Internet Draft M. Wasserman Document: draft-ietf-entmib-impl-check-00.txt Wind River Expires: November 2001 May 2001 Entity MIB Implementation Checklist Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of 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. Abstract This document is a checklist to verify the completeness of Entity MIB (Version 2)[RFC2737] agent and manager implementations based on RFC 2737. This document will be used to gather and evaluate implementation experience in an effort to determine whether RFC 2737 is ready to advance to Draft Standard. Wasserman Expires November 2001 1 Entity MIB Implementation Checklist May 2001 Table of Contents Status of this Memo................................................1 Abstract...........................................................1 Copyright Notice...................................................2 Conventions Used In This Document..................................2 Agent Implementation Checklist.....................................3 Manager Implementation Checklist...................................5 Security Considerations............................................7 References.........................................................7 Author's Address...................................................7 Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved. Conventions Used In This Document 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]. Wasserman Expires November 2001 2 Entity MIB Implementation Checklist May 2001 Agent Implementation Checklist This section should be completed by individuals or companies who have implemented RFC 2737 support in an SNMP agent. Is your Entity MIB agent an independent implementation? Or is it based on public domain or commercial code? If it is not independent, what code base was used? Have you done any interoperability testing with managers that implement the Entity MIB? If so, which manager implementations have been used with your agent? For each manager with which you have interoperated, which of the following features were tested? Duplicate this section for each manager, and indicate yes or no (Y/N) for each feature: Manager Implementation Used: Original Manager Code Base (if known): (Y/N) Manager implemented independently from your agent? (Y/N) Read access to Entity MIB variables. (Y/N) Write access to Entity MIB variables. (Y/N) Sending and receiving Entity MIB notifications. (Y/N) Tested using SNMPv1/v2c. (Y/N) Tested using SNMPv3. Are there any unresolved interoperability issues between your Entity MIB agent and any Entity MIB manager that may indicate problems in the specification? If so, please provide technical details. Does your implementation support the following textual conventions, including the updates and changes since RFC 2037? (Y/N) Supports PhysicalIndex TC. (Y/N) Supports updated PhysicalClass TC. (Y/N) Uses new "stack(11)" enumeration. (List) Please list the PhysicalClass values suported by your implementation: (Y/N) Supports new SNMPEngineIDorNone TC. (Y/N) Does your agent support SNMPv3? Does your Entity MIB agent implement the following groups and objects? Indicate yes or no (Y or N) for each group and object: (Y/N) entityPhysical Group (Y/N) entPhysicalIndex (Y/N) entPhysicalDescr (Y/N) entPhysicalVendorType (Y/N) entPhysicalContainedIn (Y/N) entPhysicalClass (Y/N) entPhysicalParentRelPos (Y/N) entPhysicalName (Y/N) entPhysicalHardwareRev (Y/N) entPhysicalFirmwareRev Wasserman Expires November 2001 3 Entity MIB Implementation Checklist May 2001 (Y/N) entPhysicalSoftwareRev (Y/N) entPhysicalSerialNum (Y/N) entPhysicalMfgName (Y/N) entPhysicalModelName (Y/N) entPhysicalAlias (Y/N) entPhysicalAssetID (Y/N) entPhysicalIsFRU (Y/N) entityLogical Group (Y/N) entLogicalIndex (Y/N) entLogicalDescr (Y/N) entLogicalType (Y/N) entLogicalTAddress (Y/N) entLogicalTDomain (Y/N) entLogicalContextEngineID (Y/N) entLogicalContextName (Y/N) entityMapping Group (Y/N) entLPPhysicalIndex (Y/N) entAliasLogicalIndexOrZero (Y/N) entAliasMappingIdentifier (Y/N) entityGeneral Group (Y/N) entPhysicalChildIndex Does your implementation allow managers to write to the following read-write objects? Indicate yes or no (Y or N) for each object: (Y/N) entPhysicalSerialNum (Y/N) entPhysicalAlias (Y/N) entPhysicalAssetID Does your implementation include each of the following notifications? Indicate yes or no (Y or N) for each notification: (Y/N) entConfigChange Does your agent implement MODULE-COMPLIANCE? (Y/N) If so, does it provide compliance information for the Entity MIB? Wasserman Expires November 2001 4 Entity MIB Implementation Checklist May 2001 Manager Implementation Checklist This section should be completed by individuals or companies who have implemented RFC 2737 support in an SNMP manager. Companies that have implemented both an agent and a manager should complete both the agent and manager sections of this checklist. Is your Entity MIB manager an independent implementation? Or is it based on public domain or commercial code? If it is not independent, what code base was used? Have you done any interoperability testing with agents that implement the Entity MIB? If so, which agent implementations have been used with your manager? For each agent with which you have interoperated, which of the following features were tested? Duplicate this section for each agent, and indicate yes or no (Y/N) for each feature: Agent Implementation Used: Original Code Base (if known): (Y/N) Agent implemented independently from your manager? (Y/N) Read access to Entity MIB variables. (Y/N) Write access to Entity MIB variables. (Y/N) Sending and receiving Entity MIB notifications. (Y/N) Tested using SNMPv1/v2c. (Y/N) Tested using SNMPv3. Are there any unresolved interoperability issues between your Entity MIB manager and any Entity MIB agent that may indicate problems in the specification? If so, please provide technical details. Does your implementation support the following textual conventions, including the updates and changes since RFC 2037? (Y/N) Supports PhysicalIndex TC. (Y/N) Supports updated PhysicalClass TC. (Y/N) Displays names of enumerated types, including stack(11). (Y/N) Supports new SNMPEngineIDorNone TC. (Y/N) Does your manager support SNMPv3? Is your Entity MIB manager able to get and display the following groups and objects? Indicate yes or no (Y or N) for each group and object: (Y/N) entityPhysical Group (Y/N) entPhysicalIndex (Y/N) entPhysicalDescr (Y/N) entPhysicalVendorType (Y/N) entPhysicalContainedIn (Y/N) entPhysicalClass (Y/N) entPhysicalParentRelPos (Y/N) entPhysicalName Wasserman Expires November 2001 5 Entity MIB Implementation Checklist May 2001 (Y/N) entPhysicalHardwareRev (Y/N) entPhysicalFirmwareRev (Y/N) entPhysicalSoftwareRev (Y/N) entPhysicalSerialNum (Y/N) entPhysicalMfgName (Y/N) entPhysicalModelName (Y/N) entPhysicalAlias (Y/N) entPhysicalAssetID (Y/N) entPhysicalIsFRU (Y/N) entityLogical Group (Y/N) entLogicalIndex (Y/N) entLogicalDescr (Y/N) entLogicalType (Y/N) entLogicalTAddress (Y/N) entLogicalTDomain (Y/N) entLogicalContextEngineID (Y/N) entLogicalContextName (Y/N) entityMapping Group (Y/N) entLPPhysicalIndex (Y/N) entAliasLogicalIndexOrZero (Y/N) entAliasMappingIdentifier (Y/N) entityGeneral Group (Y/N) entPhysicalChildIndex Is your manager capable of writing to the following read-write objects? Indicate yes or no (Y or N) for each object: (Y/N) entPhysicalSerialNum (Y/N) entPhysicalAlias (Y/N) entPhysicalAssetID Does your manager understand each of the following notifications? Indicate yes or no (Y or N) for each notification: (Y/N) entConfigChange Does your manager understand MODULE-COMPLIANCE? (Y/N) If so, does it perform differently based on the compliance information for the Entity MIB? If so, please explain. Wasserman Expires November 2001 6 Entity MIB Implementation Checklist May 2001 Security Considerations This document is a checklist that can be used to determine the completeness of an RFC 2737 implementation. It does not specify a protocol, discusses no security issues and has no special security considerations. References [RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, BCP14, March 1999. [RFC2737] K. McCloghrie, A. Bierman, "Entity MIB (Version 2)", RFC 2737, April 1999. Author's Address Margaret Wasserman Wind River 10 Tara Blvd., Suite 330 Phone: (603) 897-2067 Nashua, NH 03062 Email: mrw@windriver.com Wasserman Expires November 2001 7