Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Traffic Measurements and Trace Exchange Formats
draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-measure-06

[Ballot comment]
(A)

References in sections 2, 2.1, 2.2, and the first paragraph of 2.3 appear in the text as
[1], [2], etc. but appear in the references section appear as [RFC2578], etc.

(B)

I thought the document's guidance on storing raw traces a bit confusing.  Filtering and
anonymizing are recommended in 2.3 and the security considerations, but storing
raw traces is recommended in section 2.4.

I assume that "raw" traces are complete and unfiltered/not anonymized.  Perhaps that
isn't true?  I couldn't check, since I can't track reference [1] (see above).

[Ballot comment]
Were this an IETF document I would want to discuss how it addresses
BCP 70 section 4.7.  Specifically:

  o  Protocols may or may not insist that all corresponding protocol
      elements be valid, according to the validity mechanism chosen; in
      either case, the extensibility design should be clear.  What
      happens if the data is not valid?

[Ballot comment]
Nice document and interesting reading!

It would be great if the authors would be able to fix the scheme
errors noted in Pasi's review.

The document mentions that the use of authentication and encryption
mechanisms is something that could be measured from the traces.
Not being an SNMP expert I have to wonder whether the use of
encryption would be compatible with being able to use the packet
traces. Do SNMP security mechanisms encrypt entire packets, hiding
OIDs and operations, or just the actual object values?

[Ballot comment]
The example XML document doesn't actually validate with the schema
(the "snmptrace" element is missing the namespace declaration, and the
schema's oid.type regexp seems to need parenthesis around the first
line to properly match).

[Note]: 'Proposed IESG Note: The IESG thinks that this work is related to IETF work done in the Operations and Management Area related to SNMP, but this does not prevent publishing. This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard.
The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for
any purpose and notes that the decision to publish is not based on
IETF review apart from the IETF Last Call on the allocation of an URI by IANA and the IESG review for conflict with IETF work.
The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at its
discretion.  See RFC 3932 for more information.' added by Dan Romascanu

[Note]: 'Proposed IESG Note:

The IESG thinks that this work is related to IETF work done in the Operations and Management Area related to SNMP, but this does not prevent publishing.

This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard.
The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for
any purpose and notes that the decision to publish is not based on
IETF review apart from the IETF Last Call on the allocation of an URI by IANA and the IESG review for conflict with IETF work.
The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at its
discretion.  See RFC 3932 for more information.

' added by Dan Romascanu

IESG,

This IRTF RFC-to-be was submitted to the RFC Editor to be published as
Informational: draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-measure-05.txt

Please let us know if this document conflicts with the IETF standards
process or other work being done in the IETF community.

Four week timeout expires on 10 September 2008.

SNMP Traffic Measurements and Trace Exchange Formats

The Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) is widely deployed to
monitor, control and (sometimes also) configure network elements.
Even though the SNMP technology is well documented, it remains
relatively unclear how SNMP is used in practice and what typical
SNMP usage patterns are.

This document describes an approach to carrying out large scale
SNMP traffic measurements in order to develop a better
understanding how SNMP is used in real world production networks.
It describes the motivation, the measurement approach, and the
tools and data formats needed to carry out such a study.

This document was produced within the IRTF's Network Management
Research Group (NMRG) and represents the consensus of all of the
active contributors to this group.


Sincerely,

Sandy Ginoza - USC/ISI
Request for Comments Documents

----- Forwarded message from Aaron Falk  -----

Cc: Internet Research Steering Group ,
Bert Wijnen
From: Aaron Falk
To: RFC Editor
Subject: Request to publish draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-measure-05 as Informational RFC
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:49:56 +0100

Dear RFC Editor-

Please publish the above-named document as an Informational RFC from
the IRTF. See below for more information. Bert Wijnen is the
shepherd, please be sure to copy him on any correspondence related to
this document (in addition to the authors, of course).

--aaron

Begin forwarded message:

>From: "Bert Wijnen \(IETF\)"
>Date: July 31, 2008 2:33:39 PM BST
>To: "Aaron Falk"
>Cc: "IRSG"
>Subject: Request to publish draft-irtf-nmrg-snmp-measure-05 as
>Informational RFC
>
>Arron, this is a request to publish this document as an
>Informational RFC.
>
>The NMRG has gone through a number of review stages. Also individuals
>who are know to be active in this space have been approached for
>review.
>This is all recorded in the issue tracker under ticket #9, see:
>
> http://www3.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/ticket/9
>
>Summary of review:
> - 15 reviews were recieved on this document during NMRG review
>period.
> this led to explanation from the author and to a few revisions to
> include the required changes/clarifications.
> - Each revision was posted and the NMRG has had time to review and
> further comment.
> - OPS AREA Director Dan Romascanu did issue an IETF Last Call on
> revision 3 of this document because it DOES ask for a URI
>registration
> by IANA. No objections/comments were received.
> - revision 4 was also reviewed by Karin R. Sollins which led to one
>more
> revision, the final revision (05)
> - The final revision (05) was reviewed by the IRSG members
> Karin R. Sollins and Stephen Farrell; They both voted YES on
>the IRSG Poll for this revision. No objections were received.
>
>I have updated the status to: IRSG review concluded.
>
>Let me know if I need to do anything else.
>
>Bert Wijnen
>Document Shepherd
>

IANA Last Call comments:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignment in the "NS" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/ns.html

ID | URI | Registration template | Reference
smtp-trace-1.0 | urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:snmp-trace-1.0 |  | [RFC-irtf-nmrg-snmp-
measure-03]

==
URN/URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:snmp-trace-1.0

Registrant Contact: The NMRG of the IRTF.

XML: see section 4.1 of [RFC-irtf-nmrg-snmp-measure-03]

We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this
document.