Network Working Group D. Harrington Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies USA Intended status: Best Current July 7, 2007 Practice Expires: January 8, 2008 Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management of New Protocols draft-harrington-operations-and-management-01 Status of This Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 8, 2008. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). Abstract New protocols or protocol extensions are best designed with due consideration of operations and management issues related to the protocol. Retrofitting operations and management recommendations to protocols is sub-optimal. The purpose of this document is to provide guidance to authors of protocol documents about aspects to consider related to the operations and management that should be considered for inclusion in documents defining requirements or functionality of Harrington Expires January 8, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Ops and Mgmt Guidelines July 2007 new protocols or protocol extensions. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Design for Operations and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1. Operations Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. Installation and Initial Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.3. Migration Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.4. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.5. Impact on Network Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.6. Verifying Correct Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. Management Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1. Management Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.2. Fault Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2.1. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2.2. Fault Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.2.3. Fault Isolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.3. Configuration Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.3.1. Verifying Correct Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.3.2. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.4. Accounting Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.5. Performance Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.6. Security Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5. Existing Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.1. SNMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.2. SYSLOG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.3. IPFIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.4. NETCONF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.5. COPS-PR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.6. RADIUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.7. Diameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.8. EPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.9. XCAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 5.10. Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6. Existing IETF Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6.1. Fault Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6.2. Configuration Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 6.3. Accounting Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 6.4. Performance Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 6.5. Security Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 7. Documentation Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 7.1. Recommended Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 7.2. Null Manageability Considerations Sections . . . . . . . . 25 Harrington Expires January 8, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Ops and Mgmt Guidelines July 2007 7.3. Placement of Operations and Manageability Considerations Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 11. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Appendix A. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Harrington Expires January 8, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Ops and Mgmt Guidelines July 2007 1. Introduction When new protocols or protocol extensions are developed, it is often the case that not enough consideration is given to the way in which new protocols will be deployed in the network and operated and managed once deployed. The result is that operations and management issues are only taken into consideration after the protocols have been implemented and sometimes not until after they have been deployed. Attempts to retrofit operations and management mechanisms are not always easy or architecturally pleasant, and certain protocol design choices may make deployment, operations, and management particularly hard to achieve later. Since operations and management issues may be fundamental to the utility and success of protocols designed within the IETF, this document provides guidelines to help protocol designers and working groups consider the operations and management issues of their new protocol at an earlier phase. 1.1. Terminology This document deliberately does not use the (capitalized) key words described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. RFC 2119 states the keywords must only be used where it is actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmissions). For example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method on implementers where the method is not required for interoperability. This document is a set of guidelines based on current practices of protocol designers and operators. This document does not describe requirements, so the key words from RFC2119 have no place here. o "new protocol" includes new protocols, protocol extensions, data models, or other functionality being designed. o "working group" represents individuals and working groups involved in the development of new protocols. o [DISCUSS] markers indicate a lack of consensus on what should be written. o [TODO] markers indicate the editor has a reasonable understanding of what needs to be (re-)written. Contributions of text would be welcome. 2. Design for Operations and Management "Design for operations and management" means that the operational environment and manageability of the protocol should be considered from the start when new protocols are designed. This requires a Harrington Expires January 8, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Ops and Mgmt Guidelines July 2007 change in mind-set. Protocol designers typically do not like to look at the management aspects of their new protocol. They are busy working out the details of their new protocol, and do not take time to consider what would be necessary to make the protocol manageable and easy to deploy. Because many of the working groups developing protocols have no background in management or operations, they also feel uncomfortable working on aspects of a protocol design that is unfamiliar to them. This document provides guidelines to working groups about what to consider. This document seeks to educate working groups about some common aspects of operations and management so they can design better protocol solutions. It is easier for a WG editor to write a document for associated management functionality if the WG has already researched and weighed the management options, and reached consensus on the management requirements. This document is not about requiring all internet-drafts to include a new "Operations and Management Considerations" section. Experiments to require such sections have had a mixed reaction from protocol developers. The IESG has also expressed hesitation about requiring new Considerations sections. 2.1. Motivation The IETF Standard Management Framework for years has stressed the use of SMI MIB modules [RFC2578]. The IETF designed the SMI MIB module approach to permit multiple protocols to utilize the MIB data [RFC1052], but it became a common misunderstanding that a MIB module could only be used with the SNMP protocol. [RFC3410] In 2001, design teams were created to document issues and requirements related to configuration. One output was "Requirements for Configuration Management of IP-based Networks" [RFC3139] In 2003, the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) held a workshop on Network Management [RFC3535] that discussed the strengths and weaknesses of some IETF network management protocols, and compared them to operational needs. Most of those needs are discussed further in this document. The IETF has indicated a desire to have operations and manageability considered during the development of new protocols, using a proactive "design for operability and manageability" approach that documents how a new protocol is expected to be operated and managed. Harrington Expires January 8, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Ops and Mgmt Guidelines July 2007 This document recommends working groups consider operations and management needs, and then select appropriate standard management protocols and/or data models to address the relevant operations and management needs, just as they consider different threat models and then select appropriate standard security protocols to address relevant threat models. For example, a working group could decide whether a MIB module, SYSLOG messages, an LDAP structure, an XML schema, or another solution is the best way to monitor and manage the functionality of a new protocol. The protocol to use for management will follow from this analysis rather than being SNMP by fiat. One good method that can be considered by protocol designers is to make an analysis of the operational environment and mode of work the future protocol or extension will work in. Such an exercise needs not be reflected directly by text in their document, but could help in visualizing the operational model related to the applicability of the protocol in the Internet environments where it will be deployed. The operational model should take into account issues like: - what type of management entities will be involved (agents, network management systems) - what is the possible architecture (client- server, manager-agent, polling-driven or event-driven, autoconfiguration, two levels or hierarchical) - what are the basic management operations - initial configuration, dynamic configuration, alarms and exceptions reporting, logging, performance monitoring, performance reporting - how are these operations performed: locally, remotely, atomic operation, scripts - what are the typical user interfaces - CLI or graphical 3. Operational Considerations When a new protocol is deployed in a network, it may affect the network negatively. A working group should consider deployment of a new protocol or protocol extension in a network, impact on the network operations, traffic levels and operation of other protocols or previous versions of the protocol, how the new protocol will be operated, and how its presence might affect the existing deployment. Operations and manageability considerations should focus on on-the- wire interoperability, and not constrain implementation decisions. 3.1. Operations Model Working groups should consider how the new protocol will be managed in different deployment sizes. It might be sensible to use a local management interface to manage the new protocol on a single device, but in a large network, remote management using a centralized server Harrington Expires January 8, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Ops and Mgmt Guidelines July 2007 and/or using distributed management functionality might make more sense. Auto-configuration might be possible for some new protocols. There may be a need to support a human interface, e.g., for troubleshooting, and a programmatic interface, e.g., for automated monitoring and root cause analysis. It might be important that the internal method routines for both interfaces should be the same to ensure that data exchanged between these two interfaces is always consistent. Working groups should consider what management operations are expected to be performed as result of the deployment of the protocol - such as whether write operations will be allowed on routers and on hosts, or if notifications for alarms or other events will be expected. 3.2. Installation and Initial Setup Working groups should consider default values that make protocol sense, to simplify configuration, including default modes and parameters. For example, it could be helpful or necessary to specify default values for modes, timers, default state of logical control variables, default transports, and so on. Even if default values are used, it must be possible to retrieve all the actual values or at least an indication that known default values are being used. Working groups should consider how to enable operators to concentrate on the configuration of the network as a whole rather than individual devices. 3.3. Migration Path If the new protocol is a new version of the protocol, or is replacing another technology, the working group should consider how deployments should transition to the new protocol. This should include co- existence with previously deployed protocols and/or previous versions of the same protocol, incompatibilities between versions, translation between versions, and side effects that might occur. Are older protocols or versions disabled or do they co-exist in the network with the new protocol? 3.4. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components Working groups should consider the requirements that the new protocol might put on other protocols and functional components, and should also document the requirements from other protocols that have been considered in designing the new protocol. Harrington Expires January 8, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Ops and Mgmt Guidelines July 2007 These considerations should generally remain illustrative to avoid creating restrictions or dependencies, or potentially impacting the behavior of existing protocols, or restricting the extensibility of other protocols, or assuming other protocols will not be extended in certain ways. 3.5. Impact on Network Operation The introduction of a new protocol or extensions to an existing protocol may have an impact on the operation of existing networks. Protocol designers should outline such impacts (which may be positive) including scaling concerns and interactions with other protocols. For example, a new protocol that doubles the number of active, reachable addresses in use within a network might need to be considered in the light of the impact on the scalability of the IGPs operating within the network. The working group should consider the potential impact on the behavior of other protocols in the network and on the traffic levels and traffic patterns that might change, including specific types of traffic such as multicast. Also consider the need to install new components that are added to the network as result of the changes in the operational model, such as servers performing auto-configuration operations. It is important to minimize the impact caused by configuration changes. Given configuration A and configuration B, it should be possible to generate the operations necessary to get from A to B with minimal state changes and effects on network and systems. 3.6. Verifying Correct Operation The working group should consider techniques for testing the effect that the protocol has had on the network by sending data through the network and observing its behavior. Working groups should consider how the correct end-to-end operation of the new protocol in the network can be tested, and how the correct data or forwarding plane function of each network element can be verified to be working properly with the new protocol. It must be easy to do consistency checks of configurations over time and between the ends of a link in order to determine the changes between two configurations and whether those configurations are consistent. Harrington Expires January 8, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Ops and Mgmt Guidelines July 2007 4. Management Considerations Just as when deploying protocols that will inter-connect devices, our primary goal in considering management should be interoperability, whether across devices from different vendors, across models from the same vendor, or across different releases of the same product. Some product designers and protocol designers assume that if a device can be managed individually using a command line interface or a web page interface, that such a solution is enough. But when equipment from multiple vendors is combined into a large network, scalability of management becomes a problem. It is important to have consistency in the management interfaces so network-wide operational processes can be automated. Getting everybody to agree on a certain syntax and the protocol associated with that has proven to be difficult. So management systems tend to speak whatever the boxes support, whether the IETF likes this or not. The IETF is moving from support for a single management data modeling language and a single management protocol towards support for multiple management protocols and multiple data models suited to different purposes. Interoperability needs to be considered on the syntactic level and the semantic level. While it can be irritating and time-consuming, application designers including operators who write their own scripts can make their processing conditional to accommodate differences across vendors or models or releases of product. Semantic differences are much harder to deal with on the manager side - once you have the data, its meaning is a function of the box. For example, if a single counter provided by vendor A counts three types of error conditions, while the corresponding counter provided by vendor B counts seven types of error conditions, these counters cannot be compared effectively - they are not interoperable counters. Information models are helpful to try to focus interoperability on the semantic level - they establish standards for what information should be gathered, and how gathered information might be used regardless of which management interface carries the data or which vendor produces the product. The use of an information model might help improve the ability of operators to correlate messages in different protocols where the data overlaps, such as a SYSLOG message and an SNMP notification about the same event. An information model might identify which error conditions should be counted separately, and which error conditions can be counted together in a single counter. Then, whether the counter is gathered via SNMP or a CLI command or a SYSLOG message, the counter will have similar meaning. Harrington Expires January 8, 2008 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Ops and Mgmt Guidelines July 2007 Protocol designers should consider which information might be useful for managing the new protocol or protocol extensions. IM --> conceptual/abstract model | for designers and operators +----------+---------+ | | | DM DM DM --> concrete/detailed model for implementers Information Models and Data Models Figure 1 On the Difference between Information Models and Data Models [RFC3444] may be useful in determining what information to consider regarding information models, as compared to data models. Information models should come from the protocol WGs and include lists of events, counters and configuration parameters that are relevant. There are a number of information models contained in protocol WG RFCs. Some examples: o [RFC3060] - Policy Core Information Model version 1 o [RFC3290] - An Informal Management Model for DiffServ Routers o [RFC3460] - Policy Core Information Model Extensions o [RFC3585] - IPsec Configuration Policy Information Model o [RFC3644] - Policy Quality of Service Information Model o [RFC3670] - Information Model for Describing Network Device QoS Datapath Mechanisms o [RFC3805] - Printer MIB v2 (contains both an IM and a DM 4.1. Management Information Operators find it important to be able to make a clear distinction between configuration data, operational state, and statistics. They need to determine which parameters were administrative configured and which parameters have changed since configuration as the result of mechanisms such as routing protocols. It is important to be able to separately fetch configuration data, operational state data, and statistics from devices, and to be able Harrington Expires January 8, 2008 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Ops and Mgmt Guidelines July 2007 to compare current state to initial state, and to compare data between devices. A management information model should include a discussion of what is manageable, which aspects of the protocol need to be configured, what types of operations are allowed, what protocol-specific events might occur, which events can be counted, and for which events should an operator be notified. What is typically difficult to work through are relationships between abstract objects. Ideally an information model would describe the relationships between the objects and concepts in the information model. Is there always just one instance of this object or can there be multiple instances? Does this object relate to exactly one other object or may it relate to multiple? When is it possible to change a relationship? Do objects (such as rows in tables) share fate? For example, if a row in table A must exist before a related row in table B can be created, what happens to the row in table B if the related row in table A is deleted? Does the existance of relationships between objects have an impact on fate sharing? 4.2. Fault Management If notifications are used to alert operators to certain conditions, then the working group should discuss mechanisms to throttle notifications to prevent congestion. 4.2.1. Liveness Detection and Monitoring Liveness detection and monitoring applies both to the control plane and the data plane. Mechanisms for detecting faults in the control plane or for monitoring its liveness are usually built into the control plane protocols or inherited from underlying data plane or forwarding plane protocols. These mechanisms do not typically require additional management capabilities. However, when a system detects a control plane fault, there is often a requirement to coordinate recovery action through management applications or at least to record the fact in an event log. Where the protocol is responsible for establishing data or user plane connectivity, liveness detection and monitoring usually need to be achieved through other mechanisms. In some cases, these mechanisms already exist within other protocols responsible for maintaining lower layer connectivity, but it will often be the case that new Harrington Expires January 8, 2008 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Ops and Mgmt Guidelines July 2007 procedures are required to detect failures in the data path and to report rapidly, allowing remedial action to be taken. 4.2.2. Fault Determination It can be helpful to describe how faults can be pinpointed using management information. For example, counters might record instances of error conditions. Some faults might be able to be pinpointed by comparing the outputs of one device and the inputs of another device looking for anomalies. 4.2.3. Fault Isolation It might be useful to isolate faults, such as a system that emits malformed messages necessary to coordinate connections properly. Spanning tree comes to mind. This might be able to be done by configuring next-hop devices to drop the faulty messages to prevent them from entering the rest of the network. 4.3. Configuration Management RFC3139 [RFC3139] discusses requirements for configuration management. This document includes discussion of different levels of management, including high-level-policies, network-wide configuration data, and device-local configuration. A number of efforts have existed in the IETF to develop policy-based management. RFC3198 was written to standardize the terminology for policy-based management across these efforts. It is highly desirable that text processing tools such as diff, and version management tools such as RCS or CVS or SVN, can be used to process configurations. This approach simplifies comparing the current operational state to the initial configuration. To simplify such configuration comparisons, devices should not arbitrarily reorder data such as access control lists. If a working group defines mechanisms for configuration, it would be desirable to standardize the order of elements for consistency of configuration and of reporting across vendors, and across releases from vendors. Network wide configurations are ideally stored in central master databases and transformed into formats that can be pushed to devices, either by generating sequences of CLI commands or complete configuration files that are pushed to devices. There is no common database schema for network configuration, although the models used by various operators are probably very similar. It is desirable to extract, document, and standardize the common parts of these network Harrington Expires January 8, 2008 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Ops and Mgmt Guidelines July 2007 wide configuration database schemas. A working group should consider how to standardize the common parts of configuring the new protocol, while recognizing the vendors will likely have proprietary aspects of their configurations. It is important to distinguish between the distribution of configurations and the activation of a certain configuration. Devices should be able to hold multiple configurations. NETCONF [RFC4741], for example, differentiates between the "running" configuration and "candidate" configurations. It is important to enable operators to concentrate on the configuration of the network as a whole rather than individual devices. Support for configuration transactions across a number of devices would significantly simplify network configuration management. The ability to distribute configurations to multiple devices, or modify "candidate configurations on multiple devices, and then activate them in a near-simultaneous manner might help. Textual configuration files should be able to contain international characters. Human-readable strings should utilize UTF-8. Protocol elements should be in case insensitive ASCII. A mechanism to dump and restore configurations is a primitive operation needed by operators. Standards for pulling and pushing configurations from/to devices are desirable. Given configuration A and configuration B, it should be possible to generate the operations necessary to get from A to B with minimal state changes and effects on network and systems. It is important to minimize the impact caused by configuration changes. Many protocol specifications include timers that are used as part of operation of the protocol. These timers may need default values suggested in the protocol specification and do not need to be otherwise configurable. 4.3.1. Verifying Correct Operation An important function that might be provided is a toolset for verifying the correct operation of a protocol. This may be achieved to some extent through access to information and data models that report the status of the protocol and the state installed on network devices. It may also be valuable to provide techniques for testing the effect that the protocol has had on the network by sending data through the network and observing its behavior. Protocol designers should consider how to test the correct end-to-end Harrington Expires January 8, 2008 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Ops and Mgmt Guidelines July 2007 operation of the network, and how to verify the correct data or forwarding plane function of each network element. 4.3.2. Control of Function and Policy A working group should consider the configurable items that exist for the control of function via the protocol elements described in the protocol specification. For example, Sometimes the protocol requires that timers can be configured by the operator to ensure specific policy-based behavior by the implementation. 4.4. Accounting Management A working group should consider whether it would be appropriate to collect usage information related to this protocol, and if so, what usage information would be appropriate to collect? RFC2975 [RFC2975] Introduction to Accounting Management discusses a number of issues that arise when monitoring usage of protocols for purposes of capacity and trend analysis, cost allocation, auditing, and billing. This document also discusses how some commonly used protocols are used for these purposes. These issues should be considered when designing a protocol whose usage might need to be monitored, or when recommending a protocol to do usage accounting. 4.5. Performance Management Consider information that would be useful when trying to determine the performance characteristics of a deployed system using the target protocol. Consider scaling issues, such as providing information about the maximum number of table entries that an implementation supports, the current number of instances, and the expected behavior when the current instances exceed the capacity of the implementation. Consider operational activity, such as the number of message in and the messages out, the number of received messages rejected due to format problems, the expected behaviors when a malformed message is received. Consider the expected behaviors for counters - what is a reasonable maximum value for expected usage? should they stop counting at the maximum value and retain the maximum value, or should they rollover? How can users determine if a rollover has occurred, and how can users determine if more than one rollover has occurred? Consider whether counters should be persistent across reboots of the Harrington Expires January 8, 2008 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Ops and Mgmt Guidelines July 2007 device, or restarts of the management system. Consider what events might cause discontinuties in a counter, especially those that cause delta calculations to become meaningless. How can a user determine that there has been one or more discontinuities in the counting? Consider whether multiple management applications will share a counter; if so, then no one managemet application should be allowed to reset the value to zero since this will impact other applications. For performance monitoring, it is important to report counters and not gauges as it is important to report the time spent in a state rather than the actual state. In other words, objects that report snapshots are of less value for performance monitoring. 4.6. Security Management Protocol designers should consider how to monitor and to manage security aspects and vulnerabilities of the new protocol. There will be security considerations related to the new protocol. To make it possible for operators to be aware of security-related events, is it recommended that system logs should record events, such as failed logins? Should a system automatically notify operators of every event occurrence, or should an operator-defined threshold control when a notification is sent to an operator? Should certain statistics be collected about the operation of the new protocol that might be useful for detecting attacks, such as the receipt of malformed messages, or messages out of order, or messages with invalid timestamps? If such statistics are collected, is it important to count them separately for each sender to help identify the source of attacks? Manageability considerations that are security-oriented might include discussion of the security implications when no monitoring is in place, the regulatory implications of absence of audit-trail or logs in enterprises, exceeding the capacity of logs, and security exposures present in chosen / recommended management mechanisms. The granularity of access control needed on management interfaces needs to match operational needs. Typical requirements are a role- based access control model and the principle of least privilege, where a user can be given only the minimum access necessary to perform a required task. It must be possible to do consistency checks of access control lists Harrington Expires January 8, 2008 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Ops and Mgmt Guidelines July 2007 across devices. Working groups should consider information models to promote comparisons across devices and across vendors to permit checking the consistency of security configurations. Working groups should consider how to provide a secure transport, authentication, identity, and access control which integrates well with existing key and credential management infrastructure. Working groups should consider how ACLs (access control lists) are maintained and updated. 5. Existing Protocols Working groups should consider existing protocols and data models that could be used to provide the management functions identified in the previous section, and should consider how using these existing protocols and data models might impact network operations. In choosing existing protocol solutions to meet the information model requirements, it is recommended that the strengths and weaknesses of IETF protocols, as document in [RFC3535] be considered, and working groups should consider asking for help from the IETF directorates knowledgeable in available existing solutions. This is especially true since some of the recommendations from the 2002 IAB workshop have become outdated, some have been implemented, and some are being realized. We want to avoid seeming to impose a solution by putting in place a strict terminology - for example implying that a formal data model, or even using a management protocol is mandatory. If a WG considers that its technology can be managed solely by using proprietary CLIs, and no structured or standardzied data model needs to be in place, this should be fine, but this is a requirement that needs to be explicit in their manageability section, so that the WG reaches consensus in full awareness that this is how the protocol will need to be operated and managed. Working groups should avoid having manageability pushed for a later/never phase of the development of the standard. Listed here are a number of protocols that have reached Proposed Standard status within the IETF. 5.1. SNMP SNMP [RFC3410] is widely used for monitoring networks. SNMPv1, and the similar SNMPv2c are widely deployed, but lack security, and are not recommended by the IETF. SNMPv3 offers security and is recommended by the IETF, but has not achieved wide deployment. Harrington Expires January 8, 2008 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Ops and Mgmt Guidelines July 2007 SNMP is not considered a good choice for configuration. Its binary format is not what operators prefer. MIB module support is uneven across vendors, and even within devices. The lack of MIB module support for all functionality in a device forces operators to use other protocols to do configuration, and it is easier to use one protocol for all configuration than to split the task across multiple protocols. SNMP is considered reasonably good at determining operational state of specific functionality, but not necessarily for a complete operational state for the same reasons. SNMP is often used to poll a device for sysUpTime, which serves to check for a heart beat. SNMP is good for statistics gathering for specific functionality. The wide-spread use of counters in standard MIB modules permits the interoperable comparison of statistics across devices from different vendors. SNMP notifications can alert an operator or an application when an aspect of the new protocol fails or encounters an error condition. 5.2. SYSLOG The SYSLOG protocol [I-D.ietf-syslog-protocol] provides a transport to allow a machine to send event notification messages across IP networks to event message collectors. Since each process, application and operating system was written somewhat independently, there has been little uniformity to the content of SYSLOG messages. The protocol is simply designed to transport these event messages. No acknowledgement of the receipt is made. One of the fundamental tenets of the SYSLOG protocol and process is its simplicity. No stringent coordination is required between the transmitters and the receivers. Indeed, the transmission of SYSLOG messages may be started on a device without a receiver being configured, or even actually physically present. Conversely, many devices will most likely be able to receive messages without explicit configuration or definitions. This simplicity has greatly aided the acceptance and deployment of SYSLOG. The IETF is standardizing a new version of the message format and protocol that allows the use of any number of transport protocols for transmission of SYSLOG messages, including secure transports, and allows vendor-specific extensions to be provided in a structured way. The IETF has not standardized the content of SYSLOG messages, only the format, to improve interoperability between implementations, and support the application of message security to SYSLOG messages. Harrington Expires January 8, 2008 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Ops and Mgmt Guidelines July 2007 5.3. IPFIX There are several applications e.g., usage-based accounting, traffic profiling, traffic engineering, attack/intrusion detection, QoS monitoring, that require flow-based IP traffic measurements. IPFIX [I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol] is a protocol that serves for transmitting IP traffic flow information over the network from an exporting process to an information collecting process. IPFIX defines a common representation of flow data and a standard means of communicating the data over a number of transport protocols. 5.4. NETCONF The NETCONF protocol [RFC4741] defines a simple mechanism through which a network device can be managed, configuration data information can be retrieved, and new configuration data can be uploaded and manipulated. The protocol allows the device to expose a full, formal application programming interface (API). Applications can use this straightforward API to send and receive full and partial configuration data sets. The NETCONF protocol uses a remote procedure call (RPC) paradigm. A client encodes an RPC in XML and sends it to a server using a secure, connection-oriented session. The server responds with a reply encoded in XML. A key aspect of NETCONF is that it allows the functionality of the management protocol to closely mirror the native command line interface of the device. This reduces implementation costs and allows timely access to new features. In addition, applications can access both the syntactic and semantic content of the device's native user interface. The contents of both the request and the response can be fully described in XML DTDs or XML schemas, or both, allowing both parties to recognize the syntax constraints imposed on the exchange. As of this writing, no standard has been developed for data content specification. 5.5. COPS-PR COPS-PR [RFC3084] uses the Common Open Policy Service (COPS) protocol for support of policy provisioning. The COPS-PR specification is independent of the type of policy being provisioned (QoS, Security, etc.) but focuses on the mechanisms and conventions used to communicate provisioned information between policy-decision-points (PDPs) and policy enforcement points (PEPs). COPS-PR does not make Harrington Expires January 8, 2008 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Ops and Mgmt Guidelines July 2007 any assumptions about the policy data model being communicated, but describes the message formats and objects that carry the modeled policy data. COP-PR and the Structure of Policy Provisioning Information (SPPI) have been approved as Proposed Standards. However, COPS-PR has not had wide deployment, and operators have stated that its use of binary encoding (BER) for management data makes it difficult to develop automated scripts for simple configuration management tasks in most text-based scripting languages. In an IAB Workshop on Network Management [RFC3535], operators and protocol developers indicated a lack of interest in PIB modules for use with COPS-PR. As a result, the IESG has not approved any policy models (PIB modules) as an IETF standard. 5.6. RADIUS RADIUS [RFC2865], the remote Authentication Dial In User Service describes a protocol for carrying authentication, authorization, and configuration information between a Network Access Server which desires to authenticate its links and a shared Authentication Server. This protocol is widely implemented and used. 5.7. Diameter DIAMETER [RFC3588] provides an Authentication, Authorization and Accounting (AAA) framework for applications such as network access or IP mobility. DIAMETER is also intended to work in both local Authentication, Authorization & Accounting and roaming situations. Diameter is designed to resolve a number of known problems with RADIUS. Diameter supports server failover, transmission-level security, reliable transport over TCP, agents for proxy and redirect and relay, server-initiated messages, auditability, capability netogtiation, peer discovery and configuration, and roaming support. Diameter also provides a larger attribute space than RADIUS. RADIUS is widely used within single administrative domains. Diameter features make it especially appropriate for environments where the providers of services are in different administartive domains than the maintainer (protector) of confidential user information. 5.8. EPP Harrington Expires January 8, 2008 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Ops and Mgmt Guidelines July 2007 5.9. XCAP 5.10. Other Protocols A command line interface (CLI) might be used to provide initial configuration of the target functionality. Command line interfaces are usually proprietary, but working groups could suggest specific commands and command parameters that would be useful in configuring the new protocol, so implementers could have similarities in their proprietary CLI implementations. [DISCUSS] Other PS-level NM protocols? SIP NM? 6. Existing IETF Data Models The purpose of this section is to inform protocol designers about solutions for which components have already been standardized in the IETF, so they can reuse existing solutions or use those solutions to extract information models that could be applied to new solutions. This section discusses management data models that have reached at least Proposed Standard status in the IETF. Because SNMP has long been the IETF-preferred protocol for managing the Internet, there are a large number of MIB modules available. Rather than attempt to discuss each here, with a discussion of the tables they contain, this section will include a discussion of those MIB modules which have reached at least Draft status, and some commonly deployed MIB modules. This is supplemented by an appendix that lists additional MIB modules that have reached Proposed Standard status. [TODO] discuss specific MIB modules, SDEs, XML schemas that are designed to solve generic problems. This might cover things like Textual Conventions, RFC3415 Target tables, SYSLOG SDEs defined in -protocol-, SYSLOG -sign-, IPFIX IEs, etc. 6.1. Fault Management SNMP notifications and SYSLOG messages can alert an operator when an aspect of the new protocol fails or encounters an error condition, and SNMP is frequently used as a heartbeat monitor. The new SYSLOG protocol version [I-D.ietf-syslog-protocol], which has been submitted for advancement to Proposed Standard, includes a mechanism for defining structured data elements (SDEs). The SYSLOG protocol document defines an initial set of SDEs that relate to content time quality, content origin, and meta-information about the message, such as language. Proprietary SDEs can be used to supplement the IETF-defined SDEs. Harrington Expires January 8, 2008 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Ops and Mgmt Guidelines July 2007 RFC 3418 [RFC3418], part of STD 62 SNMP, contains objects in the system group that are often polled to determine if a device is still operating, and sysUpTime can be used to detect if a system has rebooted. RFC3413 [RFC3413], part of STD 62 SNMP, includes objects designed for managing notifications, including tables for addressing, retry parameters, security, lists of targets for notifications, and filters for notifications. An RMON monitor [RFC2819] can be configured to recognize conditions, most notably error conditions, and continuously to check for them. When one of these conditions occurs, the event may be logged, and management stations may be notified in a number of ways. See further discussion of RMON under Performance Management. Protocol designers should always build in basic testing features (e.g. ICMP echo, UDP/TCP echo service, NULL RPC calls) that can be used to test for liveness, with an option to enable and disable them. 6.2. Configuration Management It is expected that standard XML-based data models will be developed for use with NETCONF, and working groups might identify specific NETCONF data models that would be applicable to the new protocol. At the time of this writing, no such standard data models exist. RFC3159 [RFC3159] discusses the Structure of Policy Provisioning Information, an extension to the SMI standard for purposes of policy- based provisioning, for use with the COPS-PR protocol defined in RFC3084 [RFC3084]. RFC3317 [RFC3317] defines a DiffServ QoS PIB. At the time of this writing, there are no standards-track PIBs. During the IAB Workshop on Network Management, the workshop had rough consensus from the protocol developers that the IETF should not spend resources on SPPI PIB definitions, and the operators had rough consensus that they do not care about SPPI PIBs. For monitoring network configuration, such as physical and logical network topologies, existing MIB modules already exist that provide some of the desired capabilities. New MIB modules might be developed for the target functionality to allow operators to monitor and modify the operational parameters, such as timer granularity, event reporting thresholds, target addresses, and so on. RFC 3418 [RFC3418], part of STD 62 SNMPv3, contains objects in the system group that are often polled to determine if a device is still operating, and sysUpTime can be used to detect if a system has rebooted and caused potential discontinuity in counters. Other Harrington Expires January 8, 2008 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Ops and Mgmt Guidelines July 2007 objects in the system MIB are useful for identifying the type of device, the location of the device, the person responsible for the device, etc. RFC3413 [RFC3413], part of STD 62 SNMPv3, includes objects designed for configuring notification destinations, and for configuring proxy- forwarding SNMP agents, which can be used to forward messages through firewalls and NAT devices. Draft Standard RFC2863 [RFC2863], the Interfaces MIB is used for managing Network Interfaces. This includes the 'interfaces' group of MIB-II and discusses the experience gained from the definition of numerous media-specific MIB modules for use in conjunction with the 'interfaces' group for managing various sub-layers beneath the internetwork-layer. Proposed Standard RFC4133 [RFC4133] the Entity MIB is used for managing multiple logical and physical entities managed by a single SNMP agent. Informational RFC3512 [RFC3512] discusses using SNMP to do configuration management. Proposed Standard RFC4011 [RFC4011] defines objects that enable policy-based monitoring and management of SNMP infrastructures, a scripting language, and a script execution environment. 6.3. Accounting Management RFC2975 discusses how RADIUS, TACACS+, and SNMP might be used for these purposes. While this discussion is now dated, many of the issues remain relevant, and new protocols might be better to address those issues. RADIUS [RFC2865] or DIAMETER [RFC3588] accounting might be collected for services, and working groups might document some of the RADIUS/ DIAMETER attributes that could be used. The IPFIX protocol [I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol] can collect information related to IP flows, and existing Information Elements may be appropriate to report flows of the new protocol. New IPFIX Information Elements might be useful for collecting flow information useful only in consideration of the new protocol. As of this writing, no IEs have reached Proposed Standard status yet, but a base set of IEs has been submitted to IESG for advancement. These include IEs for Identifying the scope of reporting, Metering and Export Process configuration, IP and Transport and Sub-IP header fields, Packet and Flow properties, timestamps, and counters. Harrington Expires January 8, 2008 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Ops and Mgmt Guidelines July 2007 RFC3159 discusses the Proposed Standard Structure of Policy Provisioning Information (SPPI), an extension to the SMI standard for purposes of policy-based provisioning, for use with the COPS-PR protocol defined in RFC3084. Informational RFC3317 defines a DiffServ QoS PIB, and Informational RFC3571 defines policy classes for monitoring and reporting policy usage feedback, as well as policy classes for controlling reporting intervals, suspension, resumption and solicitation. At the time of this writing, there are no standards-track PIBs During the IAB Workshop on Network Management, the workshop had rough consensus from the protocol developers that the IETF should not spend resources on SPPI PIB definitions, and the operators had rough consensus that they do not care about SPPI PIBs. 6.4. Performance Management Working groups should consider how performance can be monitored for the new protocol. MIB modules typically contain counters to determine the frequency and rate of an occurrence. RFC2819, STD 59 RMON, defines objects for managing remote network monitoring devices. An organization may employ many remote management probes, one per network segment, to manage its internet. These devices may be used for a network management service provider to access a client network, often geographically remote. Most of the objects in the RMON MIB module are suitable for the management of any type of network, and there are some which are specific to managing Ethernet networks. RMON allows a probe to be configured to perform diagnostics and to collect statistics continuously, even when communication with the management station may not be possible or efficient. The alarm group periodically takes statistical samples from variables in the probe and compares them to previously configured thresholds. If the monitored variable crosses a threshold, an event is generated. The RMON host group discovers hosts on the network by keeping a list of source and destination MAC Addresses seen in good packets promiscuously received from the network, and contains statistics associated with each host. The hostTopN group is used to prepare reports that describe the hosts that top a list ordered by one of their statistics. The available statistics are samples of one of their base statistics over an interval specified by the management station. Thus, these statistics are rate based. The management station also selects how many such hosts are reported. The RMON matrix group stores statistics for conversations between Harrington Expires January 8, 2008 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Ops and Mgmt Guidelines July 2007 sets of two addresses. The filter group allows packets to be matched by a filter equation. These matched packets form a data stream that may be captured or may generate events. The Packet Capture group allows packets to be captured after they flow through a channel. The event group controls the generation and notification of events from this device. The RMON-2 MIB [RFC4502] extends RMON by providing RMON analysis up to the application layer. The SMON MIB [RFC2613] extends RMON by providing RMON analysis for switched networks. RAQMON [RFC4710] describes Real-Time Application Quality of Service Monitoring. SIP Package for Voice Quality Reporting [I-D.ietf-sipping-rtcp-summary] defines a SIP event package that enables the collection and reporting of metrics that measure the quality for Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) sessions. 6.5. Security Management Working groups should consider existing data models that would be relevant to monitoring and managing the security of the new protocol. IPsec Security Policy IPsec Action MIB [I-D.ietf-ipsp-ipsecaction-mib] defines a MIB module for configuration of an IPsec action within the IPsec security policy database (SPD). [TODO: this is not yet a PS, and has dependencies on a dead document?] IPsec Security Policy IKE Action MIB [I-D.ietf-ipsp-ikeaction-mib] defines a MIB module for configuration of an Internet Key Exchange (IKE) [RFC4306] action within the IPsec security policy database (SPD). [TODO: this is not yet a PS, and has dependencies on a dead document?] [DISCUSS: why are security protocols like TLS and SSH not required to be manageable? e.g., no MIB modules exist for these protocols.] Standard SNMP notifications or SYSLOG messages [I-D.ietf-syslog-protocol]might already exist, or might be defined, to help alert operators to those conditions identified in the security considerations for the new protocol. An analysis of existing counters might help operators recognize the conditions identified in the security considerations for the new protocol before they can impact the network. RADIUS and DIAMETER can provide authentication and authorization. A working group should consider which attributes would be appropriate Harrington Expires January 8, 2008 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Ops and Mgmt Guidelines July 2007 for their protocol. Different protocols use different assumptions about message security and data access controls. A working group that recommends using different protocols should consider how security will be applied in a balanced manner across multiple management interfaces. SNMP access control is data-oriented, while CLI access control is usually command (task) oriented. Depending on the management function, sometimes data-oriented or task-oriented access control makes more sense. Working groups should consider both data-oriented and task-oriented access control. 7. Documentation Guidelines The purpose of this document is to provide guidance about what to consider when thinking about the management and deployment of a new protocol, and to provide guidance about documenting the considerations should a working group choose to do so. The following guidelines are designed to help writers provide a reasonably consistent format to such documentation. Separate manageability and operational considerations sections are desirable in many cases, but their structure and location is a decision that can be made from case to case. Making a Management Considerations section a mandatory publication requirement is the responsibility of the IESG, or specific area directors, or working groups, and this document avoids recommending any mandatory publication requirements. This document is focused on what to think about, and how to document the considerations of the working group. 7.1. Recommended Discussions A Manageability Considerations section should include discussion of the management and operations topics raised in this document, and when one or more of these topics is not relevant, it would be useful to contain a simple statement explaining why the topic is not relevant for the new protocol. Of course, additional relevant topics should be included as well. 7.2. Null Manageability Considerations Sections A working group may seriously consider the manageability requirements of a new protocol, and determine that there are no manageability issues related to the new protocol. It would be helpful to those who may update or write extensions to the protocol in the future or to those deploying the new protocol to know the thinking of the working Harrington Expires January 8, 2008 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Ops and Mgmt Guidelines July 2007 regarding the manageability of the protocol at the time of its design. If there are no new manageability or deployment considerations, it is recommended that a Manageability Considerations section contain a simple statement such as "There are no new manageability requirements introduced by this document," and a brief explanation of why that is the case. The presence of such a Manageability Considerations section would indicate to the reader that due consideration has been given to manageability and operations. In the case where the new protocol is an extension, and the base protocol discusses all the relevant operational and manageability considerations, it would be helpful to point out the considerations section in the base document. 7.3. Placement of Operations and Manageability Considerations Sections If a working group develops a Manageability Considerations section for a new protocol, it is recommended that the section be placed immediately before the Security Considerations section. Reviewers interested in such sections could find it easily, and this placement could simplify the development of tools to detect the presence of such a section. 8. IANA Considerations This document does not introduce any new codepoints or name spaces for registration with IANA. Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an RFC. 9. Security Considerations This document is informational and provides guidelines for considering manageability and operations. It introduces no new security concerns. 10. Acknowledgements This document started from an earlier document edited by Adrian Farrel, which itself was based on work exploring the need for Manageability Considerations sections in all Internet-Drafts produced within the Routing Area of the IETF. That earlier work was produced by Avri Doria, Loa Andersson, and Adrian Farrel, with valuable feedback provided by Pekka Savola and Bert Wijnen. Some of the discussion about designing for manageability came from private discussions between Dan Romascanu, Bert Wijnen, Juergen Harrington Expires January 8, 2008 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Ops and Mgmt Guidelines July 2007 Schoenwaelder, Andy Bierman, and David Harrington. 11. Informative References [I-D.ietf-ipfix-protocol] Claise, B., "Specification of the IPFIX Protocol for the Exchange", draft-ietf-ipfix-protocol-24 (work in progress), November 2006. [I-D.ietf-ipsp-ikeaction-mib] Hardaker, W., "IPsec Security Policy IKE Action MIB", draft-ietf-ipsp-ikeaction-mib-02 (work in progress), November 2006. [I-D.ietf-ipsp-ipsecaction-mib] Hardaker, W., "IPsec Security Policy IPsec Action MIB", draft-ietf-ipsp-ipsecaction-mib-02 (work in progress), November 2006. [I-D.ietf-sipping-rtcp-summary] Pendleton, A., "Session Initiation Protocol Package for Voice Quality Reporting Event", draft-ietf-sipping-rtcp-summary-02 (work in progress), May 2007. [I-D.ietf-syslog-protocol] Gerhards, R., "The syslog Protocol", draft-ietf-syslog-protocol-21 (work in progress), June 2007. [RFC1052] Cerf, V., "IAB recommendations for the development of Internet network management standards", RFC 1052, April 1988. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J. Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578, April 1999. [RFC2613] Waterman, R., Lahaye, B., Romascanu, D., and S. Waldbusser, "Remote Network Monitoring MIB Extensions Harrington Expires January 8, 2008 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Ops and Mgmt Guidelines July 2007 for Switched Networks Version 1.0", RFC 2613, June 1999. [RFC2819] Waldbusser, S., "Remote Network Monitoring Management Information Base", STD 59, RFC 2819, May 2000. [RFC2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group MIB", RFC 2863, June 2000. [RFC2865] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson, "Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 2865, June 2000. [RFC2975] Aboba, B., Arkko, J., and D. Harrington, "Introduction to Accounting Management", RFC 2975, October 2000. [RFC3060] Moore, B., Ellesson, E., Strassner, J., and A. Westerinen, "Policy Core Information Model -- Version 1 Specification", RFC 3060, February 2001. [RFC3084] Chan, K., Seligson, J., Durham, D., Gai, S., McCloghrie, K., Herzog, S., Reichmeyer, F., Yavatkar, R., and A. Smith, "COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning (COPS-PR)", RFC 3084, March 2001. [RFC3139] Sanchez, L., McCloghrie, K., and J. Saperia, "Requirements for Configuration Management of IP-based Networks", RFC 3139, June 2001. [RFC3159] McCloghrie, K., Fine, M., Seligson, J., Chan, K., Hahn, S., Sahita, R., Smith, A., and F. Reichmeyer, "Structure of Policy Provisioning Information (SPPI)", RFC 3159, August 2001. [RFC3290] Bernet, Y., Blake, S., Grossman, D., and A. Smith, "An Informal Harrington Expires January 8, 2008 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Ops and Mgmt Guidelines July 2007 Management Model for Diffserv Routers", RFC 3290, May 2002. [RFC3317] Chan, K., Sahita, R., Hahn, S., and K. McCloghrie, "Differentiated Services Quality of Service Policy Information Base", RFC 3317, March 2003. [RFC3410] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart, "Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet-Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410, December 2002. [RFC3413] Levi, D., Meyer, P., and B. Stewart, "Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Applications", STD 62, RFC 3413, December 2002. [RFC3418] Presuhn, R., "Management Information Base (MIB) for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 62, RFC 3418, December 2002. [RFC3444] Pras, A. and J. Schoenwaelder, "On the Difference between Information Models and Data Models", RFC 3444, January 2003. [RFC3460] Moore, B., "Policy Core Information Model (PCIM) Extensions", RFC 3460, January 2003. [RFC3512] MacFaden, M., Partain, D., Saperia, J., and W. Tackabury, "Configuring Networks and Devices with Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 3512, April 2003. [RFC3535] Schoenwaelder, J., "Overview of the 2002 IAB Network Management Workshop", RFC 3535, May 2003. [RFC3585] Jason, J., Rafalow, L., and E. Vyncke, "IPsec Configuration Policy Information Model", RFC 3585, August 2003. Harrington Expires January 8, 2008 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Ops and Mgmt Guidelines July 2007 [RFC3588] Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J. Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, September 2003. [RFC3644] Snir, Y., Ramberg, Y., Strassner, J., Cohen, R., and B. Moore, "Policy Quality of Service (QoS) Information Model", RFC 3644, November 2003. [RFC3670] Moore, B., Durham, D., Strassner, J., Westerinen, A., and W. Weiss, "Information Model for Describing Network Device QoS Datapath Mechanisms", RFC 3670, January 2004. [RFC3805] Bergman, R., Lewis, H., and I. McDonald, "Printer MIB v2", RFC 3805, June 2004. [RFC4011] Waldbusser, S., Saperia, J., and T. Hongal, "Policy Based Management MIB", RFC 4011, March 2005. [RFC4133] Bierman, A. and K. McCloghrie, "Entity MIB (Version 3)", RFC 4133, August 2005. [RFC4306] Kaufman, C., "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol", RFC 4306, December 2005. [RFC4502] Waldbusser, S., "Remote Network Monitoring Management Information Base Version 2", RFC 4502, May 2006. [RFC4710] Siddiqui, A., Romascanu, D., and E. Golovinsky, "Real-time Application Quality-of-Service Monitoring (RAQMON) Framework", RFC 4710, October 2006. [RFC4741] Enns, R., "NETCONF Configuration Protocol", RFC 4741, December 2006. Harrington Expires January 8, 2008 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Ops and Mgmt Guidelines July 2007 Appendix A. Open Issues Appendix B. Change Log Changes from 00 to 01 modified unclear text in "Desiggn for Operations and Management" Expanded discussion of counters Removed some redundant text Added ACLs to Security Management Expanded discussion of the status of COPS-PR, SPPI, and PIBs. Expanded comparison of RADIUS and Diameter. Added placeholders for EPP and XCAP protocols. Added Change Log and Open Issues Author's Address David Harrington Huawei Technologies USA 1700 Alma Dr, Suite 100 Plano, TX 75075 USA Phone: +1 603 436 8634 Fax: EMail: dharrington@huawei.com URI: Harrington Expires January 8, 2008 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Ops and Mgmt Guidelines July 2007 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA). Harrington Expires January 8, 2008 [Page 32]