idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-11.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 407. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 378. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 385. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 391. ** 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 (September 2006) is 6430 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: 'RFC-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib' is mentioned on line 262, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'RFC3471' is defined on line 299, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3946' is defined on line 307, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2434 (Obsoleted by RFC 5226) ** 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: March 2007 Adrian Farrel, Ed. 6 Old Dog Consulting 8 September 2006 10 Definitions of Textual Conventions for Generalized Multiprotocol 11 Label Switching (GMPLS) Management 13 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-11.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 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-11.txt September 2006 49 Table of Contents 51 1. Introduction ...................................... 2 52 2. The Internet-Standard Management Framework ........ 2 53 3. GMPLS Textual Conventions MIB Definitions ......... 3 54 4. Security Considerations ........................... 5 55 5. IANA Considerations ............................... 6 56 6. References ........................................ 6 57 6.1. Normative References ............................ 6 58 6.2. Informative References .......................... 7 59 7. Acknowledgements .................................. 7 60 8. Contact Information ............................... 7 61 9. Intellectual Property Considerations .............. 8 62 10. Full Copyright Statement ......................... 9 64 1. Introduction 66 This document defines a MIB module which contains Textual Conventions 67 for Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) networks. These 68 Textual Conventions should be imported by MIB modules which manage 69 GMPLS networks. 71 This MIB module supplements the MIB module in [RFC3811] that defines 72 Textual Conventions for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) 73 Management. [RFC3811] may continue to be used without this MIB module 74 in networks that support only MPLS. 76 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 77 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 78 document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119, 79 reference [RFC2119]. 81 For an introduction to the concepts of GMPLS, see [RFC3945]. 83 2. The Internet-Standard Management Framework 85 For a detailed overview of the documents that describe the current 86 Internet-Standard Management Framework, please refer to section 7 of 87 RFC 3410 [RFC3410]. 89 Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed 90 the Management Information Base or MIB. MIB objects are generally 91 accessed through the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP). 92 Objects in the MIB are defined using the mechanisms defined in the 93 Structure of Management Information (SMI). This memo specifies a MIB 94 module that is compliant to the SMIv2, which is described in STD 58, 95 RFC 2578 [RFC2578], STD 58, RFC 2579 [RFC2579] and STD 58, RFC 2580 96 [RFC2580]. 98 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-11.txt September 2006 100 3. GMPLS Textual Conventions MIB Definitions 102 This MIB module makes references to the following documents. 103 [RFC2578], [RFC2579], and [RFC3811]. 105 GMPLS-TC-STD-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN 107 IMPORTS 108 MODULE-IDENTITY 109 FROM SNMPv2-SMI -- RFC2578 110 TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 111 FROM SNMPv2-TC -- RFC2579 112 mplsStdMIB 113 FROM MPLS-TC-STD-MIB -- RFC3811 114 ; 116 gmplsTCStdMIB MODULE-IDENTITY 117 LAST-UPDATED 118 "200609060001Z" -- 06 September 2006 00:00:01 GMT 119 ORGANIZATION 120 "IETF Common Control And Measurement Plane (CCAMP) Working Group" 121 CONTACT-INFO 122 " Thomas D. Nadeau 123 Cisco Systems, Inc. 124 Email: tnadeau@cisco.com 126 Adrian Farrel 127 Old Dog Consulting 128 Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk 130 Comments about this document should be emailed direct to the 131 CCAMP working group mailing list at ccamp@ops.ietf.org" 132 DESCRIPTION 133 "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This version of 134 this MIB module is part of RFC XXX; see the RFC itself for 135 full legal notices. 136 -- RFC Editor. Please replace XXX above with the correct RFC number and 137 -- remove this note. 139 This MIB module defines TEXTUAL-CONVENTIONs for concepts used in 140 Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) networks." 141 REVISION 142 "200609060001Z" -- 06 September 2006 00:00:01 GMT 143 DESCRIPTION 144 "Initial version published as part of RFC XXX." 145 ::= { mplsStdMIB YYY } 146 -- RFC Editor. Please replace XXX above with the correct RFC number and 147 -- remove this note. 148 -- RFC Editor. Please replace YYY above with the OID assigned by IANA 149 -- and remove this note 150 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-11.txt September 2006 152 GmplsFreeformLabelTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 153 STATUS current 154 DESCRIPTION 155 "This Textual Convention can be used as the syntax of an object 156 that contains any GMPLS label. Objects with this syntax can be 157 used to represent labels that have label types that are not 158 defined in any RFCs. The freeform GMPLS Label may also be used 159 by systems that do not wish to represent labels that have 160 label types defined in RFCs using type-specific syntaxes." 161 REFERENCE 162 "1. Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling 163 Functional Description, RFC 3471, section 3.2." 164 SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..64)) 166 GmplsLabelTypeTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 167 STATUS current 168 DESCRIPTION 169 "Determines the interpretation that should be applied to an 170 object that encodes a label. The possible types are: 172 gmplsMplsLabel(1) - The label is an MPLS packet, cell, 173 or frame label and is encoded as 174 described for the Textual 175 Convention MplsLabel defined in 176 RFC 3811. 178 gmplsPortWavelengthLabel(2) - The label is a port or wavelength 179 label as defined in RFC 3471. 181 gmplsFreeformLabel(3) - The label is any form of label 182 encoded as an OCTET STRING using 183 the Textual Convention 184 GmplsFreeformLabel. 186 gmplsSonetLabel(4) - The label is a SONET label as 187 defined in RFC 3946. 189 gmplsSdhLabel(5) - The label is an SDH label as 190 defined in RFC 3946. 192 gmplsWavebandLabel(6) - The label is a waveband label as 193 defined in RFC 3471." 194 REFERENCE 195 "1. Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling 196 Functional Description, RFC 3471, section 3. 197 2. Definition of Textual Conventions and for Multiprotocol Label 198 Switching (MPLS) Management, RFC 3811, section 3. 199 3. Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions 200 for Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous 201 Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control, RFC 3946, section 3." 203 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-11.txt September 2006 205 SYNTAX INTEGER { 206 gmplsMplsLabel(1), 207 gmplsPortWavelengthLabel(2), 208 gmplsFreeformGeneralizedLabel(3), 209 gmplsSonetLabel(4), 210 gmplsSdhLabel(5), 211 gmplsWavebandLabel(6) 212 } 214 GmplsSegmentDirectionTC ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 215 STATUS current 216 DESCRIPTION 217 "The direction of data flow on an LSP segment with respect to the 218 head of the LSP. 220 Where an LSP is signaled using a conventional signaling 221 protocol, the 'head' of the LSP is the source of the signaling 222 (also known as the ingress) and the 'tail' is the destination 223 (also known as the egress). For unidirectional LSPs, this 224 usually matches the direction of flow of data. 226 For manually configured unidirectional LSPs the direction of the 227 LSP segment matches the direction of flow of data. For manually 228 configured bidirectional LSPs, an arbitrary decision must be 229 made about which LER is the 'head'." 230 SYNTAX INTEGER { 231 forward(1), -- data flows from head-end of LSP toward tail-end 232 reverse(2) -- data flows from tail-end of LSP toward head-end 233 } 235 END 237 4. Security Considerations 239 This module does not define any management objects. Instead, it 240 defines a set of textual conventions which may be used by other GMPLS 241 MIB modules to define management objects. 243 Meaningful security considerations can only be written in the MIB 244 modules that define management objects. Therefore, this document has 245 no impact on the security of the Internet. 247 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-11.txt September 2006 249 5. IANA Considerations 251 IANA is requested to root MIB objects in this MIB module under the 252 mplsStdMIB subtree by assigning an OID to gmplsTCStdMIB. 254 Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following 255 assignments in the "NETWORK MANAGEMENT PARAMETERS" registry located 256 at http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers 258 In table ...mib-2.transmission.mplsStdMIB (1.3.6.1.2.1.10.166) 260 Decimal Name References 261 ------- ----- ---------- 262 TBD GMPLS-TC-STD-MIB [RFC-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib] 264 -- RFC Editor. Please replace YYY in the main text with the OID assigned 265 -- by IANA and remove this note. 267 In the future, GMPLS related standards track MIB modules should be 268 rooted under the mplsStdMIB (sic) subtree. IANA has been requested to 269 manage that namespace in the SMI Numbers registry [RFC3811]. New 270 assignments can only be made via a Standards Action as specified in 271 [RFC2434]. 273 6. References 275 6.1. Normative References 277 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 278 Requirements Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 280 [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 281 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, 282 October 1998. 284 [RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, 285 J., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Structure of 286 Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 287 2578, April 1999. 289 [RFC2579] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, 290 J., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Textual Conventions 291 for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2579, April 1999. 293 [RFC2580] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, 294 J., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Conformance Statements 295 for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580, April 1999. 297 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-11.txt September 2006 299 [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 300 (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, 301 January 2003. 303 [RFC3811] Nadeau, T. and J. Cucchiara, "Definition of Textual 304 Conventions and for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) 305 Management", RFC 3811, June 2004. 307 [RFC3946] Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized Multi- 308 Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for 309 Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous 310 Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC 3946, October 311 2004. 313 6.2. Informative References 315 [RFC3410] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart, 316 "Introduction and Applicability Statements for 317 Internet-Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410, 318 December 2002. 320 [RFC3945] Mannie, E., Ed., "Generalized Multiprotocol Label 321 Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, October 2004. 323 7. Acknowledgements 325 This document is a product of the CCAMP Working Group. 327 Special thanks to Joan Cucchiara for her help with compilation 328 issues and her very thorough MIB Doctor review. Thanks also to 329 Lars Eggert, David Harrington, Harrie Hazewinkel, Dan Romascanu, and 330 Bert Wijnen for their review comments. 332 8. Contact Information 334 Thomas D. Nadeau 335 Cisco Systems, Inc. 336 1414 Massachusetts Ave. 337 Boxborough, MA 01719 338 Email: tnadeau@cisco.com 340 Adrian Farrel 341 Old Dog Consulting 342 Phone: +44 1978 860944 343 Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk 344 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-11.txt September 2006 346 Cheenu Srinivasan 347 Bloomberg L.P. 348 731 Lexington Ave. 349 New York, NY 10022 350 Phone: +1-212-617-3682 351 Email: cheenu@bloomberg.net 353 Tim Hall 354 Data Connection Ltd. 355 100 Church Street 356 Enfield, Middlesex 357 EN2 6BQ, UK 358 Phone: +44 20 8366 1177 359 Email: tim.hall@dataconnection.com 361 Ed Harrison 362 Data Connection Ltd. 363 100 Church Street 364 Enfield, Middlesex 365 EN2 6BQ, UK 366 Phone: +44 20 8366 1177 367 Email: ed.harrison@dataconnection.com 369 9. Intellectual Property Considerations 371 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 372 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 373 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 374 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 375 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 376 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 377 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 378 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 380 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 381 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 382 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 383 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 384 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 385 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 387 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 388 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 389 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 390 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- 391 ipr@ietf.org. 393 draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-11.txt September 2006 395 10. Full Copyright Statement 397 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject 398 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 399 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 401 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 402 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 403 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 404 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 405 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 406 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 407 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.