Internet Draft Andy Bierman
Chris Bucci
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Russell Dietz
Apptitude, Inc.
Albin Warth
Netscout Systems, Inc.
28 February 2002
Remote Network Monitoring MIB
Protocol Identifier Reference Extensions
<draft-ietf-rmonmib-appverbs-03.txt>
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all
provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 [RFC2026].
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.
Distribution of this document is unlimited. Please send comments to the
RMONMIB WG mailing list <rmonmib@ietf.org>.
Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers February 2002
1. Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
2. Abstract
This memo defines extensions to the Protocol Identifier Reference
document for the identification of application verb information. It does
not obsolete any portion of the Protocol Identifier Reference document.
In particular, it describes the algorithms required to identify protocol
operations (verbs) within the protocol encapsulations managed with the
Remote Network Monitoring MIB Version 2, RFC 2021.
3. Table of Contents
1 Copyright Notice ................................................ 2
2 Abstract ........................................................ 2
3 Table of Contents ............................................... 2
4 The SNMP Network Management Framework ........................... 3
5 Overview ........................................................ 4
5.1 Protocol Identifier Framework ................................. 4
5.2 Protocol Identifier Extensions for Application Verbs .......... 4
5.3 Terms ......................................................... 5
5.4 Relationship to the RMON-2 MIB ................................ 6
5.5 Relationship to the RMON MIB Protocol Identifier Reference .... 6
6 Definitions ..................................................... 6
6.1 Verb Identifier Macro Format .................................. 6
6.1.1 Lexical Conventions ......................................... 6
6.1.2 Extended Grammar for the PI Language ........................ 6
6.1.3 Mapping of the Parent Protocol Name ......................... 8
6.1.4 Mapping of the DESCRIPTION Clause ........................... 8
6.1.5 Mapping of the REFERENCE Clause ............................. 8
6.1.6 Mapping of the Verb List Clause ............................. 8
6.1.6.1 Mapping of the Verb Name Field ............................ 9
6.1.6.2 Mapping of the Verb Enum Field ............................ 9
6.2 Protocol Directory Requirements ............................... 9
6.2.1 Mapping of the Verb Layer Numbering Space ................... 9
6.2.2 Mapping of the ProtocolDirID object ......................... 10
6.2.3 Mapping of the ProtocolDirParameters object ................. 10
6.2.4 Mapping of the ProtocolDirLocalIndex object ................. 11
6.2.5 Mapping of the protocolDirDescr object ...................... 11
6.2.6 Mapping of the protocolDirType object ....................... 11
6.2.7 Mapping of the protocolDirAddressMapConfig object ........... 11
6.2.8 Mapping of the protocolDirHostConfig object ................. 11
6.2.9 Mapping of the protocolDirMatrixConfig object ............... 11
Expires August 28, 2002 [Page 2]
Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers February 2002
6.2.10 Mapping of the protocolDirOwner object ..................... 12
6.2.11 Mapping of the protocolDirStatus object .................... 12
7 Implementation Considerations ................................... 12
7.1 Stateful Protocol Decoding .................................... 12
7.2 Packet Capture ................................................ 12
7.3 RMON-2 MIB Collections ........................................ 13
8 Appendix A: Usage Examples ...................................... 14
8.1 FTP Example ................................................... 14
8.2 POP3 Example .................................................. 15
8.3 SNMP Example .................................................. 16
8.4 HTTP Example .................................................. 16
8.5 SMTP Example .................................................. 17
9 Intellectual Property ........................................... 18
10 Acknowledgements ............................................... 18
11 References ..................................................... 18
12 IANA Considerations ............................................ 21
13 Security Considerations ........................................ 21
14 Author's Address ............................................... 22
15 Full Copyright Statement ....................................... 23
4. The SNMP Network Management Framework
The SNMP Management Framework presently consists of five major
components:
o An overall architecture, described in RFC 2571 [RFC2571].
o Mechanisms for describing and naming objects and events for the
purpose of management. The first version of this Structure of
Management Information (SMI) is called SMIv1 and described in
RFC 1155 [RFC1155], RFC 1212 [RFC1212] and RFC 1215 [RFC1215].
The second version, called SMIv2, is described in RFC 2578
[RFC2578], RFC 2579 [RFC2579] and RFC 2580 [RFC2580].
o Message protocols for transferring management information. The
first version of the SNMP message protocol is called SNMPv1 and
described in RFC 1157 [RFC1157]. A second version of the SNMP
message protocol, which is not an Internet standards track
protocol, is called SNMPv2c and described in RFC 1901 [RFC1901]
and RFC 1906 [RFC1906]. The third version of the message
protocol is called SNMPv3 and described in RFC 1906 [RFC1906],
RFC 2572 [RFC2572] and RFC 2574 [RFC2574].
o Protocol operations for accessing management information. The
first set of protocol operations and associated PDU formats is
Expires August 28, 2002 [Page 3]
Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers February 2002
described in RFC 1157 [RFC1157]. A second set of protocol
operations and associated PDU formats is described in RFC 1905
[RFC1905].
o A set of fundamental applications described in RFC 2573
[RFC2573] and the view-based access control mechanism described
in RFC 2575 [RFC2575].
A more detailed introduction to the current SNMP Management Framework
can be found in RFC 2570 [RFC2570].
Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed
the Management Information Base or MIB. Objects in the MIB are
defined using the mechanisms defined in the SMI.
This memo does not specify a MIB module.
5. Overview
There is a need for a standardized way of identifying the protocol
operations defined for particular application protocols. Different
protocol operations can have very different performance characteristics,
and it is desirable to collect certain metrics at this level of
granularity. This memo defines extensions to the existing protocol
identifier structure [RFC2895], and is intended to update, not obsolete,
the existing protocol identifier encoding rules.
5.1. Protocol Identifier Framework
The RMON Protocol Identifier (PI) structure [RFC2895] allows for a
variable number of layer identifiers. Each layer contributes 4 octets to
the protocolDirID OCTET STRING and one octet to the
protocolDirParameters OCTET STRING. These two MIB objects comprise the
index into the protocolDirTable [RFC2021], and represent a globally
unique identifier for a particular protocol encapsulation (or set of
encapsulations if the wild-card base layer is used).
5.2. Protocol Identifier Extensions for Application Verbs
The existing RMON protocol identifier architecture requires that an
application verb be represented by one additional protocol layer,
appended to the protocol identifier for the parent application. Since
some application verbs are defined as strings which can exceed 4 octets
in length, an integer mapping must be provided for each string. This
memo specifies how the verb layer is structured, as well as a verb
Expires August 28, 2002 [Page 4]
Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers February 2002
identifier macro syntax for specification of verb name to integer
mappings.
5.3. Terms
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. [RFC2119]
This document uses some terms defined in the RMON Protocol Identifier
Reference document [RFC2895], and some new terms that need introduction
here.
Application Verb
Also called simply 'verb'. Refers to one of potentially many
protocol operations that are defined by a particular application
protocol.
Note that an application verb is not equivalent to an application
protocol sub-command or opcode within a packet containing a PDU for
the application. An application verb is a transaction type, and
may involve several PDU types within the application protocol
(e.g., SNMP Get-PDU and Response-PDU). In some applications, a
verb may encompass protocol operations pertaining to more than one
protocol entry in the protocol directory (e.g., ftp and ftp-data).
Connect Verb
The special application verb associated with connection or session
setup and tear-down traffic, and not attributed to any other verb
for the application. This verb is assigned the enumeration value of
zero, and the verb 'connect(0)' is implicitly defined for all
application protocols.
Parent Application
One of potentially many protocol encapsulations which identifies a
particular application protocol. This term refers generically to
any or all such encapsulations for a given set of application
verbs.
Verb Layer
The portion of the protocol identifier octet string which
identifies the application verb.
Verb Set
The group of verbs enumerated for a particular application
Expires August 28, 2002 [Page 5]
Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers February 2002
protocol. The list of verb strings within a particular verb-
identifier macro invocation is also called the verb set for that
verb identifier.
5.4. Relationship to the RMON-2 MIB
The RMON-2 MIB [RFC2021] contains the protocolDirTable MIB objects used
to identify all protocol encapsulations that can be monitored by a
particular RMON agent.
This memo describes how these MIB objects are mapped by an
implementation, for entries which identify application verbs. This
document does not define any new MIB objects to identify application
verbs.
5.5. Relationship to the RMON MIB Protocol Identifier Reference
The RMON MIB Protocol Identifier Reference [RFC2895] defines the RMON
Protocol Identifier Macro Specification Language, as well as the
encoding rules for the ProtocolDirID and protocolDirParameters OCTET
STRINGs. This memo defines extensions to the Protocol Identifier
Reference for the identification of application verb information. It
does not obsolete any portion of the Protocol Identifier Reference
document.
6. Definitions
6.1. Verb Identifier Macro Format
The following example is meant to introduce the verb-identifier macro.
This macro-like construct is used to represent protocol verbs for a
specific parent application.
6.1.1. Lexical Conventions
The following keyword is added to the PI language:
VERB-IDENTIFIER
6.1.2. Extended Grammar for the PI Language
The following is the extended BNF notation for the grammar with starting
symbol <piFile>, for representing verb identifier macros. Note that only
the term <piFile> is actually modified from the definition in [RFC2895].
Expires August 28, 2002 [Page 6]
Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers February 2002
The <piDefinition> syntax is not reproduced here, since this memo is
intended to extend that definition, not replace it.
-- a file containing one or more
-- Protocol Identifier (PI) definitions
<piFile> = [ <piDefinition> | <piVerbDefinition> ]...
-- a PI definition
<piVerbDefinition> =
[<wspace>] <parentProtoName> <wspace> "VERB-IDENTIFIER"
<wspace> "DESCRIPTION" <wspace> string
[ <wspace> "REFERENCE" <wspace> string ]
[<wspace>] "::=" [<wspace>]
"{" [<wspace>] <verbList> [<wspace>] "}" [<wspace>]
-- a list of verb identifier string
<verbList> = <verbId> [ [<wspace>] "," [<wspace>] <verbId> ]...
-- a verb identifier string
<verbId> = <verbName> [<wspace>] "(" [<wspace>]
<verbEnum> [<wspace>] ")" [<wspace>]
-- a protocol name
<parentProtoName> = <protoName>
-- a verb name
<verbName> = <lcname>
-- a verb enumeration
<verbEnum> = <posNum>
-- a positive integer
<posNum> = any integer value greater than zero and
less than 16,777,216
-- <piDefinition> syntax is defined in [RFC2895]
-- <protoName> syntax is defined in [RFC2895]
-- <wspace> syntax is defined in [RFC2895]
-- <lcname> syntax is defined in [RFC2895]
Expires August 28, 2002 [Page 7]
Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers February 2002
6.1.3. Mapping of the Parent Protocol Name
The "parentProtoName" value, called the "parent protocol name" SHOULD be
an ASCII string consisting of 1 to 64 characters. The encoding rules
are exactly as specified in section 6.2.4 of [RFC2895], for the mapping
of the protocol name field. The value for <parentProtoName> (which is
called the "parent protocol name") MUST be the value of a protocol
identifier defined as specified for <protoName> in section 3.2.4 of
[RFC2895]. The value of <parentProtoName> MUST specify a <protoName>
defined in the <piFile>.
A protocol identifier macro SHOULD exist in the <piFile> for at least
one encapsulation of the parent application protocol, if any verb
identifier macros referencing that parent application are present in the
<piFile>.
6.1.4. Mapping of the DESCRIPTION Clause
The DESCRIPTION clause provides a textual description of the protocol
verb set identified by this macro. It SHOULD NOT contain details about
items covered by the DECODING and REFERENCE clauses. The DESCRIPTION
clause MUST be present in all verb-identifier macro declarations.
6.1.5. Mapping of the REFERENCE Clause
If a publicly available reference document exists for this set of
application protocol verbs, it SHOULD be listed here. Typically this
will be a URL, otherwise it will be the name and address of the
controlling body.
The REFERENCE clause is optional, but SHOULD be implemented if an
authoritative reference exists which specifies the application protocol
verbs defined in the <verbList> section of this macro.
6.1.6. Mapping of the Verb List Clause
The verb list clause MUST be present, and is used to identify a list of
application verb names, and associate a numeric constant with each verb
name. At least one verb MUST be specified, and a maximum of 16,777,215
(2^^24 - 1) verbs MAY be specified. This enumerated list SHOULD be
densely numbered and (i.e. valued from '1' to 'N', where 'N' is the
total number of verbs defined in the macro).
Expires August 28, 2002 [Page 8]
Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers February 2002
6.1.6.1. Mapping of the Verb Name Field
The <verbName> field is case-sensitive, and SHOULD be set to the most
appropriate string name for each application verb. If a readable string
is defined in an authoritative document, then that string SHOULD be
used. If no such string exists, then an appropriate but arbitrary
string should be selected for this value.
Verb names MUST be unique for a particular parent application. Note
that the special 'connect(0)' verb is implicitly defined for each
application protocol. It is possible for an explicit definition of this
verb (e.g. 'connect(8)' for http) to exist for a protocol, as well as
the implicit 'connect(0)' verb.
6.1.6.2. Mapping of the Verb Enum Field
The <verbEnum> field MUST be unique for all verbs associated with a
particular parent application. This field SHOULD contain a value
between '1' and '16,777,215' inclusive.
6.2. Protocol Directory Requirements
This section defines how the protocolDirTable should be populated for
any application verb identified with a verb-identifier macro.
An agent MUST implement all applicable protocolDirTable MIB objects on
behalf of each supported application verb.
6.2.1. Mapping of the Verb Layer Numbering Space
The verb layer consists of the 4 octets within the protocolDirID INDEX
field which identify a particular application verb.
Figure 1
Verb Layer Format
-----------------
protocolDirID string fragment
---+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| resrvd | |
.. | set to | verb enumeration value |
| zero | (a) (b) (c) |
---+--------+--------+--------+--------+ octet
| 1 | 3 | count
Expires August 28, 2002 [Page 9]
Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers February 2002
The first octet is reserved for future use and MUST be set to zero.
The next three octets identify the <verbEnum> field used to enumerate
the particular application verb represented by the <verbName> field.
This field is a 24-bit unsigned integer, encoded in network byte order.
The value zero is reserved to identify the special 'connect(0)' verb.
This verb enumeration value (i.e. '0' part of 'connect(0)') MUST NOT be
redefined in a verb identifier macro verb list. Note that the verb name
'connect' is not reserved and MAY be redefined in a verb list.
6.2.2. Mapping of the ProtocolDirID object
The protocolDirID OCTET STRING value for a particular application verb
is represented by the protocolDirID value for the parent application,
appended with the verb's layer identifier value.
Figure 2
ProtocolDirID Format for Verbs
------------------------------
protocolDirID string
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| parent | verb |
| protocolDirID | layer |
| string | value |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+ octet
| length of parent ID | 4 | count
The protocolDirID object is encoded as the protocolDirID value of the
parent application, followed by four additional octets representing the
verb layer. The verb layer value is encoded as [0.a.b.c] where 'a' is
the high order byte, 'b' is the middle order byte, and 'c' is the low
order byte of the <verbEnum> field for the specific application verb
value. A valid PI verb enumeration will be encoded in the range
"0.0.0.0" to "0.255.255.255", where the special value "0.0.0.0" is
reserved for the implicitly defined 'connect(0)' verb.
6.2.3. Mapping of the ProtocolDirParameters object
The protocolDirParameters OCTET STRING value for a particular
application verb is represented by the protocolDirParameters value for
the parent application, appended with one octet containing the value
zero.
Expires August 28, 2002 [Page 10]
Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers February 2002
6.2.4. Mapping of the ProtocolDirLocalIndex object
The agent MUST assign an appropriate protocolDirLocalIndex value for
each application verb, according to the encoding rules defined for this
object in [RFC2021] and [RFC2895].
6.2.5. Mapping of the protocolDirDescr object
The agent MUST convey the <verbName> value for a particular application
verb in the protocolDirDescr object. This object SHOULD be encoded as
the protocolDirDescr value for the parent application, appended with a
'dot' character, followed by the exact text contained in the <verbName>
field.
6.2.6. Mapping of the protocolDirType object
The agent MUST set the protocolDirType object for each application verb
to the value representing the empty bit set ( {} ).
6.2.7. Mapping of the protocolDirAddressMapConfig object
The agent MUST set the protocolDirAddressMapConfig object for each
application verb to the value 'notSupported(1)'.
6.2.8. Mapping of the protocolDirHostConfig object
The agent MUST set the protocolDirHostConfig object for each application
verb present in the protocol directory, according to the monitoring
capabilities for each verb. The agent MAY set this object to the same
value as configured in the parent application protocolDirHostConfig
object. The agent MAY choose to transition this object from the value
'supportedOn(2)' to 'supportedOff(3)', if the parent application
protocolDirHostConfig object first transitions from 'supportedOn(2)' to
'supportedOff(3)'.
6.2.9. Mapping of the protocolDirMatrixConfig object
The agent MUST set the protocolDirMatrixConfig object for each
application verb, according to the monitoring capabilities for each
verb. The agent MAY set this object to the same value as configured in
the parent application protocolDirMatrixConfig object. The agent MAY
choose to transition this object from the value 'supportedOn(2)' to
'supportedOff(3)', if the parent application protocolDirMatrixConfig
object first transitions from 'supportedOn(2)' to 'supportedOff(3)'.
Expires August 28, 2002 [Page 11]
Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers February 2002
6.2.10. Mapping of the protocolDirOwner object
This object is encoded exactly the same for application verbs as for
other protocolDirTable entries, according to the rules specified in the
RMON-2 MIB [RFC2021].
6.2.11. Mapping of the protocolDirStatus object
This object is encoded exactly the same for application verbs as for
other protocolDirTable entries, according to the rules specified in
RMON-2 MIB [RFC2021].
7. Implementation Considerations
This section discusses the implementation implications for agents which
support verbs in the protocol directory, and the RMON collections which
utilize the protocol directory.
7.1. Stateful Protocol Decoding
Implementations of the RMON-2 MIB for application layer and network
layer protocols typically require little if any state to be maintained
by the probe. The probe can generally decide whether to count a packet
and its octets on the packet's own merits, without referencing or
updating any state information.
Implementations of the RMON-2 MIB at the verb layer will, for many
protocols, need to maintain state information in order to correctly
classify a packet as "belonging" to one verb or another. The examples
below illustrate this point.
For SNMP over UDP, a Response-PDU for an SNMP Get-PDU can't be
distinguished from a Response-PDU for a Getnext-PDU. A probe would need
to maintain state information in order to correlate a Response-PDU from
B to A with a previous request from A to B.
For application protocols carried over a stream-based transport such as
TCP, the information required to identify an application verb can span
several packets. A probe would need to follow the transport-layer flow
in order to correctly parse the application-layer data.
7.2. Packet Capture
For packet capture based on verb-layer protocol directory filtering, the
decision to include a packet in the capture buffer may need to be
Expires August 28, 2002 [Page 12]
Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers February 2002
deferred until the packet can be conclusively attributed to a particular
verb. A probe may need to pre-buffer packets while deciding to include
or exclude them from capture based on other packets that have not yet
arrived.
7.3. RMON-2 MIB Collections
Data collections such as the protocol distribution or AL Host Table
require that each packet is counted only once, i.e. a given packet is
fully classified as a single protocol encapsulation, which resolves to a
single leaf entry in the protocol directory. Also, octet counters
related to protocol classification are incremented by the entire size of
packet, not just the octets associated with a particular encapsulation
layer.
It is possible that particular application protocols will allow multiple
types of verbs to be present in a single packet. In this case, the agent
MUST choose one verb type, and therefore one protocol directory entry,
in order to properly count such a packet.
It is an implementation-specific matter as to which verb type an agent
selects to identify a packet, in the event more than one verb type is
present in that packet. Some possible choices include:
- the first verb type encountered in the packet
- the verb type with the most instances in the packet
- the verb type using the largest number of octets in the packet
- the most 'interesting' verb type in the packet (based on
knowledge of that application protocol).
Expires August 28, 2002 [Page 13]
Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers February 2002
8. Appendix A: Usage Examples
The following examples are listed to demonstrate how RMON verb
identifiers are declared.
8.1. FTP Example
This example defines verb enumeration values for the File Transfer
Protocol, as defined in RFC 959 and updated by RFC 2228 and RFC 2640.
Note that verb name strings specified in the <verbName> field are not
limited to 4 characters in length. In the FTP protocol, all the command
names are 4 characters in length, and the verb name string should match
the official command name as closely as possible.
ftp VERB-IDENTIFIER
DESCRIPTION
"The set of verbs for FTP is derived from the list
of commands defined for the File Transfer Protocol,
which are identified by case-insensitive strings.
The commands are simply listed in the order found
in the FTP documentation."
REFERENCE
"File Transfer Protocol, RFC 959, Section 4.1;
FTP Security Extensions, RFC 2228, Section 3;
Internationalization of the File Transfer Protocol,
RFC 2640, Section 4.1."
::= {
user(1), -- USER NAME
pass(2), -- PASSWORD
acct(3), -- ACCOUNT
cwd(4), -- CHANGE WORKING DIRECTORY
cdup(5), -- CHANGE TO PARENT DIRECTORY
smnt(6), -- STRUCTURE MOUNT
rein(7), -- REINITIALIZE
quit(8), -- LOGOUT
port(9), -- DATA PORT
pasv(10), -- PASSIVE
type(11), -- REPRESENTATION TYPE
stru(12), -- FILE STRUCTURE
mode(13), -- TRANSFER MODE
retr(14), -- RETRIEVE
stor(15), -- STORE
stou(16), -- STORE UNIQUE
appe(17), -- APPEND (with create)
allo(18), -- ALLOCATE
Expires August 28, 2002 [Page 14]
Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers February 2002
rest(19), -- RESTART
rnfr(20), -- RENAME FROM
rnto(21), -- RENAME TO
abor(22), -- ABORT
dele(23), -- DELETE
rmd(24), -- REMOVE DIRECTORY
mkd(25), -- MAKE DIRECTORY
pwd(26), -- PRINT WORKING DIRECTORY
list(27), -- LIST
nlst(28), -- NAME LIST
site(29), -- SITE PARAMETERS
syst(30), -- SYSTEM
stat(31), -- STATUS
help(32), -- HELP
noop(33), -- NOOP
auth(34), -- AUTHENTICATION/SECURITY MECHANISM
adat(35), -- AUTHENTICATION/SECURITY DATA
pbsz(36), -- PROTECTION BUFFER SIZE
prot(37), -- DATA CHANNEL PROTECTION LEVEL
ccc(38), -- CLEAR COMMAND CHANNEL
mic(39), -- INTEGRITY PROTECTED COMMAND
conf(40), -- CONFIDENTIALITY PROTECTED COMMAND
enc(41), -- PRIVACY PROTECTED COMMAND
lang(42) -- LANGUAGE
}
8.2. POP3 Example
This example defines verb enumeration values for the Post Office
Protocol, Version 3, as defined in RFC 1939 and updated by RFC 2449.
pop3 VERB-IDENTIFIER
DESCRIPTION
"The set of verbs for POP3 is derived from the list
of commands defined for the Post Office Protocol,
which are identified by case-insensitive strings.
The commands are simply listed in the order found
in the POP3 command summary."
REFERENCE
"Post Office Protocol, Version 3, RFC 1939, Section 9;
POP3 Extension Mechanism, RFC 2449, Section 5."
::= {
user(1),
pass(2),
Expires August 28, 2002 [Page 15]
Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers February 2002
quit(3),
stat(4),
list(5),
retr(6),
dele(7),
noop(8),
rset(9),
apop(10),
top(11),
uidl(12),
capa(13)
}
8.3. SNMP Example
This example defines verb enumeration values for the Simple Network
Management Protocol, as defined in RFC 1905.
snmp VERB-IDENTIFIER
DESCRIPTION
"The set of verbs for SNMP is derived from the list
of PDU transaction types in the Protocol Operations
document for SNMPv2. Note that the 'Response'
and 'Report' PDUs are not considered verbs, but are
classified as belonging to the transaction type
associated with the request PDU."
REFERENCE
"Protocol Operations for Version 2 of the
Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2),
RFC 1905, Section 3."
::= {
get(1),
get-next(2),
get-bulk(3),
set(4),
inform-request(5),
trap(6)
}
8.4. HTTP Example
This example defines verb enumeration values for the Hypertext Transfer
Protocol, version 1.1, as defined in RFC 2616.
Expires August 28, 2002 [Page 16]
Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers February 2002
http VERB-IDENTIFIER
DESCRIPTION
"The set of verbs for HTTP is derived from the list
of methods defined for the Hypertext Transfer Protocol,
which are identified by case-sensitive strings.
The commands are simply listed in the order found
in the HTTP/1.1 documentation. Methods commonly used
in HTTP/1.0 are a proper subset of those used in HTTP/1.1.
Both versions of the protocol are in current use."
REFERENCE
"Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1, RFC 2616,
Section 9; Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0, RFC
1945, Section 8."
::= {
options(1),
get(2),
head(3),
post(4),
put(5),
delete(6),
trace(7),
connect(8) -- reserved for future use by HTTP/1.1
}
8.5. SMTP Example
This example defines verb enumeration values for the Simple Mail
Transfer Protocol as defined in RFC 2821.
smtp VERB-IDENTIFIER
DESCRIPTION
"The set of verbs for SMTP is derived from the set of
commands defined for the protocol. These commands are identified
by case-insensitive strings. Commands are listed in the
order found in RFC 2821. The special "xcmd" verb is defined
here as a catch-all for private-use commands, which must
start with the letter 'X'."
REFERENCE
"Simple Mail Transfer Protocol -- RFC 2821, sections 4.1.1
and 4.1.5."
::= {
ehlo(1), -- Extended HELLO (4.1.1.1)
helo(2), -- HELLO (4.1.1.1)
mail(3), -- MAIL (4.1.1.2)
Expires August 28, 2002 [Page 17]
Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers February 2002
rcpt(4), -- RECIPIENT (4.1.1.3)
data(5), -- DATA (4.1.1.4)
rset(6), -- RESET (4.1.1.5)
vrfy(7), -- VERIFY (4.1.1.6)
expn(8), -- EXPAND (4.1.1.7)
help(9), -- HELP (4.1.1.8)
noop(10), -- NOOP (4.1.1.9)
quit(11), -- QUIT (4.1.1.10)
xcmd(12) -- Catch-all for private-use "X" commands (4.1.5)
}
9. Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property 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; neither does it represent that it has made any
effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's
procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-
related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of
rights made available for publication 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
implementors or users of this specification can be obtained from the
IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights
which may cover technology that may be required to practice this
standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
10. Acknowledgements
This memo is a product of the RMONMIB WG.
11. References
[RFC1155]
Rose, M., and K. McCloghrie, "Structure and Identification of
Management Information for TCP/IP-based Internets", RFC 1155,
Performance Systems International, Hughes LAN Systems, May 1990.
Expires August 28, 2002 [Page 18]
Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers February 2002
[RFC1157]
Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M., and J. Davin, "Simple Network
Management Protocol", RFC 1157, SNMP Research, Performance Systems
International, Performance Systems International, MIT Laboratory
for Computer Science, May 1990.
[RFC1212]
Rose, M., and K. McCloghrie, "Concise MIB Definitions", RFC 1212,
Performance Systems International, Hughes LAN Systems, March 1991.
[RFC1215]
M. Rose, "A Convention for Defining Traps for use with the SNMP",
RFC 1215, Performance Systems International, March 1991.
[RFC1901]
SNMPv2 Working Group, Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S.
Waldbusser, "Introduction to Community-based SNMPv2", RFC 1901,
SNMP Research, Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., Dover Beach Consulting,
Inc., International Network Services, January 1996.
[RFC1905]
SNMPv2 Working Group, Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S.
Waldbusser, "Protocol Operations for Version 2 of the Simple
Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1905, SNMP Research,
Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., Dover Beach Consulting, Inc.,
International Network Services, January 1996.
[RFC1906]
SNMPv2 Working Group, Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S.
Waldbusser, "Transport Mappings for Version 2 of the Simple Network
Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1906, SNMP Research, Inc., Cisco
Systems, Inc., Dover Beach Consulting, Inc., International Network
Services, January 1996.
[RFC2021]
S. Waldbusser, "Remote Network Monitoring MIB (RMON-2)", RFC 2021,
International Network Services, January 1997.
[RFC2026]
Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", RFC
2026, Harvard University, October, 1996.
[RFC2119]
S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels" RFC 2119, Harvard University, March 1997.
Expires August 28, 2002 [Page 19]
Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers February 2002
[RFC2570]
Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart, "Introduction to
Version 3 of the Internet-standard Network Management Framework",
RFC 2570, SNMP Research, Inc., TIS Labs at Network Associates,
Inc., Ericsson, Cisco Systems, April 1999.
[RFC2571]
Harrington, D., Presuhn, R., and B. Wijnen, "An Architecture for
Describing SNMP Management Frameworks", RFC 2571, Cabletron
Systems, Inc., BMC Software, Inc., IBM T. J. Watson Research, April
1999.
[RFC2572]
Case, J., Harrington D., Presuhn R., and B. Wijnen, "Message
Processing and Dispatching for the Simple Network Management
Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 2572, SNMP Research, Inc., Cabletron Systems,
Inc., BMC Software, Inc., IBM T. J. Watson Research, April 1999.
[RFC2573]
Levi, D., Meyer, P., and B. Stewart, "SNMPv3 Applications", RFC
2573, SNMP Research, Inc., Secure Computing Corporation, Cisco
Systems, April 1999.
[RFC2574]
Blumenthal, U., and B. Wijnen, "User-based Security Model (USM) for
version 3 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv3)", RFC
2574, IBM T. J. Watson Research, April 1999.
[RFC2575]
Wijnen, B., Presuhn, R., and K. McCloghrie, "View-based Access
Control Model (VACM) for the Simple Network Management Protocol
(SNMP)", RFC 2575, IBM T. J. Watson Research, BMC Software, Inc.,
Cisco Systems, Inc., April 1999.
[RFC2578]
McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose, M.,
and S. Waldbusser, "Structure of Management Information Version 2
(SMIv2)", RFC 2578, STD 58, Cisco Systems, SNMPinfo, TU
Braunschweig, SNMP Research, First Virtual Holdings, International
Network Services, April 1999.
[RFC2579]
McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose, M.,
and S. Waldbusser, "Textual Conventions for SMIv2", RFC 2579, STD
58, Cisco Systems, SNMPinfo, TU Braunschweig, SNMP Research, First
Expires August 28, 2002 [Page 20]
Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers February 2002
Virtual Holdings, International Network Services, April 1999.
[RFC2580]
McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose, M.,
and S. Waldbusser, "Conformance Statements for SMIv2", RFC 2580,
STD 58, Cisco Systems, SNMPinfo, TU Braunschweig, SNMP Research,
First Virtual Holdings, International Network Services, April 1999.
[RFC2895]
Bierman, A., Bucci, C., and R. Iddon, "Remote Network Monitoring
MIB Protocol Identifiers", RFC 2895, Cisco Systems, 3Com, Inc.,
August 2000.
12. IANA Considerations
At this time there are no application protocol verbs defined that
require IANA registration, similar to the 'ianaAssigned' protocol
identifiers found in RFC 2895. It is remotely possible that a future
version of this document will contain application verb definitions which
require assignment in the 'ianaAssigned' protocol identifier subtree.
13. Security Considerations
This memo defines the structure of a portion of the Remote Monitoring
MIB framework, but does not define any MIB objects or protocol
operations. It does not introduce any new security risks into a managed
system.
Expires August 28, 2002 [Page 21]
Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers February 2002
14. Author's Address
Andy Bierman
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA USA 95134
Phone: +1 408-527-3711
Email: abierman@cisco.com
Chris Bucci
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA USA 95134
Phone: +1 408-527-5337
Email: cbucci@cisco.com
Russell Dietz
Apptitude, Inc.
6330 San Ignacio Avenue
San Jose, CA USA 95119
Phone: +1 408-574-2256
Email: rsdietz@apptitude.com
Albin Warth
NetScout Systems, Inc.
4 Technology Park Drive
Westford, MA 01886
Phone: (978) 614-4306
Email: albin@netscout.com
Expires August 28, 2002 [Page 22]
Internet Draft RMON Verb Identifiers February 2002
15. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or
assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and
distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included
on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself
may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice
or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations,
except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in
which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet
Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into
languages other than English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS
IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK
FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
Expires August 28, 2002 [Page 23]
