Network Working Group J. Dai Internet-Draft Fiberhome/CICT Intended status: Standards Track S. Yu Expires: 19 April 2027 PCL W. Cheng China Mobile M. Blanchet Viagenie P. Andersson Ionio Systems 16 October 2026 NETCONF over QUIC draft-ietf-netconf-over-quic-12 Abstract This document specifies how to use QUIC as a secure transport for exchanging Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) messages. NETCONF over QUIC allows implementations to take advantage of QUIC streams, for example, to eliminate some TCP head-of-line blocking issues. NETCONF over QUIC provides security properties similar to NETCONF over TLS. This document also defines a YANG module which augments the ietf- netconf-client and ietf-netconf-server YANG modules. 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 Dai, et al. Expires 19 April 2027 [Page 1] Internet-Draft NETCONF over QUIC October 2026 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 19 April 2027. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Connection Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Connection establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1.1. Early data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. Bidirectional Stream Between client and server . . . . . 7 4.2. Unidirectional Stream from server to client . . . . . . . 7 4.3. Mapping of QUIC connection, QUIC stream, and NETCONF session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Endpoint Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1. Server Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Dai, et al. Expires 19 April 2027 [Page 2] Internet-Draft NETCONF over QUIC October 2026 5.2. Client Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Framing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7. Overview of YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.1. The "netconf-client" augmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.2. The "netconf-server" augmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. Error codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9.1. Transport Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 9.2. Application Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10. Implementation status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10.1. Fiberhome S16800 series products . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10.2. PCL DCS system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10.3. Viagenie solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10.4. RYATON S10600 series switch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10.5. New H3C implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 13. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 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. Dai, et al. Expires 19 April 2027 [Page 3] Internet-Draft NETCONF over QUIC October 2026 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. * 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, including connection management, stream mapping and usage, endpoint authentication, framing and error codes etc. This document also defines a YANG module which augments the ietf- netconf-client and ietf-netconf-server YANG modules. The mechanism and implementation of call home based on QUIC is out of the scope of this document. 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 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. 3. Connection Management Dai, et al. Expires 19 April 2027 [Page 4] Internet-Draft NETCONF over QUIC October 2026 3.1. Connection establishment QUIC connections are established as described in [RFC9000]. During connection establishment, support is indicated by selecting the ALPN token registered for NETCONF over QUIC (see Section 12) 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. 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 request, it will gracefully close the NETCONF session. The server SHOULD close the associated QUIC connection. Dai, et al. Expires 19 April 2027 [Page 5] Internet-Draft NETCONF over QUIC October 2026 When a NETCONF entity receives a 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 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 The NETCONF protocol layers specified in [RFC6241] are presented in Figure 1. Layer Example +-------------+ +-----------------+ +----------------+ (4) | Content | | Configuration | | Notification | | | | data | | data | +-------------+ +-----------------+ +----------------+ | | | +-------------+ +-----------------+ | (3) | Operations | | | | | | | | | +-------------+ +-----------------+ | | | | +-------------+ +-----------------+ +----------------+ (2) | Messages | | , | | | | | | | | | +-------------+ +-----------------+ +----------------+ | | | +-------------+ +-----------------------------------------+ (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. Dai, et al. Expires 19 April 2027 [Page 6] Internet-Draft NETCONF over QUIC October 2026 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. There are four types of streams which are described in [RFC9000]. And Table 1 also describes the four types of streams +=========+==================================+ | Acronym | Stream Type | +=========+==================================+ | C-BD | Client-Initiated, Bidirectional | +---------+----------------------------------+ | S-BD | Server-Initiated, Bidirectional | +---------+----------------------------------+ | C-UN | Client-Initiated, Unidirectional | +---------+----------------------------------+ | S-UN | Server-Initiated, Unidirectional | +---------+----------------------------------+ Table 1: Stream Acronym 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 '' (the client initiating) and '' (sent by the server) and so on. The messages used to exchange configuration data MUST be mapped into one bidirectional stream whose acronym is 'C-BD' according to Table 1. 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 a server initiated message indicating that a certain event has been recognized by the server. Dai, et al. Expires 19 April 2027 [Page 7] Internet-Draft NETCONF over QUIC October 2026 Notification messages are initiated by the server and no reply is needed from the client. So the messages used to exchange notification data MUST be mapped into one unidirectional stream whose acronym is 'S-UN' according to Table 1. 4.3. Mapping of QUIC connection, QUIC stream, and NETCONF session The relationship among NETCONF sessions, QUIC streams and QUIC connections is illustrated as follows. * One NETCONF session is allowed per QUIC connection. * The NETCONF sessions, except subscriptions, runs over a QUIC bidi- stream. * NETCONF Notifications and Subscribed Notifications run over one QUIC uni-stream per subscription. A subscription is initiated over the bidirectional stream by invoking either a "create-subscription" [RFC5277] or a "establish- subscription" [RFC8639] RPC. The server then creates a unidirectional stream towards the client and starts sending notifications on it. Both the server and client need to keep track of which subscription is linked to each stream, how this is implemented is out of scope for this document. When a subscription is terminated the server notifies the client if applicable for the subscription then tears down the unidirectional stream. 5. Endpoint Authentication Since QUIC uses TLS 1.3 this is used to verify server identity and client identity. 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]. Dai, et al. Expires 19 April 2027 [Page 8] Internet-Draft NETCONF over QUIC October 2026 6. Framing In order to mitigate delimiter injection attacks, chunked framing as defined in [RFC6242] is required for NETCONF over QUIC. Even though NETCONF over QUIC requires chunked encoding, it is enabled the same way as is done for NETCONF over TLS [RFC7589]. That means the first message delimiter uses the old style end-of-message (EOM) sequeence, and then the chunked encoding is used. This is not for backwards compatibility on the wire, but for simpler reuse of existing the NETCONF implementations on top of the QUIC transport. The message MUST be followed by the end-of-message (EOM) sequence, ]]>]]>>. Upon reception of the message, the receiving peer's QUIC layer conceptually passes the message to the Messages layer. If the :base:1.1 capability is advertised by both peers, the chunked framing mechanism defined in Section 4.2 of [RFC6242] is used for the remainder of the NETCONF session. Otherwise, the old end-of-message-based mechanism (see Section 4.3 of [RFC6242]) is used. 7. 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. 7.1. 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. Dai, et al. Expires 19 April 2027 [Page 9] Internet-Draft NETCONF over QUIC October 2026 * Note that the if-feature "quic-initiate" conditions if the "quic" container is available in the schema. 7.2. The "netconf-server" augmentation The following tree diagram [RFC8340] illustrates the augmentation of the QUIC server grouping into the NETCONF server container: 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. 8. YANG Module This YANG module has normative references to [I-D.ietf-netconf-netconf-client-server], [I-D.ietf-netconf-quic-client-server], and [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-semver]. file "ietf-netconf-quic@1.0.0-draft-ietf-netconf-over- quic-09.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 { Dai, et al. Expires 19 April 2027 [Page 10] Internet-Draft NETCONF over QUIC October 2026 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"; } import ietf-quic-server { prefix quics; reference "RFC CCCC: YANG Groupings for QUIC Clients and QUIC Servers"; } import ietf-yang-semver { prefix ysv; reference "draft-ietf-netmod-yang-semver: YANG Semantic Versioning"; } organization "IETF NETCONF (Network Configuration) Working Group"; contact "WG Web: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/netconf WG List: NETCONF WG list Author: Jinyou Dai Author: Shaohua Yu Author: Weiqiang Cheng Author: Marc Blanchet Author: Per Andersson "; description "This module defines augmentations for a NETCONF server to also support the QUIC transport. Dai, et al. Expires 19 April 2027 [Page 11] Internet-Draft NETCONF over QUIC October 2026 Copyright (c) 2026 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', '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 2026-06-27 { ysv:version 1.0.0-draft-ietf-netconf-over-quic-09; 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 Dai, et al. Expires 19 April 2027 [Page 12] Internet-Draft NETCONF over QUIC October 2026 augment "/ncc:netconf-client/ncc:initiate" { if-feature "quic-initiate"; description "Add 'quic-initiate' 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 { description "QUIC-level client parameters to initiate a NETCONF over QUIC connection."; uses quicc:quic-client; } } } 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 Dai, et al. Expires 19 April 2027 [Page 13] Internet-Draft NETCONF over QUIC October 2026 9. Error codes 9.1. Transport Error Codes Error codes of secure transport layer are specified in [RFC9000]. There are not new transport Error Codes defined for NETCONF over QUIC. 9.2. Application Error Codes According to [RFC9000], management of application error codes is left to application protocols. And application error codes can be used by RESET_STREAM Frame and STOP_SENDING Frame. Application error codes for NETCONF over QUIC are listed as follows: * NO_NETCONF PROTOCOL ERROR (0x00): no NETCONF errors happens. * NETCONF CLOSE SESSION_ERROR (0x01): The peer tries to close a session which is not initiated by it. * NETCONF CLOSE STREAM ERROR (0x02): The peer tries to close a bidirectional stream when the NETCONF session is active. 10. Implementation status Note to the RFC-Editor: Please remove this section before publishing. 10.1. Fiberhome S16800 series products Fiberhome has implemented the mechanism described in this draft in its S16800 series products and the network management system. 10.2. PCL DCS system PCL DCS system and the corresonding controller have implemented the mechanism described in this draft. 10.3. Viagenie solution Viagenie has implemented the mechanism described in this draft, and the solution can be seen in "https://github.com/deepspaceip/dipt- netconf-over-quic-proxy". Dai, et al. Expires 19 April 2027 [Page 14] Internet-Draft NETCONF over QUIC October 2026 10.4. RYATON S10600 series switch RYATON Network Technology Co.Ltd has implemented the mechanism described in this draft in RYT S10600 series swicth and the RYT network management system. 10.5. New H3C implementation New H3C technologies(Comware V9 and later) implements the mechanism described in this draft in its relevant software platform. 11. Security Considerations The security considerations described throughout [RFC8446], [RFC6241], [RFC9000], [RFC9001], [RFC8071] and [I-D.ietf-netconf-netconf-client-server] apply here as well. "NoQ" requires verification of server identity and client identity according to [RFC7589]. "NoQ" relies on QUIC, which itself relies on TLS 1.3 and thus by default supports the protections against downgrade attacks described in [RFC9325]. QUIC specific issues and their mitigations are described in Section 21 of [RFC9000]. 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. The implementation needs to guarantee the security of resources such as connection and stream. 12. 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': Dai, et al. Expires 19 April 2027 [Page 15] Internet-Draft NETCONF over QUIC October 2026 * 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 * Assignment Notes: Port 831 was assigned to netconf-beep, but a de- assignment is requested in [RFC9900]. 13. 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. 14. References 14.1. 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-41, 4 December 2025, . [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-09, 14 October 2026, . [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-semver] Clarke, J., Wilton, R., Rahman, R., Lengyel, B., Sterne, J., and B. Claise, "YANG Semantic Versioning", Work in Dai, et al. Expires 19 April 2027 [Page 16] Internet-Draft NETCONF over QUIC October 2026 Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-netmod-yang-semver- 29, 6 October 2026, . [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-module-filename] Andersson, P., "YANG Module File Name Convention", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module- filename-15, 20 August 2026, . [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC5277] Chisholm, S. and H. Trevino, "NETCONF Event Notifications", RFC 5277, DOI 10.17487/RFC5277, July 2008, . [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, . [RFC6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, DOI 10.17487/RFC6242, June 2011, . [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, . [RFC8071] Watsen, K., "NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home", RFC 8071, DOI 10.17487/RFC8071, February 2017, . [RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018, . [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, . Dai, et al. Expires 19 April 2027 [Page 17] Internet-Draft NETCONF over QUIC October 2026 [RFC8639] Voit, E., Clemm, A., Gonzalez Prieto, A., Nilsen-Nygaard, E., and A. Tripathy, "Subscription to YANG Notifications", RFC 8639, DOI 10.17487/RFC8639, September 2019, . [RFC9000] Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000, DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021, . [RFC9001] Thomson, M., Ed. and S. Turner, Ed., "Using TLS to Secure QUIC", RFC 9001, DOI 10.17487/RFC9001, May 2021, . [RFC9325] Sheffer, Y., Saint-Andre, P., and T. Fossati, "Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 9325, DOI 10.17487/RFC9325, November 2022, . 14.2. Informative References [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, . [RFC8340] Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams", BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018, . [RFC9900] Boucadair, M., "Updates to NETCONF Transport Port Numbers", RFC 9900, DOI 10.17487/RFC9900, December 2025, . [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-03, 18 June 2025, . [I-D.many-tiptop-quic-profile] Blanchet, M. and W. Eddy, "QUIC Profile for Deep Space", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-many-tiptop-quic- profile-03, 6 July 2026, . Dai, et al. Expires 19 April 2027 [Page 18] Internet-Draft NETCONF over QUIC October 2026 [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-14, 13 September 2025, . Authors' Addresses Jinyou Dai Fiberhome Telecom LTD./CICT. 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 Ionio Systems Sweden Email: per.ietf@ionio.se Dai, et al. Expires 19 April 2027 [Page 19]