server
* CCCC --> the assigned RFC value for draft-ietf-netconf-quic-
client-server
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Dai, et al. Expires 23 November 2025 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft NETCONF over QUIC May 2025
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 23 November 2025.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Connection Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Connection establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1. Early data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Connection Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.1. QUIC Connection Termination Process . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2.2. Considerations for Connection Termination . . . . . . 5
4. Stream mapping and usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Bidirectional Stream Between client and server . . . . . 7
4.2. Unidirectional Stream from server to client . . . . . . . 7
4.3. RFC8071 Call Home Specific Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Endpoint Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Server Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. Client Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Overview of YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. The "netconf-client" augmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. The "netconf-server" augmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Dai, et al. Expires 23 November 2025 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft NETCONF over QUIC May 2025
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction
The Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) [RFC6241] defines a
mechanism through which the configuration of network devices can be
installed, manipulated, and deleted.
NETCONF can be conceptually partitioned into four layers: content,
operation, message and security transport layers.
The Secure Transport layer provides a communication path between the
client and server. NETCONF can be layered over any transport
protocol that provides a set of basic requirements, such as:
1. NETCONF is connection-oriented, requiring a persistent connection
between peers. This connection MUST provide reliable and
sequenced data delivery. NETCONF connections are long-lived,
persisting between protocol operations.
2. NETCONF connections MUST provide authentication, data integrity,
confidentiality, and replay protection. NETCONF depends on the
transport protocol for this capability.
The NETCONF protocol is not bound to any particular transport
protocol, but allows a mapping to define how it can be implemented
over any specific protocol.
However, because of the connection-oriented feature, almost all of
the current secure transport protocols used by NETCONF are TCP based.
As is well known, TCP has some shortcomings such as head-of-line
blocking.
QUIC ([RFC9000][RFC9001]) conforms to the above requirements,
therefore is also an appropriate transport protocol for NETCONF.
Moreover, QUIC provides the following additional benefits not present
in the other NETCONF transports:
* Single connection can be long lived and support multiple NETCONF
RPC calls and responses within the same connection, using streams.
This is very useful for a network management control station who
is regularly monitoring devices and therefore having a long lived
connection requires way less resources on both peers.
Dai, et al. Expires 23 November 2025 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft NETCONF over QUIC May 2025
* 1 RTT initial handshake that includes TLS.
* Adaptable to more difficult environments such as those with long
delays ([I-D.many-tiptop-usecase], [I-D.many-tiptop-quic-profile]
.
Therefore, QUIC is a proper transport protocol for the secure
transport layer of NETCONF. This document specifies how to use QUIC
as the secure transport protocol for NETCONF.
2. Terminology and Definitions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
3. Connection Management
3.1. Connection establishment
QUIC connections are established as described in [RFC9000]. During
connection establishment, NETCONF over QUIC support is indicated by
selecting the ALPN token as listed in Section 9 in the cryptographic
handshake.
3.1.1. Early data
The QUIC protocol uses TLS 1.3 messages to secure the transport.
This means that Early data (aka 0-RTT data) is supported. [RFC9001]
Early data (aka 0-RTT data) is a mechanism defined in TLS 1.3
[I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis] that allows a client to send data ("early
data") as part of the first flight of messages to a server. Note
that TLS 1.3 can be used without early data as per Appendix F.5 of
[I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis]. In fact, early data is permitted by TLS
1.3 only when the client and server share a Pre-Shared Key (PSK),
either obtained externally or via a previous handshake. The client
uses the PSK to authenticate the server and to encrypt the early
data.
As noted in Section 2.3 of [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis], the security
properties for early data are weaker than those for subsequent TLS-
protected data. In particular, early data is not forward secret, and
there is no protection against the replay of early data between
connections. Appendix E.5 of [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis] requires
applications not use early data without a profile that defines its
use. This document specifies that NETCONF over QUIC implementations
MUST NOT use early data.
Dai, et al. Expires 23 November 2025 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft NETCONF over QUIC May 2025
3.2. Connection Termination
3.2.1. QUIC Connection Termination Process
The typical QUIC connection termination process is described in
[RFC9000]
3.2.2. Considerations for Connection Termination
When a NETCONF session is implemented based on a QUIC connection, the
idle timeout should be set appropriately in order to keep the QUIC
connection persistent even if the NETCONF session is idle. In some
cases, disabling it may be a possible option.
When a NETCONF server receives a <close-session> request, it will
gracefully close the NETCONF session. The server SHOULD close the
associated QUIC connection.
When a NETCONF entity receives a <kill-session> request for an open
session, it SHOULD close the associated QUIC connection.
When a NETCONF entity is detecting the interruption of the QUIC
connection, it SHOULD send a <close-session> request to the peer
NETCONF entity.
When a stateless reset event occurs, nothing needs to be done by
either the client or the server.
4. Stream mapping and usage
[RFC6241] specifies protocol layers of NETCONF as shown below.
Dai, et al. Expires 23 November 2025 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft NETCONF over QUIC May 2025
Layer Example
+-------------+ +-----------------+ +----------------+
(4) | Content | | Configuration | | Notification |
| | | data | | data |
+-------------+ +-----------------+ +----------------+
| | |
+-------------+ +-----------------+ |
(3) | Operations | | <edit-config> | |
| | | | |
+-------------+ +-----------------+ |
| | |
+-------------+ +-----------------+ +----------------+
(2) | Messages | | <rpc>, | | <notification> |
| | | <rpc-reply> | | |
+-------------+ +-----------------+ +----------------+
| | |
+-------------+ +-----------------------------------------+
(1) | Secure | | SSH, TLS, ... |
| Transport | | |
+-------------+ +-----------------------------------------+
Figure 1: NETCONF Protocol Layers
Figure 1 shows that there are two kinds of main data flow exchanged
between client and server:
* Configuration data from client to server.
* Notification data from server to client.
The two kinds of data flow need to be mapped into QUIC streams.
QUIC Streams provide a lightweight, ordered byte-stream abstraction
to an application. Streams can be unidirectional or bidirectional
meanwhile streams can be initiated by either the client or the
server. Unidirectional streams carry data in one direction: from the
initiator of the stream to its peer. Bidirectional streams allow for
data to be sent in both directions.
QUIC uses Stream ID to identify the stream. The least significant
bit (0x1) of the stream ID identifies the initiator of the stream.
The second least significant bit (0x2) of the stream ID distinguishes
between bidirectional streams (with the bit set to 0) and
unidirectional streams. Table 1 describes the four types of streams
and this table can also be seen from [RFC9000].
Dai, et al. Expires 23 November 2025 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft NETCONF over QUIC May 2025
+======+==================================+
| Bits | Stream Type |
+======+==================================+
| 0x0 | Client-Initiated, Bidirectional |
+------+----------------------------------+
| 0x1 | Server-Initiated, Bidirectional |
+------+----------------------------------+
| 0x2 | Client-Initiated, Unidirectional |
+------+----------------------------------+
| 0x3 | Server-Initiated, Unidirectional |
+------+----------------------------------+
Table 1: Stream ID Types
4.1. Bidirectional Stream Between client and server
NETCONF protocol uses an RPC-based communication model.
Configuration data from client to server is exchanged based on
'<rpc>' (the client initiating) and '<rpc-reply>' (sent by the
server) and so on. The messages used to exchange configuration data
MUST be mapped into one or more bidirectional stream whose stream
type is 0x0 according to the above table. Since RPC processing is
serialized and ordered within a session ([RFC6241] section 4.5), a
bidirectional stream MUST be used for each NETCONF session.
4.2. Unidirectional Stream from server to client
There are some notification data exchanged between the client and the
server. Notification is an server initiated message indicating that
a certain event has been recognized by the server.
Notification messages are initiated by the server and no reply is
needed from the client. So the messages used to exchange
configuration data SHOULD be mapped into one unidirectional stream
whose stream type is 0x3 according to the above table.
4.3. RFC8071 Call Home Specific Case
In the case of [RFC8071] Call home feature, where the NETCONF server
initiates the transport connection to the NETCONF client, Table 1
will be used as follows: - the Client, referred in the Table, means
the QUIC initiating party, therefore the NETCONF server and - the
Server means the QUIC receiving party, therefore the NETCONF client.
5. Endpoint Authentication
Since QUIC uses TLS 1.3 this is used to verify server identity and
client identity.
Dai, et al. Expires 23 November 2025 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft NETCONF over QUIC May 2025
5.1. Server Identity
A server's identity MUST be verified according to Section 6 of
[RFC7589].
5.2. Client Identity
A client's identity MUST be verified according to Section 7 of
[RFC7589].
6. Overview of YANG Module
This document defines one YANG module that augments the NETCONF YANG
groupings [I-D.ietf-netconf-netconf-client-server] with the QUIC
transport YANG groupings [I-D.ietf-netconf-quic-client-server]. This
section presents an overview of the YANG Module.
6.1. The "netconf-client" augmentation
The following tree diagram [RFC8340] illustrates the augmentation of
the QUIC client grouping into the NETCONF client container:
augment /ncc:netconf-client/ncc:initiate/ncc:netconf-server
/ncc:endpoints/ncc:endpoint/ncc:transport:
+--:(quic) {quic-initiate}?
+--rw quic
+---u quicc:quic-client
Figure 2
Comments:
* This augmentation to the "ncc:transport" container in "ietf-
netconf-client.yang" adds a "quic" case with a "quic" container
which uses the "quicc:quic-client" grouping.
* Note that the if-feature "quic-initiate" conditions if the "quic"
container is available in the schema.
6.2. The "netconf-server" augmentation
The following tree diagram [RFC8340] illustrates the augmentation of
the QUIC server grouping into the NETCONF server container:
Dai, et al. Expires 23 November 2025 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft NETCONF over QUIC May 2025
augment /ncs:netconf-server/ncs:listen/ncs:endpoints/ncs:endpoint
/ncs:transport:
+--:(quic) {quic-listen}?
+--rw quic
+---u quics:quic-server
Figure 3
Comments:
* This augmentation to the "ncs:transport" container in "ietf-
netconf-server.yang" adds a "quic" case with a "quic" container
which uses the "quics:quic-server" grouping.
* Note that the if-feature "quic-listen" conditions if the "quic"
container is available in the schema.
7. YANG Module
This YANG module has normative references to
[I-D.ietf-netconf-netconf-client-server] and
[I-D.ietf-netconf-quic-client-server].
<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-netconf-quic@2025-05-22.yang"
module ietf-netconf-quic {
yang-version 1.1;
namespace
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-netconf-quic";
prefix ncquic;
import ietf-netconf-client {
prefix ncc;
reference
"RFC BBBB: NETCONF Client and Server Models";
}
import ietf-netconf-server {
prefix ncs;
reference
"RFC BBBB: NETCONF Client and Server Models";
}
import ietf-quic-client {
prefix quicc;
reference
"RFC CCCC: YANG Groupings for QUIC Clients and QUIC Servers";
}
Dai, et al. Expires 23 November 2025 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft NETCONF over QUIC May 2025
import ietf-quic-server {
prefix quics;
reference
"RFC CCCC: YANG Groupings for QUIC Clients and QUIC Servers";
}
organization
"IETF NETCONF (Network Configuration) Working Group";
contact
"WG Web: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/netconf
WG List: NETCONF WG list <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
Author: Jinyou Dai
<mailto:djy@fiberhome.se>
Author: Shaohua Yu
<mailto:yush@cae.cn>
Author: Weiqiang Cheng
<mailto:chengeiqiang@chinamobile.com>
Author: Marc Blanchet
<mailto:marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
Author: Per Andersson
<mailto:per.ietf@ionio.se>";
description
"This module defines augmentations for a NETCONF server to
also support the QUIC transport.
Copyright (c) 2025 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 AAAA
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcAAAA); see the RFC
itself for full legal notices.
The key words 'MUST', 'MUST NOT', 'REQUIRED', 'SHALL',
'SHALL NOT', 'SHOULD', 'SHOULD NOT', 'RECOMMENDED',
Dai, et al. Expires 23 November 2025 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft NETCONF over QUIC May 2025
'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 2025-05-22 {
description
"Initial version";
reference
"RFC AAAA: NETCONF over QUIC";
}
// Features
feature quic-initiate {
description
"The 'quic-initiate' feature indicates that the NETCONF client
supports initiating QUIC connections to NETCONF servers.";
reference
"RFC CCCC: YANG Groupings for QUIC Clients and QUIC Servers";
}
feature quic-listen {
description
"The 'quic-listen' feature indicates that the NETCONF server
supports the QUIC transport.";
reference
"RFC AAAA: NETCONF over QUIC";
}
// Augments
/* FIXME seems pyang don't support this augment */
augment "/ncc:netconf-client/ncc:initiate" {
if-feature "quic-initiate";
description
"Add 'quic-initate' feature to the NETCONF client connection
configuration.";
}
augment "/ncc:netconf-client/ncc:initiate/ncc:netconf-server" +
"/ncc:endpoints/ncc:endpoint/ncc:transport" {
description
"Add QUIC transport to the NETCONF client connection
configuration";
case quic {
if-feature "quic-initiate";
container quic {
Dai, et al. Expires 23 November 2025 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft NETCONF over QUIC May 2025
description
"QUIC-level client parameters to initiate a NETCONF over
QUIC connection.";
uses quicc:quic-client;
}
}
}
/* FIXME seems pyang don't support this augment */
augment "/ncs:netconf-server/ncs:listen" {
if-feature "quic-listen";
description
"Add 'quic-listen' feature to the NETCONF server listen
configuration.";
}
augment "/ncs:netconf-server/ncs:listen/ncs:endpoints" +
"/ncs:endpoint/ncs:transport" {
description
"Add QUIC transport to the NETCONF server listen
configuration.";
case quic {
if-feature "quic-listen";
container quic {
description
"QUIC-level server parameters to listen for NETCONF over
QUIC connections.";
uses quics:quic-server;
}
}
}
}
Figure 4
<CODE ENDS>
8. Security Considerations
The security considerations described throughout [RFC8446] and
[RFC6241] apply here as well.This document requires verification of
server identity and client identity according to [RFC7589].
Dai, et al. Expires 23 November 2025 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft NETCONF over QUIC May 2025
An attacker might be able to inject arbitrary NETCONF messages via
some application that does not carefully check exchanged messages
deliberately insert the delimiter sequence in a NETCONF message to
create a DoS attack. Hence, applications and NETCONF APIs MUST
ensure that the delimiter sequence defined in Section 2.1 never
appears in NETCONF messages; otherwise, those messages can be
dropped, garbled, or misinterpreted.
If invalid data or malformed messages are encountered, a robust
implementation of this document MUST silently discard the message
without further processing and then stop the NETCONF session.
Finally, this document does not introduce any new security
considerations compared to [RFC6242].
9. IANA Considerations
This document creates a new registration for the identification of
NETCONF over QUIC in the "Application Layer Protocol Negotiation
(ALPN) Protocol IDs registry established in [RFC7301].
The "noq" string identifies NETCONF over QUIC:
* Protocol: NETCONF over QUIC
* Identification Sequence: 0x6e 0x6f 0x71 ("noq")
* Specification: This document
This document also requests IANA to reserve a UDP port for 'NETCONF
over QUIC':
* Service Name: netconf-quic
* Transport Protocol(s): UDP
* Assignee: IESG iesg@ietf.org
* Contact: IETF Chair chair@ietf.org
* Description: NETCONF protocol over QUIC transport
* Reference: RFC AAAA
* Port number: 831
Dai, et al. Expires 23 November 2025 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft NETCONF over QUIC May 2025
* Assignment Notes: Port 831 is currently assigned to netconf-beep,
but a de-assignment is requested in
[I-D.ietf-netconf-port-numbers].
10. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the contributors Yang Kou,
Xueshun Wang, Kent Watsen, Jeffrey Haas, Balázs Lengyel, Robert
Wilton, Huaimo Chen, Lifen Zhou, Andy Bierman, Sean Turner, and Joe
Clarke for their beneficial comments.
The authors would like to acknowledge the very useful feedback from
an early implementor: Adolfo Ochagavia.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-netconf-netconf-client-server]
Watsen, K., "A YANG Data Model for NETCONF Clients and
Servers", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
netconf-netconf-client-server-39, 24 April 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-
netconf-client-server-39>.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-quic-client-server]
Andersson, P., "YANG Groupings for QUIC clients and QUIC
servers", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
netconf-quic-client-server-01, 24 February 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-
quic-client-server-01>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[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>.
[RFC9000] Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based
Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9000>.
Dai, et al. Expires 23 November 2025 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft NETCONF over QUIC May 2025
[RFC9001] Thomson, M., Ed. and S. Turner, Ed., "Using TLS to Secure
QUIC", RFC 9001, DOI 10.17487/RFC9001, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9001>.
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-netconf-port-numbers]
Boucadair, M., "NETCONF Transport Port Numbers", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-netconf-port-numbers-
02, 10 May 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-ietf-netconf-port-numbers-02>.
[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>.
[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>.
[RFC7301] Friedl, S., Popov, A., Langley, A., and E. Stephan,
"Transport Layer Security (TLS) Application-Layer Protocol
Negotiation Extension", RFC 7301, DOI 10.17487/RFC7301,
July 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7301>.
[RFC7589] Badra, M., Luchuk, A., and J. Schoenwaelder, "Using the
NETCONF Protocol over Transport Layer Security (TLS) with
Mutual X.509 Authentication", RFC 7589,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7589, June 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7589>.
[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>.
[RFC8071] Watsen, K., "NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home",
RFC 8071, DOI 10.17487/RFC8071, February 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8071>.
[I-D.many-tiptop-usecase]
Blanchet, M., Eddy, W., and M. Eubanks, "IP in Deep Space:
Key Characteristics, Use Cases and Requirements", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-many-tiptop-usecase-02, 18
March 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
many-tiptop-usecase-02>.
Dai, et al. Expires 23 November 2025 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft NETCONF over QUIC May 2025
[I-D.many-tiptop-quic-profile]
Blanchet, M., "QUIC Profile for Deep Space", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-many-tiptop-quic-profile-
00, 19 February 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-many-tiptop-
quic-profile-00>.
[I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis]
Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-tls-rfc8446bis-12, 17 February 2025,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tls-
rfc8446bis-12>.
Authors' Addresses
Jinyou Dai
China Information Communication Technologies Group.
Gaoxin 4th Road 6#
Wuhan, Hubei 430079
China
Email: djy@fiberhome.com
Shaohua Yu
China PCL.
China
Email: yush@cae.cn
Weiqiang Cheng
China Mobile
China
Email: chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com
Marc Blanchet
Viagenie
Canada
Email: marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca
Per Andersson
Cisco systems
Sweden
Email: per.ietf@ionio.se
Dai, et al. Expires 23 November 2025 [Page 16]