idnits 2.17.1 draft-ops-endpoint-mib-01.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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 1 longer page, the longest (page 1) being 583 lines Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an Introduction section. ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** There are 18 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 16 characters in excess of 72. ** There are 88 instances of lines with control characters in the document. ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. RFC 2119 keyword, line 226: '... only, and as such SHOULD only be used...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 232: '...InetEndpoint objects MUST be used, and...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 233: '...pointType object MUST come first in th...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 239: '..., the IMPLIED keyword MUST NOT be used...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 275: '... of this object SHOULD be 0 when the ...' (2 more instances...) Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year == Line 168 has weird spacing: '... octets cont...' == Line 184 has weird spacing: '... octets cont...' == Line 185 has weird spacing: '...address net...' -- 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 1999) is 8959 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 section? 'RFC2571' on line 412 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC1155' on line 416 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC1212' on line 420 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC1215' on line 423 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC2578' on line 426 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC2579' on line 430 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC2580' on line 434 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC1157' on line 438 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC1901' on line 441 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC1906' on line 445 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC2572' on line 449 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC2574' on line 453 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC1905' on line 457 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC2573' on line 461 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC2575' on line 464 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC2570' on line 468 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'SMIv2' on line 146 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC2233' on line 409 looks like a reference Summary: 7 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 20 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Internet-Draft Endpoint MIB October 1999 2 Expires April, 2000 4 Internet Endpoint MIB 6 8 Status of this Memo 10 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 11 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 13 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 14 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 15 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 16 Drafts. 18 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 19 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 20 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 21 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 23 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 24 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 26 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 27 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 29 Copyright Notice 31 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved. 33 Abstract 35 This MIB module defines constructs to represent commonly used 36 addressing information. The intent is that these definitions 37 will be imported and used in the various MIBs that would otherwise 38 define their own representations. This work is output from the 39 Operations and Management Area "IPv6MIB" design team. 41 1. The SNMP Management Framework 43 The SNMP Management Framework presently consists of five major 44 components: 46 o An overall architecture, described in RFC 2571 [RFC2571]. 48 o Mechanisms for describing and naming objects and events for the 49 purpose of management. The first version of this Structure of 50 Management Information (SMI) is called SMIv1 and described in 51 STD 16, RFC 1155 [RFC1155], STD 16, RFC 1212 [RFC1212] and RFC 52 1215 [RFC1215]. The second version, called SMIv2, is described 53 in STD 58, RFC 2578 [RFC2578], RFC 2579 [RFC2579] and RFC 2580 54 [RFC2580]. 56 o Message protocols for transferring management information. The 57 first version of the SNMP message protocol is called SNMPv1 and 58 described in STD 15, RFC 1157 [RFC1157]. A second version of the 59 SNMP message protocol, which is not an Internet standards track 60 protocol, is called SNMPv2c and described in RFC 1901 [RFC1901] 61 and RFC 1906 [RFC1906]. The third version of the message 62 protocol is called SNMPv3 and described in RFC 1906 [RFC1906], 63 RFC 2572 [RFC2572] and RFC 2574 [RFC2574]. 65 o Protocol operations for accessing management information. The 66 first set of protocol operations and associated PDU formats is 67 described in STD 15, RFC 1157 [RFC1157]. A second set of 68 protocol operations and associated PDU formats is described in 69 RFC 1905 [RFC1905]. 71 o A set of fundamental applications described in RFC 2573 72 [RFC2573] and the view-based access control mechanism described 73 in RFC 2575 [RFC2575]. 75 A more detailed introduction to the current SNMP Management Framework 76 can be found in RFC 2570 [RFC2570]. 78 Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed 79 the Management Information Base or MIB. Objects in the MIB are 80 defined using the mechanisms defined in the SMI. 82 This memo specifies a MIB module that is compliant to the SMIv2. A 83 MIB conforming to the SMIv1 can be produced through the appropriate 84 translations. The resulting translated MIB must be semantically 85 equivalent, except where objects or events are omitted because no 86 translation is possible (use of Counter64). Some machine readable 87 information in SMIv2 will be converted into textual descriptions in 88 SMIv1 during the translation process. However, this loss of machine 89 readable information is not considered to change the semantics of the 90 MIB. 92 2. Definitions 94 INET-ENDPOINT-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN 96 IMPORTS 97 MODULE-IDENTITY FROM SNMPv2-SMI 98 TEXTUAL-CONVENTION FROM SNMPv2-TC; 100 inetEndpointMIB MODULE-IDENTITY 101 LAST-UPDATED "9910210000Z" 102 ORGANIZATION "IETF OPS Area" 103 CONTACT-INFO "Send comments to mibs@ops.ietf.org" 104 DESCRIPTION 105 "A MIB module for Internet address definitions." 106 ::= { ??? } 108 -- 109 -- 110 -- New TCs for representing generic Internet endpoints. 111 -- These are roughly equivalent to TDomain and TAddress... 112 -- 113 -- 115 -- 116 -- Internet endpoints types 117 -- 118 InetEndpointType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 119 STATUS current 120 DESCRIPTION 121 "A value that represents a type of Internet endpoint. 123 Note that it is possible to sub-type objects defined with 124 this syntax by removing one or more enumerated values. 125 The DESCRIPTION clause of such objects (or their corresponding 126 InetEndpoint object) must document specific usage." 127 SYNTAX INTEGER { 128 other(0), 129 ipv4(1), 130 ipv6(2), 131 dns(3) 132 } 134 InetEndpoint ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 135 STATUS current 136 DESCRIPTION 137 "Denotes an generic Internet endpoint. 139 A InetEndpoint value is always interpreted within the context of a 140 InetEndpointType value. Thus, each definition of a InetEndpointType 141 value must be accompanied by a definition of a textual convention 142 for use with that InetEndpointType. 144 When this Textual Convention is used as the syntax of an index object, 145 there may be issues with the limit of 128 sub-identifiers specified 146 in [SMIv2]. In this case, it is recommended that the OBJECT-TYPE 147 declaration include a 'SIZE' clause to limit the number of potential 148 instance sub-identifiers." 149 REFERENCE "See the TAddress TC in std58." 150 SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..255)) 152 -- 153 -- 154 -- TCs for specific Internet endpoint values. 155 -- 156 -- 158 -- 159 -- IPv4 Address 160 -- 162 InetEndpointIPv4 ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 163 DISPLAY-HINT "1d.1d.1d.1d" 164 STATUS current 165 DESCRIPTION 166 "Represents an IPv4 network address: 168 octets contents encoding 169 1-4 IP address network-byte order 171 The corresponding InetEndpointType is ipv4(1)." 172 SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (4)) 174 -- 175 -- IPv6 Address 176 -- 178 InetEndpointIPv6 ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 179 DISPLAY-HINT "2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x:2x" 180 STATUS current 181 DESCRIPTION 182 "Represents an IPv6 network address: 184 octets contents encoding 185 1-16 IPv6 address network-byte order 187 The corresponding InetEndpointType is ipv6(2)." 188 REFERENCE "See the Ipv6Address TC in RFC 2465." 189 SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (16)) 191 -- 192 -- DNS Name 193 -- 195 InetEndpointDNS ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 196 DISPLAY-HINT "255a" 197 STATUS current 198 DESCRIPTION 199 "Represents a fully qualified DNS host name. 200 The corresponding InetEndpointType is dns(3). 202 The DESCRIPTION clause of InetEndpoint objects that 203 may have InetEndpointDNS values must fully describe 204 how (and when) such names are to be resolved to IP 205 addresses." 206 REFERENCE "RFCs 952 and 1123." 207 SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (1..255)) 209 END 211 3. Usage 213 These definitions provide a mechanism to define generic 214 Internet-accessible endpoints within MIB specifications. 215 It is recommended that MIB developers use these definitions 216 when applicable, as opposed to defining their own constructs. 218 A generic Internet endpoint consists of two objects, 219 one whose syntax is InetEndpointType, and another whose 220 syntax is InetEndpoint. The value of the first object 221 determines how the value of the second object is encoded. 223 One particular usage of InetEndpointType/InetEndpoint pairs 224 is to avoid over-constraining an object definition by the 225 use of the IpAddress syntax. IpAddress limits an implementation 226 to using IPv4 addresses only, and as such SHOULD only be used 227 when the object truly is IPv4-specific. 229 4. Indexing 231 When a generic Internet endpoint is used as an index, both 232 the InetEndpointType and InetEndpoint objects MUST be used, and 233 the InetEndpointType object MUST come first in the INDEX clause. 235 The InetEndpointType object may be subtyped such that the resulting 236 index is of fixed length. But the more common usage will result 237 in variable-length indexes. 239 For variable length indexes, the IMPLIED keyword MUST NOT be used 240 in the INDEX clause. Instance subidentifiers are then of the form 241 T.N.O1.O2...On, where T is the value of the InetEndpointType object, 242 O1...On are the octets in the InetEndpoint object, and N is the 243 number of those octets. 245 There is a meaningful lexicographical ordering to tables indexed 246 in this fashion. Command generator applications may 248 o lookup specific endpoints of known type and value 249 o issue GetNext requests for endpoints of a single type 250 o issue GetNext requests for specific type and address prefix 252 It should be pointed out that another valid approach is to 253 define separate tables for different address types. For example, 254 one table might be indexed by an IpAddress object, and the other 255 table indexed by an Ipv6Address object. This is a decision for the 256 MIB designer. (For example, the tcpConnTable was left intact and a new 257 table added for TCP connections over IPv6, see RFC 2452.) 259 5. Uniqueness of Addresses 261 IPv4 addresses were intended to be globally unique, current 262 usage notwithstanding. IPv6 addresses were architected to 263 have different scopes and hence uniqueness. In particular, 264 IPv6 "link-local" and "site-local" addresses are not guaranteed 265 to be unique on any particular node. In such cases, the duplicate 266 addresses must be configured on different interfaces, so the combination 267 of IPv6 address/interface is unique. 269 For tables indexed by InetEndpointType/InetEndpoint pairs, where 270 there may be non-unique instances of InetEndpointIPv6, the recommended 271 approach is to add a third index object to ensure uniqueness. 273 It is recommended that the syntax of this third index object be 274 InterfaceIndexOrZero, imported from IF-MIB [RFC2233]. The value 275 of this object SHOULD be 0 when the value of the InetEndpointType 276 object is not ipv6(2). 278 6. Multiple InetEndpoints per Host 280 Note that a single host system may be configured with multiple 281 addresses (IPv4 or IPv6), and possibly with multiple DNS names. 282 Thus it is possible for a single host system to be represented 283 by multiple (unique) InetEndpointType/InetEndpoint pairs. 285 If this could be an implementation or usage issue the DESCRIPTION 286 clause of the relevant objects MUST fully describe required 287 behavior. 289 7. Resolving DNS Names 291 DNS names are translated to IP addresses when communication with 292 a host is required. This raises a temporal aspect to defining MIB 293 objects whose value is a DNS name; when is the name translated to 294 an address? 296 For example, consider an object defined to indicate a forwarding 297 destination, and whose value is a DNS name. When does the 298 forwarding entity resolve the DNS name? Each time forwarding occurs? 299 Once, when the object was instantiated? 301 The DESCRIPTION clause of such objects SHOULD precisely define 302 how (when) any required name to address resolution is done. 304 8. Usage Examples 306 Example 1: 308 fooTable OBJECT-TYPE 309 SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF FooEntry 310 MAX-ACCESS not-accessible 311 STATUS current 312 DESCRIPTION 313 "The foo table." 314 ::= { bar 1 } 316 fooEntry OBJECT-TYPE 317 SYNTAX FooEntry 318 MAX-ACCESS not-accessible 319 STATUS current 320 DESCRIPTION 321 "A foo entry." 322 INDEX { fooPartnerType, fooPartner } 323 ::= { fooTable 1 } 325 FooEntry ::= SEQUENCE { 326 fooPartnerType InetEndpointType, 327 fooPartner InetEndpoint, 328 fooStatus INTEGER, 329 fooDescr OCTET STRING 330 } 332 fooPartnerType ::= OBJECT-TYPE 333 SYNTAX InetEndpointType 334 MAX-ACCESS not-accessible 335 STATUS current 336 DESCRIPTION 337 "The type of Internet endpoint by which the partner is reachable." 338 ::= { fooEntry 1 } 340 fooPartner ::= OBJECT-TYPE 341 SYNTAX InetEndpoint (SIZE (0..64)) 342 MAX-ACCESS not-accessible 343 STATUS current 344 DESCRIPTION 345 "The Internet endpoint for the partner. Note that implementations 346 must limit themselves to a single entry in this table per reachable 347 partner. Also, if an Ipv6 endpoint is used, it must contain a globally 348 unique IPv6 address." 349 ::= { fooEntry 2 } 351 Example 2: 353 sysAddrTable OBJECT-TYPE 354 SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF SysAddrEntry 355 MAX-ACCESS not-accessible 356 STATUS current 357 DESCRIPTION 358 "The sysAddr table." 359 ::= { sysAddr 1 } 361 sysAddrEntry OBJECT-TYPE 362 SYNTAX SysAddrEntry 363 MAX-ACCESS not-accessible 364 STATUS current 365 DESCRIPTION 366 "A sysAddr entry." 367 INDEX { sysAddrType, sysAddr, sysAddrIfIndex } 368 ::= { sysAddrTable 1 } 370 SysAddrEntry ::= SEQUENCE { 371 sysAddrPartnerType InetEndpointType, 372 sysAddrPartner InetEndpoint, 373 sysAddrIfIndex InterfaceIndexOrZero, 374 sysAddrStatus INTEGER, 375 sysAddrDescr OCTET STRING 376 } 378 sysAddrType ::= OBJECT-TYPE 379 SYNTAX InetEndpointType { 380 ipv4(1), 381 ipv6(2) 382 } 383 MAX-ACCESS not-accessible 384 STATUS current 385 DESCRIPTION 386 "The type of system address." 387 ::= { sysAddrEntry 1 } 389 sysAddr ::= OBJECT-TYPE 390 SYNTAX InetEndpoint (SIZE (4 | 16)) 391 MAX-ACCESS not-accessible 392 STATUS current 393 DESCRIPTION 394 "The system address." 395 ::= { sysAddrEntry 2 } 397 sysAddrIfIndex ::= OBJECT-TYPE 398 SYNTAX InterfaceIndexOrZero 399 MAX-ACCESS not-accessible 400 STATUS current 401 DESCRIPTION 402 "The system address interface. This object is used to disambiguate 403 duplicate system IPv6 addresses, and should be 0 for non-duplicate 404 addresses." 405 ::= { sysAddrEntry 3 } 407 9. References 409 [RFC2233] K. McCloghrie, and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group MIB 410 using SMIv2", RFC 2233, November 1997 412 [RFC2571] Harrington, D., Presuhn, R., and B. Wijnen, "An Architecture 413 for Describing SNMP Management Frameworks", RFC 2571, April 414 1999 416 [RFC1155] Rose, M., and K. McCloghrie, "Structure and Identification 417 of Management Information for TCP/IP-based Internets", STD 418 16, RFC 1155, May 1990 420 [RFC1212] Rose, M., and K. McCloghrie, "Concise MIB Definitions", STD 421 16, RFC 1212, March 1991 423 [RFC1215] M. Rose, "A Convention for Defining Traps for use with the 424 SNMP", RFC 1215, March 1991 426 [RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., 427 Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Structure of Management 428 Information Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578, April 1999 430 [RFC2579] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., 431 Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Textual Conventions for 432 SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2579, April 1999 434 [RFC2580] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., 435 Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Conformance Statements for 436 SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580, April 1999 438 [RFC1157] Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M., and J. Davin, "Simple 439 Network Management Protocol", STD 15, RFC 1157, May 1990. 441 [RFC1901] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, 442 "Introduction to Community-based SNMPv2", RFC 1901, January 443 1996. 445 [RFC1906] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, 446 "Transport Mappings for Version 2 of the Simple Network 447 Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1906, January 1996. 449 [RFC2572] Case, J., Harrington D., Presuhn R., and B. Wijnen, "Message 450 Processing and Dispatching for the Simple Network Management 451 Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 2572, April 1999 453 [RFC2574] Blumenthal, U., and B. Wijnen, "User-based Security Model 454 (USM) for version 3 of the Simple Network Management 455 Protocol (SNMPv3)", RFC 2574, April 1999 457 [RFC1905] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, 458 "Protocol Operations for Version 2 of the Simple Network 459 Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1905, January 1996. 461 [RFC2573] Levi, D., Meyer, P., and B. Stewart, "SNMPv3 Applications", 462 RFC 2573, April 1999 464 [RFC2575] Wijnen, B., Presuhn, R., and K. McCloghrie, "View-based 465 Access Control Model (VACM) for the Simple Network 466 Management Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 2575, April 1999 468 [RFC2570] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart, 469 "Introduction to Version 3 of the Internet-standard Network 470 Management Framework", RFC 2570, April 1999 472 10. Authors 474 This work was done by the IETF Ops Area "IPv6MIB" Design Team. 475 Comments should be posted to mibs@ops.ietf.org. 477 11. Notices 479 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 480 intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to 481 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 482 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 483 might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it 484 has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the 485 IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and 486 standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of 487 claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of 488 licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to 489 obtain a general license or permission for the use of such propritary 490 rights by implementors or users of this specification can be obtained 491 from the IETF Secretariat. 493 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 494 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 495 rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice 496 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive 497 Director. 499 12. Full Copyright Statement 501 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved. 503 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 504 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 505 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 506 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 507 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 508 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 509 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 510 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 511 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 512 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 513 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 514 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 515 English. 517 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 518 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 520 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 521 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 522 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 523 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 524 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 525 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 527 13. Appendix A 529 This appendix lists the issues raised over common addressing 530 MIB constructs, and the reasoning for the decisions made in 531 this module. 533 1. Efficient table lookups 535 Some existing MIBs have tables of generic addresses, indexed 536 by a random integer. This makes it impossible to lookup 537 specific addresses, or issue meaningful GetNext operations. 539 2. Common addressing should be defined such that no SMI changes 540 are required. 542 For example, the use of the ASN.1 CHOICE would really be an SMI 543 change. 545 3. TCs and DISPLAY-HINTS 547 A single object that contains both address type and value 548 does not provide a way to express the display characteristics 549 of each type. 551 (Also, such a single object requires code changes to handle updates, 552 whereas the solution chosen requires only MIB updates.) 554 4. Document the possible non-uniqueness of IPv6 addresses, and the 555 impact on indexing tables. 557 5. TDomain/TAddress limited to transport services 559 It was unclear if network layer addresses were appropriate 560 for use in TAddress values, since std58 refers specifically to 561 "transport addresses". 563 This point is less important than std58's definition that 564 TAddress values always be defined in the context of TDomain 565 values. Since did not want to index by OIDs, we did not 566 use TDomain and hence cannot use TAddress. 568 6. Harness the use of IpAddress 570 Several standard-track MIBs have used IpAddress syntax 571 inadvertently, needlessly limiting implementations to IPv4. 573 The specification under development should address this. 575 7. DNS names in addition to addresses 577 It is useful to be able to specify a system via a DNS name, 578 so the common addressing mechanism should support them. 580 Expires April, 2000