idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-10.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 3978, Section 5.1 on line 20. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 410. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 381. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 388. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 394. ** 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. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == 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 (April 2006) is 6585 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) == Missing Reference: 'RFC2434' is mentioned on line 274, but not defined ** Obsolete undefined reference: RFC 2434 (Obsoleted by RFC 5226) == Unused Reference: 'RFC3471' is defined on line 301, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3946' is defined on line 309, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3946 (Obsoleted by RFC 4606) Summary: 5 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 7 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group Thomas D. Nadeau, Ed. 3 Internet Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. 4 Proposed Status: Standards Track 5 Expires: October 2006 Adrian Farrel, Ed. 6 Old Dog Consulting 8 April 2006 10 Definitions of Textual Conventions for Generalized Multiprotocol 11 Label Switching (GMPLS) Management 13 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-10.txt 15 Status of this Memo 17 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 18 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 19 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 20 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 22 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 23 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 24 other groups may also distribute working documents as 25 Internet-Drafts. 27 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 28 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 29 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 30 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 32 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 33 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 35 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be 36 accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 38 Abstract 40 This document defines a Management Information Base (MIB) module 41 which contains Textual Conventions to represent commonly used 42 Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) management 43 information. The intent is that these TEXTUAL CONVENTIONS (TCs) will 44 be imported and used in GMPLS related MIB modules that would 45 otherwise define their own representations. 47 Table of Contents 48 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-10.txt April 11, 2006 50 1. Introduction ...................................... 2 51 2. The Internet-Standard Management Framework ........ 2 52 3. GMPLS Textual Conventions MIB Definitions ......... 3 53 4. Security Considerations ........................... 6 54 5. IANA Considerations ............................... 6 55 6. References ........................................ 6 56 6.1. Normative References ............................ 6 57 6.2. Informative References .......................... 7 58 7. Acknowledgements .................................. 7 59 8. Contact Information ............................... 7 60 9. Intellectual Property Considerations .............. 8 61 10. Full Copyright Statement ......................... 9 63 1. Introduction 65 This document defines a MIB module which contains Textual Conventions 66 for Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) networks. These 67 Textual Conventions should be imported by MIB modules which manage 68 GMPLS networks. 70 This MIB module supplements the MIB module in [RFC3811] that defines 71 Textual Conventions for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) 72 Management. [RFC3811] may continue to be used without this MIB module 73 in networks that support only MPLS. 75 Comments should be made directly to the CCAMP mailing list at 76 ccamp@ops.ietf.org. 78 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 79 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 80 document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119, 81 reference [RFC2119]. 83 For an introduction to the concepts of GMPLS, see [RFC3945]. 85 2. The Internet-Standard Management Framework 87 For a detailed overview of the documents that describe the current 88 Internet-Standard Management Framework, please refer to section 7 of 89 RFC 3410 [RFC3410]. 91 Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed 92 the Management Information Base or MIB. MIB objects are generally 93 accessed through the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP). 94 Objects in the MIB are defined using the mechanisms defined in the 95 Structure of Management Information (SMI). This memo specifies a MIB 96 module that is compliant to the SMIv2, which is described in STD 58, 97 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-10.txt April 11, 2006 99 RFC 2578 [RFC2578], STD 58, RFC 2579 [RFC2579] and STD 58, RFC 2580 100 [RFC2580]. 102 3. GMPLS Textual Conventions MIB Definitions 104 This MIB module makes references to the following documents. 105 [RFC2578], [RFC2579], and [RFC3811]. 107 GMPLS-TC-STD-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN 109 IMPORTS 110 MODULE-IDENTITY 111 FROM SNMPv2-SMI -- RFC2578 112 TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 113 FROM SNMPv2-TC -- RFC2579 114 mplsStdMIB 115 FROM MPLS-TC-STD-MIB -- RFC3811 116 ; 118 gmplsTCStdMIB MODULE-IDENTITY 119 LAST-UPDATED 120 "200604060001Z" -- 06 April 2006 00:00:01 GMT 121 ORGANIZATION 122 "IETF Common Control And Measurement Plane (CCAMP) Working Group" 123 CONTACT-INFO 124 " Thomas D. Nadeau 125 Cisco Systems, Inc. 126 Email: tnadeau@cisco.com 128 Adrian Farrel 129 Old Dog Consulting 130 Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk 132 Comments about this document should be emailed direct to the 133 CCAMP working group mailing list at ccamp@ops.ietf.org" 134 DESCRIPTION 135 "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This version of 136 this MIB module is part of RFC XXX; see the RFC itself for 137 full legal notices. 138 -- RFC Editor. Please replace XXX above with the correct RFC number and 139 -- remove this note. 141 This MIB module defines TEXTUAL-CONVENTIONs for concepts used in 142 Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) networks." 143 REVISION 144 "200604060001Z" -- 06 April 2006 00:00:01 GMT 145 DESCRIPTION 146 -- RFC Editor: Please see the IANA Considerations Section. 148 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-10.txt April 11, 2006 150 -- This MIB module is contained in the OID sub-tree 151 -- rooted at mplsStdMIB. 152 "Initial version published as part of RFC XXX." 153 ::= { mplsStdMIB XXX } 155 -- RFC Editor. Please replace XXX above with the correct RFC number and 156 -- remove this note. 158 -- RFC Editor. Please replace YYY above with the OID assigned by IANA 159 -- and remove this note 161 GmplsFreeformLabelTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 162 STATUS current 163 DESCRIPTION 164 "This Textual Convention can be used as the syntax of an object 165 that contains any GMPLS label. Objects with this syntax can be 166 used to represent labels that have label types that are not 167 defined in any RFCs. The freeform GMPLS Label may also be used 168 by systems that do not wish to represent labels that have 169 label types defined in RFCs using type-specific syntaxes." 170 REFERENCE 171 "1. Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling 172 Functional Description, RFC 3471, section 3.2." 173 SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..64)) 175 GmplsLabelTypeTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 176 STATUS current 177 DESCRIPTION 178 "Determines the interpretation that should be applied to an 179 object that encodes a label. The possible types are: 181 gmplsMplsLabel(1) - The label is an MPLS packet, cell, 182 or frame label and is encoded as 183 described for the Textual 184 Convention MplsLabel defined in 185 RFC 3811. 187 gmplsPortWavelengthLabel(2) - The label is a port or wavelength 188 label as defined in RFC 3471. 190 gmplsFreeformLabel(3) - The label is any form of label 191 encoded as an OCTET STRING using 192 the Textual Convention 193 GmplsFreeformLabel. 195 gmplsSonetLabel(4) - The label is a SONET label as 196 defined in RFC 3946. 198 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-10.txt April 11, 2006 200 gmplsSdhLabel(5) - The label is an SDH label as 201 defined in RFC 3946. 203 gmplsWavebandLabel(6) - The label is a waveband label as 204 defined in RFC 3471." 205 REFERENCE 206 "1. Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling 207 Functional Description, RFC 3471, section 3. 208 2. Definition of Textual Conventions and for Multiprotocol Label 209 Switching (MPLS) Management, RFC 3811, section 3. 210 3. Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions 211 for Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous 212 Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control, RFC 3946, section 3." 213 SYNTAX INTEGER { 214 gmplsMplsLabel(1), 215 gmplsPortWavelengthLabel(2), 216 gmplsFreeformGeneralizedLabel(3), 217 gmplsSonetLabel(4), 218 gmplsSdhLabel(5), 219 gmplsWavebandLabel(6) 220 } 222 GmplsSegmentDirectionTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 223 STATUS current 224 DESCRIPTION 225 "The direction of data flow on an LSP segment with respect to the 226 head of the LSP. 228 Where an LSP is signaled using a conventional signaling 229 protocol, the 'head' of the LSP is the source of the signaling 230 (also known as the ingress) and the 'tail' is the destination 231 (also known as the egress). For unidirectional LSPs, this 232 usually matches the direction of flow of data. 234 For manually configured unidirectional LSPs the direction of the 235 LSP segment matches the direction of flow of data. For manually 236 configured bidirecitonal LSPs, an arbitrary decision must be 237 made about which LER is the 'head'." 238 SYNTAX INTEGER { 239 forward(1), -- data flows from head-end of LSP toward tail-end 240 reverse(2) -- data flows from tail-end of LSP toward head-end 241 } 243 END 245 4. Security Considerations 246 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-10.txt April 11, 2006 248 This module does not define any management objects. Instead, it 249 defines a set of textual conventions which may be used by other GMPLS 250 MIB modules to define management objects. 252 Meaningful security considerations can only be written in the MIB 253 modules that define management objects. Therefore, this document has 254 no impact on the security of the Internet. 256 5. IANA Considerations 258 -- (Note to RFC-Editor:) 259 -- We request that you assign contiguous RFC numbers to the three GMPLS 260 -- MIB documents. 261 -- The first number to draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib, the second to 262 -- draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib, and the third to 263 -- draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib. 264 -- (Please remove this note prior to publication.) 266 IANA is requested to root MIB objects in this MIB module under the 267 mplsStdMIB subtree by assigning an OID to gmplsTCStdMIB currently 268 indicated by { mplsStdMIB YYY }. 270 In the future, GMPLS related standards track MIB modules should be 271 rooted under the mplsStdMIB (sic) subtree. IANA has been requested to 272 manage that namespace in the SMI Numbers registry [RFC3811]. New 273 assignments can only be made via a Standards Action as specified in 274 [RFC2434]. 276 -- RFC Editor. Please replace YYY above with the OID assigned by IANA 277 -- and remove this note. 279 6. References 281 6.1. Normative References 283 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 284 Requirements Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 286 [RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, 287 J., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Structure of 288 Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 289 2578, April 1999. 291 [RFC2579] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, 292 J., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Textual Conventions 293 for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2579, April 1999. 295 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-10.txt April 11, 2006 297 [RFC2580] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, 298 J., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Conformance Statements 299 for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580, April 1999. 301 [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 302 (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, 303 January 2003. 305 [RFC3811] Nadeau, T. and J. Cucchiara, "Definition of Textual 306 Conventions and for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) 307 Management", RFC 3811, June 2004. 309 [RFC3946] Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized Multi- 310 Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for 311 Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous 312 Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC 3946, October 313 2004. 315 6.2. Informative References 317 [RFC3410] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart, 318 "Introduction and Applicability Statements for 319 Internet-Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410, 320 December 2002. 322 [RFC3945] Mannie, E., Ed., "Generalized Multiprotocol Label 323 Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004. 325 7. Acknowledgements 327 This document is a product of the CCAMP Working Group. 329 Special thanks to Joan Cucchiara for her help with compilation 330 issues and her very thorough MIB Doctor review. Thanks also to 331 Bert Wijnen, David Harrington and Harrie Hazewinkel for their review 332 comments. 334 8. Contact Information 336 Thomas D. Nadeau 337 Cisco Systems, Inc. 338 1414 Massachusetts Ave. 339 Boxborough, MA 01719 340 Email: tnadeau@cisco.com 342 Adrian Farrel 343 Old Dog Consulting 344 Phone: +44 1978 860944 345 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-10.txt April 11, 2006 347 Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk 349 Cheenu Srinivasan 350 Bloomberg L.P. 351 731 Lexington Ave. 352 New York, NY 10022 353 Phone: +1-212-617-3682 354 Email: cheenu@bloomberg.net 356 Tim Hall 357 Data Connection Ltd. 358 100 Church Street 359 Enfield, Middlesex 360 EN2 6BQ, UK 361 Phone: +44 20 8366 1177 362 Email: tim.hall@dataconnection.com 364 Ed Harrison 365 Data Connection Ltd. 366 100 Church Street 367 Enfield, Middlesex 368 EN2 6BQ, UK 369 Phone: +44 20 8366 1177 370 Email: ed.harrison@dataconnection.com 372 9. Intellectual Property Considerations 374 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 375 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 376 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 377 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 378 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 379 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 380 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 381 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 383 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 384 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 385 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 386 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 387 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 388 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 390 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 391 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 392 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 393 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- 394 ipr@ietf.org. 396 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-10.txt April 11, 2006 398 10. Full Copyright Statement 400 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject 401 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 402 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 404 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 405 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 406 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 407 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 408 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 409 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 410 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.