[Disman] update of RFC 2925
Juergen Quittek <quittek@ccrle.nec.de> Mon, 23 June 2003 20:01 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08156 for <disman-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:01:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UXUr-000267-85; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:01:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19UXUD-00025T-CZ for disman@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:00:21 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08123 for <disman@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:00:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UXUB-0005Lm-00 for disman@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:00:19 -0400
Received: from tokyo.ccrle.nec.de ([195.37.70.2]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19UXTz-0005L7-00 for disman@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 16:00:08 -0400
Received: from venus.office (venus.office [10.1.1.11]) by tokyo.ccrle.nec.de (8.12.9/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h5NJxXVI086101 for <disman@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 21:59:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.1.1.27] (dial03.office [10.1.1.27]) by venus.office (Postfix on SuSE Linux eMail Server 3.0) with ESMTP id B3091A7CAC for <disman@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Jun 2003 21:43:25 +0200 (CEST)
From: Juergen Quittek <quittek@ccrle.nec.de>
To: disman@ietf.org
Message-ID: <2147483647.1056405502@[10.1.1.27]>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.0.3 (Mac OS X)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Disman] update of RFC 2925
Sender: disman-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: disman-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: disman@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/disman>, <mailto:disman-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Distributed Management <disman.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:disman@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:disman-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/disman>, <mailto:disman-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/disman/>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 21:58:22 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I posted an update of RFC 2925 in draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-00.txt. It addresses all issues that has been raised on the mailing list since publication of the RFC and it addresses some updates required because referenced RFCs were updated themselves. Please see the full list of changes below. I still did not review Section 3 "Structure of the MIBs" ans Section 5 "Security Considerations" as carefully as I would have liked to. Please have a look at the document and send me your comments. I intend to post another version two weeks after the IETF meeting. See you there, Juergen -- Juergen Quittek quittek@ccrle.nec.de Tel: +49 6221 90511-15 NEC Europe Ltd., Network Laboratories Fax: +49 6221 90511-55 Kurfuersten-Anlage 36, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany http://www.ccrle.nec.de ########################################################################## ====================================================================== Changes in draft-ietf-disman-remops-mib-v2-00.txt compared to RFC 2925 ====================================================================== ======================================================================== 1. typo in description of pingTestCompleted ======================================================================== Problem Description: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >From RFC Errata web page Reported by: Randy Presuhn; rpresuhn@dorothy.bmc.com Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:16:54 -0800 In Section 4.1: "Generated at the completion of a ping test when the corresponding pingCtlTrapGeneration object is set to testCompletion(4)." Should be: "Generated at the completion of a ping test when the corresponding pingCtlTrapGeneration object is set to testCompletion(2)." ======================================================================== Suggested solution: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ obvious ======================================================================== Status: solution committed ======================================================================== ======================================================================== 2. description of pingCtlDataSize ignores IPv6 ======================================================================== Problem Description: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Currently, RFC 2925 says: pingCtlDataSize OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..65507) UNITS "octets" MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Specifies the size of the data portion to be transmitted in a ping operation in octets. A ping request is usually an ICMP message encoded into an IP packet. An IP packet has a maximum size of 65535 octets. Subtracting the size of the ICMP or UDP header (both 8 octets) and the size of the IP header (20 octets) yields a maximum size of 65507 octets." DEFVAL { 0 } ::= { pingCtlEntry 5 } This has caused some concern that the MIB isn't right for IPv6. ======================================================================== Suggested solution: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Replace description by "Specifies the size of the data portion to be transmitted in a ping operation in octets. Whether or not this value can be applied depends on the selected implementation method for performing a ping operation indicated by pingCtlType in the same conceptual row. If the method used allows applying the value contained in this object, then it MUST be applied. If the specified size is not appropriate for the chosen ping method, the implementation SHOULD use whatever size (appropriate to the method) is closest to the specified size. The maximum value for this object was computed by substracting the smallest possible IP header size of 20 octets (IPv4 header with no options) and the UDP header size of 8 octets from the maximum IP packet size. An IP packet has a maximum size of 65535 octets (excluding IPv6 Jumbograms)." ======================================================================== Status: solution committed ======================================================================== ======================================================================== 3. description of traceRouteCtlDataSize ignores IPv6 ======================================================================== Problem Description: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Currently, RFC 2925 says: traceRouteCtlDataSize OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Unsigned32 (0..65507) UNITS "octets" MAX-ACCESS read-create STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Specifies the size of the data portion of a traceroute request in octets. A traceroute request is essentially transmitted by encoding a UDP datagram into a IP packet. So subtracting the size of a UDP header (8 octets) and the size of a IP header (20 octets) yields a maximum of 65507 octets." DEFVAL { 0 } ::= { traceRouteCtlEntry 6 } This has caused some concern that the MIB isn't right for IPv6. ======================================================================== Suggested solution: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Replace description by "Specifies the size of the data portion of a traceroute request in octets. If the RECOMMENDED traceroute method (UDP datagrams as probes) is used, then the value contained in this object MUST be applied. If another traceroute method is used for which the specified size is not appropriate, then the implementation SHOULD use whatever size (appropriate to the method) is closest to the specified size. The maximum value for this object was computed by substracting the smallest possible IP header size of 20 octets (IPv4 header with no options) and the UDP header size of 8 octets from the maximum IP packet size. An IP packet has a maximum size of 65535 octets (excluding IPv6 Jumbograms)." ======================================================================== Status: solution committed ======================================================================== ======================================================================== 4. SNMP boilerplate outdated ======================================================================== Problem Description: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Section 2 on "The Internet-Standard Management Framework" is outdated. ======================================================================== Suggested solution: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Replace with new one. This implies an update of the reference section. ======================================================================== Status: solution committed ======================================================================== ======================================================================== 5. References need to be split in normative and informational ones. ======================================================================== Problem Description: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ clear ======================================================================== Suggested solution: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7. Normative References [RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578, April 1999. [RFC2579] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Textual Conventions for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2579, April 1999. [RFC2580] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Conformance Statements for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580, April 1999. 8. Informative References [RFC2119] S. Bradner "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC862] J. Postel "Echo Protocol", STD 20, RFC 862, May 1983. [RFC792] J. Postel "Internet Control Message Protocol", RFC 792, September 1981. [RFC3410] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D. and B. Stewart, "Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet- Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410, December 2002. [RFC3415] B. Wijnen, R. Presuhn, K. McCloghrie, "View-based Access Control Model (VACM) for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 62, RFC 3415, December 2002. ======================================================================== Status: solution committed ======================================================================== ======================================================================== 6. clarify structure of Section 1 "Introduction" ======================================================================== Problem Description: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The structure of the introduction would be clearer if subsections were used. ======================================================================== Suggested solution: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ insert subsection headers 1.1. Ping 1.2. Traceroute 1.3. Lookup 1.4. Remote Operations ======================================================================== Status: solution committed ======================================================================== ======================================================================== 7. context of remote operations explanation not clear ======================================================================== Problem Description: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ At the end of Section 1 "Introduction" the remote operations scenario is described. The description starts without explaining the context. ======================================================================== Suggested solution: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ replace "Consider the following diagram:" by "The MIB modules defined in this document allow a management station to initiate ping, traceroute and lookup operations remotely. The basic scenario is illustrated by the following diagram." ======================================================================== Status: solution committed ======================================================================== ======================================================================== 8. diagram explaining remote operations scenario ======================================================================== Problem Description: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The diagram at the end of Section 1 "Introduction" +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | | | Remote ping, traceroute, Actual ping, traceroute, | | +-----+or Lookup op. +------+or Lookup op. +------+ | | |Local|---------------->|Remote|---------------->|Target| | | | Host| | Host | | Host | | | +-----+ +------+ +------+ | | | | | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ uses "local host" and "remote host". In order to align it with the SNMP management framework, these terms should be replaced by "management station" or "managed node", respectively. also it would increase clarity if the remote initiation of operations was separated from reciving results. ======================================================================== Suggested solution: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ replace diagram by +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ | |---------->| | | | | | initiate | |---------->| | | Mgmt. | operation |Managed| perform |Target | |Station| remotely | Node | operation | Host | | | | | | | | |<----------| | | | +-------+ receive +-------+ +-------+ result of operation and update text in following paragraph accordingly. ======================================================================== Status: solution committed ======================================================================== ======================================================================== 9. RFC 2575 (VACM) obsoleted ======================================================================== Problem Description: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ RFC 2575 (VACM) is referenced several times in the document. RFC 2575 has been obsoleted by RFC 3415. ======================================================================== Suggested solution: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ replace RFC 2575 by RFC 3415 in text, MIBs and reference sections. ======================================================================== Status: solution committed ======================================================================== ======================================================================== 10. obsoleted RFCs metioned in IPORT sections ======================================================================== Problem Description: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ RFC 2571 imported by DISMAN-PING-MIB is obsoleted by RFC 3411. RFC 2571 imported by DISMAN-TRACEROUTE-MIB is obsoleted by RFC 3411. RFC 2571 imported by DISMAN-NSLOOKUP-MIB is obsoleted by RFC 3411. RFC 2851 imported by DISMAN-PING-MIB is obsoleted by RFC 3291. RFC 2851 imported by DISMAN-TRACEROUTE-MIB is obsoleted by RFC 3291. RFC 2851 imported by DISMAN-NSLOOKUP-MIB is obsoleted by RFC 3291. ======================================================================== Suggested solution: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The comment in DISMAN-PING-MIB IMPORT section needs to be updated. The comment in DISMAN-TRACEROUTE-MIB IMPORT section needs to be updated. The comment in DISMAN-NSLOOKUP-MIB IMPORT section needs to be updated. The comment in DISMAN-PING-MIB IMPORT section needs to be updated. The comment in DISMAN-TRACEROUTE-MIB IMPORT section needs to be updated. The comment in DISMAN-NSLOOKUP-MIB IMPORT section needs to be updated. ======================================================================== Status: solution committed ======================================================================== ======================================================================== 11. Update contact info in MIB modules ======================================================================== Problem Description: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ So far Kenneth served as contact. Now Juergen edits the docuemnt and takes over. ======================================================================== Suggested solution: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Replace Kenneth by Juergen in all three MIB modules. ======================================================================== Status: solution committed ========================================================================
- [Disman] update of RFC 2925 Juergen Quittek