idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-06.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3667, Section 5.1 on line 19. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 388. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 361. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 368. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 374. ** The document seems to lack an RFC 3978 Section 5.1 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line, instead of the newer IETF Trust Copyright according to RFC 4748. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.5 Disclaimer, instead of the newer disclaimer which includes the IETF Trust according to RFC 4748. ** The document uses RFC 3667 boilerplate or RFC 3978-like boilerplate instead of verbatim RFC 3978 boilerplate. After 6 May 2005, submission of drafts without verbatim RFC 3978 boilerplate is not accepted. The following non-3978 patterns matched text found in the document. That text should be removed or replaced: By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, or will be disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. 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 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 (October 2004) is 7104 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 243, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3031' is defined on line 253, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3209' is defined on line 257, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3212' is defined on line 261, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3411' is defined on line 269, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3472' is defined on line 274, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3473' is defined on line 278, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'GMPLSSonetSDH' is defined on line 285, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'GMPLSLSRMIB' is defined on line 291, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'GMPLSTEMIB' is defined on line 297, 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-06 == Outdated reference: A later version (-16) exists of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-06 Summary: 6 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 15 warnings (==), 8 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Network Working Group Thomas D. Nadeau, Ed. 2 Internet Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. 3 Proposed Status: Standards Track 4 Expires: April 2005 Adrian Farrel, Ed. 5 Old Dog Consulting 7 October 2004 9 Definitions of Textual Conventions for Generalized Multiprotocol 10 Label Switching (GMPLS) Management 12 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-06.txt 14 Status of this Memo 16 By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable 17 patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, 18 and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with 19 RFC 3668. 21 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 22 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 23 other groups may also distribute working documents as 24 Internet-Drafts. 26 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 27 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 28 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 29 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 31 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 32 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 34 Abstract 36 This document defines a Management Information Base (MIB) module 37 which contains Textual Conventions to represent commonly used 38 Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) management 39 information. The intent is that these TEXTUAL CONVENTIONS (TCs) will 40 be imported and used in GMPLS related MIB modules that would 41 otherwise define their own representations. 43 Table of Contents 45 1. Introduction ................................... 2 46 2. The SNMP Management Framework .................. 2 47 3. GMPLS Textual Conventions MIB Definitions ...... 3 48 4. Security Considerations ........................ 5 49 5. IANA Considerations ............................ 5 50 6. References ..................................... 5 51 6.1. Normative References ......................... 5 52 6.2. Informational References ..................... 6 53 7. Acknowledgments ................................ 7 54 8. Authors' Addresses ............................. 7 55 9. Intellectual Property Notice ................... 9 56 10. Full Copyright Statement ..................... 10 58 1. Introduction 60 This document defines a MIB module which contains Textual Conventions 61 for Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) networks. 62 These Textual Conventions should be imported by MIB modules which 63 manage GMPLS networks. 65 This MIB module supplements the MIB module in [RFC3811] that defines 66 Textual Conventions for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) 67 Management. [RFC3811] may continue to be used without this MIB module 68 in networks that support only MPLS. 70 Comments should be made directly to the CCAMP mailing list at 71 ccamp@ops.ietf.org. 73 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 74 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 75 document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119, 76 reference [RFC2119]. 78 For an introduction to the concepts of GMPLS, see [GMPLSArch]. 80 2. The Internet-Standard Management Framework 82 For a detailed overview of the documents that describe the current 83 Internet-Standard Management Framework, please refer to section 7 of 84 RFC 3410 [RFC3410]. 86 Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed 87 the Management Information Base or MIB. MIB objects are generally 88 accessed through the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP). 89 Objects in the MIB are defined using the mechanisms defined in the 90 Structure of Management Information (SMI). This memo specifies a MIB 91 module that is compliant to the SMIv2, which is described in STD 58, 92 RFC 2578 [RFC2578], STD 58, RFC 2579 [RFC2579] and STD 58, RFC 2580 93 [RFC2580]. 95 3. GMPLS Textual Conventions MIB Definitions 97 GMPLS-TC-STD-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN 99 IMPORTS 100 MODULE-IDENTITY 101 FROM SNMPv2-SMI -- [RFC2578] 102 TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 103 FROM SNMPv2-TC -- [RFC2579] 104 mplsStdMIB 105 FROM MPLS-TC-STD-MIB -- [RFC3811] 106 ; 108 gmplsTCStdMIB MODULE-IDENTITY 109 LAST-UPDATED 110 "200410080001Z" -- 8 October 2004 00:00:01 GMT 111 ORGANIZATION "Common Control And Measurement Plane (CCAMP) 112 Working Group" 113 CONTACT-INFO 114 " Thomas D. Nadeau 115 Cisco Systems, Inc. 116 Email: tnadeau@cisco.com 118 Adrian Farrel 119 Old Dog Consulting 120 Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk 122 Comments about this document should be emailed direct to the 123 CCAMP working group mailing list at ccamp@ops.ietf.org" 124 DESCRIPTION 125 "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). The 126 initial version of this MIB module was published 127 in RFC xxxx. For full legal notices see the RFC 128 itself or see: 129 http://www.ietf.org/copyrights/ianamib.html 131 This MIB module defines TEXTUAL-CONVENTIONs for concepts used in 132 Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) networks." 134 -- Revision history. 135 REVISION 136 "200410080001Z" -- 8 October 2004 00:00:01 GMT 137 DESCRIPTION 138 "Initial version published as part of RFC XXXX." 139 -- Please see the IANA Considerations Section. 140 -- This MIB module is contained in the OID sub-tree 141 -- rooted at mplsStdMIB. 142 -- The requested mplsStdMIB subId is xx, i.e. 143 ::= { mplsStdMIB xx } 144 -- Textual Conventions (sorted alphabetically). 146 GmplsFreeformLabel ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 147 STATUS current 148 DESCRIPTION 149 "This value represents a freeform generalized MPLS Label. This 150 can be used to represent label types which are not standard 151 in the drafts. It may also be used by systems that do not 152 wish to represent the labels using the specific label types." 153 REFERENCE 154 "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling 155 Functional Description, RFC 3471." 156 SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..64)) 158 GmplsGeneralizedLabelTypes ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 159 STATUS current 160 DESCRIPTION 161 "Determines the interpretation that should be applied to a 162 label." 163 REFERENCE 164 "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling 165 Functional Description, RFC 3471." 166 SYNTAX INTEGER { 167 gmplsMplsLabel(1), 168 gmplsPortWavelengthLabel(2), 169 gmplsFreeformGeneralizedLabel(3), 170 gmplsSonetLabel(4), 171 gmplsSdhLabel(5), 172 gmplsWavebandLabel(6) 173 } 175 GmplsSegmentDirection ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 176 STATUS current 177 DESCRIPTION 178 "The direction of data flow on an LSP segment with respect to the 179 head of the LSP. 181 Where an LSP is signaled using a conventional signaling 182 protocol, the 'head' of the LSP is the source of the signaling 183 (also known as the ingress) and the 'tail' is the destination 184 (also known as the egress). For unidirectional LSPs, this 185 usually matches the direction of flow of data. 187 For manually configured unidirectional LSPs the direction of the 188 LSP segment matches the direction of flow of data. For manually 189 configured bidirecitonal LSPs, an arbitrary decision must be 190 made about which LER is the 'head'." 192 SYNTAX INTEGER { 193 forward(1), 194 reverse(2) 195 } 197 END 199 4. Security Considerations 201 This module does not define any management objects. Instead, it 202 defines a set of textual conventions which may be used by other MPLS 203 MIB modules to define management objects. 205 Meaningful security considerations can only be written in the MIB 206 modules that define management objects. Therefore, this document has 207 no impact on the security of the Internet. 209 5. IANA Considerations 211 IANA is requested to root MIB objects in this MIB module 212 under the mplsStdMIB subtree by assigning an OID to 213 gmplsTCStdMIB. 215 In the future, GMPLS related standards track MIB modules should be 216 rooted under the mplsStdMIB (sic) subtree. IANA has been requested 217 to manage that namespace. New assignments can only be made via a 218 Standards Action as specified in [RFC2434]. 220 The IANA has assigned { mplsStdMIB 1 } to the MPLS-TC-STD-MIB. 222 6. References 224 6.1. Normative References 226 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 227 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 229 [RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., 230 Case, J., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Structure of 231 Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, 232 RFC 2578, April 1999. 234 [RFC2579] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., 235 Case, J., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Textual 236 Conventions for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2579, April 237 1999. 239 [RFC2580] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., 240 Case, J., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Conformance 241 Statements for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580, April 1999. 243 [RFC3471] Berger, L. (Editor), "Generalized Multi-Protocol 244 Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional 245 Description", RFC 3471, January 2003. 247 6.2. Informational References 249 [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for 250 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", 251 BCP: 26, RFC 2434, October 1998. 253 [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswananthan, A., and R. Callon, 254 Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", 255 RFC 3031, January 2001. 257 [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., 258 Srinivasan, V., Swallow, G., "RSVP-TE: Extensions to 259 RSVP for LSP Tunnels", RFC 3209, December 2001. 261 [RFC3212] Jamoussi, B., (editor), et. al. "Constraint-Based 262 LSP Setup using LDP", RFC 3212, January 2002. 264 [RFC3410] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D. and B. Stewart, 265 "Introduction and Applicability Statements for 266 Internet-Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410, 267 December 2002. 269 [RFC3411] Harrington, D., Presuhn, R., and B. Wijnen, "An 270 Architecture for Describing Simple Network 271 Management Protocol (SNMP) Management Frameworks", 272 STD 62, RFC 3411, December 2002. 274 [RFC3472] Ashwood-Smith, P., Berger, L. (Editors), 275 "Generalized MPLS Signaling - CR-LDP Extensions", 276 RFC 3472, January 2003. 278 [RFC3473] Berger, L. (Editor), "Generalized MPLS Signaling - 279 RSVP-TE Extensions", RFC 3473 January 2003. 281 [RFC3811] Nadeau, T. and J. Cucchiara, "Definition of Textual 282 Conventions and for Multiprotocol Label Switching 283 (MPLS) Management", RFC 3811, June 2004. 285 [GMPLSSonetSDH] Mannie, E., Papadimitriou, D. (Editors), 286 "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 287 Extensions for SONET and SDH Control", Internet 288 Draft , 289 February 2003, work in progress. 291 [GMPLSLSRMIB] Nadeau, T., Farrel, A. (Editors) "Generalized 292 Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Label 293 Switching Router (LSR) Management Information Base", 294 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-06.txt, October 2004, 295 work in progress. 297 [GMPLSTEMIB] Nadeau, T., Farrel, A. (Editors) "Generalized 298 Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic 299 Engineering Management Information Base", 300 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-06.txt, October 2004, 301 work in progress. 303 [GMPLSArch] Mannie, E. (Editor), "Generalized Multiprotocol 304 Label Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", Internet 305 Draft , May 306 2003, work in progress. 308 7. Acknowledgements 310 This draft is the work of the five authors listed in the next 311 section. 313 Special thanks to Joan Cucchiara for her help with compilation 314 issues. 316 8. Authors' Addresses 318 Thomas D. Nadeau 319 Cisco Systems, Inc. 320 300 Apollo Drive 321 Chelmsford, MA 01824 322 Phone: +1-978-244-3051 323 Email: tnadeau@cisco.com 325 Cheenu Srinivasan 326 Bloomberg L.P. 327 499 Park Ave., 328 New York, NY 10022 329 Phone: +1-212-893-3682 330 Email: cheenu@bloomberg.net 332 Adrian Farrel 333 Old Dog Consulting 334 Phone: +44 1978 860944 335 Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk 336 Tim Hall 337 Data Connection Ltd. 338 100 Church Street 339 Enfield, Middlesex 340 EN2 6BQ, UK 341 Phone: +44 20 8366 1177 342 Email: tim.hall@dataconnection.com 344 Ed Harrison 345 Data Connection Ltd. 346 100 Church Street 347 Enfield, Middlesex 348 EN2 6BQ, UK 349 Phone: +44 20 8366 1177 350 Email: ed.harrison@dataconnection.com 352 9. Intellectual Property Considerations 354 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 355 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 356 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 357 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 358 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 359 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 360 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 361 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 363 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 364 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 365 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 366 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 367 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 368 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 370 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 371 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 372 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 373 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 374 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 376 10. Full Copyright Statement 378 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject 379 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 380 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 382 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 383 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 384 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 385 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 386 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 387 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 388 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.