Internet Draft Andy Bierman Chris Bucci Cisco Systems, Inc. Russell Dietz Apptitude, Inc. Albin Warth Netscout Systems, Inc. 17 July 2001 Remote Monitoring MIB Extensions for Identifying Application Protocol Verbs Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 [RFC2026]. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 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." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. Distribution of this document is unlimited. Please send comments to the RMONMIB WG mailing list . Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers July 2001 1. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. 2. Abstract This memo defines an experimental portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes the algorithms required to identify protocol operations (verbs) within the protocol encapsulations managed with the Remote Network Monitoring MIB Version 2 [RFC2021]. 3. Table of Contents 1 Copyright Notice ................................................ 2 2 Abstract ........................................................ 2 3 Table of Contents ............................................... 2 4 The SNMP Network Management Framework ........................... 3 5 Overview ........................................................ 4 5.1 Protocol Identifier Framework ................................. 4 5.2 Protocol Identifier Extensions for Application Verbs .......... 4 5.3 Terms ......................................................... 5 5.4 Relationship to the RMON-2 MIB ................................ 6 5.5 Relationship to the RMON MIB Protocol Identifier Reference .... 6 6 Definitions ..................................................... 6 6.1 Verb Identifier Macro Format .................................. 6 6.1.1 Lexical Conventions ......................................... 6 6.1.2 Extended Grammar for the PI Language ........................ 6 6.1.3 Mapping of the Parent Protocol Name ......................... 7 6.1.4 Mapping of the DESCRIPTION Clause ........................... 8 6.1.5 Mapping of the REFERENCE Clause ............................. 8 6.1.6 Mapping of the Verb List Clause ............................. 8 6.1.6.1 Mapping of the Verb Name Field ............................ 8 6.1.6.2 Mapping of the Verb Enum Field ............................ 9 6.2 Protocol Directory Requirements ............................... 9 6.2.1 Mapping of the Verb Layer Numbering Space ................... 9 6.2.2 Mapping of the ProtocolDirID object ......................... 10 6.2.3 Mapping of the ProtocolDirParameters object ................. 10 6.2.4 Mapping of the ProtocolDirLocalIndex object ................. 10 6.2.5 Mapping of the protocolDirDescr object ...................... 10 6.2.6 Mapping of the protocolDirType object ....................... 11 6.2.7 Mapping of the protocolDirAddressMapConfig object ........... 11 6.2.8 Mapping of the protocolDirHostConfig object ................. 11 6.2.9 Mapping of the protocolDirMatrixConfig object ............... 11 6.2.10 Mapping of the protocolDirOwner object ..................... 11 Expires January 17, 2002 [Page 2] Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers July 2001 6.2.11 Mapping of the protocolDirStatus object .................... 11 7 Implementation Considerations ................................... 12 7.1 Stateful Protocol Decoding .................................... 12 7.2 Packet Capture ................................................ 12 7.3 RMON-2 MIB Collections ........................................ 12 8 Appendix A: Usage Examples ...................................... 14 8.1 FTP Example ................................................... 14 8.2 POP3 Example .................................................. 15 8.3 SNMP Example .................................................. 16 8.4 HTTP Example .................................................. 17 8.5 SMTP Example .................................................. 17 9 Intellectual Property ........................................... 18 10 Acknowledgements ............................................... 18 11 References ..................................................... 19 12 Security Considerations ........................................ 21 13 Author's Address ............................................... 22 14 Full Copyright Statement ....................................... 23 4. The SNMP Network Management Framework The SNMP Management Framework presently consists of five major components: o An overall architecture, described in RFC 2571 [RFC2571]. o Mechanisms for describing and naming objects and events for the purpose of management. The first version of this Structure of Management Information (SMI) is called SMIv1 and described in RFC 1155 [RFC1155], RFC 1212 [RFC1212] and RFC 1215 [RFC1215]. The second version, called SMIv2, is described in RFC 2578 [RFC2578], RFC 2579 [RFC2579] and RFC 2580 [RFC2580]. o Message protocols for transferring management information. The first version of the SNMP message protocol is called SNMPv1 and described in RFC 1157 [RFC1157]. A second version of the SNMP message protocol, which is not an Internet standards track protocol, is called SNMPv2c and described in RFC 1901 [RFC1901] and RFC 1906 [RFC1906]. The third version of the message protocol is called SNMPv3 and described in RFC 1906 [RFC1906], RFC 2572 [RFC2572] and RFC 2574 [RFC2574]. o Protocol operations for accessing management information. The first set of protocol operations and associated PDU formats is described in RFC 1157 [RFC1157]. A second set of protocol operations and associated PDU formats is described in RFC 1905 Expires January 17, 2002 [Page 3] Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers July 2001 [RFC1905]. o A set of fundamental applications described in RFC 2573 [RFC2573] and the view-based access control mechanism described in RFC 2575 [RFC2575]. A more detailed introduction to the current SNMP Management Framework can be found in RFC 2570 [RFC2570]. Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed the Management Information Base or MIB. Objects in the MIB are defined using the mechanisms defined in the SMI. This memo does not specify a MIB module. 5. Overview There is a need for a standardized way of identifying the protocol operations defined for particular application protocols. Different protocol operations can have very different performance characteristics, and it is desirable to collect certain metrics at this level of granularity. This memo defines extensions to the existing protocol identifier structure [RFC2895], and is intended to update, not obsolete, the existing protocol identifier encoding rules. 5.1. Protocol Identifier Framework The RMON Protocol Identifier (PI) structure [RFC2895] allows for a variable number of layer identifiers. Each layer contributes 4 octets to the protocolDirID OCTET STRING and one octet to the protocolDirParameters OCTET STRING. These two MIB objects comprise the index into the protocolDirTable [RFC2021], and represent a globally unique identifier for a particular protocol encapsulation (or set of encapsulations if the wild-card base layer is used). 5.2. Protocol Identifier Extensions for Application Verbs The existing RMON protocol identifier architecture requires that an application verb be represented by one additional protocol layer, appended to the protocol identifier for the parent application. Since some application verbs are defined as strings which can exceed 4 octets in length, an integer mapping must be provided for each string. This memo specifies how the verb layer is structured, as well as a verb identifier macro syntax for specification of verb name to integer mappings. Expires January 17, 2002 [Page 4] Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers July 2001 5.3. Terms 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] This document uses some terms defined in the RMON Protocol Identifier Reference document [RFC2895], and some new terms that need introduction here. Application Verb Also called simply 'verb'. Refers to one of potentially many protocol operations that are defined by a particular application protocol. Note that an application verb is not equivalent to an application protocol sub-command or opcode within a packet containing a PDU for the application. An application verb is a transaction type, and may involve several PDU types within the application protocol (e.g., SNMP Get-PDU and Response-PDU). In some applications, a verb may encompass protocol operations pertaining to more than one protocol entry in the protocol directory (e.g., ftp and ftp-data). Connect Verb The special application verb associated with connection or session setup and tear-down traffic, and not attributed to any other verb for the application. This verb is assigned the enumeration value of zero, and the verb 'connect(0)' is implicitly defined for all application protocols. Parent Application One of potentially many protocol encapsulations which identifies a particular application protocol. This term refers generically to any or all such encapsulations for a given set of application verbs. Verb Layer The portion of the protocol identifier octet string which identifies the application verb. Verb Set The group of verbs enumerated for a particular application protocol. The list of verb strings within a particular verb- identifier macro invocation is also called the verb set for that verb identifier. Expires January 17, 2002 [Page 5] Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers July 2001 5.4. Relationship to the RMON-2 MIB The RMON-2 MIB [RFC2021] contains the protocolDirTable MIB objects used to identify all protocol encapsulations that can be monitored by a particular RMON agent. This memo describes how these MIB objects are mapped by an implementation, for entries which identify application verbs. This document does not define any new MIB objects to identify application verbs. 5.5. Relationship to the RMON MIB Protocol Identifier Reference The RMON MIB Protocol Identifier Reference [RFC2895] defines the RMON Protocol Identifier Macro Specification Language, as well as the encoding rules for the ProtocolDirID and protocolDirParameters OCTET STRINGs. This memo defines extensions to the Protocol Identifier Reference document for the identification of application verb information. It does not obsolete any portion of the Protocol Identifier Reference document. 6. Definitions 6.1. Verb Identifier Macro Format The following example is meant to introduce the verb-identifier macro. This macro-like construct is used to represent protocol verbs for a specific parent application. 6.1.1. Lexical Conventions The following keyword is added to the PI language: VERB-IDENTIFIER 6.1.2. Extended Grammar for the PI Language The following is the extended BNF notation for the grammar with starting symbol , for representing verb identifier macros. Note that only the term is actually modified from the definition in [RFC2895]. The syntax is not reproduced here, since this memo is intended to extend that definition, not replace it. Expires January 17, 2002 [Page 6] Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers July 2001 -- a file containing one or more -- Protocol Identifier (PI) definitions = [ | ]... -- a PI definition = "VERB-IDENTIFIER" "DESCRIPTION" string [ "REFERENCE" string ] "::=" "{" "}" -- a list of verb identifier string = [ "," ]... -- a verb identifier string = [] "(" [] [] ")" [] -- a verb name = lcname -- a verb enumeration = -- a positive integer = any integer value greater than zero and less than 16,777,216 -- syntax is defined in [RFC2895] -- syntax is defined in [RFC2895] -- lcname syntax is defined in [RFC2895] 6.1.3. Mapping of the Parent Protocol Name The "parentProtoName" value, called the "parent protocol name" MUST be an ASCII string consisting of 1 to 64 characters. The encoding rules are exactly as specified in section 6.2.4 of [RFC2895], for the mapping of the protocol name field. If a and a field contain the same value, then they refer to the same protocol. A protocol identifier macro SHOULD exist in the for at least one encapsulation of the parent application protocol, if any verb identifier macros referencing that parent application are present in the Expires January 17, 2002 [Page 7] Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers July 2001 . 6.1.4. Mapping of the DESCRIPTION Clause The DESCRIPTION clause provides a textual description of the protocol verb set identified by this macro. It SHOULD NOT contain details about items covered by the DECODING and REFERENCE clauses. The DESCRIPTION clause MUST be present in all verb-identifier macro declarations. 6.1.5. Mapping of the REFERENCE Clause If a publicly available reference document exists for this set of application protocol verbs, it SHOULD be listed here. Typically this will be a URL, otherwise it will be the name and address of the controlling body. The REFERENCE clause is optional, but SHOULD be implemented if an authoritative reference exists which specifies the application protocol verbs defined in the section of this macro. 6.1.6. Mapping of the Verb List Clause The verb list clause MUST be present, and is used to identify a list of application verb names, and associate a numeric constant with each verb name. At least one verb MUST be specified, and a maximum of 16,777,215 (2^^24 - 1) verbs MAY be specified. This enumerated list SHOULD be densely numbered and (i.e. valued from '1' to 'N', where 'N' is the total number of verbs defined in the macro). 6.1.6.1. Mapping of the Verb Name Field The field is case-sensitive, and SHOULD be set to the most appropriate string name for each application verb. If a readable string is defined in an authoritative document, then that string SHOULD be used. If no such string exists, then an appropriate but arbitrary string should be selected for this value. Verb names MUST be unique for a particular parent application. Note that the special 'connect(0)' verb is implicitly defined for each application protocol. It is possible for an explicit definition of this verb (e.g. 'connect(8)' for http) to exist for a protocol, as well as the implicit 'connect(0)' verb. Expires January 17, 2002 [Page 8] Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers July 2001 6.1.6.2. Mapping of the Verb Enum Field The field MUST be unique for all verbs associated with a particular parent application. This field MUST contain a value between '1' and '16,777,215' inclusive. 6.2. Protocol Directory Requirements This section defines how the protocolDirTable should be populated for any application verb identified with a verb-identifier macro. An agent MUST implement all applicable protocolDirTable MIB objects on behalf of each supported application verb. 6.2.1. Mapping of the Verb Layer Numbering Space The verb layer consists of the 4 octets within the protocolDirID INDEX field which identify a particular application verb. Figure 1 Verb Layer Format ----------------- protocolDirID string fragment ---+--------+--------+--------+--------+ | resrvd | | .. | set to | verb enumeration value | | zero | (a) (b) (c) | ---+--------+--------+--------+--------+ octet | 1 | 3 | count The first octet is reserved for future use and MUST be set to zero. The next three octets identify the field used to enumerate the particular application verb represented by the field. This field is a 24-bit unsigned integer, encoded in network byte order. The value zero is reserved to identify the special 'connect(0)' verb. This verb enumeration value (i.e. '0' part of 'connect(0)') MUST NOT be redefined in a verb identifier macro verb list. Note that the verb name 'connect' is not reserved and MAY be redefined in a verb list. Expires January 17, 2002 [Page 9] Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers July 2001 6.2.2. Mapping of the ProtocolDirID object The protocolDirID OCTET STRING value for a particular application verb is represented by the protocolDirID value for the parent application, appended with the verb's layer identifier value. Figure 2 ProtocolDirID Format for Verbs ------------------------------ protocolDirID string +--------+--------+--------+--------+ | parent | verb | | protocolDirID | layer | | string | value | +--------+--------+--------+--------+ octet | length of parent ID | 4 | count The protocolDirID object is encoded as the protocolDirID value of the parent application, followed by four additional octets representing the verb layer. The verb layer value is encoded as [0.a.b.c] where 'a' is the high order byte, 'b' is the middle order byte, and 'c' is the low order byte of the field for the specific application verb value. A valid PI verb enumeration will be encoded in the range "0.0.0.0" to "0.255.255.255", where the special value "0.0.0.0" is reserved for the implicitly defined 'connect(0)' verb. 6.2.3. Mapping of the ProtocolDirParameters object The protocolDirParameters OCTET STRING value for a particular application verb is represented by the protocolDirParameters value for the parent application, appended with one octet containing the value zero. 6.2.4. Mapping of the ProtocolDirLocalIndex object The agent MUST assign an appropriate protocolDirLocalIndex value for each application verb, according to the encoding rules defined for this object in [RFC2021] and [RFC2895]. 6.2.5. Mapping of the protocolDirDescr object The agent MUST convey the value for a particular application verb in the protocolDirDescr object. This object SHOULD be encoded as Expires January 17, 2002 [Page 10] Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers July 2001 the protocolDirDescr value for the parent application, appended with a 'dot' character, followed by the exact text contained in the field. 6.2.6. Mapping of the protocolDirType object The agent MUST set the protocolDirType object for each application verb to the value representing the empty bit set ( {} ). 6.2.7. Mapping of the protocolDirAddressMapConfig object The agent MUST set the protocolDirAddressMapConfig object for each application verb to the value 'notSupported(1)'. 6.2.8. Mapping of the protocolDirHostConfig object The agent MUST set the protocolDirHostConfig object for each application verb present in the protocol directory, according to the monitoring capabilities for each verb. The agent MAY set this object to the same value as configured in the parent application protocolDirHostConfig object. The agent MAY choose to transition this object from the value 'supportedOn(2)' to 'supportedOff(3)', if the parent application protocolDirHostConfig object first transitions from 'supportedOn(2)' to 'supportedOff(3)'. 6.2.9. Mapping of the protocolDirMatrixConfig object The agent MUST set the protocolDirMatrixConfig object for each application verb, according to the monitoring capabilities for each verb. The agent MAY set this object to the same value as configured in the parent application protocolDirMatrixConfig object. The agent MAY choose to transition this object from the value 'supportedOn(2)' to 'supportedOff(3)', if the parent application protocolDirMatrixConfig object first transitions from 'supportedOn(2)' to 'supportedOff(3)'. 6.2.10. Mapping of the protocolDirOwner object This object is encoded exactly the same for application verbs as for other protocolDirTable entries, according to the rules specified in the RMON-2 MIB [RFC2021]. 6.2.11. Mapping of the protocolDirStatus object This object is encoded exactly the same for application verbs as for other protocolDirTable entries, according to the rules specified in Expires January 17, 2002 [Page 11] Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers July 2001 RMON-2 MIB [RFC2021]. 7. Implementation Considerations This section discusses the implementation implications for agents which support verbs in the protocol directory, and the RMON collections which utilize the protocol directory. 7.1. Stateful Protocol Decoding Implementations of the RMON-2 MIB for AL and NL protocols typically require little if any state to be maintained by the probe. The probe can generally decide whether to count a packet and its octets on the packet's own merits, without referencing or updating any state information. Implementations of the RMON-2 MIB at the verb layer will, for many protocols, need to maintain state information in order to correctly classify a packet as "belonging" to one verb or another. The examples below illustrate this point. For SNMP over UDP, a Response-PDU for an SNMP Get-PDU can't be distinguished from a Response-PDU for a Getnext-PDU. A probe would need to maintain state information in order to correlate a Response-PDU from B to A with a previous request from A to B. For application protocols carried over a stream-based transport such as TCP, the information required to identify an application verb can span several packets. A probe would need to follow the transport-layer flow in order to correctly parse the application-layer data. 7.2. Packet Capture For packet capture based on verb-layer protocol directory filtering, the decision to include a packet in the capture buffer may need to be deferred until the packet can be conclusively attributed to a particular verb. A probe may need to pre-buffer packets while deciding to include or exclude them from capture based on other packets that have not yet arrived. 7.3. RMON-2 MIB Collections Data collections such as the protocol distribution or AL Host Table require that each packet is counted only once, i.e. a given packet is fully classified as a single protocol encapsulation, which resolves to a Expires January 17, 2002 [Page 12] Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers July 2001 single leaf entry in the protocol directory. Also, octet counters related to protocol classification are incremented by the entire size of packet, not just the octets associated with a particular encapsulation layer. It is possible that particular application protocols will allow multiple types of verbs to be present is a single packet. In this case, the agent must choose one verb type, and therefore one protocol directory entry, in order to properly count such a packet. It is an implementation-specific matter as to which verb type an agent selects to identify a packet, in the event more than one verb type is present in that packet. Some possible choices include: - the first verb type encountered in the packet - the verb type with the most instances in the packet - the verb type using the largest number of octets in the packet - the most 'interesting' verb type in the packet (based on knowledge of that application protocol). Expires January 17, 2002 [Page 13] Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers July 2001 8. Appendix A: Usage Examples The following examples are listed to demonstrate how RMON verb identifiers are declared. [ed. the WG needs to decide if verb macros should be declared in a separate RFC, the way the PI macros are split out from the PI reference document.] 8.1. FTP Example This example defines verb enumeration values for the File Transfer Protocol, as defined in RFC 959 and updated by RFC 2228 and RFC 2640. Note that verb name strings specified in the field are not limited to 4 characters in length. In the FTP protocol, all the command names are 4 characters in length, and the verb name string should match the official command name as closely as possible. ftp VERB-IDENTIFIER DESCRIPTION "The set of verbs for FTP is derived from the list of commands defined for the File Transfer Protocol, which are identified by case-insensitive strings. The commands are simply listed in the order found in the FTP documentation." REFERENCE "File Transfer Protocol, RFC 959, Section 4.1; FTP Security Extensions, RFC 2228, Section 3; Internationalization of the File Transfer Protocol, RFC 2640, Section 4.1." ::= { user(1), -- USER NAME pass(2), -- PASSWORD acct(3), -- ACCOUNT cwd(4), -- CHANGE WORKING DIRECTORY cdup(5), -- CHANGE TO PARENT DIRECTORY smnt(6), -- STRUCTURE MOUNT rein(7), -- REINITIALIZE quit(8), -- LOGOUT port(9), -- DATA PORT pasv(10), -- PASSIVE type(11), -- REPRESENTATION TYPE stru(12), -- FILE STRUCTURE mode(13), -- TRANSFER MODE retr(14), -- RETRIEVE Expires January 17, 2002 [Page 14] Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers July 2001 stor(15), -- STORE stou(16), -- STORE UNIQUE appe(17), -- APPEND (with create) allo(18), -- ALLOCATE rest(19), -- RESTART rnfr(20), -- RENAME FROM rnto(21), -- RENAME TO abor(22), -- ABORT dele(23), -- DELETE rmd(24), -- REMOVE DIRECTORY mkd(25), -- MAKE DIRECTORY pwd(26), -- PRINT WORKING DIRECTORY list(27), -- LIST nlst(28), -- NAME LIST site(29), -- SITE PARAMETERS syst(30), -- SYSTEM stat(31), -- STATUS help(32), -- HELP noop(33), -- NOOP auth(34), -- AUTHENTICATION/SECURITY MECHANISM adat(35), -- AUTHENTICATION/SECURITY DATA pbsz(36), -- PROTECTION BUFFER SIZE prot(37), -- DATA CHANNEL PROTECTION LEVEL ccc(38), -- CLEAR COMMAND CHANNEL mic(39), -- INTEGRITY PROTECTED COMMAND conf(40), -- CONFIDENTIALITY PROTECTED COMMAND enc(41), -- PRIVACY PROTECTED COMMAND lang(42) -- LANGUAGE } 8.2. POP3 Example This example defines verb enumeration values for the Post Office Protocol, Version 3, as defined in RFC 1939 and updated by RFC 2449. pop3 VERB-IDENTIFIER DESCRIPTION "The set of verbs for POP3 is derived from the list of commands defined for the Post Office Protocol, which are identified by case-insensitive strings. The commands are simply listed in the order found in the POP3 command summary." REFERENCE "Post Office Protocol, Version 3, RFC 1939, Section 9; Expires January 17, 2002 [Page 15] Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers July 2001 POP3 Extension Mechanism, RFC 2449, Section 5." ::= { user(1), pass(2), quit(3), stat(4), list(5), retr(6), dele(7), noop(8), rset(9), apop(10), top(11), uidl(12), capa(13) } 8.3. SNMP Example This example defines verb enumeration values for the Simple Network Management Protocol, as defined in RFC 1905. snmp VERB-IDENTIFIER DESCRIPTION "The set of verbs for SNMP is derived from the list of PDU transaction types in the Protocol Operations document for SNMPv2. Note that the 'Response' and 'Report' PDUs are not considered verbs, but are classified as belonging to the transaction type associated with the request PDU." REFERENCE "Protocol Operations for Version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2), RFC 1905, Section 3." ::= { get(1), get-next(2), get-bulk(3), set(4), inform-request(5), trap(6) } Expires January 17, 2002 [Page 16] Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers July 2001 8.4. HTTP Example This example defines verb enumeration values for the Hypertext Transfer Protocol, version 1.1, as defined in RFC 2616. http VERB-IDENTIFIER DESCRIPTION "The set of verbs for HTTP is derived from the list of methods defined for the Hypertext Transfer Protocol, which are identified by case-sensitive strings. The commands are simply listed in the order found in the HTTP/1.1 documentation. Methods commonly used in HTTP/1.0 are a proper subset of those used in HTTP/1.1. Both versions of the protocol are in current use." REFERENCE "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1, RFC 2616, Section 9; Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0, RFC 1945, Section 8." ::= { options(1), get(2), head(3), post(4), put(5), delete(6), trace(7), connect(8) -- reserved for future use by HTTP/1.1 } 8.5. SMTP Example This example defines verb enumeration values for the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol as defined in RFC 2821. smtp VERB-IDENTIFIER DESCRIPTION "The set of verbs for SMTP is derived from the set of commands defined for the protocol. These commands are identified by case-insensitive strings. Commands are listed in the order found in RFC 2821. The special "xcmd" verb is defined here as a catch-all for private-use commands, which must start with the letter 'X'." REFERENCE "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol -- RFC 2821, sections 4.1.1 Expires January 17, 2002 [Page 17] Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers July 2001 and 4.1.5." ::= { ehlo(1), -- Extended HELLO (4.1.1.1) helo(2), -- HELLO (4.1.1.1) mail(3), -- MAIL (4.1.1.2) rcpt(4), -- RECIPIENT (4.1.1.3) data(5), -- DATA (4.1.1.4) rset(6), -- RESET (4.1.1.5) vrfy(7), -- VERIFY (4.1.1.6) expn(8), -- EXPAND (4.1.1.7) help(9), -- HELP (4.1.1.8) noop(10), -- NOOP (4.1.1.9) quit(11), -- QUIT (4.1.1.10) xcmd(12) -- Catch-all for private-use "X" commands (4.1.5) } 9. Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards- related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive Director. 10. Acknowledgements This memo is a product of the RMONMIB WG. Expires January 17, 2002 [Page 18] Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers July 2001 11. References [RFC1155] Rose, M., and K. McCloghrie, "Structure and Identification of Management Information for TCP/IP-based Internets", RFC 1155, Performance Systems International, Hughes LAN Systems, May 1990. [RFC1157] Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M., and J. Davin, "Simple Network Management Protocol", RFC 1157, SNMP Research, Performance Systems International, Performance Systems International, MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, May 1990. [RFC1212] Rose, M., and K. McCloghrie, "Concise MIB Definitions", RFC 1212, Performance Systems International, Hughes LAN Systems, March 1991. [RFC1215] M. Rose, "A Convention for Defining Traps for use with the SNMP", RFC 1215, Performance Systems International, March 1991. [RFC1901] SNMPv2 Working Group, Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Introduction to Community-based SNMPv2", RFC 1901, SNMP Research, Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., Dover Beach Consulting, Inc., International Network Services, January 1996. [RFC1905] SNMPv2 Working Group, Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Protocol Operations for Version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1905, SNMP Research, Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., Dover Beach Consulting, Inc., International Network Services, January 1996. [RFC1906] SNMPv2 Working Group, Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Transport Mappings for Version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1906, SNMP Research, Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., Dover Beach Consulting, Inc., International Network Services, January 1996. [RFC2021] S. Waldbusser, "Remote Network Monitoring MIB (RMON-2)", RFC 2021, International Network Services, January 1997. Expires January 17, 2002 [Page 19] Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers July 2001 [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", RFC 2026, Harvard University, October, 1996. [RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels" RFC 2119, Harvard University, March 1997. [RFC2570] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart, "Introduction to Version 3 of the Internet-standard Network Management Framework", RFC 2570, SNMP Research, Inc., TIS Labs at Network Associates, Inc., Ericsson, Cisco Systems, April 1999. [RFC2571] Harrington, D., Presuhn, R., and B. Wijnen, "An Architecture for Describing SNMP Management Frameworks", RFC 2571, Cabletron Systems, Inc., BMC Software, Inc., IBM T. J. Watson Research, April 1999. [RFC2572] Case, J., Harrington D., Presuhn R., and B. Wijnen, "Message Processing and Dispatching for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 2572, SNMP Research, Inc., Cabletron Systems, Inc., BMC Software, Inc., IBM T. J. Watson Research, April 1999. [RFC2573] Levi, D., Meyer, P., and B. Stewart, "SNMPv3 Applications", RFC 2573, SNMP Research, Inc., Secure Computing Corporation, Cisco Systems, April 1999. [RFC2574] Blumenthal, U., and B. Wijnen, "User-based Security Model (USM) for version 3 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv3)", RFC 2574, IBM T. J. Watson Research, April 1999. [RFC2575] Wijnen, B., Presuhn, R., and K. McCloghrie, "View-based Access Control Model (VACM) for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 2575, IBM T. J. Watson Research, BMC Software, Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., April 1999. [RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Structure of Management Information Version 2 Expires January 17, 2002 [Page 20] Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers July 2001 (SMIv2)", RFC 2578, STD 58, Cisco Systems, SNMPinfo, TU Braunschweig, SNMP Research, First Virtual Holdings, International Network Services, April 1999. [RFC2579] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Textual Conventions for SMIv2", RFC 2579, STD 58, Cisco Systems, SNMPinfo, TU Braunschweig, SNMP Research, First Virtual Holdings, International Network Services, April 1999. [RFC2580] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Conformance Statements for SMIv2", RFC 2580, STD 58, Cisco Systems, SNMPinfo, TU Braunschweig, SNMP Research, First Virtual Holdings, International Network Services, April 1999. [RFC2895] Bierman, A., Bucci, C., and R. Iddon, "Remote Network Monitoring MIB Protocol Identifiers", RFC 2895, Cisco Systems, 3Com, Inc., August 2000. 12. Security Considerations This memo defines the structure of a portion of the Remote Monitoring MIB framework, but does not define any MIB objects, protocol operations, or other mechanisms which can potentially introduce new security risks into a managed system. Expires January 17, 2002 [Page 21] Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers July 2001 13. Author's Address Andy Bierman Cisco Systems, Inc. 170 West Tasman Drive San Jose, CA USA 95134 Phone: +1 408-527-3711 Email: abierman@cisco.com Chris Bucci Cisco Systems, Inc. 170 West Tasman Drive San Jose, CA USA 95134 Phone: +1 408-527-5337 Email: cbucci@cisco.com Russell Dietz Apptitude, Inc. 6330 San Ignacio Avenue San Jose, CA USA 95119 Phone: +1 408-574-2256 Email: rsdietz@apptitude.com Albin Warth NetScout Systems, Inc. 4 Technology Park Drive Westford, MA 01886 Phone: (978) 614-4306 Email: albin@netscout.com Expires January 17, 2002 [Page 22] Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers July 2001 14. Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Expires January 17, 2002 [Page 23]