idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-04.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of Shadow Directories. == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 8 longer pages, the longest (page 5) being 77 lines == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form feeds but 8 pages Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (February 2004) is 7376 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: 'RFC3471' is defined on line 258, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3031' is defined on line 268, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3209' is defined on line 272, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3212' is defined on line 276, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3472' is defined on line 284, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3473' is defined on line 288, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'GMPLSSonetSDH' is defined on line 291, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'GMPLSLSRMIB' is defined on line 297, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'GMPLSTEMIB' is defined on line 304, but no explicit reference was found in the text -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2434 (Obsoleted by RFC 5226) == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-04 == Outdated reference: A later version (-16) exists of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-04 Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 16 warnings (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group Thomas D. Nadeau 3 Internet Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. 4 Expires: August 2004 5 Cheenu Srinivasan 6 Bloomberg L.P. 8 Adrian Farrel 9 Old Dog Consulting 11 Tim Hall 12 Ed Harrison 13 Data Connection Ltd. 15 February 2004 17 Definitions of Textual Conventions for Generalized Multiprotocol 18 Label Switching (GMPLS) Management 20 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-04.txt 22 Status of this Memo 24 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 25 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026. 27 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 28 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 29 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 30 Drafts. 32 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 33 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 34 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 35 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 37 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 38 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 40 Abstract 42 This document defines a Management Information Base (MIB) module 43 which contains Textual Conventions to represent commonly used 44 Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) management 45 information. The intent is that these TEXTUAL CONVENTIONS (TCs) will 46 be imported and used in GMPLS related MIB modules that would 47 otherwise define their own representations. 49 Table of Contents 51 1. Introduction 2 52 2. The SNMP Management Framework 2 53 3. GMPLS Textual Conventions MIB Definitions 3 54 4. Security Considerations 5 55 5. IANA Considerations 5 56 6. References 5 57 6.1. Normative References 5 58 6.2. Informational References 6 59 7. Authors' Addresses 7 60 8. Full Copyright Statement 7 61 9. Intellectual Property Notice 8 63 1. Introduction 65 This document defines a MIB module which contains Textual Conventions 66 for Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) networks. 67 These Textual Conventions should be imported by MIB modules which 68 manage GMPLS networks. 70 This MIB module supplements the MIB module in [TCMIB] that defines 71 Textual Conventions for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) 72 Management. [TCMIB] may continue to be used without this MIB module 73 in networks that support only MPLS. 75 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 76 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 77 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 79 Comments should be made directly to the CCAMP mailing list at 80 ccamp@ops.ietf.org. 82 For an introduction to the concepts of GMPLS, see [GMPLSArch]. 84 2. The SNMP Management Framework 86 For a detailed overview of the documents that describe the current 87 Internet-Standard Management Framework, please refer to section 7 of 88 RFC 3410 [RFC3410]. 90 Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed 91 the Management Information Base or MIB. MIB objects are generally 92 accessed through the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP). 93 Objects in the MIB are defined using the mechanisms defined in the 94 Structure of Management Information (SMI). This memo specifies a MIB 95 module that is compliant to the SMIv2, which is described in STD 58, 96 RFC 2578 [RFC2578], STD 58, RFC 2579 [RFC2579] and STD 58, RFC 2580 97 [RFC2580]. 99 3. GMPLS Textual Conventions MIB Definitions 101 GMPLS-TC-STD-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN 103 IMPORTS 104 MODULE-IDENTITY 105 FROM SNMPv2-SMI 106 transmission 107 FROM SNMPv2-SMI 108 TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 109 FROM SNMPv2-TC 110 ; 112 gmplsTCStdMIB MODULE-IDENTITY 113 LAST-UPDATED 114 "200402130900Z" -- 13 February 2004 9:00:00 GMT" 115 ORGANIZATION "Common Control And Management Protocols (CCAMP) 116 Working Group" 117 CONTACT-INFO 118 " Thomas D. Nadeau 119 Cisco Systems, Inc. 120 Email: tnadeau@cisco.com 122 Cheenu Srinivasan 123 Bloomberg L.P. 124 Email: cheenu@bloomberg.net 126 Adrian Farrel 127 Old Dog Consulting 128 Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk 130 Ed Harrison 131 Data Connection Ltd. 132 Email: ed.harrison@dataconnection.com 134 Tim Hall 135 Data Connection Ltd. 136 Email: tim.hall@dataconnection.com 138 Comments about this document should be emailed direct to the 139 CCAMP working group mailing list at ccamp@ops.ietf.org" 140 DESCRIPTION 141 "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This version of this 142 MIB module is part of RFCXXX; see the RFC itself for full legal 143 notices. 145 This MIB module defines Textual Conventions for concepts used in 146 Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) networks." 148 -- Revision history. 149 REVISION 150 "200402130900Z" -- 13 February 2004 9:00:00 GMT" 151 DESCRIPTION 152 "Initial version published as part of RFC XXXX." 153 -- Please see the IANA Considerations Section. 154 -- The requested gmplsStdMIB subId is xx, i.e. 155 ::= { gmplsStdMIB xx } 156 gmplsStdMIB OBJECT IDENTIFIER 157 -- This object identifier needs to be assigned by IANA. 158 -- Since mpls has been assigned an ifType of 166 we recommend 159 -- that this OID be 166 as well, i.e. 160 ::= { transmission XXX } 162 -- Textual Conventions (sorted alphabetically). 164 GmplsFreeformLabel ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 165 STATUS current 166 DESCRIPTION 167 "This value represents a freeform generalized MPLS Label. This 168 can be used to represent label types which are not standard 169 in the drafts. It may also be used by systems that do not 170 wish to represent the labels using the specific label types." 171 SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..64)) 173 GmplsGeneralizedLabelTypes ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 174 STATUS current 175 DESCRIPTION 176 "Determines the interpretation that should be applied to a 177 label." 178 SYNTAX INTEGER { 179 gmplsMplsLabel(1), 180 gmplsPortWavelengthLabel(2), 181 gmplsFreeformGeneralizedLabel(3), 182 gmplsSonetLabel(4), 183 gmplsSdhLabel(5), 184 gmplsWavebandLabel(6) 185 } 187 GmplsSegmentDirection ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 188 STATUS current 189 DESCRIPTION 190 "The direction of data flow on an LSP segment with respect to the 191 head of the LSP. 193 Where an LSP is signaled using a conventional signaling 194 protocol, the 'head' of the LSP is the source of the signaling 195 (also known as the ingress) and the 'tail' is the destination 196 (also known as the egress). For unidirectional LSPs, this 197 usually matches the direction of flow of data. 199 For manually configured unidirectional LSPs the direction of the 200 LSP segment matches the direction of flow of data. For manually 201 configured bidirecitonal LSPs, an arbitrary decision must be 202 made about which LER is the 'head'." 203 SYNTAX INTEGER { 204 forward(1), 205 reverse(2) 206 } 208 END 210 4. Security Considerations 212 This module does not define any management objects. Instead, it 213 defines a set of textual conventions which may be used by other GMPLS 214 MIB modules to define management objects. 216 Meaningful security considerations can only be written in the MIB 217 modules that define management objects. Therefore, this document has 218 no impact on the security of the Internet. 220 5. IANA Considerations 222 IANA is requested to make a MIB OID assignment under the transmission 223 branch, that is, assign the gmplsStdMIB under { transmission 166 }. 225 This sub-id is requested because 166 is the ifType for mpls(166) and 226 is available under transmission. 228 In the future, GMPLS related standards track MIB modules should be 229 rooted under the mplsStdMIB (sic) subtree. IANA is requested to 230 manage that namespace. New assignments can only be made via a 231 Standards Action as specified in [RFC2434]. 233 This document also requests IANA to assign { gmplsStdMIB xx } to the 234 GMPLS-TC-STD-MIB specified in this document. The value 1 is 235 suggested. 237 6. References 239 6.1. Normative References 241 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 242 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 244 [RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., 245 Case, J., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Structure of 246 Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, 247 RFC 2578, April 1999. 249 [RFC2579] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., 250 Case, J., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Textual 251 Conventions for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2579, April 252 1999. 254 [RFC2580] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., 255 Case, J., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Conformance 256 Statements for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580, April 1999. 258 [RFC3471] Berger, L. (Editor), "Generalized Multi-Protocol 259 Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional 260 Description", RFC 3471, January 2003. 262 6.2. Informational References 264 [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for 265 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", 266 BCP: 26, RFC 2434, October 1998. 268 [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswananthan, A., and R. Callon, 269 Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", 270 RFC 3031, January 2001. 272 [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., 273 Srinivasan, V., Swallow, G., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to 274 RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. 276 [RFC3212] Jamoussi, B., (editor), et. al. "Constraint-Based 277 LSP Setup using LDP", RFC 3212, January 2002. 279 [RFC3410] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D. and B. Stewart, 280 "Introduction and Applicability Statements for 281 Internet-Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410, 282 December 2002. 284 [RFC3472] Ashwood-Smith, P., Berger, L. (Editors), 285 "Generalized MPLS Signaling - CR-LDP Extensions", 286 RFC 3472, January 2003. 288 [RFC3473] Berger, L. (Editor), "Generalized MPLS Signaling - 289 RSVP-TE Extensions", RFC 3473 January 2003. 291 [GMPLSSonetSDH] Mannie, E., Papadimitriou, D. (Editors), 292 "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 293 Extensions for SONET and SDH Control", Internet 294 Draft , 295 February 2003, work in progress. 297 [GMPLSLSRMIB] Nadeau, T., Srinivasan, C., Farrel, A., Hall, T., 298 and Harrison, E., "Generalized Multiprotocol Label 299 Switching (GMPLS) Label Switching Router (LSR) 300 Management Information Base", draft-ietf-ccamp- 301 gmpls-lsr-mib-04.txt, February 2004, work in 302 progress. 304 [GMPLSTEMIB] Nadeau, T., Srinivasan, C., Farrel, A., Hall, T., 305 and Harrison, E., "Generalized Multiprotocol Label 306 Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Management 307 Information Base", draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib- 308 04.txt, February 2004, work in progress. 310 [TCMIB] Nadeau, T., Cucchiara, J. (Editors) "Definitions 311 of Textual Conventions for Multiprotocol Label 312 Switching (MPLS) Management", Internet Draft 313 , November 2003, 314 work in progress. 316 [GMPLSArch] Mannie, E. (Editor), "Generalized Multiprotocol 317 Label Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", Internet 318 Draft , May 319 2003, work in progress. 321 7. Acknowledgements 323 Special thanks to Joan Cucchiara for her help with compilation 324 issues. 326 8. Authors' Addresses 328 Thomas D. Nadeau 329 Cisco Systems, Inc. 330 300 Apollo Drive 331 Chelmsford, MA 01824 332 Phone: +1-978-244-3051 333 Email: tnadeau@cisco.com 335 Cheenu Srinivasan 336 Bloomberg L.P. 337 499 Park Ave., 338 New York, NY 10022 339 Phone: +1-212-893-3682 340 Email: cheenu@bloomberg.net 342 Adrian Farrel 343 Old Dog Consulting 344 Phone: +44 1978 860944 345 Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk 347 Tim Hall 348 Data Connection Ltd. 349 100 Church Street 350 Enfield, Middlesex 351 EN2 6BQ, UK 352 Phone: +44 20 8366 1177 353 Email: tim.hall@dataconnection.com 355 Ed Harrison 356 Data Connection Ltd. 357 100 Church Street 358 Enfield, Middlesex 359 EN2 6BQ, UK 360 Phone: +44 20 8366 1177 361 Email: ed.harrison@dataconnection.com 363 9. Full Copyright Statement 365 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. 367 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished 368 to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain 369 it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 370 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 371 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 372 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 373 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 374 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 375 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 376 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 377 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 378 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 379 English. 381 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 382 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This 383 document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS 384 IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK 385 FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT 386 LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL 387 NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY 388 OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 390 10. Intellectual Property Notice 392 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 393 intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to 394 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 395 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 396 might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it 397 has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the 398 IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and 399 standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11 [RFC2028]. 401 Copies of claims of rights made available for publication and any 402 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 403 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 404 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 405 specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. 407 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 408 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 409 rights that may cover technology that may be required to practice 410 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive 411 Director.