[Search] [txt|pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00                                                            
Network Working Group                                         F. Strauss
Internet-Draft                                           TU Braunschweig
Expires: May 15, 2002                                  November 14, 2001


                            SMIng Compliance
                       draft-ietf-sming-compl-00

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of 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.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 15, 2002.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   The memo [9], which has been approved by the IESG to be published as
   an Informational RFC, enumerates a number of objectives that the
   SMIng language is expected to fulfill.  This memo describes the
   compliance of a proposal based on former IRTF NMRG [8] work and
   published in [10] and companion I-Ds for each of the strived
   objectives.  This is done by including the whole list of objectives
   without any changes, but adding a compliance section for each of the
   objectives, so that reading is as easy as possible.







Strauss                   Expires May 15, 2002                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft              SMIng Compliance               November 2001


Table of Contents

   1.     Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.     Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.     Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.     Specific Objectives for SMIng  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.1    Accepted Objectives  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.1.1  The Set of Specification Documents . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.1.2  Textual Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.1.3  Human Readability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.1.4  Rigorously Defined Syntax  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.1.5  Accessibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.1.6  Language Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.1.7  Special Characters in Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   4.1.8  Naming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   4.1.9  Namespace Control  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   4.1.10 Modules  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   4.1.11 Module Conformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   4.1.12 Arbitrary Unambiguous Identities . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   4.1.13 Protocol Independence  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   4.1.14 Protocol Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   4.1.15 Translation to Other Data Definition Languages . . . . . .  13
   4.1.16 Base Data Types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   4.1.17 Enumerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   4.1.18 Discriminated Unions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   4.1.19 Instance Pointers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   4.1.20 Row Pointers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   4.1.21 Constraints on Pointers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   4.1.22 Base Type Set  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   4.1.23 Extended Data Types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   4.1.24 Units, Formats, and Default Values of Defined Types and
          Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   4.1.25 Table Existence Relationships  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   4.1.26 Table Existence Relationships (2)  . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   4.1.27 Attribute Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   4.1.28 Containment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   4.1.29 Single Inheritance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   4.1.30 Reusable vs. Final Attribute Groups  . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   4.1.31 Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   4.1.32 Creation/Deletion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   4.1.33 Range and Size Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   4.1.34 Uniqueness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   4.1.35 Extension Rules  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   4.1.36 Deprecate Use of IMPLIED Keyword . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   4.1.37 No Redundancy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   4.1.38 Compliance and Conformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   4.1.39 Allow Refinement of All Definitions in Conformance
          Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23



Strauss                   Expires May 15, 2002                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft              SMIng Compliance               November 2001


   4.1.40 Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   4.1.41 Core Language Keywords vs. Defined Identifiers . . . . . .  24
   4.1.42 Instance Naming  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   4.1.43 Length of Identifiers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   4.1.44 Assign OIDs in the Protocol Mappings . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   4.2    Nice-to-Have Objectives  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   4.2.1  Methods  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   4.2.2  Unions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   4.2.3  Float Data Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   4.2.4  Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   4.2.5  Referencing Tagged Rows  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   4.2.6  Arrays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
   4.2.7  Internationalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
   4.2.8  Separate Data Modeling from Management Protocol Mapping  .  30
   4.3    Rejected Objectives  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
   4.3.1  Incomplete Translations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
   4.3.2  Attribute Value Constraints  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
   4.3.3  Attribute Transaction Constraints  . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
   4.3.4  Method Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
   4.3.5  Agent Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
   4.3.6  Relationships  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
   4.3.7  Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
   4.3.8  Associations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
   4.3.9  Association Cardinalities  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
   4.3.10 Categories of Modules  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
   4.3.11 Mapping Modules to Files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
   4.3.12 Simple Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
   4.3.13 Place of Module Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
   4.3.14 Module Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
   4.3.15 Hyphens in Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
   5.     Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
   6.     Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
          References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
          Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
          Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
















Strauss                   Expires May 15, 2002                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft              SMIng Compliance               November 2001


1. Introduction

   The pure purpose of this document is to describe the compliance of
   the current SMIng proposal which is based on former IRTF NMRG work
   and published in [10], [11], [12], [13], and [14], to the objectives
   stated and categorized in [9].

   For the purpose of readability and reference this has been done by
   structuring this document very closely as the objectives document.
   Only the following things have been changed:

   o  the abstract states the purpose of this document,

   o  this first part of the Introduction has been added to explain the
      structure of the document,

   o  to each single objective's section, a `Compliance' field has been
      appended, leaving the objectives itself completely unchanged,

   o  Section 4 explains the purpose of the `Compliance' field,

   o  Section 6 explains that most of this document is taken from [9]
      and acknowledges the work of the authors of that document, and

   o  the references section at the end of this document has been
      updated to include the documents of the discussed SMIng proposal.

   Hence, the document is rather long, but readers who are familiar with
   the objectives document, can parse it quickly and have the original
   descriptions of the related objectives right at hand in the known
   structure.

   [XXX TODO: stats of compliances.  XXX]

   [The rest of this section is unchanged.]

   This document describes the objectives for a new data definition
   language that can be mapped into SNMP [1], [2] and COPS-PR [3]
   protocol operations.  It may also be translated into SMIv2 [4], [5],
   [6] MIBs and SPPI [7] PIBs.  Concepts such as attributes, attribute
   groups, methods, conventions for organization into reusable data
   structures, and mechanisms for representing relationships are
   discussed.

2. Motivation

   As networking technology has evolved, a diverse set of technologies
   has been deployed to manage the resulting products.  These vary from



Strauss                   Expires May 15, 2002                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft              SMIng Compliance               November 2001


   Web based products, to standard management protocols and text
   scripts.  The underlying systems to be manipulated are represented in
   varying ways including implicitly in the system programming, via
   proprietary data descriptions, or with standardized descriptions
   using a range of technologies including MIBs, PIBs, or LDAP schemas.
   The result is that management interfaces for network protocols,
   services, and applications such as Differentiated Services may be
   represented in many different, inconsistent fashions.

   The SMIng working group has been chartered to define a new data
   definition language that will eliminate the need for a separate SMIv2
   and SPPI language.  That is, the new language should address the
   needs for the current SMIv2 and SPPI languages so that over time we
   can all use the new language instead.

   Another motivation is to permit a more expressive and complete
   representation of the modeled information.  Examples of additional
   expressiveness and completeness that are considered are the ability
   to formally define table existence relationships, the expression of
   instance creation/deletion capabilities, and the ability to define
   attribute groups using inheritance.  These additional features are
   discussed in subsequent sections.

   It has been recognized that the two main goals of (a) merging
   SMIv2/SPPI and (b) enhancing the state of art in network management
   data modeling can lead to conflicts.  In such cases, the SMIng
   working group's consensus is to focus on enhancing the state of art
   in network management data modeling.

3. Background

   The Network Management Research Group (NMRG) of the Internet Research
   Task Force (IRTF) has researched the issues of creating a protocol-
   independent data definition language that could be used by multiple
   protocols.  Because SMIv2 and SPPI are very similar, the NMRG focused
   on merging these two languages, but also researched ways to abstract
   the objectives to produce a language that could be used for other
   protocols, such as LDAP and Diameter.  The NMRG has published the
   results of their work in [8], and has submitted their specification
   as one proposal to consider in the development of the SMIng language.

   The SMIng Working Group has accepted their submission for
   consideration, and to use their proposal to better understand the
   objectives and possible obstacles to be overcome.  Where useful, the
   NMRG proposal has been referenced in the details below.






Strauss                   Expires May 15, 2002                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft              SMIng Compliance               November 2001


4. Specific Objectives for SMIng

   The following sections define the objectives for the definition of a
   new data definition language.  The objectives have been organized as
   follows: accepted objectives (Section 4.1), nice-to-have objectives
   (Section 4.2), and rejected objectives (Section 4.3).  Each objective
   has the following information:

   o  Type: a field that identifies the type of objective, using one of
      the following values:

      *  basic: considered a basic objective for SMIng and is contained
         in SMIv2 and/or SPPI.

      *  align: supported in different ways in SMIv2 and SPPI and they
         must be aligned.

      *  fix: considered a fix for a known problem in SMIv2 and/or SPPI.

      *  new: considered a new feature.

   o  From: a field that defines the origin of the objective and that
      contains one or more of the following values:

      *  SMI: exists in SMIv2.

      *  SPPI: exists in SPPI.

      *  NMRG: exists in the NMRG proposal, but not in SMIv2 or SPPI.

      *  Charter: exists in working group charter.

      *  WG: proposed during working group discussions.

   o  Description: a quick description of the objective.

   o  Motivation: rationale for the objective.

   o  Notes: optional notes about an objective.  For example, for nice-
      to-have or rejected this may contain reasoning why this objective
      is not required by the SMIng working group, but justification why
      it should be considered anyway.  Notes may be the opinions of the
      participants in the discussion on objectives and as such should
      not be taken as consensus of the working group or the
      recommendation of the objectives editing team.

   o  Compliance: a compliance statement that expresses whether and to
      which degree this objective is met by the current NMRG-based SMIng



Strauss                   Expires May 15, 2002                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft              SMIng Compliance               November 2001


      proposal.  These compliance sections are the core of this
      document.


4.1 Accepted Objectives

   This section represents the list of objectives that have been
   accepted by the SMIng working group as worthwhile and therefore
   deserving of further consideration.  Each of these objectives must be
   evaluated by the working group to determine if the benefit incurs an
   acceptable level of cost.  An accepted objective may subsequently be
   rejected if the cost/benefit analysis determines that the benefit
   does not justify the cost or that the objective is in direct conflict
   with one or more other accepted objectives that are deemed more
   important.

4.1.1 The Set of Specification Documents

   Type: new

   From: NMRG

   Description: SMIv2 is defined in three documents, based on an
      obsolete ITU ASN.1 specification.  SPPI is defined in one
      document, based on SMIv2.  The core of SMIng must be defined in
      one document and must be independent of external specifications.

   Motivation: Self-containment.

   Compliance: Ok.  The core of the NMRG based SMIng proposal is
      completely defined in [10].  There are no significant dependencies
      on non-IETF standards like ASN.1.


4.1.2 Textual Representation

   Type: basic

   From: SMI, SPPI, WG

   Description: SMIng definitions must be represented in a textual
      format.

   Motivation: General IETF consensus.

   Compliance: Ok.  The NMRG based SMIng proposal uses a plain text
      format and no binary or XML representation.




Strauss                   Expires May 15, 2002                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft              SMIng Compliance               November 2001


4.1.3 Human Readability

   Type: basic

   From: WG

   Description: The syntax must make it easy for humans to directly read
      and write SMIng modules.  It must be possible for SMIng module
      authors to produce SMIng modules with text editing tools.

   Motivation: The syntax must make it easy for humans to read and write
      SMIng modules.

   Compliance: Ok.  SMIng has a quite simple, consistently structured
      grammar that looks more friendly than ASN.1 and is well documented
      without relying on an external long-banned ITU standard or an XML
      representation that would bloat SMIng modules.  To some degree the
      grammar looks similar to the well known C and Java programming
      languages.


4.1.4 Rigorously Defined Syntax

   Type: new

   From: NMRG

   Description: There must be a rigorously defined syntax for the SMIng
      language.

   Motivation: An unambiguous language promotes consistency across
      vendors so that different parsers produce the same results.  It
      also provides authoritative rules to SMIng modules designers.

   Compliance: Ok.  The syntax is formally precisely defined by an ABNF
      grammar.


4.1.5 Accessibility

   Type: align

   From: SMI, SPPI

   Description: Attribute definitions must indicate whether attributes
      can be read, written, created, deleted, and whether they are
      accessible for notifications, or are not accessible.  Align PIB-
      ACCESS and MAX-ACCESS, and PIB-MIN-ACCESS and MIN-ACCESS.



Strauss                   Expires May 15, 2002                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft              SMIng Compliance               November 2001


   Motivation: Alignment of SMIv2 and SPPI.

   Compliance: Nearly ok.  `eventonly', `readonly', and `readwrite' are
      supported by the core SMIng specification.  The restriction to
      `non-accessible' and the ability of row creation/deletion are
      protocol specific.  This has to be expressed in the SNMP and COPS-
      PR mappings, e.g.  the SNMP mapping supports the `create' keyword.
      A `noaccess' keyword has to be added to the SNMP mapping.


4.1.6 Language Extensibility

   Type: new

   From: NMRG

   Description: The language must have characteristics, so that future
      modules can contain information of future syntax without breaking
      original SMIng parsers.

      E.g., when SMIv2 introduced REFERENCEs it would have been nice if
      it would not have broken SMIv1 parsers.

   Motivation: Achieve language extensibility without breaking core
      compatibility.

   Compliance: Ok.  The core syntax is based on statement keywords,
      followed by an number of arbitrarily complex arguments and
      finished by a semicolon.  This allows parsers to recognize but
      ignore unknown statements seamlessly.  Furthermore, SMIng supports
      explicit language extensions.  New statements can be defined along
      with a description and an ABNF grammar.  They can be used in the
      module where they are defined or in other modules if they are
      imported.  However, the language has no mechanism to define the
      context in which a language extension can be used.


4.1.7 Special Characters in Text

   Type: new

   From: WG

   Description: Allow an escaping mechanism to encode special
      characters, e.g.  double quotes and new-line characters, in text
      such as DESCRIPTIONs or REFERENCEs.

   Motivation: ABNF can contain literal characters enclosed in double



Strauss                   Expires May 15, 2002                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft              SMIng Compliance               November 2001


      quotes; to provide the ABNF grammar, there must be the ability to
      escape special characters.

   Compliance: Not yet.


4.1.8 Naming

   Type: basic

   From: SMI, SPPI

   Description: SMIng must provide mechanisms to uniquely identify
      attributes, groups of attributes, and events.  It is necessary to
      specify how name collisions are handled.

   Motivation: Already in SMIv2 and SPPI.

   Compliance: Ok.  The language has a concept of namespaces (global,
      module, class, named number types).  Within each namespace all
      identifiers are required to be unique.  To address items
      unambiguously their names can be qualified by the module name.


4.1.9 Namespace Control

   Type: basic

   From: SMI, SPPI

   Description: There must be a hierarchical, centrally-controlled
      namespace for standard named items, and a distributed namespace
      must be supported to allow vendor-specific naming and to assure
      unique module names across vendors and organizations.

   Motivation: Need to unambiguously identify definitions of various
      kinds.  Some SMI implementations have problems with different
      objects from multiple modules but with the same name.
      Furthermore, the probability of module name clashes rises over
      time (for example, different vendors defining their own SYSTEM-
      MIB).

   Notes: An example naming scheme is the one employed by the Java
      programming language with a central naming authority assigning the
      top-level names.

   Compliance: Not yet.  As with SMIv2, distributed namespaces are given
      by modules.  However, there is no centrally controlled namespace



Strauss                   Expires May 15, 2002                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft              SMIng Compliance               November 2001


      for module names.  The current idea is to state some guidelines on
      module naming, e.g.  encourage MIB authors to use module name
      prefixes that consist of vendor names or enterprise numbers.
      Another approach would be to add DNS domain names to module names.
      All these approaches would be applicable to the SMIng proposal.


4.1.10 Modules

   Type: basic

   From: SMI, SPPI

   Description: SMIng must provide a mechanism for uniquely identifying
      a module, and specifying the status, contact person, revision
      information, and the purpose of a module.

      SMIng must provide mechanisms to group definitions into modules
      and it must provide rules for referencing definitions from other
      modules.

   Motivation: Modularity and independent advancement of documents.

   Notes: Text about module conformance has been moved to Section
      4.1.11.

   Compliance: Ok.  Definitions are grouped in modules.  Modules are
      identified by names and contain status, contact, and revision
      clauses.  The language supports explicit imports from other
      modules.


4.1.11 Module Conformance

   Type: basic

   From: SMI, SPPI

   Description: SMIng must provide mechanisms to detail the minimum
      requirements implementers must meet to claim conformance to a
      standard based on the module.

   Motivation: Ability to convey conformance requirements.

   Compliance: Not yet.  Module conformance requirements affect both
      core SMIng modules and mappings to SNMP and COPS-PR.  Currently,
      there is just some first plain mapping from SMIv2 module
      conformance clauses to SNMP mapping specific `group' and



Strauss                   Expires May 15, 2002                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft              SMIng Compliance               November 2001


      `compliance' clauses.


4.1.12 Arbitrary Unambiguous Identities

   Type: basic

   From: SMI

   Description: SMI allows the use of OBJECT-IDENTITIES to define
      unambiguous identities without the need of a central registry.
      SMI uses OIDs to represent values that represent references to
      such identities.  SMIng needs a similar mechanism (a statement to
      register identities, and a base type to represent values).

   Motivation: SMI Compatibility.

   Notes: This is an obvious objective.  Additionally, everything not on
      the wire, such as modules, will still be assigned OIDs.

      It is yet to be determined whether the assignment of the OID
      occurs within the core or within a protocol-specific mapping.

   Compliance: Ok.  The language supports an `identity' clause.  In SNMP
      and COPS-PR mappings these identities can be mapped to registered
      OIDs.


4.1.13 Protocol Independence

   Type: basic

   From: Charter

   Description: SMIng must define data definitions in support of the
      SNMP and COPS-PR protocols.  SMIng may define data definitions in
      support of other protocols.

   Motivation: So data definitions may be used with multiple protocols
      and multiple versions of those protocols.

   Compliance: Ok.  The core language is used to define types and data
      structures/classes.  Protocol mappings, that can be separated from
      the core definition modules, are used to define the mappings of
      core data structures/classes to protocols like SNMP and COPS-PR
      (and maybe others).





Strauss                   Expires May 15, 2002                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft              SMIng Compliance               November 2001


4.1.14 Protocol Mapping

   Type: basic

   From: Charter

   Description: The SMIng working group, in accordance with the working
      group charter, will define mappings of protocol independent data
      definitions to protocols based upon installed implementations.
      The SMIng working group can define mappings to other protocols as
      long as this does not impede the progress on other objectives.

   Motivation: SMIng working group charter.

   Compliance: Ok.  There are I-Ds for SNMP and COPS-PR mappings [11],
      [12].  Other mappings are not subject to the current WG efforts.


4.1.15 Translation to Other Data Definition Languages

   Type: basic

   From: Charter

   Description: SMIng language constructs must, wherever possible, be
      translatable to SMIv2 and SPPI.  At the time of standardization of
      a SMIng language, existing SMIv2 MIBs and SPPI PIBs on the
      standards track will not be required to be translated to the SMIng
      language.  New MIBs/PIBs will be defined using the SMIng language.

   Motivation: Provide best-effort backwards compatibility for existing
      tools while not placing an unnecessary burden on MIBs/PIBs that
      are already on the standards track.

   Compliance: Ok.  SMIng modules per se are not protocol specific, thus
      they cannot be translated.  However, an SMIng mapping of an SMIng
      core module to SNMP or COPS-PR along with the mapped SMIng module
      can be translated to SMIv2 or SPPI.


4.1.16 Base Data Types

   Type: basic

   From: SMI, SPPI

   Description: SMIng must support the base data types Integer32,
      Unsigned32, Integer64, Unsigned64, Enumeration, Bits, OctetString,



Strauss                   Expires May 15, 2002                 [Page 13]


Internet-Draft              SMIng Compliance               November 2001


      and OID.

   Motivation: Most are already common.  Unsigned64 and Integer64 are in
      SPPI, must fix in SMI.  Note that Counter and Gauge types can be
      regarded as derived types instead of base types.

   Compliance: Ok.  All the mentioned base data types are supported by
      the language.


4.1.17 Enumerations

   Type: basic

   From: SMI, SPPI

   Description: SMIng must provide support for enumerations.  Enumerated
      values must be a part of the enumeration definition.

   Motivation: SMIv2 already has enumerated numbers.

   Notes: Enumerations have the implicit constraint that the attribute
      is constrained to the values for the enumeration.

   Compliance: Ok.  There is an `Enumeration' base data type.


4.1.18 Discriminated Unions

   Type: new

   From: WG

   Description: SMIng must support discriminated unions.

   Motivation: Allows to group related attributes together, such as
      InetAddressType (discriminator) and InetAddress, InetAddressIPv4,
      InetAddressIPv6 (union).  The lack of discriminated unions has
      also lead to relatively complex sparse table work-around in some
      DISMAN mid-level manager MIBs.

   Notes: Discriminated unions have the property that the union
      attribute type is constrained by the value of the discriminator
      attribute.

   Compliance: Not yet.  There is just a rough idea that could look like
      this:




Strauss                   Expires May 15, 2002                 [Page 14]


Internet-Draft              SMIng Compliance               November 2001


         typedef InetAddressType {
             type  Enumeration (unknown(0), ipv4(1), ipv6(2), dns(16));
             ...
         };

         class InetNetworkEndpoint {
             attribute InetAddressType type { ... };
             attribute InetAddress address {
                 typemap type {
                     map ipv4 InetAddressIPv4;
                     map ipv6 InetAddressIPv6;
                     map dns  InetAddressDNS;
                 };
                 ...
             };
         };


4.1.19 Instance Pointers

   Type: basic

   From: SMI, SPPI

   Description: SMIng must allow specifying pointers to instances (i.e.,
      a pointer to a particular attribute in a row).

   Motivation: It is common practice in MIBs and PIBs to point to other
      instances.

   Compliance: Not yet.  The ObjectIdentifier base data type can be used
      for this purpose, but it's unclear whether we will need a
      mechanism to restrict instance pointer values or whether we will
      need a more protocol independent way to specify instance pointers.


4.1.20 Row Pointers

   Type: align

   From: SMI, SPPI

   Description: SMIng must allow specifying pointers to rows.

   Motivation: It is common practice in MIBs and PIBs to point to other
      rows (see RowPointer, PIB-REFERENCES).

   Compliance: Halfway.  The language supports a `Pointer' base data



Strauss                   Expires May 15, 2002                 [Page 15]


Internet-Draft              SMIng Compliance               November 2001


      type, which can be restricted to point to instances of a specific
      class and its sub-classes.  The mapping of these abstract pointers
      to protocols is not yet done.  The COPS-PR mapping seems to be
      fairly easy, since class instances in COPS-PR can only be
      identified by a single integer value.  The mapping to SNMP is
      expected to be much more complex.


4.1.21 Constraints on Pointers

   Type: align

   From: SPPI

   Description: SMIng must allow specifying the types of objects to
      which a pointer may point.

   Motivation: Allows code generators to detect and reject illegal
      pointers automatically.  Can also be used to automatically
      generate more reasonable implementation-specific data structures.

   Notes: Pointer constraints are a special case of attribute value
      constraints (Section 4.3.2) in which the prefix of the OID (row or
      instance pointer) value is limited to be only from a particular
      table.

   Compliance: Ok.  The `Pointer' base data type can be restricted so
      that a pointer value can only reference instances of a specific
      class or its sub-classes.  See also Section 4.1.20.


4.1.22 Base Type Set

   Type: basic

   From: SMI, SPPI

   Description: SMIng must support a fixed set of base types of fixed
      size and precision.  The list of base types must not be extensible
      unless the SMI itself changes.

   Motivation: Interoperability.

   Compliance: Ok.  The language has a complete set of base data types
      as far as we can tell today, including 64-bit signed and unsigned
      integers.  Even floating point types are supported, so that
      hopefully the need for new base data types will not arise in the
      foreseeable future.



Strauss                   Expires May 15, 2002                 [Page 16]


Internet-Draft              SMIng Compliance               November 2001


4.1.23 Extended Data Types

   Type: align

   From: SMI, SPPI

   Description: SMIng must support a mechanism to derive new types,
      which provide additional semantics (e.g., Counters, Gauges,
      Strings, etc.), from base types.  It may be desirable to also
      allow the derivation of new types from derived types.  New types
      must be as restrictive or more restrictive than the types that
      they are specializing.

   Motivation: SMI uses application types and textual conventions.  SPPI
      uses derived types.

   Compliance: The language allows to define new types derived from
      existing defined types or base data types through the use of the
      `typedef' statement.


4.1.24 Units, Formats, and Default Values of Defined Types and
       Attributes

   Type: fix

   From: NMRG

   Description: In SMIv2 OBJECT-TYPE definitions may contain UNITS and
      DEFVAL clauses and TEXTUAL-CONVENTIONs may contain DISPLAY-HINTs.
      In a similar fashion units and default values must be applicable
      to defined types and format information must be applicable to
      attributes.

   Motivation: Some MIBs introduce TCs such as KBytes and every usage of
      the TC then specifies the UNITS "KBytes".  It would simplify
      things if the UNITS were attached to the type definition itself.

   Notes: The SMIng WG must clarify the behavior if an attribute uses a
      defined type and both, the attribute and the defined type, have
      units/default/format information.

   Compliance: Ok.  The `units' and `default' clauses are applicable to
      both defined types and attributes.







Strauss                   Expires May 15, 2002                 [Page 17]


Internet-Draft              SMIng Compliance               November 2001


4.1.25 Table Existence Relationships

   Type: align

   From: SMI, SPPI

   Description: SMIng must support INDEX, AUGMENTS, and EXTENDS in the
      SNMP/COPS-PR protocol mappings.

   Motivation: These three table existence relationships exist either in
      the SMIv2 or the SPPI.

   Compliance: Ok.  These table indexing schemes are supported in SNMP
      and COPS-PR mappings.


4.1.26 Table Existence Relationships (2)

   Type: new

   From: NMRG

   Description: SMIng must support EXPANDS and REORDERS relationships in
      the SNMP/COPS-PR protocol mappings.

   Motivation: A REORDERS statement allows indexing orders to be
      swapped.  An EXPANDS statement formally states that there is a 1:n
      existence relationship between table rows.

   Compliance: Ok.  These table indexing schemes are supported in SNMP
      mappings.  For COPS-PR they are not applicable due to the simple
      indexing of PRCs.


4.1.27 Attribute Groups

   Type: new

   From: NMRG

   Description: An attribute group is a named, reusable set of
      attributes that are meaningful together.  It can be reused as the
      type of attributes in other attribute groups (see also Section
      4.1.28).  This is similar to `structs' in C.

   Motivation: Required to map the same grouping of attributes into SNMP
      and COPS-PR tables.  Allows to do index reordering without having
      to redefine the attribute group.  Allows to group related



Strauss                   Expires May 15, 2002                 [Page 18]


Internet-Draft              SMIng Compliance               November 2001


      attributes together (e.g.  InetAddressType, InetAddress).

      The ability to group attributes provides an indication that the
      attributes are meaningful together.

   Compliance: Ok.  This is done by using `classes'.


4.1.28 Containment

   Type: new

   From: NMRG

   Description: SMIng must provide support for the creation of new
      attribute groups from attributes of more basic types and
      potentially other attribute groups.

   Motivation: Simplifies the reuse of attribute groups such as
      InetAddressType and InetAddress pairs.

   Notes: Containment has the implicit existence constraint that if an
      instance of a contained attribute group exists, then the
      corresponding instance of the containing attribute group must also
      exist.

   Compliance: Ok.  Classes contain `attributes'.  Each attribute has a
      type which can be a simple type (a base data type, or a derived
      type) or another class.


4.1.29 Single Inheritance

   Type: new

   From: NMRG

   Description: SMIng must provide support for mechanisms to extend
      attribute groups through single inheritance.

   Motivation: Allows to extend attribute groups, like a generic
      DiffServ scheduler, with attributes for a specific scheduler,
      without cut&paste.

   Notes: Single inheritance with multiple levels (e.g., C derives from
      B, and B derives from A) must be allowed.

      Inheritance has the implicit existence constraint that if an



Strauss                   Expires May 15, 2002                 [Page 19]


Internet-Draft              SMIng Compliance               November 2001


      instance of a derived attribute group exists, then the
      corresponding instance of the base attribute group must also
      exist.

      Inheritance could help to add attributes to an attribute group
      that are specific to a certain protocol mapping and do not appear
      in the protocol-neutral attribute group.

   Compliance: Ok.  Classes can be derived from parent classes.


4.1.30 Reusable vs. Final Attribute Groups

   Type: new

   From: NMRG, WG

   Description: SMIng must differentiate between "final" and reusable
      attribute groups, where the reuse of attribute groups covers
      inheritance and containment.

   Motivation: This information gives people more information how
      attribute groups can and should be used.  It hinders them from
      misusing them.

   Notes: This objective attempts to convey the idea that some attribute
      groups are not meant to stand on their own and instead only make
      sense if contained within another attribute group.

   Compliance: Unclear.  Currently, there is some special semantic
      defined for the `unique' statement of a class: if it's missing,
      the class is reusable; if it's present, the class is final.
      However, it's unclear at this point in time whether this is a wise
      language design.


4.1.31 Events

   Type: basic

   From: SMI, SPPI

   Description: SMIng must provide mechanisms to define events which
      identify significant state changes.

   Motivation: These represent the protocol-independent events that lead
      to SMI notifications or SPPI reports.




Strauss                   Expires May 15, 2002                 [Page 20]


Internet-Draft              SMIng Compliance               November 2001


   Compliance: Ok.  The language allows to define `events'.  Note that
      events are bound to classes, i.e.  an event instance is implicitly
      related to a class instance.


4.1.32 Creation/Deletion

   Type: align

   From: SMI, SPPI

   Description: SMIng must support a mechanism to define
      creation/deletion operations for instances.  Specific
      creation/deletion errors, such as INSTALL-ERRORS, must be
      supported.

   Motivation: Available for row creation in SMI, and available in SPPI.

   Compliance: Ok.  The SNMP mapping supports the `create' keyword to
      denote that rows within a table can be created and deleted through
      SNMP protocol operations.  COPS-PR supports specific create and
      delete protocol operations.  Explicit statements that these
      operations are applicable to a PRC don't seem to be required.


4.1.33 Range and Size Constraints

   Type: basic

   From: SMI, SPPI

   Description: SMIng must allow specifying range and size constraints
      where applicable.

   Motivation: The SMI and SPPI both support range and size constraints.

   Compliance: Ok.  Range and size constraints are supported.


4.1.34 Uniqueness

   Type: basic

   From: SPPI

   Description: SMIng must allow the specification of uniqueness
      constraints on attributes.  SMIng must allow the specification of
      multiple independent uniqueness constraints.



Strauss                   Expires May 15, 2002                 [Page 21]


Internet-Draft              SMIng Compliance               November 2001


   Motivation: Knowledge of the uniqueness constraints on attributes
      allows to verify protocol specific mappings (e.g.  INDEX clauses).
      The knowledge can also be used by code generators to improve
      generated implementation-specific data structures.

   Compliance: Ok.  There's a `unique' statement.  It can be applied
      multiple times to a common class.


4.1.35 Extension Rules

   Type: basic

   From: SMI, SPPI

   Description: SMIng must provide clear rules how one can extend SMIng
      modules without causing interoperability problems "over the wire".

   Motivation: SMIv2 and SPPI have extension rules.

   Compliance: Not yet.  There are some initial rules, but they must be
      refined very carefully especially due to class inheritence and
      composition complications.


4.1.36 Deprecate Use of IMPLIED Keyword

   Type: fix

   From: WG

   Description: The SMIng SNMP mapping must deprecate the use of the
      IMPLIED indexing schema.

   Motivation: IMPLIED is confusing and most people don't understand it.
      The solution (IMPLIED) is worse than the problem it is trying to
      solve and therefore for the sake of simplicity, the use of IMPLIED
      should be deprecated.

   Compliance: Nearly ok.  The core language does not care about index
      encoding at all.  The SNMP still supports an `implied' keyword
      just to retain SMIv2 compatibility.  The wording has to be changed
      to make clear that future SNMP mappings MUST NOT use the `implied'
      keyword.







Strauss                   Expires May 15, 2002                 [Page 22]


Internet-Draft              SMIng Compliance               November 2001


4.1.37 No Redundancy

   Type: fix

   From: NMRG

   Description: The SMIng language must avoid redundancy.

   Motivation: Remove any textual redundancy for things like table
      entries and SEQUENCE definitions, which only increase
      specifications without providing any value.

   Compliance: Ok.  In the core language and mappings some unnecessary
      redundant definition are no longer present, e.g.  table columns
      are now expressed by nesting attributes (columns) within a class
      (table).


4.1.38 Compliance and Conformance

   Type: basic

   From: SMI, SPPI

   Description: SMIng must provide a mechanism for compliance and
      conformance specifications for protocol-independent definitions as
      well as for protocol mappings.

   Motivation: This capability exists in SMIv2 and SPPI.  The NMRG
      proposal has the ability to express much of this information at
      the protocol-dependent layer.  Some compliance or conformance
      information may be protocol-independent, therefore there is also a
      need to be able to express this information protocol-independent
      part.

   Compliance: Not yet.  Currently, only the SNMP mapping supports
      something similar to the SMIv2 conformance statements.


4.1.39 Allow Refinement of All Definitions in Conformance Statements

   Type: fix

   From: WG

   Description: SMIv2, RFC 2580, Section 3.1 says:





Strauss                   Expires May 15, 2002                 [Page 23]


Internet-Draft              SMIng Compliance               November 2001


             The OBJECTS clause, which must be present, is used to
             specify each object contained in the conformance group.
             Each of the specified objects must be defined in the same
             information module as the OBJECT-GROUP macro appears, and
             must have a MAX-ACCESS clause value of
             "accessible-for-notify", "read-only", "read-write", or
             "read-create".

       The last sentence forbids to put a not-accessible INDEX object
      into an OBJECT-GROUP.  Hence, you can not refine its syntax in a
      compliance definition.  For more details, see
      http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/ietf/smi-errata/

   Motivation: This error should not be repeated in SMIng.

   Compliance: Not yet.


4.1.40 Categories

   Type: basic

   From: SPPI

   Description: SMIng must provide a mechanism to group definitions into
      subject categories.  Concrete instances may only exist in the
      scope of a given subject category or context.

   Motivation: To scope the categories to which a module applies.  In
      SPPI this is used to allow a division of labor between multiple
      client types.

   Compliance: Ok.  The core language and the SNMP mapping do not
      require subject categories.  The COPS-PR mapping support the
      `clienttype' statement.


4.1.41 Core Language Keywords vs. Defined Identifiers

   Type: fix

   From: NMRG

   Description: In SMI and SPPI modules some language keywords (macros
      and a number of basetypes) have to be imported from different SMI
      language defining modules, e.g.  OBJECT-TYPE, MODULE-IDENTITY,
      Integer32 must to be imported from SNMPv2-SMI and TEXTUAL-
      CONVENTION must be imported from SNMPv2-TC, if used.  MIB authors



Strauss                   Expires May 15, 2002                 [Page 24]


Internet-Draft              SMIng Compliance               November 2001


      are continuously confused about these import rules.  In SMIng only
      defined identifiers must be imported.  All SMIng language keywords
      must be implicitly known and there must not be a need to import
      them from any module.

   Motivation: Reduce confusion.  Clarify the set of language keywords.

   Compliance: Ok.  The language is clearly defined: All defined non-
      local identifiers MUST be imported.  All language keywords MUST
      NOT be imported.


4.1.42 Instance Naming

   Type: align

   From: SMI, SPPI

   Description: Instance naming in SMIv2 and SPPI is different.  SMIng
      must align the instance naming (either in the protocol neutral
      model or the protocol mappings).

   Motivation: COPS-PR and SNMP have different instance identification
      schemes that must be handled.

   Notes: A solution requires to investigate how close the naming
      schemes dictated by the protocols are.  Perhaps it is feasible to
      have a single instance naming scheme in both SNMP and COPS-PR,
      even though the current SPPI and SMIv2 are different.

   Compliance: Ok.  COPS-PR and SPPI are Proposed Standards.  It seems
      to be impossible to change such a fundamental thing like the
      naming scheme in SPPI.  Hence, the SMIng framework has to handle
      the different naming schemes.  This is supported by separating the
      SNMP and COPS-PR protocol mappings from the core definitions.
      Only the protocol mappings support the appropriate instance naming
      scheme.


4.1.43 Length of Identifiers

   Type: fix

   From: NMRG

   Description: The allowed length of the various kinds of identifiers
      must be extended from the current `should not exceed 32' (maybe
      even from the `must not exceed 64') rule.



Strauss                   Expires May 15, 2002                 [Page 25]


Internet-Draft              SMIng Compliance               November 2001


   Motivation: Reflect current practice of definitions.

   Notes: The 32-rule was added back in the days where compilers could
      not deal with long identifiers.  This rule is continuously
      violated these days and it does not make sense to keep it.

   Compliance: Ok.  The language only has a `must not exceed 64' rule.


4.1.44 Assign OIDs in the Protocol Mappings

   Type: new

   From: NMRG

   Description: SMIng must not assign OIDs to reusable definition of
      attributes, attribute groups, events, etc.  Instead, SNMP and
      COPS-PR mappings must assign OIDs to the mapped items.

   Motivation: Assignment of OIDs in protocol neutral definitions can
      complicate reuse.  OIDs of synonymous attributes are not the same
      in SMI and SPPI definitions.  MIBs and PIBs are already registered
      in different parts of the OID namespace.

   Compliance: Ok.  OID assignment are only done in the protocol
      mappings.


4.2 Nice-to-Have Objectives

   This section represents the list of recommended objectives that would
   be nice to have.  However, these are not automatically thought of as
   accepted objectives as, for example, they may entail a non-trivial
   amount of work in underlying protocols to support or they may be
   regarded as less important than other contradicting objectives that
   are accepted.

4.2.1 Methods

   Type: new

   From: WG

   Description: SMIng should support a mechanism to define method
      signatures (parameters, return values, exception) that are
      implemented on agents.

   Motivation: Methods are needed to support the definition of



Strauss                   Expires May 15, 2002                 [Page 26]


Internet-Draft              SMIng Compliance               November 2001


      operational interfaces such as found in [RFC2925] (ping,
      traceroute and lookup operations).  Also, the ability to define
      constructor/destructor interfaces could address issues such as
      encountered with SNMP's RowStatus solution.

   Notes: Is it possible to do methods without changing the underlying
      protocol?  There is agreement that methods are useful, but
      disagreement upon the impact - one end of the spectrum sees this
      as a documentation tool for existing SNMP capabilities, while the
      other end sees this as a protocol update, moving forward, to
      natively support methods.  The proposal is to wait and see if this
      is practical to implement as a syntax that is useful and can map
      to the protocol.

   Compliance: No.  We probably don't want to support methods.


4.2.2 Unions

   Type: new

   From: WG

   Description: SMIng should support a standard format for unions.

   Motivation: Allows an attribute to contain one of many types of
      values.  The lack of unions has also lead to relatively complex
      sparse table work-around in some DISMAN mid-level managers.
      Despite from discriminated unions (see Section 4.1.18), this kind
      of union has no accompanied explicit discriminator attribute that
      selects the union's type of value.

   Notes: The thought is that SNMP and COPS-PR can already support
      unions because they do not care about what data type goes with a
      particular OID.

   Compliance: No.  However, there is an idea for a more specific kind
      of unions, discriminated unions, which are expected to be more
      useful, so that we probably don't want to support (non-
      discriminated) unions.  See also Section 4.1.18.


4.2.3 Float Data Types

   Type: new

   From: WG, NMRG




Strauss                   Expires May 15, 2002                 [Page 27]


Internet-Draft              SMIng Compliance               November 2001


   Description: SMIng should support the base data types Float32,
      Float64, Float128.

   Motivation: Missing base types can hurt later on, because they cannot
      be added without changing the language, even as an SMIng
      extension.  Lesson learnt from the SMIv1/v2 debate about
      Counter64/Integer64/...

   Notes: There is no mention as to whether or not the underlying
      protocols will have to natively support float data types.  This is
      left to the mapping.  However, it seems imperative that the float
      data type needs to be added to the set of intrinsic types in the
      SMIng language at the creation of the language as it will be
      impossible to add them later without changing the language.

   Compliance: Ok.  Float32, Float64, and Float128 are supported.  They
      represent standard IEEE 754 floating point types.


4.2.4 Comments

   Type: fix

   From: NMRG

   Description: The syntax of comments should be well defined,
      unambiguous and intuitive to most people, e.g., the C++/Java `//'
      syntax.

   Motivation: ASN.1 Comments (and thus SMI and SPPI comments) have been
      a constant source of confusion.  People use arbitrary lengthy
      strings of dashes (`-----------') in the wrong assumption that
      this is always treated as a comment.  Some implementations try to
      accept these syntactically wrong constructs which even raises
      confusion.  We should get rid of this problem.

   Notes: If the SMIng working group adopts a C-like syntax, then the
      C++/Java single-line comment should be adopted as well.

   Compliance: Ok.  Comments start at `//' and end at the end of line.


4.2.5 Referencing Tagged Rows

   Type: align

   From: SPPI




Strauss                   Expires May 15, 2002                 [Page 28]


Internet-Draft              SMIng Compliance               November 2001


   Description: PIB and MIB row attributes reference a group of entries
      in another table.  SPPI formalizes this by introducing PIB-TAG and
      PIB-REFERENCES clauses.  This functionality should be retained in
      SMIng.

   Motivation: SPPI formalizes tag references.  Some MIBs also use tag
      references (see SNMP-TARGET-MIB in RFC2573) even though SMIv2 does
      not provide a formal notation.

   Compliance: No.  It's unclear whether and how to address this issue.


4.2.6 Arrays

   Type: new

   From: WG

   Description: SMIng should allow the definition of a SEQUENCE OF
      attributes or attribute groups (Section 4.1.27).

   Motivation: The desire for the ability to have variable-length,
      multi-valued objects.

   Notes: Some issues with arrays are still unclear.  As long as there
      are no concepts to solve the problems with access semantics (how
      to achieve atomic access to arbitrary-sized arrays) and their
      mappings to SNMP and COPS-PR protocol operations, arrays cannot be
      more than a nice to have objective.

   Compliance: No.  Since arrays access semantics are unclear, arrays
      are not supported.  In case arrays would be just another approach
      to define tables, we would prefer to prevent redundant ways to
      define the same thing.


4.2.7 Internationalization

   Type: new

   From: WG

   Description: Informational text (DESCRIPTION, REFERENCE, ...) should
      allow i18nized encoding, probably UTF-8.

   Motivation: There has been some demand for i18n in the past.  The BCP
      RFC 2277 demands for internationalization.




Strauss                   Expires May 15, 2002                 [Page 29]


Internet-Draft              SMIng Compliance               November 2001


   Notes: Although English is the language of IETF documents, SMIng
      should allow other languages for private use.

   Compliance: No.  But of course, it's easy to add appropriate words.
      This will be done with the next revision.


4.2.8 Separate Data Modeling from Management Protocol Mapping

   Type: new

   From: NMRG

   Description: It should be possible to separate the domain specific
      data modeling work from the network management protocol specific
      work.

   Motivation: Today, working groups designing new protocols are forced
      to care about the design of SNMP MIBs and maybe COPR-PR PIBs to
      manage the new protocol.  This means that experts in a specific
      domain are faced with details of at least one foreign (network
      management) technology.  This leads to hard work and long revision
      processes.  It would be a win to separate the task of pure data
      modeling which can be done by the domain experts easily from the
      network management protocol specific mappings.  The mapping to
      SNMP and/or COPS-PR can be done (a) later separately and (b) by
      network management experts.  This required NM expertise no longer
      hinders the progress of the domain specific working groups.

   Compliance: Ok.  This is done by the facility to define core SMIng
      types and classes in one module, and SNMP and COPS-PR mappings in
      other modules.  However, it's also possible to combine them in a
      single module.


4.3 Rejected Objectives

   This section represents the list of objectives that were rejected
   during the discussion on the objectives.  Those objectives that have
   been rejected need not be addressed by SMIng.  This does not imply
   that they must not be addressed.

4.3.1 Incomplete Translations

   Type: basic

   From: WG




Strauss                   Expires May 15, 2002                 [Page 30]


Internet-Draft              SMIng Compliance               November 2001


   Description: Reality sucks.  All information expressed in SMIng may
      not be directly translatable to a MIB or PIB construct, but all
      information should be able to be conveyed in documentation or via
      other mechanisms.

   Motivation: SMIng working group requires this to ease transition.

   Notes: The SMIng language itself cannot require what compilers do
      that translate SMIng into something else.  So this seems to fall
      out of the scope of the current working group charter.

   Compliance: No.  This is out of scope of the SMIng specification.
      It's an implementation issue.


4.3.2 Attribute Value Constraints

   Type: new

   From: WG

   Description: SMIng should provide mechanisms to formally specify
      constraints between values of multiple attributes.

   Motivation: Constraints on attribute values occur where one or more
      attributes may affect the value or range of values for another
      attribute.  One such relationship exists in IPsec, where the type
      of security algorithm determines the range of possible values for
      other attributes such as the corresponding key size.

   Notes: This objective as is has been rejected as too general, and
      therefore virtually impossible to implement.  However, constraints
      that are implicit with discriminated unions (Section 4.1.18),
      enumerated types (Section 4.1.17), pointer constraints (Section
      4.1.21)), etc., are accepted and these implicit constraints are
      mentioned in the respective objectives.

   Compliance: No.  This is too general and out of scope, but SMIng
      extensions may be defined in the future to support this.


4.3.3 Attribute Transaction Constraints

   Type: new

   From: WG

   Description: SMIng should provide a mechanism to formally express



Strauss                   Expires May 15, 2002                 [Page 31]


Internet-Draft              SMIng Compliance               November 2001


      that certain sets of attributes can only be modified in
      combination.

   Motivation: COPS-PR always does operations on table rows in a single
      transaction.  There are SMIv2 attribute combinations that need to
      be modified together (such as InetAddressType, InetAddress).

   Notes: Alternative is to either use Methods (Section 4.2.1) or assume
      that all attributes in an attribute group (Section 4.1.27) are to
      be considered atomic.

   Compliance: No.  Again, this is out of scope, but SMIng extensions
      may be defined in the future to support this.


4.3.4 Method Constraints

   Type: new

   From: WG

   Description: Method definitions should provide constraints on
      parameters.

   Motivation: None.

   Notes: Unless methods (Section 4.2.1) are done, there is no use for
      this.  Furthermore, this objective has not been motivated by any
      proponent.

   Compliance: No.  Methods are not supported at all.


4.3.5 Agent Capabilities

   Type: basic

   From: SMI

   Description: SMIng should provide mechanisms to describe agent
      implementations.

   Motivation: To permit manager to determine variations from the
      standard for an implementation.

   Notes: Agent capabilities should not be part of SMIng, but should
      instead be a separate capabilities table.




Strauss                   Expires May 15, 2002                 [Page 32]


Internet-Draft              SMIng Compliance               November 2001


   Compliance: Ok.  Agent capabilities have very rarely been used in the
      past and seem to be more specification overhead than useful.
      Hence, agent capabilities are not part of the mandatory language
      core.  However, [11] specifies an `agentcaps' language extension
      that allows to specify agent capabilities.


4.3.6 Relationships

   Type: new

   From: NMRG, WG

   Description: Ability to formally depict existence dependency, value
      dependency, aggregation, containment, and other relationships
      between attributes or attribute groups.

   Motivation: Helps humans to understand the conceptual model of a
      module.  Helps implementers of MIB compilers to generate more
      `intelligent' code.

   Notes: This objective was deemed too general to be useful and instead
      the individual types of relationship objectives (e.g., pointers,
      inheritance, containment, etc.)  are evaluated on a case-by-case
      basis with the specific relationships deemed useful being included
      as accepted objectives.

   Compliance: No.  This is out of scope, but SMIng extensions may be
      defined in the future to support this.


4.3.7 Procedures

   Type: new

   From: WG

   Description: SMIng should support a mechanism to formally define
      procedures that are used by managers when interacting with an
      agent.

   Motivation: None.

   Notes: This objective has not been motivated by any proponent.

   Compliance: No.  This is out of scope, but SMIng extensions may be
      defined in the future to support this.




Strauss                   Expires May 15, 2002                 [Page 33]


Internet-Draft              SMIng Compliance               November 2001


4.3.8 Associations

   Type: new

   From: WG

   Description: SMIng should provide mechanisms to explicitly specify
      associations.

   Motivation: None.

   Notes: This objective has not been motivated by any proponent.

   Compliance: No.  This is out of scope, but SMIng extensions may be
      defined in the future to support this.


4.3.9 Association Cardinalities

   Type: new

   From: WG

   Description: Cardinalities between associations should be formally
      defined.

   Motivation: If you have an association between attribute groups A and
      B, the cardinality of A indicates how many instances of A may be
      associated with a single instance of B.  Our discussions in
      Minneapolis indicated that we want to convey "how many" instances
      are associated in order to define the best mapping algorithm -
      whether a new table, a single pointer, etc.  For example, do we
      use RowPointer or an integer index into another table? Do we map
      to a table that holds instances of the association/relationship
      itself?

   Notes: Without associations (Section 4.3.8), this has no use.

   Compliance: No.  This is out of scope, but SMIng extensions may be
      defined in the future to support this.


4.3.10 Categories of Modules

   Type: new

   From: WG




Strauss                   Expires May 15, 2002                 [Page 34]


Internet-Draft              SMIng Compliance               November 2001


   Description: The SMIng documents should give clear guidance on which
      kind of information (with respect to generality, type/attribute
      group/extension/..) should be put in which kind of a module.

      E.g., in SMIv2 we don't like to import Utf8String from SYSAPPL-
      MIB, but we also do not like to introduce a redundant definition.

      A module review process should probably be described that ensures
      that generally useful definitions do not go into device or service
      specific modules.


   Motivation: Bad experience with SMIv2.

   Notes: It is not clear how this can be done with the language to be
      created by SMIng WG.

   Compliance: Not yet.  There are plans to create a guidelines document
      for SMIng module authors that contains useful information that
      does not fit into the formal language specification.


4.3.11 Mapping Modules to Files

   Type: new

   From: NMRG

   Description: There should be a clear statement how SMIng modules are
      mapped to files (1:1, n:1?) and how files should be named (by
      module name in case of 1:1 mapping?).

   Motivation: SMI implementations show up a variety of filename
      extensions (.txt, .smi, .my, none).  Some expect all modules in a
      single file, others don't.  This makes it more difficult to
      exchange modules.

   Notes: This is just an implementation detail and is best left to a
      BCP and not made a part of the language definition.

   Compliance: No.  This is an implementation issue.


4.3.12 Simple Grammar

   Type: new

   From: NMRG



Strauss                   Expires May 15, 2002                 [Page 35]


Internet-Draft              SMIng Compliance               November 2001


   Description: The grammar of the language should be as simple as
      possible.  It should be free of exception rules.  A measurement of
      simplicity is shortness of the ABNF grammar.

   Motivation: Ease of implementation.  Ease of learning/understanding.

   Notes: This seems like an obvious objective, however shortness of the
      ABNF grammar is not necessarily a reflection of the simplicity of
      the grammar.

   Compliance: Ok.  The grammar follows some simple rules without any
      exceptions.


4.3.13 Place of Module Information

   Type: fix

   From: NMRG

   Description: Module specific information (organization, contact,
      description, revision information) should be bound to the module
      itself and not to an artificial node (like SMIv2 MODULE-IDENTITY).

   Motivation: Simplicity and design cleanup.

   Notes: This does not seem to be a problem with the current SMI.
      Although simplification is a good thing, this detail is not
      considered an objective.

   Compliance: Ok.  Module contact, description and revision information
      is contained immediately in the module body, instead of a sub-
      statement of the module.


4.3.14 Module Namespace

   Type: new

   From: WG

   Description: Currently the namespace of modules is flat and there is
      no structure in module naming causing the potential risk of name
      clashes.  Possible solutions:

      *  Assume module names are globally unique (just as SMIv1/v2),
         just give some recommendations on module names.




Strauss                   Expires May 15, 2002                 [Page 36]


Internet-Draft              SMIng Compliance               November 2001


      *  Force all organizations, WGs and vendors to apply a name prefix
         (e.g.  CISCO-GAGA-MIB, IETF-DISMAN-SCRIPT-MIB?).

      *  Force enterprises to apply a prefix based on the enterprise
         number (e.g.  ENT2021-SOME-MIB).

      *  Put module names in a hierarchical domain based namespace (e.g.
         DISMAN-SCRIPT-MIB.ietf.org).

   Motivation: Reduce risk of module name clashes.

   Notes: Some aspects of this objective overlap with other objectives
      (namespace control (Section 4.1.9)) and other aspects were thought
      best left to a BCP.

   Compliance: No.  This should probably go to the guidelines document
      for SMIng module authors.


4.3.15 Hyphens in Identifiers

   Type: fix

   From: NMRG

   Description: There has been some confusion whether hyphens are
      allowed in SMIv2 identifiers: Module names are allowed to contain
      hyphens.  Node identifiers usually are not.  But for example `mib-
      2' is a frequently used identifier that contains a hyphen due to
      its SMIv1 origin, when hyphen were not disallowed.  Similarly, a
      number of named numbers of enumeration types contain hyphens
      violating an SMIv2 rule.

      SMIng should simply allow hyphens in all kinds of identifiers.  No
      exceptions.

   Motivation: Reduce confusion and exceptions.  Requires, however, that
      implementation mappings properly quote hyphens where appropriate.

   Notes: This nit-picking is not worth to be subject to the discussion
      on objectives.  However, SMIng should care about the fact that
      compilers have to map SMIng to programming languages where a
      hyphen is a minus and thus not allowed in identifiers.

   Compliance: Ok.  The language allows to use hyphens in identifiers.
      This is done, because there are already identifiers that contain
      hyphens and we want to get rid of stupid restrictions and
      legalized exceptions to restrictions.  Mapping to programming



Strauss                   Expires May 15, 2002                 [Page 37]


Internet-Draft              SMIng Compliance               November 2001


      languages can simply be done by converting hyphens to underline
      characters.  Underline characters are not allowed in identifiers,
      so that the mapping is easy and non-ambiguous.


5. Security Considerations

   This document defines objectives for a language with which to write
   and read descriptions of management information.  The language itself
   has no security impact on the Internet.

6. Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Dave Durham, whose work on the original NIM (Network
   Information Model) draft was used in generating this document.

   Thanks to Andrea Westerinen for her contributions on the original NIM
   requirements and SMIng objectives drafts.

   Approximately 90% of this document has been copied from [9] to this
   document to ease reading and referencing the related objectives.
   Hence, all authors of [9] deserve our acknowledgements.

References

   [1]   Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M. and J. Davin, "Simple
         Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 15, RFC 1157, May
         1990.

   [2]   McCloghrie, K., Case, J., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Protocol
         Operations for Version 2 of the Simple Network Management
         Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1905, January 1996.

   [3]   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.

   [4]   McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J.,
         McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Structure of
         Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578,
         April 1999.

   [5]   McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J.,
         McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Textual
         Conventions for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2579, April 1999.

   [6]   McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D. and J. Schoenwaelder, "Conformance
         Statements for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580, April 1999.



Strauss                   Expires May 15, 2002                 [Page 38]


Internet-Draft              SMIng Compliance               November 2001


   [7]   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.

   [8]   Strauss, F., Schoenwaelder, J. and K. McCloghrie, "SMIng - Next
         Generation Structure of Management Information", draft-irtf-
         nmrg-sming-04.txt, November 2000.

   [9]   Elliott, C., Harrington, D., Jason, J., Schoenwaelder, J.,
         Strauss, F. and W. Weiss, "SMIng Objectives", draft-ietf-sming-
         reqs-06.txt, October 2001.

   [10]  Strauss, F. and J. Schoenwaelder, "SMIng - Next Generation
         Structure of Management Information", draft-ietf-sming-02.txt,
         July 2001.

   [11]  Strauss, F. and J. Schoenwaelder, "SMIng Mappings to SNMP",
         draft-ietf-sming-snmp-02.txt, July 2001.

   [12]  Hegde, H. and R. Sahita, "SMIng Mappings to COPS-PR", draft-
         ietf-sming-cops-01.txt, July 2001.

   [13]  Strauss, F. and J. Schoenwaelder, "SMIng Core Modules", draft-
         ietf-sming-modules-02.txt, July 2001.

   [14]  Strauss, F. and J. Schoenwaelder, "SMIng Internet Protocol Core
         Modules", draft-ietf-sming-inet-modules-02.txt, July 2001.


Author's Address

   Frank Strauss
   TU Braunschweig
   Muehlenpfordtstr. 23
   38106 Braunschweig
   Germany

   EMail: strauss@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de
   URI:   http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/












Strauss                   Expires May 15, 2002                 [Page 39]


Internet-Draft              SMIng Compliance               November 2001


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001).  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.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.



















Strauss                   Expires May 15, 2002                 [Page 40]