idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5066bis-03.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year (Using the creation date from RFC5066, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 2004-01-14) -- 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 (June 25, 2013) is 3959 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) No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group E. Beili 3 Internet-Draft Actelis Networks 4 Updates: 5066 (if approved) June 25, 2013 5 Intended status: Standards Track 6 Expires: December 27, 2013 8 Ethernet in the First Mile Copper (EFMCu) Interfaces MIB 9 draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5066bis-03.txt 11 Abstract 13 This document updates RFC 5066. It amends that specification by 14 informing the internet community about the transition of the EFM-CU- 15 MIB module from the IETF Ethernet Interfaces and Hub MIB Working 16 Group to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 17 802.3 working group. 19 Status of This Memo 21 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 22 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 24 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 25 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 26 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 27 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 29 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 30 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 31 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 32 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 34 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 27, 2013. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 39 document authors. All rights reserved. 41 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 42 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 43 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 44 publication of this document. Please review these documents 45 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 46 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 47 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 48 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 49 described in the Simplified BSD License. 51 Table of Contents 53 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 2. The Internet-Standard Management Framework . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 3. Mapping between EFM-CU-MIB and IEEE8023-EFM-CU-MIB . . . . . . 3 56 4. Updating the MIB Modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 59 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 61 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 64 1. Introduction 66 RFC 5066 [RFC5066] defines two MIB modules: 68 EFM-CU-MIB, with a set of objects for managing 10PASS-TS and 69 2BASE-TL Ethernet in the First Mile Copper (EFMCu) interfaces; 71 IF-CAP-STACK-MIB, with a set of objects describing cross-connect 72 capability of a managed device with multi-layer (stacked) 73 interfaces, extending the stack management objects in the 74 Interfaces Group MIB and the Inverted Stack Table MIB modules. 76 With the conclusion of the [HUBMIB] working group, the responsibility 77 for the maintenance and further development of the EFM-CU-MIB module 78 has been transfered to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics 79 Engineers (IEEE) [802.3] working group. In 2011 the IEEE developed 80 IEEE8023-EFM-CU-MIB module, defined in IEEE Std 802.3.1-2011 81 [802.3.1] and based on the EFM-CU-MIB, defined in RFC 5066. 83 The IEEE8023-EFM-CU-MIB and EFM-CU-MIB are both valid MIB modules, 84 which can coexist. 86 Please note that IF-CAP-STACK-MIB module was not transfered to IEEE 87 and remains as defined in RFC 5066. This memo provides an updated 88 security considerations section for that module, since the original 89 RFC did not list any security consideration for IF-CAP-STACK-MIB. 91 2. The Internet-Standard Management Framework 93 For a detailed overview of the documents that describe the current 94 Internet-Standard Management Framework, please refer to section 7 of 95 RFC 3410 [RFC3410]. 97 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 98 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 99 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 100 2119 [RFC2119]. 102 3. Mapping between EFM-CU-MIB and IEEE8023-EFM-CU-MIB 104 The initial version of IEEE8023-EFM-CU-MIB, defined in IEEE Std 105 802.3.1-2011, has MODULE-IDENTITY of ieee8023efmCuMIB with an object 106 identifier allocated under the { org ieee standards-association- 107 numbers-series-standards lan-man-stds ieee802dot3 ieee802dot3dot1mibs 108 } sub-tree. 110 The EFM-CU-MIB has MODULE-IDENTITY of efmCuMIB with an object 111 identifier allocated under the mib-2 sub-tree. 113 The names of the objects in IEEE8023-EFM-CU-MIB are identical to 114 those in EFM-CU-MIB. However, since both MIB modules have different 115 OID values, they can coexist, allowing the management of the newer 116 IEEE MIB-based devices, alongside the legacy IETF MIB-based devices. 118 4. Updating the MIB Modules 120 With the transfer of the responsibility for maintenance and further 121 development of the EFM-CU-MIB module to the IEEE 802.3 working group, 122 the EFM-CU-MIB defined in RFC 5066 becomes the last valid version of 123 that MIB. 125 All further development of the EFM Copper Interfaces MIB will be done 126 by the IEEE 802.3 working group in the IEEE8023-EFM-CU-MIB module. 127 Requests and comments pertaining to EFM Copper Interfaces MIB SHOULD 128 be sent to the IEEE 803.3.1 task force mailing list: 129 [stds-802-3-mib@listserv.ieee.org]. 131 The IF-CAP-STACK-MIB remains under IETF jurisdiction and is currently 132 maintained by the [OPSAWG] working group. 134 5. Security Considerations 136 There are no managed objects defined in IF-CAP-STACK-MIB module with 137 a MAX-ACCESS clause of read-write and/or read-create. 139 Some of the readable objects in this MIB module (i.e., those with 140 MAX-ACCESS other than not-accessible) may be considered sensitive or 141 vulnerable in some network environments since they can reveal some 142 configuration aspects of the network interfaces. 144 In particular, ifCapStackStatus and ifInvCapStackStatus can identify 145 cross-connect capability of multi-layer (stacked) network interfaces, 146 potentially revealing the underlying hardware architecture of the 147 managed device. 149 It is thus important to control even GET access to these objects and 150 possibly even encrypt the values of these objects when sending them 151 over the network via SNMP. 153 SNMP versions prior to SNMPv3 did not include adequate security. 154 Even if the network itself is secure (for example by using IPSec), 155 there is no control as to who on the secure network is allowed to 156 access and GET/SET (read/change/create/delete) the objects in this 157 MIB module. 159 Implementations MUST provide the security features described by the 160 SNMPv3 framework (see [RFC3410]), including full support for 161 authentication and privacy via the User-based Security Model (USM) 162 [RFC3414] with the AES cipher algorithm [RFC3826]. Implementations 163 MAY also provide support for the Transport Security Model (TSM) 164 [RFC5591] in combination with a secure transport such as SSH 165 [RFC5592] or TLS/DTLS [RFC6353]. 167 Further, deployment of SNMP versions prior to SNMPv3 is NOT 168 RECOMMENDED. Instead, it is RECOMMENDED to deploy SNMPv3 and to 169 enable cryptographic security. It is then a customer/operator 170 responsibility to ensure that the SNMP entity giving access to an 171 instance of this MIB module is properly configured to give access to 172 the objects only to those principals (users) that have legitimate 173 rights to indeed GET or SET (change/create/delete) them. 175 6. IANA Considerations 177 No action is required from IANA. 179 7. Acknowledgments 181 This document was produced by the OPSAWG working group, whose efforts 182 were advanced by the contributions of the following people (in 183 alphabetical order): 185 Dan Romascanu 187 David Harrington 189 Michael MacFaden 191 This document updates RFC 5066, authored by Edward Beili of Actelis 192 Networks, and produced by the, now concluded, HUBMIB working group. 194 8. References 196 8.1. Normative References 198 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use 199 in RFCs to Indicate Requirement 200 Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 201 March 1997. 203 [RFC3414] Blumenthal, U. and B. Wijnen, 204 "User-based Security Model (USM) 205 for version 3 of the Simple 206 Network Management Protocol 207 (SNMPv3)", STD 62, RFC 3414, 208 December 2002. 210 [RFC3826] Blumenthal, U., Maino, F., and K. 211 McCloghrie, "The Advanced 212 Encryption Standard (AES) Cipher 213 Algorithm in the SNMP User-based 214 Security Model", RFC 3826, 215 June 2004. 217 [RFC5066] Beili, E., "Ethernet in the First 218 Mile Copper (EFMCu) Interfaces 219 MIB", RFC 5066, November 2007. 221 8.2. Informative References 223 [802.3] IEEE, "802.3 Ethernet Working 224 Group", 225 . 227 [802.3.1] IEEE, "IEEE Standard for 228 Management Information Base (MIB) 229 Definitions for Ethernet", IEEE 230 Std 802.3.1-2011, July 2011. 232 [HUBMIB] IETF, "Ethernet Interfaces and 233 Hub MIB (hubmib) Charter", . 237 [OPSAWG] IETF, "Operations and Management 238 Area Working Group (opsawg) 239 Charter", . 243 [RFC3410] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., 244 and B. Stewart, "Introduction and 245 Applicability Statements for 246 Internet-Standard Management 247 Framework", RFC 3410, 248 December 2002. 250 [RFC5591] Harrington, D. and W. Hardaker, 251 "Transport Security Model for the 252 Simple Network Management 253 Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 5591, 254 June 2009. 256 [RFC5592] Harrington, D., Salowey, J., and 257 W. Hardaker, "Secure Shell 258 Transport Model for the Simple 259 Network Management Protocol 260 (SNMP)", RFC 5592, June 2009. 262 [RFC6353] Hardaker, W., "Transport Layer 263 Security (TLS) Transport Model 264 for the Simple Network Management 265 Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 6353, 266 July 2011. 268 [stds-802-3-mib@listserv.ieee.org] IEEE, "802.3 MIB Email 269 Reflector", . 273 Author's Address 275 Edward Beili 276 Actelis Networks 277 Bazel 25 278 Petach-Tikva 279 Israel 281 Phone: +972-3-924-3491 282 EMail: edward.beili@actelis.com