[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 6632

Network Working Group                                      M. Ersue, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                    Nokia Siemens Networks
Intended status: Informational                                 B. Claise
Expires: September 20, 2012                          Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                          March 19, 2012


          An Overview of the IETF Network Management Standards
                  draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-07

Abstract

   This document gives an overview of the IETF network management
   standards and summarizes existing and ongoing development of IETF
   standards-track network management protocols and data models.  The
   document refers to other overview documents, where they exist and
   classifies the standards for easy orientation.  The purpose of this
   document is on the one hand to help system developers and users to
   select appropriate standard management protocols and data models to
   address relevant management needs.  On the other hand, the document
   can be used as an overview and guideline by other Standard
   Development Organizations or bodies planning to use IETF management
   technologies and data models.  This document does not cover OAM
   technologies on the data-path, e.g.  OAM of tunnels, MPLS-TP OAM, and
   Pseudowire as well as the corresponding management models.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 20, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.




Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.1.  Scope and Target Audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.2.  Related Work  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     1.3.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   2.  Core Network Management Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.1.  Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) . . . . . . . .   8
       2.1.1.  Architectural Principles of SNMP  . . . . . . . . . .   8
       2.1.2.  SNMP and its Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       2.1.3.  Structure of Managed Information (SMI)  . . . . . . .  11
       2.1.4.  SNMP Security and Access Control Models . . . . . . .  12
       2.1.5.  SNMP Transport Subsystem and Transport Models . . . .  13
     2.2.  SYSLOG Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     2.3.  IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) and Packet Sampling
           (PSAMP) Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     2.4.  Network Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       2.4.1.  Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)  . . . . . .  19
       2.4.2.  YANG - NETCONF Data Modeling Language . . . . . . . .  21
   3.  Network Management Protocols and Mechanisms with specific
       Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     3.1.  IP Address Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
       3.1.1.  Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP)  . . . . .  23
       3.1.2.  Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration  . . . . . . . . . .  24
     3.2.  IPv6 Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     3.3.  Policy-based Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
       3.3.1.  IETF Policy Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
       3.3.2.  Use of Common Open Policy Service (COPS) for
               Policy Provisioning (COPS-PR) . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     3.4.  IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     3.5.  Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) . . .  29
     3.6.  Diameter Base Protocol (DIAMETER) . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
     3.7.  Control And Provisioning of Wireless Access Points
           (CAPWAP)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
     3.8.  Access Node Control Protocol (ANCP) . . . . . . . . . . .  35
     3.9.  Application Configuration Access Protocol (ACAP)  . . . .  36
     3.10. XML Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP)  . . . . . . . .  36
   4.  Network Management Data Models  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


     4.1.  IETF Network Management Data Models . . . . . . . . . . .  38
       4.1.1.  Generic Infrastructure Data Models  . . . . . . . . .  39
       4.1.2.  Link Layer Data Models  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
       4.1.3.  Network Layer Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
       4.1.4.  Transport Layer Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
       4.1.5.  Application Layer Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
       4.1.6.  Network Management Infrastructure Data Models . . . .  40
     4.2.  Network Management Data Models - FCAPS View . . . . . . .  41
       4.2.1.  Fault Management  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
       4.2.2.  Configuration Management  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  43
       4.2.3.  Accounting Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  44
       4.2.4.  Performance Management  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  45
       4.2.5.  Security Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  47
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  49
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  49
   7.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  51
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  51
   9.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  52
   Appendix A.  High Level Classification of Management Protocols
                and Data Models  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  90
     A.1.  Protocols classified by the Standard Maturity at IETF . .  91
     A.2.  Protocols Matched to Management Tasks . . . . . . . . . .  92
     A.3.  Push versus Pull Mechanism  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  93
     A.4.  Passive versus Active Monitoring  . . . . . . . . . . . .  93
     A.5.  Supported Data Model Types and their Extensibility  . . .  94
   Appendix B.  New Work related to IETF Management Standards  . . .  96
     B.1.  Energy Management (EMAN)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  96
   Appendix C.  Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  98
     C.1.  06-07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  98
     C.2.  05-06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  98
     C.3.  04-05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  98
     C.4.  03-04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  98
     C.5.  02-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  99
     C.6.  01-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  99
     C.7.  00-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  99
     C.8.  draft-ersue-opsawg-management-fw-03-00  . . . . . . . . . 100
     C.9.  Change Log from draft-ersue-opsawg-management-fw  . . . . 101
       C.9.1.  02-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
       C.9.2.  01-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
       C.9.3.  00-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101











Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


1.  Introduction

1.1.  Scope and Target Audience

   This document gives an overview of the IETF network management
   standards and summarizes existing and ongoing development of IETF
   standards-track network management protocols and data models.  The
   document refers to other overview documents where they exist and
   classifies the standards for easy orientation.

   The target audience of the document is on the one hand IETF working
   groups, which aim to select appropriate standard management protocols
   and data models to address their needs concerning network management.
   On the other hand the document can be used as an overview and
   guideline by non-IETF Standard Development Organizations (SDO)
   planning to use IETF management technologies and data models for the
   realization of management applications.  The document can be also
   used to initiate a discussion between the bodies with the goal to
   gather new requirements and to detect possible gaps.  Finally, this
   document is directed to all interested parties, which seek to get an
   overview of the current set of the IETF network management protocols
   such as network administrators or newcomers to IETF.

   Section 2 gives an overview of the IETF core network management
   standards with a special focus on Simple Network Management Protocol
   (SNMP), SYSLOG, IP Flow Information Export/Packet Sampling (IPFIX/
   PSAMP), and Network Configuration (NETCONF).  Section 3 discusses
   IETF management protocols and mechanisms with a specific focus, e.g.
   IP address management or IP performance management.  Section 4
   discusses IETF data models, such as MIB modules, IPFIX Information
   Elements, SYSLOG Structured Data Elements, and YANG modules designed
   to address specific set of management issues and provides two
   complementary overviews for the network management data models
   standardized at IETF.  Section 4.1 focuses on a broader view of
   models classified into categories such as generic and infrastructure
   data models as well as data models matched to different layers.
   Where section 4.2 structures the data models following the management
   application view and maps them to the network management tasks fault,
   configuration, accounting, performance, and security management.

   Appendix A guides the reader for the high-level selection of
   management standards.  For this, the section classifies the protocols
   according to high-level criteria such as push versus pull mechanism,
   passive versus active monitoring, as well as categorizes the
   protocols concerning the network management task they address and
   their data model extensibility.  If the reader is interested only in
   a subset of the IETF network management protocols and data models
   described in this document, Appendix A can be used as a dispatcher to



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   the corresponding chapter.  Appendix B gives an overview of the new
   work on Energy Management at IETF.

   This document mainly refers to Proposed, Draft or Internet Standard
   documents at IETF (see [RFCSEARCH]).  As far as valuable Best Current
   Practice (BCP) documents are referenced.  In exceptional cases and if
   the document provides substantial guideline for standard usage or
   fills an essential gap, Experimental and Informational RFCs are
   noticed and ongoing work is mentioned.

   Information on active and concluded IETF working groups (e.g., their
   charters, published or currently active documents and mail archive)
   can be found at [IETF-WGS]).

   Note that this document does not cover OAM technologies on the data-
   path including MPLS forwarding plane, and control plane protocols
   (e.g.  OAM of tunnels, MPLS-TP OAM, and Pseudowire) as well as the
   corresponding management models and MIB modules.  For a list of
   related work see Section 1.2 "Related Work".

1.2.  Related Work

   [RFC6272] "Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid" gives an overview
   and guidance on the key protocols of the Internet Protocol Suite.  In
   analogy to [RFC6272] this document gives an overview of the IETF
   network management standards and its usage scenarios.

   [RFC3535] "Overview of the 2002 IAB Network Management Workshop"
   documented strengths and weaknesses of some IETF management
   protocols.  In choosing existing protocol solutions to meet the
   management requirements, it is recommended that these strengths and
   weaknesses be considered, even though some of the recommendations
   from the 2002 IAB workshop have become outdated, some have been
   standardized, and some are being worked on at the IETF.

   [RFC5706] "Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management of
   New Protocols and Extensions" recommends working groups to consider
   operations and management needs, and then select appropriate
   management protocols and data models.  This document can be used to
   ease surveying the IETF standards-track network management protocols
   and management data models.

   [RFC4221] "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Management Overview"
   describes the management architecture for MPLS and indicates the
   interrelationships between the different MIB modules used for MPLS
   network management, where [RFC6371] "Operations, Administration, and
   Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based Transport Networks" describes
   the OAM Framework for MPLS-based Transport Networks.



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis] "An Overview of the OAM Tool Set for
   MPLS-based Transport Networks" provides an overview of the OAM
   toolset for MPLS-based Transport Networks including a brief summary
   of MPLS-TP OAM requirements and functions, and of generic mechanisms
   created in the MPLS data plane to allow the OAM packets run in-band
   and share their fate with data packets.  The protocol definitions for
   each MPLS-TP OAM tools are defined in separate documents, which are
   referenced.

   [I-D.ietf-opsawg-oam-overview] "An Overview of Operations,
   Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Mechanisms" gives an overview
   of the OAM toolset for detecting and reporting connection failures or
   measurement of connection performance parameters.

   [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-mib-management-overview] "MPLS-TP MIB-based
   Management Overview" describes the MIB-based architecture for
   MPLS-TP, and indicates the interrelationships between different
   existing MIB modules that can be leveraged for MPLS-TP network
   management and identifies areas where additional MIB modules are
   required.

   Note that IETF so far has not developed specific technologies for the
   management of sensor networks.  IP-based sensors or constrained
   devices in such an environment, i.e. with very limited memory and CPU
   resources, can use e.g. application layer protocols to do simple
   resource management and monitoring.

1.3.  Terminology

   This document does not describe standard requirements.  Therefore,
   key words from RFC2119 are not used in the document.

   o  3GPP: 3rd Generation Partnership Project, a collaboration between
      groups of telecommunications associations, to prepare the third-
      generation (3G) mobile phone system specification.

   o  Agent: A software module that performs the network management
      functions requested by network management stations.  An agent may
      be implemented in any network element that is to be managed, such
      as a host, bridge, or router.  The 'management server' in NETCONF
      terminology.

   o  BCP: An IETF Best Current Practice document.

   o  CLI: Command Line Interface.  A management interface that system
      administrators can use to interact with networking equipment.





Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   o  Data model: A mapping of the contents of an information model into
      a form that is specific to a particular type of data store or
      repository (see [RFC3444]).

   o  Event: An occurrence of something in the "real world".  Events can
      be indicated to managers through an event message or notification.

   o  IAB: Internet Architecture Board

   o  IANA: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, an organization that
      oversees global IP address allocation, autonomous system number
      allocation, media types, and other Internet Protocol-related code
      point allocations.

   o  Information model: An abstraction and representation of entities
      in a managed environment, their properties, attributes and
      operations, and the way they relate to each other.  Independent of
      any specific repository, protocol, or platform (see [RFC3444]).

   o  ITU-T: International Telecommunication Union - Telecommunication
      Standardization Sector

   o  Managed object: A management abstraction of a resource; a piece of
      management information in a MIB module.  In the context of SNMP, a
      structured set of data variables that represent some resource to
      be managed or other aspect of a managed device.

   o  Manager: An entity that acts in a manager role, either a user or
      an application.  The counterpart to an agent.  A 'management
      client' in NETCONF terminology.

   o  Management Information Base (MIB): An information repository with
      a collection of related objects that represent the resources to be
      managed.

   o  MIB module: MIB modules usually contain object definitions, may
      contain definitions of event notifications, and sometimes include
      compliance statements in terms of appropriate object and event
      notification groups.  A MIB that is provided by a management agent
      is typically composed of multiple instantiated MIB modules.

   o  Modeling language: A modeling language is any artificial language
      that can be used to express information or knowledge or systems in
      a structure that is defined by a consistent set of rules.
      Examples are SMIv2 [STD58], XSD [XSD-1], and YANG [RFC6020].

   o  Notification: An unsolicited message sent by an agent to a
      management station to notify an unusual event.



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   o  OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance

   o  PDU: Protocol Data Unit, a unit of data, which is specified in a
      protocol of a given layer consisting protocol-control information
      and possibly layer-specific data.

   o  Principal: An application, an individual, or a set of individuals
      acting in a particular role, on whose behalf access to a service
      or MIB is allowed.

   o  Relax NG: REgular LAnguage for XML Next Generation, a schema
      language for XML [RELAX-NG].

   o  SDO: Standard Development Organization

   o  SMI: Structure of Managed Information, the notation and grammar
      for managed information definition used to define MIB modules
      [STD58].

   o  STDnn: An Internet Standard published at IETF, also referred as
      Standard, e.g.  [STD62].

   o  URI: Uniform Resource Identifier, a string of characters used to
      identify a name or a resource on the Internet [STD66].  Can be
      classified as locators (URLs), or as names (URNs), or as both.

   o  XPATH: XML Path Language, a query language for selecting nodes
      from an XML document [XPATH].

2.  Core Network Management Protocols

2.1.  Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)

2.1.1.  Architectural Principles of SNMP

   The SNMPv3 Framework [RFC3410], builds upon both the original SNMPv1
   and SNMPv2 framework.  The basic structure and components for the
   SNMP framework did not change between its versions and comprises
   following components:

   o  managed nodes, each with an SNMP entity providing remote access to
      management instrumentation (the agent),

   o  at least one SNMP entity with management applications (the
      manager), and

   o  a management protocol used to convey management information
      between the SNMP entities, and management information.



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   During its evolution, the fundamental architecture of the SNMP
   Management Framework remained consistent based on a modular
   architecture, which consists of:

   o  a generic protocol definition independent of the data it is
      carrying, and

   o  a protocol-independent data definition language,

   o  an information repository containing a data set of management
      information definitions (the Management Information Base, or MIB),
      and

   o  security and administration.

   As such following standards build up the basis of the current SNMP
   Management Framework:

   o  SNMPv3 protocol [STD62],

   o  the modeling language SMIv2 [STD58], and

   o  MIB modules for different management issues.

   The SNMPv3 Framework extends the architectural principles of SNMPv1
   and SNMPv2 by:

   o  building on these three basic architectural components, in some
      cases incorporating them from the SNMPv2 Framework by reference,
      and

   o  by using the same layering principles in the definition of new
      capabilities in the security and administration portion of the
      architecture.

2.1.2.  SNMP and its Versions

   SNMP is based on three conceptual entities: Manager, Agent, and the
   Management Information Base (MIB).  In any configuration, at least
   one manager node runs SNMP management software.  Typically, network
   devices such as bridges, routers, and servers are equipped with an
   agent.  The agent is responsible for providing access to a local MIB
   of objects that reflects the resources and activity at its node.
   Following the manager-agent paradigm, an agent can generate
   notifications and send them as unsolicited messages to the management
   application.

   SNMPv2 enhances this basic functionality with an Inform PDU, a bulk



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   transfer capability and other functional extensions like an
   administrative model for access control, security extensions, and
   Manager-to-Manager communication.  SNMPv2 entities can have a dual
   role as manager and agent.  However, neither SNMPv1 nor SNMPv2 offers
   sufficient security features.  To address the security deficiencies
   of SNMPv1/v2, SNMPv3 [STD62] has been issued.

   [BCP74] "Coexistence between Version 1, Version 2, and Version 3 of
   the Internet-standard Network Management Framework" gives an overview
   of the relevant standard documents on the three SNMP versions.  The
   BCP document furthermore describes how to convert MIB modules from
   SMIv1 to SMIv2 format and how to translate notification parameters as
   well as describes the mapping between the message processing and
   security models.

   SNMP utilizes the Management Information Base, a virtual information
   store of modules of managed objects.  Generally, standard MIB modules
   support common functionality in a device.  Operators often define
   additional MIB modules for their enterprise or use the Command Line
   Interface (CLI) to configure non-standard data in managed devices and
   their interfaces.

   SNMPv2 trap and inform PDUs can alert an operator or an application
   when some aspect of a protocol fails or encounters an error
   condition, and the contents of a notification can be used to guide
   subsequent SNMP polling to gather additional information about an
   event.

   SNMP is widely used for monitoring of fault and performance data and
   with its stateless nature, SNMP also works well for status polling
   and determining the operational state of specific functionality.  The
   widespread use of counters in standard MIB modules permits the
   interoperable comparison of statistics across devices from different
   vendors.  Counters have been especially useful in monitoring bytes
   and packets going in and out over various protocol interfaces.  SNMP
   is often used to poll basic parameter of a device (e.g. sysUpTime,
   which reports the time since the last re-initialization of the
   network management portion of the device) to check for operational
   liveliness, and to detect discontinuities in counters.  Some
   operators use SNMP also for configuration management in their
   environment (e.g. for DOCSIS-based systems such as cable modems).

   SNMPv1 [RFC1157] has been declared Historic and it is not recommended
   to use due to its lack of security features.  [RFC1901] "Community-
   based SNMPv2" is an Experimental RFC, which has been declared
   Historic and it is not recommended to use due to its lack of security
   features.




Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   SNMPv3 [STD62] is recommended to use due to its security features,
   including support for authentication, encryption, message timeliness
   and integrity checking, and fine-grained data access controls.  An
   overview of the SNMPv3 document set is in [RFC3410].

   Standards exist to use SNMP over diverse transport and link layer
   protocols, including Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) [STD7], User
   Datagram Protocol (UDP) [STD6], Ethernet [RFC4789], and others (see
   Section 2.1.5.1).

2.1.3.  Structure of Managed Information (SMI)

   SNMP MIB modules are defined with the notation and grammar specified
   as the Structure of Managed Information (SMI).  The SMI uses an
   adapted subset of Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) [ITU-X680].

   The SMI is divided into three parts: module definitions, object
   definitions, and, notification definitions.

   o  Module definitions are used when describing information modules.
      An ASN.1 macro, MODULE-IDENTITY, is used to concisely convey the
      semantics of an information module.

   o  Object definitions are used when describing managed objects.  An
      ASN.1 macro, OBJECT-TYPE, is used to concisely convey the syntax
      and semantics of a managed object.

   o  Notification definitions are used when describing unsolicited
      transmissions of management information.  An ASN.1 macro,
      NOTIFICATION-TYPE, is used to concisely convey the syntax and
      semantics of a notification.

   SMIv1 is specified in [STD16][RFC1155] "Structure and Identification
   of Management Information for TCP/IP-based Internets" and
   [STD16][RFC1212] "Concise MIB Definitions".  [RFC1215] specifies
   conventions for defining SNMP traps.  Note that SMIv1 is outdated and
   is not recommended to use.

   SMIv2 is the new notation for managed information definition and
   should be used to define MIB modules.  SMIv2 is specified in
   following RFCs:

   o  [RFC2578], part of [STD58], defines Version 2 of the Structure of
      Management Information (SMIv2),

   o  [RFC2579], part of [STD58], defines the "Textual Conventions"
      macro for defining new types and it provides a core set of
      generally useful "Textual Convention" definitions,



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   o  [RFC2580], part of [STD58], defines Conformance Statements and
      requirements for defining agent and manager capabilities, and

   o  [BCP74] defines the mapping rules for and the conversion of MIB
      modules between SMIv1 and SMIv2 formats.

2.1.4.  SNMP Security and Access Control Models

2.1.4.1.  Security Requirements on the SNMP Management Framework

   Several of the classical threats to network protocols are applicable
   to management problem space and therefore applicable to any security
   model used in an SNMP Management Framework.  This section lists
   primary and secondary threats, and threats which are of lesser
   importance (see [RFC3411] for the detailed description of the
   security threats).

   The primary threats against which SNMP Security Models can provide
   protection are, "modification of information" by an unauthorized
   entity, and "masquerade", i.e. the danger that management operations
   not authorized for some principal may be attempted by assuming the
   identity of another principal.

   Secondary threats against which SNMP Security Models can provide
   protection are "message stream modification", e.g. re-ordering,
   delay, or replay of messages, and "disclosure", i.e. the danger of
   eavesdropping on the exchanges between SNMP engines.

   There are two threats against which SNMP Security Model does not
   protect, since they are deemed to be of lesser importance in this
   context: "Denial of Service" and "Traffic Analysis" (see [RFC3411]).

2.1.4.2.  User-Based Security Model (USM)

   SNMPv3 [STD62] introduced the User Security Model (USM).  USM is
   specified in [RFC3414] and provides authentication and privacy
   services for SNMP.  Specifically, USM is designed to secure against
   the primary and secondary threats discussed in Section 2.1.4.1.  USM
   does not secure against Denial of Service and attacks based on
   Traffic Analysis.

   The security services the USM security model supports are:

   o  Data Integrity is the provision of the property that data has not
      been altered or destroyed in an unauthorized manner, nor have data
      sequences been altered to an extent greater than can occur non-
      maliciously.




Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   o  Data Origin Authentication is the provision of the property that
      the claimed identity of the user on whose behalf received data was
      originated is supported.

   o  Data Confidentiality is the provision of the property that
      information is not made available or disclosed to unauthorized
      individuals, entities, or processes.

   o  Message timeliness and limited replay protection is the provision
      of the property that a message whose generation time is outside of
      a specified time window is not accepted.

   See [RFC3414] for a detailed description of SNMPv3 USM.

2.1.4.3.  View-Based Access Control Model (VACM)

   SNMPv3 [STD62] introduced the View-Based Access Control (VACM)
   facility.  The VACM is defined in [RFC3415] and enables the
   configuration of agents to provide different levels of access to the
   agent's MIB.  An agent entity can restrict access to a certain
   portion of its MIB, e.g. restrict some principals to view only
   performance-related statistics, or disallow other principals to read
   those performance-related statistics.  An agent entity can also
   restrict the access to monitoring (read-only) as opposed to
   monitoring and configuration (read-write) of a certain portion of its
   MIB, e.g. allowing only a single designated principal to update
   configuration parameters.

   VACM defines five elements that make up the Access Control Model:
   groups, security level, contexts, MIB views, and access policy.
   Access to a MIB module is controlled by means of a MIB view.

   See [RFC3415] for a detailed description of SNMPv3 VACM.

2.1.5.  SNMP Transport Subsystem and Transport Models

   The User-based Security Model (USM) was designed to be independent of
   other existing security infrastructures to ensure it could function
   when third-party authentication services were not available.  As a
   result, USM utilizes a separate user and key-management
   infrastructure.  Operators have reported that the deployment of a
   separate user and key-management infrastructure in order to use
   SNMPv3 is costly and hinders the deployment of SNMPv3.

   SNMP Transport Subsystem [RFC5590] extends the original SNMP
   architecture and transport model and enables the use of transport
   protocols to provide message security unifying the administrative
   security management for SNMP, and other management interfaces.



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   Transport Models are tied into the SNMP framework through the
   Transport Subsystem.  The Transport Security Model [RFC5591] has been
   designed to work on top of lower-layer, secure Transport Models.

   The SNMP Transport Model defines an alternative to existing standard
   transport mappings described in [RFC3417] e.g. for SNMP over UDP, in
   [RFC4789] for SNMP over IEEE 802 networks as well as in the
   Experimental RFC [RFC3430] defining SNMP over TCP.

2.1.5.1.  SNMP Transport Security Model

   The SNMP Transport Security Model [RFC5591] is an alternative to the
   existing SNMPv1 and SNMPv2 Community-based Security Models [BCP74],
   and the User-based Security Model [STD62][RFC3414].

   The Transport Security Model utilizes one or more lower-layer
   security mechanisms to provide message-oriented security services.
   These include authentication of the sender, encryption, timeliness
   checking, and data integrity checking.

   A secure transport model sets up an authenticated and possibly
   encrypted session between the Transport Models of two SNMP engines.
   After a transport-layer session is established, SNMP messages can be
   sent through this session from one SNMP engine to the other.  The new
   Transport Model supports the sending of multiple SNMP messages
   through the same session to amortize the costs of establishing a
   security association.

   The Secure Shell (SSH) Transport Model [RFC5592] and the Transport
   Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model [RFC6353] are current examples
   for Transport Security Models.

   The SSH Transport Model makes use of the commonly deployed SSH
   security and key-management infrastructure.  [RFC5592] furthermore
   defines MIB objects for monitoring and managing the SSH Transport
   Model for SNMP.

   The Transport Layer Security (TLS) transport model [RFC6353] uses
   either the TLS protocol [RFC5246] or the Datagram Transport Layer
   Security (DTLS) [RFC6347] protocol.  The TLS and DTLS protocols
   provide authentication and privacy services for SNMP applications.
   TLS transport model supports the sending of SNMP messages over TLS
   and TCP and over DTLS and UDP.  [RFC6353] furthermore defines MIB
   objects for managing the TLS Transport Model for SNMP.

   [RFC5608] describes the use of a 'Remote Authentication Dial-In User
   Service' (RADIUS) service by SNMP secure Transport Models for
   authentication of users and authorization of services.  Access



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 14]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   control authorization, i.e. how RADIUS attributes and messages are
   applied to the specific application area of SNMP Access Control
   Models, and VACM in particular has been specified in [RFC6065].

2.2.  SYSLOG Protocol

   Syslog is a mechanism for distribution of logging information
   initially used on Unix systems (see [RFC3164] for BSD Syslog).  The
   IETF SYSLOG protocol [RFC5424] introduces a layered architecture
   allowing the use of any number of transport protocols, including
   reliable and secure transports, for transmission of SYSLOG messages.

   The SYSLOG protocol enables a machine to send system log messages
   across networks to event message collectors.  The protocol is simply
   designed to transport and distribute these event messages.  By
   default, no acknowledgements of the receipt are made, except the
   reliable delivery extensions specified in [RFC3195] are used.  The
   SYSLOG protocol and process does not require a stringent coordination
   between the transport sender and the receiver.  Indeed, the
   transmission of SYSLOG messages may be started on a device without a
   receiver being configured, or even actually physically present.
   Conversely, many devices will most likely be able to receive messages
   without explicit configuration or definitions.

   BSD Syslog had little uniformity for the message format and the
   content of Syslog messages.  The body of a BSD Syslog message has
   traditionally been unstructured text.  This content is human-
   friendly, but difficult to parse for applications.  The IETF has
   standardized a new message header format, including timestamp,
   hostname, application, and message ID, to improve filtering,
   interoperability and correlation between compliant implementations.

   The SYSLOG protocol [RFC5424] introduces a mechanism for defining
   Structured Data Elements (SDEs).  The SDEs allow vendors to define
   their own structured data elements to supplement standardized
   elements.  [RFC5675] defines a mapping from SNMP notifications to
   SYSLOG messages.  [RFC5676] defines a SNMP MIB module to represent
   SYSLOG messages for sending SYSLOG messages as notifications to SNMP
   notification receivers.  [RFC5674] defines the way alarms are sent in
   SYSLOG, which includes the mapping of ITU perceived severities onto
   SYSLOG message fields and a number of alarm-specific definitions from
   ITU-T X.733 [ITU-X733] and the IETF Alarm MIB [RFC3877].

   [RFC5848] "Signed Syslog Messages" defines a mechanism to add origin
   authentication, message integrity, replay resistance, message
   sequencing, and detection of missing messages to the transmitted
   SYSLOG messages to be used in conjunction with the SYSLOG protocol.




Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 15]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   The SYSLOG protocol layered architecture provides support for a
   number of transport mappings.  For interoperability purposes and
   especially in managed networks, where the network path has been
   explicitly provisioned for UDP syslog traffic, SYSLOG protocol can be
   used over UDP [RFC5426].  However, to support congestion control and
   reliability, [RFC5426] strongly recommends the use of the TLS
   transport.

   [RFC3195] "Reliable Delivery for syslog" describes mappings of the
   SYSLOG protocol to TCP connections, useful for reliable delivery of
   event messages.  As such the specification provides robustness and
   security in message delivery with encryption and authentication over
   a connection-oriented protocol that is unavailable to the usual UDP-
   based SYSLOG protocol.

   IETF furthermore defined the TLS transport mapping for SYSLOG in
   [RFC5425], which provides a secure connection for the transport of
   SYSLOG messages.  [RFC5425] describes the security threats to SYSLOG
   and how TLS can be used to counter such threats.  [RFC6012] defines
   the Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Transport Mapping for
   SYSLOG, which can be used if a connectionless transport is desired.

   For information on MIB modules related to SYSLOG see Section 4.2.1.

2.3.  IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) and Packet Sampling (PSAMP)
      Protocols

   The IPFIX protocol [RFC5101], IP Flow Information eXport, defines a
   push-based data export mechanism for transferring IP flow information
   in a compact binary format from an exporter to a collector.

   The IPFIX architecture [RFC5470] defines the components involved in
   IP flow measurement and reporting of information on IP flows,
   particularly, a metering process generating flow records, an
   exporting process that sends metered flow information using the IPFIX
   protocol, and a colleting process that receives flow information as
   IPFIX data records.

   After listing the IPFIX requirements in [RFC3917], NetFlow Version 9
   [RFC3954] was taken as the basis for the IPFIX protocol and the IPFIX
   architecture.

   IPFIX can run over different transport protocols.  The IPFIX protocol
   [RFC5101] specifies Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
   [RFC4960] as the mandatory transport protocol to implement.  Optional
   alternatives are TCP [STD7] and UDP [STD6].

   SCTP is used with its Partial Reliability extension (PR-SCTP)



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 16]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   specified in [RFC3758].  [I-D.ietf-ipfix-export-per-sctp-stream]
   specifies an extension to [RFC5101], when using the PR-SCTP
   [RFC3758].  The extension offers several advantages over IPFIX
   export, e.g. the ability to calculate Data Record losses for PR-SCTP,
   immediate reuse of Template IDs within an SCTP stream, reduced
   likelihood of Data Record loss, and reduced demands on the Collecting
   Process.

   IPFIX transmits IP flow information in data records containing IPFIX
   Information Elements (IEs) defined by the IPFIX information model
   [RFC5102].  IPFIX information elements are quantities with unit and
   semantics defined by the information model.  When transmitted over
   the IPFIX protocol, only their values need to be carried in data
   records.  This compact encoding allows efficient transport of large
   numbers of measured flow values.  Remaining redundancy in data
   records can be further reduced by methods described in [RFC5473] (for
   further discussion on IPFIX IEs see Section 4).

   The IPFIX information model is extensible.  New information elements
   can be registered at IANA (see 'IPFIX Information Elements' in
   [IANA-PROT]).  IPFIX also supports the use of proprietary, i.e.
   enterprise-specific information elements.

   The PSAMP protocol [RFC5476] extends the IPFIX protocol by means of
   transferring information on individual packets.  [RFC5475] specifies
   a set of sampling and filtering techniques for IP packet selection,
   based on the PSAMP framework [RFC5474].  The PSAMP information model
   [RFC5477] provides a set of basic information elements for reporting
   packet information with the IPFIX/PSAMP protocol.

   The IPFIX model of an IP traffic flow is uni-directional.  [RFC5103]
   adds means of reporting bi-directional flows to IPFIX, for example
   both directions of packet flows of a TCP connection.

   When enterprise-specific information elements are transmitted with
   IPFIX, a collector receiving data records may not know the type of
   received data and cannot choose the right format for storing the
   contained information.  [RFC5610] provides means of exporting
   extended type information for enterprise-specific Information
   Elements from an exporter to a collector.

   Collectors may store received flow information in files.  The IPFIX
   file format [RFC5655] can be used for storing IP flow information in
   a way that facilitates exchange of traffic flow information between
   different systems and applications.

   In terms of IPFIX and PSAMP configurations, the metering and
   exporting processes are configured out of band.  As the IPFIX



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 17]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   protocol is a push mechanism only, IPFIX cannot configure the
   exporter.  The actual configuration of selection processes, caches,
   exporting processes, and collecting processes of IPFIX and PSAMP
   compliant monitoring devices is executed using the NETCONF protocol
   [RFC6241] (see Section 2.4.1).  The 'Configuration Data Model for
   IPFIX and PSAMP' [I-D.ietf-ipfix-configuration-model] has been
   specified using Unified Modeling Language (UML) class diagrams.  The
   data model is formally defined using the YANG modeling language
   [RFC6020] (see Section 2.4.2).

   At the time of this writing a framework for IPFIX flow mediation is
   in preparation, which addresses the need for mediation of flow
   information in IPFIX applications in large operator networks, e.g.
   for aggregating huge amounts of flow data and for anonymization of
   flow information (see the problem statement in [RFC5982]).

   The IPFIX Mediation Framework [RFC6183] defines the intermediate
   device between exporters and collectors, which provides an IPFIX
   mediation by receiving a record stream from e.g. a collecting
   process, hosting one or more intermediate processes to transform this
   stream, and exporting the transformed record stream into IPFIX
   messages via an exporting process.

   Examples for mediation functions are flow aggregation, flow
   selection, and anonymization of traffic information (see [RFC6235]).

   Privacy, integrity, and authentication of exporter and collector are
   important security requirements for IPFIX [RFC3917].
   Confidentiality, integrity, and authenticity of IPFIX data
   transferred from an exporting process to a collecting process must be
   ensured.  The IPFIX and PSAMP protocols do not define any new
   security mechanism and rely on the security mechanism of the
   underlying transport protocol, such as TLS [RFC5246] and DTLS
   [RFC6347].

   The primary goal of IPFIX is the reporting of the flow accounting for
   flexible flow definitions and usage-based accounting.  As described
   in the IPFIX Applicability Statement [RFC5472], there are also other
   applications such as traffic profiling, traffic engineering,
   intrusion detection, and QoS monitoring, that require flow-based
   traffic measurements and can be realized using IPFIX.  IPFIX
   Applicability Statement explains furthermore the relation of IPFIX to
   other framework and protocols such as PSAMP, RMON (Remote Network
   Monitoring MIB Section 4.2.1), and IPPM (IP Performance Metrics
   Section 3.4)).  Similar flow information could be also used for
   security monitoring.  The addition of performance metrics in the
   IPFIX IANA registry [IANA-IPFIX], will extend the IPFIX use case to
   performance management.



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 18]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   Note that even if the initial IPFIX focus has been around IP flow
   information exchange, non-IP-related information elements are now
   specified in IPFIX IANA registration (e.g.  MAC (Media Access
   Control) address, MPLS (Multiprotocol Label Switching) labels, etc.).
   At the time of this writing, there are requests to widen the focus of
   IPFIX and to export also non-IP related information elements (such as
   SIP monitoring IEs).

   The IPFIX Structured Data [RFC6313] is an extension to the IPFIX
   protocol, which supports hierarchical structured data and lists
   (sequences) of Information Elements in data records.  This extension
   allows the definition of complex data structures such as variable-
   length lists and specification of hierarchical containment
   relationships between templates.  Furthermore, the extension provides
   the semantics to express the relationship among multiple list
   elements in a structured data record.

   For information on data models related to the management of the IPFIX
   and PSAMP protocols see Section 4.2.1 and Section 4.2.2.  For
   information on IPFIX/PSAMP IEs, see Section 4.2.3.

2.4.  Network Configuration

2.4.1.  Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)

   The IAB workshop on Network Management [RFC3535] determined advanced
   requirements for configuration management:

   o  Robustness: Minimizing disruptions and maximizing stability,

   o  Support of task-oriented view,

   o  Extensible for new operations,

   o  Standardized error handling,

   o  Clear distinction between configuration data and operational
      state,

   o  Distribution of configurations to devices under transactional
      constraints,

   o  Single and multi-system transactions and scalability in the number
      of transactions and managed devices,

   o  Operations on selected subsets of management data,





Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 19]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   o  Dump and reload a device configuration in a textual format in a
      standard manner across multiple vendors and device types,

   o  Support a human interface and a programmatic interface,

   o  Data modeling language with a human friendly syntax,

   o  Easy conflict detection and configuration validation, and

   o  Secure transport, authentication, and robust access control.

   The NETCONF protocol [RFC6241] provides mechanisms to install,
   manipulate, and delete the configuration of network devices and aims
   to address the configuration management requirements pointed in the
   IAB workshop.  It uses an XML-based data encoding for the
   configuration data as well as the protocol messages.  The NETCONF
   protocol operations are realized on top of a simple and reliable
   Remote Procedure Call (RPC) layer.  A key aspect of NETCONF is that
   it allows the functionality of the management protocol to closely
   mirror the native command line interface of the device.

   The NETCONF working group developed the NETCONF Event Notifications
   Mechanism as an optional capability, which provides an asynchronous
   message notification delivery service for NETCONF [RFC5277].  NETCONF
   notification mechanism enables using general purpose notification
   streams, where the originator of the notification stream can be any
   managed device (e.g.  SNMP notifications).

   NETCONF Partial Locking specification introduces fine-grained locking
   of the configuration datastore to enhance NETCONF for fine-grained
   transactions on parts of the datastore [RFC5717].

   The NETCONF working group also defined the necessary data model to
   monitor the NETCONF protocol by using the modeling language YANG
   [RFC6022] (see Section 2.4.2).  The monitoring data model includes
   information about NETCONF datastores, sessions, locks, and
   statistics, which facilitate the management of a NETCONF server.

   NETCONF connections are required to provide authentication, data
   integrity, confidentiality, and replay protection.  NETCONF depends
   on the underlying transport protocol for this capability.  For
   example, connections can be encrypted in TLS or SSH, depending on the
   underlying protocol.

   The NETCONF working group defined the SSH transport protocol as the
   mandatory transport binding [RFC6242].  Other optional transport
   bindings are TLS [RFC5539], BEEP (over TLS) [RFC4744], and SOAP (over
   HTTP over TLS) [RFC4743].



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 20]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   The NETCONF Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC6536] provides standard
   mechanisms to restrict protocol access to particular users with a
   pre-configured subset of operations and content.

2.4.2.  YANG - NETCONF Data Modeling Language

   Following the guidelines of the IAB management workshop [RFC3535],
   the NETMOD working group developed a data modeling language defining
   the semantics of operational and configuration data, notifications,
   and operations [RFC6020].  The new data modeling language maps
   directly to XML-encoded content (on the wire) and will serve as the
   normative description of NETCONF data models.

   YANG has following properties addressing specific requirements on a
   modeling language for configuration management:

   o  YANG provides the means to define hierarchical data models.  It
      supports reusable data types and groupings, i.e., a set of schema
      nodes that can be reused across module boundaries.

   o  YANG supports the distinction between configuration and state
      data.  In addition, it provides support for modeling event
      notifications and the specification of operations that extend the
      base NETCONF operations.

   o  YANG allows to express constraints on data models by means of type
      restrictions and XPATH 1.0 [XPATH] expressions.  XPATH expressions
      can also be used to make certain portions of a data model
      conditional.

   o  YANG supports the integration of standard and vendor defined data
      models.  YANG's augmentation mechanism allows to seamlessly
      augment standard data models with proprietary extensions.

   o  YANG data models can be partitioned into collections of features,
      allowing low-end devices to only implement the core features of a
      data model while high-end devices may choose to support all
      features.  The supported features are announced via the NETCONF
      capability exchange to management applications.

   o  The syntax of the YANG language is compact and optimized for human
      readers.  An associated XML-based syntax called the YANG
      Independent Notation (YIN) [RFC6020] is available to allow the
      processing of YANG data models with XML-based tools.  The mapping
      rules for the translation of YANG data models into Document Schema
      Definition Languages (DSDL), of which Relax NG is a major
      component, are defined in [RFC6110].




Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 21]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   o  Devices implementing standard data models can document deviations
      from the data model in separate YANG modules.  Applications
      capable of discovering deviations can make allowances that would
      otherwise not be possible.

   A collection of common data types for IETF-related standards is
   provided in [RFC6021].  This standard data type library has been
   derived to a large extend from common SMIv2 data types, generalizing
   them to a less constrained NETCONF framework.

   The document "An Architecture for Network Management using NETCONF
   and YANG" describes how NETCONF and YANG can be used to build network
   management applications that meet the needs of network operators
   [RFC6244].

   The Experimental RFC [RFC6095] specifies extensions for YANG
   introducing language abstractions such as class inheritance and
   recursive data structures.

   [RFC6087] gives guidelines for the use of YANG within IETF and other
   standardization organizations.

   Work is underway to standardize a translation of SMIv2 data models
   into YANG data models preserving investments into SNMP MIB modules,
   which are widely available for monitoring purposes.

   Several independent and open source implementations of the YANG data
   modeling language and associated tools are available.

   While YANG is a relatively recent data modeling language, some data
   models have already been produced.  The specification of the base
   NETCONF protocol operations has been revised and uses YANG as the
   normative modeling language to specify its operations [RFC6241].  The
   IPFIX working group prepared the normative model for configuring and
   monitoring IPFIX and PSAMP compliant monitoring devices using the
   YANG modeling language [I-D.ietf-ipfix-configuration-model].

   At the time of this writing the NETMOD working group is developing
   core system and interface data models.  Following the example of the
   IPFIX configuration model, IETF working groups will prepare models
   for their specific needs.

   For information on data models developed using the YANG modeling
   language see Section 4.2.1 and Section 4.2.2.







Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 22]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


3.  Network Management Protocols and Mechanisms with specific Focus

   This section reviews additional protocols IETF offers for management
   and discusses for which applications they were designed and/or
   already successfully deployed.  These are protocols that have mostly
   reached Proposed Standard status or higher within the IETF.

3.1.  IP Address Management

3.1.1.  Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP)

   Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) [RFC2131] provides a
   framework for passing configuration information to hosts on a TCP/IP
   network and enables as such auto-configuration in IP networks.  In
   addition to IP address management, DHCP can also provide other
   configuration information, such as default routers, the IP addresses
   of recursive DNS servers and the IP addresses of NTP servers.  As
   described in [RFC6272] DHCP can be used for IPv4 and IPv6 Address
   Allocation and Assignment as well as for Service Discovery.

   There are two versions of DHCP, one for IPv4 (DHCPv4) [RFC2131] and
   one for IPv6 (DHCPv6) [RFC3315].  DHCPv4 was defined as an extension
   to BOOTP (Bootstrap Protocol) [RFC0951].  DHCPv6 was subsequently
   defined to accommodate new functions required by IPv6 such as
   assignment of multiple addresses to an interface and to address
   limitations in the design of DHCPv4 resulting from its origins in
   BOOTP.  While both versions bear the same name and perform the same
   functionality, the details of DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 are sufficiently
   different that they can be considered separate protocols.

   In addition to the assignment of IP addresses and other configuration
   information, DHCP options like the Relay Agent Information option
   (DHCPv4) [RFC3046] and, the Interface-Id Option (DHCPv6) [RFC3315]
   are widely used by ISPs.

   DHCPv6 includes Prefix Delegation [RFC3633], which is used to
   provision a router with an IPv6 prefix for use in the subnetwork
   supported by the router.

   Following are examples of DHCP options that provide configuration
   information or access to specific servers.  A complete list of DHCP
   options is available at [IANA-PROT].

   o  [RFC3646] "DNS Configuration options for DHCPv6" describes DHCPv6
      options for passing a list of available DNS recursive name servers
      and a domain search list to a client.





Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 23]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   o  [RFC2610] "DHCP Options for Service Location Protocol" describes
      DHCPv4 options and methods through which entities using the
      Service Location Protocol can find out the address of Directory
      Agents in order to transact messages and how the assignment of
      scope for configuration of SLP User and Service Agents can be
      achieved.

   o  [RFC3319] "DHCPv6 Options for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
      Servers" specifies DHCPv6 options that allow SIP clients to locate
      a local SIP server that is to be used for all outbound SIP
      requests, a so-called outbound proxy server.

   o  [RFC4280] "DHCP Options for Broadcast and Multicast Control
      Servers" defines DHCPv6 options to discover the Broadcast and
      Multicast Service (BCMCS) controller in an IP network.

   Built directly on UDP and IP, DHCP itself has no security provisions.
   There are two different classes of potential security issues related
   to DHCP: unauthorized DHCP Servers and unauthorized DHCP Clients.
   The recommended solutions to these risks generally involve providing
   security at lower layers, e.g. careful control over physical access
   to the network, security techniques implemented at layer two but also
   IPSec at layer three can be used to provide authentication.

3.1.2.  Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration

   Ad-hoc nodes need to configure their network interfaces with locally
   unique addresses as well as globally routable IPv6 addresses, in
   order to communicate with devices on the Internet.  The IETF AUTOCONF
   working group developed [RFC5889], which describes the addressing
   model for ad-hoc networks and how nodes in these networks configure
   their addresses.

   The ad-hoc nodes under consideration are expected to be able to
   support multi-hop communication by running MANET (Mobile ad-hoc
   network) routing protocols as developed by the IETF MANET working
   group.

   From the IP layer perspective, an ad hoc network presents itself as a
   layer 3 multi-hop network formed over a collection of links.  The
   addressing model aims to avoid problems for ad-hoc-unaware parts of
   the system, such as standard applications running on an ad-hoc node
   or regular Internet nodes attached to the ad-hoc nodes.

3.2.  IPv6 Network Operations

   The IPv6 Operations Working Group develops guidelines for the
   operation of a shared IPv4/IPv6 Internet and provides operational



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 24]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   guidance on how to deploy IPv6 into existing IPv4-only networks, as
   well as into new network installations.

   o  [RFC4213] "Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers"
      specifies IPv4 compatibility mechanisms for dual stack and
      configured tunneling that can be implemented by IPv6 hosts and
      routers.  Dual stack implies providing complete implementations of
      both IPv4 and IPv6, and configured tunneling provides a means to
      carry IPv6 packets over unmodified IPv4 routing infrastructures.

   o  [RFC3574] "Transition Scenarios for 3GPP Networks" lists different
      scenarios in 3GPP defined packet network that would need IPv6 and
      IPv4 transition, where [RFC4215] "Analysis on IPv6 Transition in
      Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Networks" does a more
      detailed analysis of the transition scenarios that may come up in
      the deployment phase of IPv6 in 3GPP packet networks.

   o  [RFC4029] "Scenarios and Analysis for Introducing IPv6 into ISP
      Networks" describes and analyzes different scenarios for the
      introduction of IPv6 into an ISP's existing IPv4 network.
      [RFC5181] "IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in 802.16 Networks" provides
      a detailed description of IPv6 deployment, integration methods and
      scenarios in wireless broadband access networks (802.16) in
      coexistence with deployed IPv4 services.  [RFC4057] describes the
      scenarios for IPv6 deployment within enterprise networks.

   o  [RFC4038] "Application Aspects of IPv6 Transition" specifies
      scenarios and application aspects of IPv6 transition considering
      how to enable IPv6 support in applications running on IPv6 hosts,
      and giving guidance for the development of IP version-independent
      applications.

   o  The ongoing work on an IANA-reserved IPv4 prefix for shared
      address spaces [I-D.weil-shared-transition-space-request] "IANA
      Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Address Space" updates RFC 5735
      and requests the allocation of an IPv4/10 address block to be used
      as "Shared Carrier Grade Network Address Translation (CGN) Space"
      by service providers to number the interfaces that connect CGN
      devices to Customer Premise Equipment (CPE).

3.3.  Policy-based Management

3.3.1.  IETF Policy Framework

   IETF specified a general policy framework [RFC2753] for managing,
   sharing, and reusing policies in a vendor independent, interoperable,
   and scalable manner.  [RFC3460] specifies the Policy Core Information
   Model (PCIM) as an object-oriented information model for representing



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 25]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   policy information.  PCIM has been developed jointly in the IETF
   Policy Framework working group and the Common Information Model (CIM)
   activity in the Distributed Management Task Force (DMTF).  PCIM has
   been published as extensions to CIM [DMTF-CIM].

   The IETF Policy Framework is based on a policy-based admission
   control specifying two main architectural elements, the Policy
   Enforcement Point (PEP) and the Policy Decision Point (PDP).  For the
   purpose of network management, policies allow an operator to specify
   how the network is to be configured and monitored by using a
   descriptive language.  Furthermore, it allows the automation of a
   number of management tasks, according to the requirements set out in
   the policy module.

   IETF Policy Framework has been accepted by the industry as a
   standard-based policy management approach and has been adopted by
   different SDOs e.g. for 3GGP charging standards.

3.3.2.  Use of Common Open Policy Service (COPS) for Policy Provisioning
        (COPS-PR)

   [RFC3159] defines the Structure of Policy Provisioning Information
   (SPPI), an extension to the SMIv2 modeling language used to write
   Policy Information Base (PIB) modules.  COPS-PR [RFC3084] uses the
   Common Open Policy Service (COPS) protocol [RFC2748] for provisioning
   of policy information.  COPS provides a simple client/server model
   for supporting policy control over QoS signaling protocols.  The
   COPS-PR specification is independent of the type of policy being
   provisioned (QoS, security, etc.) but focuses on the mechanisms and
   conventions used to communicate provisioned information between
   policy-decision-points (PDPs) and policy enforcement points (PEPs).
   Policy data is modeled using Policy Information Base (PIB) modules.

   COPS-PR has not been widely deployed, and operators have stated that
   its use of binary encoding (BER) for management data makes it
   difficult to develop automated scripts for simple configuration
   management tasks in most text-based scripting languages.  In the IAB
   Workshop on Network Management [RFC3535], the consensus of operators
   and protocol developers indicated a lack of interest in PIB modules
   for use with COPS-PR.

   As a result, even if COPS-PR and the Structure of Policy Provisioning
   Information (SPPI) were initially approved as Proposed Standards, the
   IESG has not approved any PIB modules as IETF standard, and the use
   of COPS-PR is not recommended.






Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 26]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


3.4.  IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)

   The IPPM working group has defined metrics for accurately measuring
   and reporting the quality, performance, and reliability of Internet
   data delivery.  The metrics include connectivity, one-way delay and
   loss, round-trip delay and loss, delay variation, loss patterns,
   packet reordering, bulk transport capacity, and link bandwidth
   capacity.

   These metrics are designed for use by network operators and their
   customers, and provide unbiased quantitative measures of performance.
   The IPPM metrics have been developed inside an active measurement
   context, that is, the devices used to measure the metrics produce
   their own traffic.  However, most of the metrics can be used inside a
   passive context as well.  At the time of this writing there is no
   work planned in the area of passive measurement.

   As a property individual IPPM performance and reliability metrics
   need to be well-defined and concrete thus implementable.
   Furthermore, the methodology used to implement a metric needs to be
   repeatable with consistent measurements.

   IETF IP Performance Metrics have been adopted by different
   organizations, e.g.  Metro Ethernet Forum.

   Note that this document does not aim to cover OAM technologies on the
   data-path and as such the discussion of IPPM-based active vs. passive
   monitoring as well as the data plane measurement and its diagnostics
   is rather incomplete.  For a detailed overview and discussion of IETF
   OAM standards and IPPM measurement mechanisms the reader is referred
   to the documents listed at the end of Section 1.2 "Related Work" but
   especially to [I-D.ietf-opsawg-oam-overview].

   Following are examples of essential IPPM documents:

   o  IPPM Framework document [RFC2330] defines a general framework for
      particular metrics developed by IPPM working group and defines the
      fundamental concepts of 'metric' and 'measurement methodology' and
      discusses the issue of measurement uncertainties and errors as
      well as introduces the notion of empirically defined metrics and
      how metrics can be composed.

   o  [RFC2679] "One-way Delay Metric for IPPM", defines a metric for
      one-way delay of packets across Internet paths.  It builds on
      notions introduced in the IPPM Framework document.

   o  [RFC2681] "Round-trip Delay Metric for IPPM", defines a metric for
      round-trip delay of packets across network paths and follows



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 27]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


      closely the corresponding metric for One-way Delay.

   o  [RFC3393] "IP Packet Delay Variation Metric", refers to a metric
      for variation in delay of packets across network paths and is
      based on the difference in the One-Way-Delay of selected packets
      called "IP Packet Delay Variation (ipdv)".

   o  [RFC2680] "One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM", defines a metric
      for one-way packet loss across Internet paths.

   o  [RFC5560] "One-Way Packet Duplication Metric", defines a metric
      for the case, where multiple copies of a packet are received and
      discusses methods to summarize the results of streams.

   o  [RFC4737] "Packet Reordering Metrics", defines metrics to evaluate
      whether a network has maintained packet order on a packet-by-
      packet basis and discusses the measurement issues, including the
      context information required for all metrics.

   o  [RFC2678] "IPPM Metrics for Measuring Connectivity", defines a
      series of metrics for connectivity between a pair of Internet
      hosts.

   o  [RFC5835] "Framework for Metric Composition", describes a detailed
      framework for composing and aggregating metrics.

   o  [BCP170] "Guidelines for Considering New Performance Metric
      Development" describes the framework and process for developing
      Performance Metrics of protocols and applications transported over
      IETF-specified protocols.

   To measure these metrics two protocols and a sampling method have
   been standardized:

   o  [RFC4656] "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP)",
      measures unidirectional characteristics such as one-way delay and
      one-way loss between network devices and enables the
      interoperability of these measurements.  OWAMP is discussed in
      more detail in [I-D.ietf-opsawg-oam-overview].

   o  [RFC5357] "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", adds
      round-trip or two-way measurement capabilities to OWAMP.  TWAMP is
      discussed in more detail in [I-D.ietf-opsawg-oam-overview].

   o  [RFC3432] "Network performance measurement with Periodic Streams",
      describes a periodic sampling method and relevant metrics for
      assessing the performance of IP networks, as an alternative to the
      Poisson sampling method described in [RFC2330].



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 28]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   For information on MIB modules related to IP Performance Metrics see
   Section 4.2.4.

3.5.  Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)

   RADIUS [RFC2865], the Remote Authentication Dial In User Service,
   describes a client/server protocol for carrying authentication,
   authorization, and configuration information between a Network Access
   Server (NAS), which desires to authenticate its links and a shared
   Authentication Server.  The companion document [RFC2866] 'Radius
   Accounting' describes a protocol for carrying accounting information
   between a network access server and a shared accounting server.
   [RFC2867] adds required new RADIUS accounting attributes and new
   values designed to support the provision of tunneling in dial-up
   networks.

   The RADIUS protocol is widely used in environments like enterprise
   networks, where a single administrative authority manages the
   network, and protects the privacy of user information.  RADIUS is
   deployed in fixed broadband access provider networks as well as in
   cellular broadband operators' networks.

   RADIUS uses attributes to carry the specific authentication,
   authorization, information, and configuration details.  RADIUS is
   extensible with a known limitation of maximum 255 attribute codes and
   253 octets as attribute content length.  RADIUS has Vendor-Specific
   Attributes (VSA), which have been used both for vendor-specific
   purposes as an addition to standardized attributes as well as to
   extend the limited attribute code space.

   The RADIUS protocol uses a shared secret along with the MD5 (Message-
   Digest algorithm 5) hashing algorithm to secure passwords [RFC1321].
   Based on the known threads additional protection like IPsec tunnels
   [RFC4301] are used to further protect the RADIUS traffic.  However,
   building and administering large IPsec protected networks may become
   a management burden, especially when IPsec protected RADIUS
   infrastructure should provide inter-provider connectivity.  A trend
   has been moving towards TLS-based security solutions [RFC5246] and
   establishing dynamic trust relationships between RADIUS servers.
   Since the introduction of TCP transport for RADIUS, it became natural
   to have TLS support for RADIUS.  An ongoing work specifies the 'TLS
   encryption for RADIUS'.

   [RFC2868] 'RADIUS Attributes for Tunnel Protocol Support' defines a
   number of RADIUS attributes designed to support the compulsory
   provision of tunneling in dial-up network access.  Some applications
   involve compulsory tunneling i.e. the tunnel is created without any
   action from the user and without allowing the user any choice in the



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 29]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   matter.  In order to provide this functionality, specific RADIUS
   attributes are needed to carry the tunneling information from the
   RADIUS server to the tunnel end points.  [RFC3868] defines the
   necessary attributes, attribute values and the required IANA
   registries.

   [RFC3162] 'RADIUS and IPv6' specifies the operation of RADIUS over
   IPv6 and the RADIUS attributes used to support the IPv6 network
   access.  [RFC4818] describes how to transport delegated IPv6 prefix
   information over RADIUS.

   [RFC4675] 'RADIUS Attributes for Virtual LAN and Priority Support'
   defines additional attributes for dynamic Virtual LAN assignment and
   prioritization, for use in provisioning of access to IEEE 802 local
   area networks usable with RADIUS and DIAMETER.

   [RFC5080] 'Common RADIUS Implementation Issues and Suggested Fixes'
   describes common issues seen in RADIUS implementations and suggests
   some fixes.  Where applicable, unclear statements and errors in
   previous RADIUS specifications are clarified.  People designing
   extensions to RADIUS protocol for various deployment cases should get
   familiar with RADIUS Design Guidelines [RFC6158] in order to avoid
   e.g. known interoperability challenges.

   [RFC5090] 'RADIUS Extension for Digest Authentication' defines an
   extension to the RADIUS protocol to enable support of Digest
   Authentication, for use with HTTP-style protocols like the Session
   Initiation Protocol (SIP) and HTTP.

   [RFC5580] 'Carrying Location Objects in RADIUS and DIAMETER describes
   procedures for conveying access-network ownership and location
   information based on civic and geospatial location formats in RADIUS
   and DIAMETER.

   [RFC5607] specifies required RADIUS attributes and their values for
   authorizing a management access to a NAS.  Both local and remote
   management are supported, with access rights and management
   privileges.  Specific provisions are made for remote management via
   Framed Management protocols, such as SNMP and NETCONF, and for
   management access over a secure transport protocols.

   [RFC3579] describes how to use RADIUS to convey Extensible
   Authentication Protocol (EAP) [RFC3748] payload between the
   authenticator and the EAP server using RADIUS.  RFC3579 is widely
   implemented, for example, in WLAN and 802.1 X environments.
   [RFC3580] describes how to use RADIUS with IEEE 802.1X
   authenticators.  In the context of 802.1X and EAP-based
   authentication, the Vendor Specific Attributes described in [RFC2458]



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 30]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   have been widely accepted by the industry.  [RFC2869] 'RADIUS
   extensions' is another important RFC related to EAP use.  RFC2869
   describes additional attributes for carrying AAA information between
   a NAS and a shared Accounting Server using RADIUS.  It also defines
   attributes to encapsulate EAP message payload.

   There are different MIB modules defined for multiple purposes to use
   with RADIUS (see Section 4.2.3 and Section 4.2.5 ).

3.6.  Diameter Base Protocol (DIAMETER)

   DIAMETER [RFC3588] provides an Authentication, Authorization and
   Accounting (AAA) framework for applications such as network access or
   IP mobility.  DIAMETER is also intended to work in local AAA and in
   roaming scenarios.  DIAMETER provides an upgrade path for RADIUS but
   is not directly backwards compatible.

   DIAMETER is designed to resolve a number of known problems with
   RADIUS.  DIAMETER supports server failover, reliable transport over
   TCP and SCTP, well documented functions for proxy, redirect and relay
   agent functions, server-initiated messages, auditability, and
   capability negotiation.  DIAMETER also provides a larger attribute
   space for Attribute-Value Pairs (AVP) and identifiers than RADIUS.
   DIAMETER features make it especially appropriate for environments,
   where the providers of services are in different administrative
   domains than the maintainer (protector) of confidential user
   information.

   Other notable differences to RADIUS are:

   o  Network and transport layer security (IPsec or TLS),

   o  Stateful and stateless models,

   o  Dynamic discovery of peers (using DNS SRV and NAPTR),

   o  Concept of an application that describes how a specific set of
      commands and Attribute-Value Pairs (AVPs) are treated by DIAMETER
      nodes.  Each application has an IANA assigned unique identifier,

   o  Support of application layer acknowledgements, failover methods
      and state machines,

   o  Basic support for user-sessions and accounting,

   o  Better roaming support,





Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 31]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   o  Error notification, and

   o  Easy extensibility.

   The DIAMETER protocol is designed to be extensible to support e.g.
   proxies, brokers, mobility and roaming, Network Access Servers
   (NASREQ), and Accounting and Resource Management.  DIAMETER
   applications extend the DIAMETER base protocol by adding new commands
   and/or attributes.  Each application is defined by a unique IANA
   assigned application identifier and can add new command codes and/or
   new mandatory AVPs.

   The DIAMETER application identifier space has been divided into
   Standards Track and 'First Come First Served' vendor-specific
   applications.  Following are examples for DIAMETER applications
   published at IETF:

   o  Diameter Base Protocol Application [RFC3588]: Required to support
      by all Diameter implementations.

   o  Diameter Base Accounting Application [RFC3588]: A DIAMETER
      application using an accounting protocol based on a server
      directed model with capabilities for real-time delivery of
      accounting information.

   o  Diameter Mobile IPv4 Application [RFC4004]: A DIAMETER application
      that allows a DIAMETER server to authenticate, authorize and
      collect accounting information for Mobile IPv4 services rendered
      to a mobile node.

   o  Diameter Network Access Server Application (NASREQ, [RFC4005]): A
      DIAMETER application used for AAA services in the NAS environment.

   o  Diameter Extensible Authentication Protocol Application [RFC4072]:
      A DIAMETER application that carries EAP packets between a NAS and
      a back-end authentication server.

   o  Diameter Credit-Control Application [RFC4006]: A DIAMETER
      application that can be used to implement real-time credit-control
      for a variety of end user services such as network access, Session
      Initiation Protocol (SIP) services, messaging services, and
      download services.

   o  Diameter Session Initiation Protocol Application [RFC4740]: A
      DIAMETER application designed to be used in conjunction with SIP
      and provides a DIAMETER client co-located with a SIP server, with
      the ability to request the authentication of users and
      authorization of SIP resources usage from a DIAMETER server.



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 32]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   o  Diameter Quality-of-Service Application [RFC5866]: A DIAMETER
      application allowing network elements to interact with Diameter
      servers when allocating QoS resources in the network.

   o  Diameter Mobile IPv6 IKE (MIP6I) Application [RFC5778]: A DIAMETER
      application, which enables the interaction between a Mobile IP
      home agent and a Diameter server and is used when the mobile node
      is authenticated and authorized using IKEv2 [RFC5996].

   o  Diameter Mobile IPv6 Auth (MIP6A) Application [RFC5778]: A
      DIAMETER application, which enables the interaction between a
      Mobile IP home agent and a DIAMETER server and is used when the
      mobile node is authenticated and authorized using the Mobile IPv6
      Authentication Protocol [RFC4285].

   The large majority of DIAMETER applications are vendor-specific and
   mainly used in various SDOs outside IETF.  One example SDO using
   DIAMETER extensively is 3GPP (e.g. 3GPP 'IP Multimedia Subsystem'
   (IMS) uses DIAMETER based interfaces (e.g.  Cx) [3GPPIMS]).
   Recently, during the standardization of the '3GPP Evolved Packet
   Core' [3GPPEPC], DIAMETER was chosen as the only AAA signaling
   protocol.

   One part of DIAMETER's extensibility mechanism is an easy and
   consistent way of creating new commands for the need of applications.
   RFC3588 proposed to define DIAMETER command code allocations with a
   new RFC.  This policy decision caused undesired use and redefinition
   of existing Commands Codes within SDOs.  Diverse RFCs have been
   published as simple command code allocations for other SDO purposes
   (see [RFC3589], [RFC5224], [RFC5431] and [RFC5516]).  [RFC5719]
   changed the Command Code policy and added a range for vendor-specific
   Command Codes to be allocated on a 'First Come First Served' basis by
   IANA.

   The implementation and deployment experience of DIAMETER has led to
   the currently ongoing development of an update of the base protocol
   [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis], which introduces TLS as the preferred
   security mechanism and deprecates the in-band security negotiation
   for TLS.

   Some DIAMETER protocol enhancements and clarifications that logically
   fit better into [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis], are also needed on the
   existing RFC3588 based deployments.  Therefore, protocol extensions
   specifically usable in large inter-provider roaming network scenarios
   are made available for RFC3588.  Two currently existing
   specifications are mentioned below:





Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 33]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   o  "Clarifications on the Routing of DIAMETER Requests Based on the
      Username and the Realm" [RFC5729] defines the behavior required
      for DIAMETER agents to route requests when the User-Name AVP
      contains a Network Access Identifier formatted with multiple
      realms.  These multi-realm Network Access Identifiers are used in
      order to force the routing of request messages through a
      predefined list of mediating realms.

   o  "Diameter Extended NAPTR" [RFC6408] describes an improved DNS-
      based dynamic DIAMETER Agent discovery mechanism without having to
      do DIAMETER capability exchange beforehand with a number of
      agents.

   There have been a growing number of DIAMETER framework documents at
   IETF that basically are just a collection of AVPs for a specific
   purpose or a system architecture with semantical AVP descriptions and
   a logic for "imaginary" applications.  From standardization point of
   view, this practice allows the development of larger system
   architecture documents that do not need to reference AVPs or
   application logic outside IETF.  Below are examples of a few recent
   AVP and framework documents:

   o  "Diameter Mobile IPv6: Support for Network Access Server to
      Diameter Server Interaction" [RFC5447] describes the bootstrapping
      of the Mobile IPv6 framework and the support of interworking with
      existing Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA)
      infrastructures by using the DIAMETER Network Access Server to
      home AAA server interface.

   o  "Traffic Classification and Quality of Service (QoS) Attributes
      for Diameter" [RFC5777] defines a number of DIAMETER AVPs for
      traffic classification with actions for filtering and QoS
      treatment.

   o  "Diameter Proxy Mobile IPv6: Mobile Access Gateway and Local
      Mobility Anchor Interaction with Diameter Server" [RFC5779]
      defines AAA interactions between Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6)
      entities (Mobile Access Gateway and Local Mobility Anchor) and a
      AAA server within a PMIPv6 Domain.

   For information on MIB modules related to DIAMETER see Section 4.2.5.

3.7.  Control And Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP)

   Wireless LAN (WLAN) product architectures have evolved from single
   autonomous Access Points to systems consisting of a centralized
   Access Controller (AC) and Wireless Termination Points (WTPs).  The
   general goal of centralized control architectures is to move access



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 34]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   control, including user authentication and authorization, mobility
   management, and radio management from the single access point to a
   centralized controller, where an Access Points pulls the information
   from the Access Controller.

   Based on the CAPWAP Architecture Taxonomy work [RFC4118] the CAPWAP
   working group developed the CAPWAP protocol [RFC5415] to facilitate
   control, management and provisioning of WTPs specifying the services,
   functions and resources relating to 802.11 WLAN Termination Points in
   order to allow for interoperable implementations of WTPs and ACs.
   The protocol defines the CAPWAP control plane including the
   primitives to control data access.  The protocol document also
   specifies how configuration management of WTPs can be done and
   defines CAPWAP operations responsible for debugging, gathering
   statistics, logging, and firmware management as well as discusses
   operational and transport considerations.

   The CAPWAP protocol is prepared to be independent of Layer 2
   technologies, and meets the objectives in "Objectives for Control and
   Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP)" [RFC4564].  Separate
   binding extensions enable the use with additional wireless
   technologies.  [RFC5416] defines CAPWAP Protocol Binding for IEEE
   802.11.

   CAPWAP Control messages, and optionally CAPWAP Data messages, are
   secured using DTLS [RFC6347].  DTLS is used as a tightly integrated,
   secure wrapper for the CAPWAP protocol.

   For information on MIB modules related to CAPWAP see Section 4.2.2.

3.8.  Access Node Control Protocol (ANCP)

   The Access Node Control Protocol (ANCP) [RFC6320] realizes a control
   plane between a service-oriented layer 3 edge device, the Network
   Access Server (NAS) and a layer 2 Access Node (AN), e.g., Digital
   Subscriber Line Access Module (DSLAM).  As such ANCP operates in a
   multi-service reference architecture and communicates QoS-, service-
   and subscriber-related configuration and operation information
   between a NAS and an Access Node.

   The main goal of this protocol is to configure and manage access
   equipments and allow them to report information to the NAS in order
   to enable and optimize configuration.

   The framework and requirements for an Access Node control mechanism
   and the use cases for ANCP are documented in [RFC5851].

   The ANCP protocol offers authentication, and authorization between AN



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 35]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   and NAS nodes and provides replay protection and data-origin
   authentication.  ANCP protocol solution is also robust against
   Denial-of-Service (DoS) attacks.  Furthermore, the ANCP protocol
   solution is recommended to offer confidentiality protection.
   Security Threats and Security Requirements for ANCP are discussed in
   [RFC5713].

3.9.  Application Configuration Access Protocol (ACAP)

   The Application Configuration Access Protocol (ACAP) [RFC2244] is
   designed to support remote storage and access of program option,
   configuration and preference information.  The data store model is
   designed to allow a client relatively simple access to interesting
   data, to allow new information to be easily added without server re-
   configuration, and to promote the use of both standardized data and
   custom or proprietary data.  Key features include "inheritance" which
   can be used to manage default values for configuration settings and
   access control lists which allow interesting personal information to
   be shared and group information to be restricted.

   ACAP's primary purpose is to allow applications access to their
   configuration data from multiple network-connected computers.  Users
   can then use any network-connected computer, run any ACAP-enabled
   application and have access to their own configuration data.  To
   enable wide usage client simplicity has been preferred to server or
   protocol simplicity whenever reasonable.

   The ACAP 'authenticate' command uses Simple Authentication and
   Security Layer (SASL) [RFC4422] to provide basic authentication,
   authorization, integrity and privacy services.  All ACAP
   implementations are required to implement the CRAM-MD5 (Challenge-
   Response Authentication Mechanism) [RFC2195] for authentication,
   which can be disabled based on the site security policy.

3.10.  XML Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP)

   The Extensible Markup Language (XML) Configuration Access Protocol
   (XCAP) [RFC4825] has been designed for and is commonly used with SIP-
   based solutions, in particular for instant message, presence, and SIP
   conference.  XCAP is a protocol that allows a client to read, write,
   and modify application configuration data stored in XML format on a
   server, where the main functionality is provided by so called "XCAP
   Application Usages".

   XCAP is a protocol that can be used to manipulate per-user data.
   XCAP is a set of conventions for mapping XML documents and document
   components into HTTP URIs, rules for how the modification of one
   resource affects another, data validation constraints, and



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 36]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   authorization policies associated with access to those resources.
   Because of this structure, normal HTTP primitives can be used to
   manipulate the data.  Like ACAP, XCAP supports the configuration
   needs for a multiplicity of applications.

   All XCAP servers are required to implement HTTP Digest Authentication
   [RFC2617].  Furthermore, XCAP servers are required to implement HTTP
   over TLS (HTTPS) [RFC2818].  It is recommended that administrators
   use an HTTPS URI as the XCAP root URI, so that the digest client
   authentication occurs over TLS.

   Following list summarizes important XCAP application usages:

   o  XCAP server capabilities [RFC4825] can be read by clients to
      determine which extensions, application usages, or namespaces a
      server supports.

   o  A resource lists application is any application that needs access
      to a list of resources, identified by a URI, to which operations,
      such as subscriptions, can be applied [RFC4826].

   o  A Resource List Server (RLS) Services application is a Session
      Initiation Protocol (SIP) application, where a server receives SIP
      SUBSCRIBE requests for resources, and generates subscriptions
      towards the resource list [RFC4826].

   o  A Presence Rules application uses authorization policies, also
      known as authorization rules, to specify what presence information
      can be given to which watchers, and when [RFC4827].

   o  A Pidf-manipulation application defines how XCAP is used to
      manipulate the contents of PIDF based presence documents
      [RFC4827].

4.  Network Management Data Models

   This section provides two complementary overviews for the network
   management data models standardized at IETF.  The first subsection
   focuses on a broader view of models classified into categories such
   as generic and infrastructure data models as well as data models
   matched to different layers.  The second subsection is structured
   following the management application view and focuses mainly on the
   data models for the network management tasks fault, configuration,
   accounting, performance, and security management (see [FCAPS]).

   Note that IETF does not use the FCAPS view as an organizing principle
   for its data models.  However, FCAPS view is used widely outside of
   IETF for the realization of management tasks and applications.



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 37]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   Section 4.2 aims to address the FCAPS view to enable people outside
   of IETF to understand the relevant data models at IETF.

   The different data models covered in this section are MIB modules,
   IPFIX Information Elements, SYSLOG Structured Data Elements, and YANG
   modules.  There are many technology-specific IETF data models, such
   as transmission and protocol MIBs, which are not mentioned in this
   document and can be found at [RFCSEARCH].

   This section gives an overview of management data models that have
   reached Draft or Proposed Standard status at the IETF.  In
   exceptional cases, important Informational RFCs are referred.  The
   advancement process for management data models beyond Proposed
   Standard status, has been defined in [BCP27] with a more pragmatic
   approach and special considerations on data model specification
   interoperability.  However, most IETF management data models never
   advanced beyond Proposed Standard.

4.1.  IETF Network Management Data Models

   The data models defined by the IETF can be broadly classified into
   the following categories depicted in Figure 1.

     +-----------+  +-------------------------------+  +-----------+
     |           |  | application layer data models |  |  network  |
     |  generic  |  +-------------------------------+  | management|
     |  infra-   |  |  transport layer data models  |  |  infra-   |
     | structure |  +-------------------------------+  | structure |
     |   data    |  |   network layer data models   |  |   data    |
     |  models   |  +-------------------------------+  |  models   |
     |           |  |    link layer data models     |  |           |
     +-----------+  +-------------------------------+  +-----------+

          Figure 1: Categories of network management data models

   Each of the categories is briefly described below.  Note that the
   classification used here intends to provide orientation and reflects
   how most data models have been developed in the IETF by the various
   working groups.  This classification does not aim to classify
   correctly all data models that have been defined by the IETF so far.
   The network layering model in the middle of Figure 1 follows the four
   layer model of the Internet as defined in [RFC1021].

   The network management object identifiers for use with IETF MIB
   modules defined at IETF can be found under the IANA registry at [SMI-
   NUMBERS].





Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 38]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


4.1.1.  Generic Infrastructure Data Models

   Generic infrastructure data models provide core abstractions that
   many other data models are built upon.  The most important example is
   the interfaces data model defined in the IF-MIB [RFC2863].  It
   provides the basic notion of network interfaces and allows expressing
   stacking/layering relationships between interfaces.  The interfaces
   data model also provides basic monitoring objects that are widely
   used for performance and fault management.

   The second important infrastructure data model is defined in the
   Entity MIB [RFC4133].  It exports the containment hierarchy of the
   physical entities (slots, modules, ports) that make up a networking
   device and as such, it is a key data model for inventory management.
   Physical entities can have pointers to other data models that provide
   more specific information about them (e.g. physical ports usually
   point to the related network interface).  Entity MIB extensions exist
   for physical sensors such as temperature sensors embedded on line
   cards or sensors that report fan rotation speeds [RFC3433].  Another
   extension models states and alarms of physical entities [RFC4268].
   Some vendors have extended the basic Entity MIB with several
   proprietary data models.

4.1.2.  Link Layer Data Models

   A number of data models exist in the form of MIB modules covering the
   link layers IP runs over, such as ADSL [RFC4706], VDSL [RFC5650],
   GMPLS [RFC4803], ISDN [RFC2127], ATM [RFC2515] [RFC3606], Cable
   Modems [RFC4546] or Ethernet [RFC4188] [RFC4318] [RFC4363].  These so
   called transmission data models typically extend the generic network
   interfaces data model with interface type specific information.  Most
   of the link layer data models focus on monitoring capabilities that
   can be used for performance and fault management functions and to
   some lesser extend for accounting and security management functions.
   The IEEE has meanwhile taken over the responsibility to maintain and
   further develop data models for the IEEE 802 family of protocols
   [RFC4663].  The cable modem industry consortium DOCSIS is working
   with the IETF to publish data models for cable modem networks as IETF
   standards-track specifications.

4.1.3.  Network Layer Data Models

   There are data models in the form of MIB modules covering IP/ICMP
   [RFC4293] [RFC4292] network protocols and their extensions (e.g.,
   Mobile IP), the core protocols of the Internet.  In addition, there
   are data models covering popular unicast routing protocols (OSPF
   [RFC4750], ISIS [RFC4444], BGP-4 [RFC4273]) and multicast routing
   protocols (PIM [RFC5060]).



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 39]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   Detailed models also exist for performance measurements in the form
   of IP performance metrics [RFC2330] (see Section 3.4).

   The necessary data model infrastructure for configuration data models
   covering network layers are currently being defined using NETCONF
   [RFC6242] and YANG [RFC6020].

4.1.4.  Transport Layer Data Models

   There are data models for the transport protocols TCP [RFC4022], UDP
   [RFC4113], and SCTP [RFC3873].  For TCP, a data model providing
   extended statistics is defined in [RFC4898].

4.1.5.  Application Layer Data Models

   Some data models have been developed for specific application
   protocols (e.g., SIP [RFC4780]).  In addition, there are data models
   that provide a generic infrastructure for instrumenting applications
   in order to obtain data useful primarily for performance management
   and fault management [RFC2287] [RFC2564].  In general, however,
   generic application MIB modules have been less successful in gaining
   widespread deployment.

4.1.6.  Network Management Infrastructure Data Models

   A number of data models are concerned with the network management
   system itself.  This includes, in addition to a set of SNMP MIB
   modules for monitoring and configuring SNMP itself [RFC3410], some
   MIB modules providing generic functions such as the calculation of
   expressions over MIB objects, generic functions for thresholding and
   event generation, event notification logging functions and data
   models to represent alarms [RFC2981] [RFC2982] [RFC3014] [RFC3877].
   In addition, there are data models that allow to execute basic
   reachability and path discovery tests [RFC4560].  Another collection
   of MIB modules provides remote monitoring functions, ranging from the
   data link layer up to the application layer.  This is known as the
   RMON family of MIB modules [RFC3577].

   The IPFIX protocol [RFC5101] (Section 2.3) is used to export
   information about network flows collected at so called observation
   points (typically a network interface).  The information elements
   [RFC5102] carried in IPFIX cover the network and transport layer very
   well but also provides some link layer specific information elements.
   Work is underway to further extend the standardized information that
   can be carried in IPFIX.

   The SYSLOG protocol document [RFC5424] (Section 2.2) defines an
   initial set of Structured Data Elements (SDEs) that relate to content



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 40]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   time quality, content origin, and meta-information about the message,
   such as language.  Proprietary SDEs can be used to supplement the
   IETF- defined SDEs.

4.2.  Network Management Data Models - FCAPS View

   This subsection follows the management application view and aims to
   match the data models to network management tasks for fault,
   configuration, accounting, performance, and security management
   ([FCAPS]).  As OAM is a general term that refers to a toolset, which
   can be used for fault detection, isolation, and performance
   measurement, aspects of FCAPS in the context of the data path, such
   as fault and performance management, are also discussed in [I-D.ietf-
   opsawg-oam-overview] "An Overview of Operations, Administration, and
   Maintenance (OAM) Mechanisms".

   Some of the data models do not fit into one single FCAPS category per
   design but span multiple areas.  For example, there are many
   technology-specific IETF data models, such as transmission and
   protocol MIBs, which cover multiple FCAPS categories, and therefore
   are not mentioned in this sub section and can be found at
   [RFCSEARCH].

4.2.1.  Fault Management

   Fault management encloses a set of functions to detect, isolate,
   notify, and correct faults encountered in a network as well as to
   maintain and examine error logs.  The data models below can be
   utilized to realize a fault management application.

   [RFC3418], part of SNMPv3 standard [STD62], is a MIB module
   containing objects in the system group that are often polled to
   determine if a device is still operating, and sysUpTime can be used
   to detect if the network management portion of the system has
   restarted, and counters have been reinitialized.

   [RFC3413], part of SNMPv3 standard [STD62], is a MIB module including
   objects designed for managing notifications, including tables for
   addressing, retry parameters, security, lists of targets for
   notifications, and user customization filters.

   The Interfaces Group MIB [RFC2863] builds on the old standard for MIB
   II [STD17] and is used as a primary MIB module for managing and
   monitoring the status of network interfaces.  The Interfaces Group
   MIB defines a generic set of managed objects for network interfaces
   and it provides the infrastructure for additional managed objects
   specific to particular types of network interfaces, such as Ethernet.




Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 41]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   [RFC4560] defines a MIB module for performing ping, traceroute, and
   lookup operations at a host.  For troubleshooting purposes, it is
   useful to be able to initiate and retrieve the results of ping or
   traceroute operations when they are performed at a remote host.

   The RMON (Remote Network Monitoring) MIB [STD59][RFC2819] can be
   configured to recognize conditions on existing MIB variables (most
   notably error conditions) and continuously to check for them.  When
   one of these conditions occurs, the event may be logged, and
   management stations may be notified in a number of ways (for further
   discussion on RMON see Section 4.2.4).

   DISMAN-EVENT-MIB in [RFC2981] and DISMAN-EXPRESSION-MIB in [RFC2982]
   provide a superset of the capabilities of the RMON alarm and event
   groups.  These modules provide mechanisms for thresholding and
   reporting anomalous events to management applications.

   The ALARM MIB in [RFC3877] and the Alarm Reporting Control MIB in
   [RFC3878] specify mechanisms for expressing state transition models
   for persistent problem states.  ALARM MIB defines:
   - a mechanism for expressing state transition models for persistent
   problem states,
   - a mechanism to correlate a notification with subsequent state
   transition notifications about the same entity/object, and
   - a generic alarm reporting mechanism (extends ITU-T work on X.733
   [ITU-X733]).

   [RFC3878] in particular defines objects for controlling the reporting
   of alarm conditions and extends ITU-T work on M.3100 Amendment 3
   [ITU-M3100].

   Other MIB modules that may be applied to fault management with SNMP
   include:

   o  NOTIFICATION-LOG-MIB [RFC3014] describes managed objects used for
      logging SNMP Notifications.

   o  ENTITY-STATE-MIB [RFC4268] describes extensions to the Entity MIB
      to provide information about the state of physical entities.

   o  ENTITY-SENSOR-MIB [RFC3433] describes managed objects for
      extending the Entity MIB to provide generalized access to
      information related to physical sensors, which are often found in
      networking equipment (such as chassis temperature, fan RPM, power
      supply voltage).

   The SYSLOG protocol document [RFC5424] defines an initial set of
   Structured Data Elements (SDEs) that relate to content time quality,



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 42]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   content origin, and meta-information about the message, such as
   language.  Proprietary SDEs can be used to supplement the IETF-
   defined SDEs.

   The IETF has standardized MIB Textual-Conventions for facility and
   severity labels and codes to encourage consistency between SYSLOG and
   MIB representations of these event properties [RFC5427].  The intent
   is that these textual conventions will be imported and used in MIB
   modules that would otherwise define their own representations.

   An IPFIX MIB module [RFC5815] has been defined for monitoring IPFIX
   meters, exporters and collectors (see Section 2.3).  The ongoing work
   on PSAMP MIB module extends the IPFIX MIB modules by managed objects
   for monitoring PSAMP implementations [I-D.ietf-ipfix-psamp-mib].

   The NETCONF working group defined the data model necessary to monitor
   the NETCONF protocol [RFC6022] with the modeling language YANG.  The
   monitoring data model includes information about NETCONF datastores,
   sessions, locks, and statistics, which facilitate the management of a
   NETCONF server.  NETCONF monitoring document also defines methods for
   NETCONF clients to discover the data models supported by a NETCONF
   server and defines the operation <get-schema> to retrieve them.

4.2.2.  Configuration Management

   Configuration management focuses on establishing and maintaining
   consistency of a system and defines the functionality to configure
   its functional and physical attributes as well as operational
   information throughout its life.  Configuration management includes
   configuration of network devices, inventory management, and software
   management.  The data models below can be used to utilize
   configuration management.

   MIB modules for monitoring of network configuration (e.g. for
   physical and logical network topologies) already exist and provide
   some of the desired capabilities.  New MIB modules might be developed
   for the target functionality to allow operators to monitor and modify
   the operational parameters, such as timer granularity, event
   reporting thresholds, target addresses, etc.

   [RFC3418], part of [STD62], contains objects in the system group
   useful e.g. for identifying the type of device, and the location of
   the device, the person responsible for the device.  The SNMPv3
   standard [STD62] furthermore includes objects designed for
   configuring principals, access control rules, notification
   destinations, and for configuring proxy-forwarding SNMP agents, which
   can be used to forward messages through firewalls and Network Address
   Translation (NAT) devices.



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 43]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   The Entity MIB [RFC4133] supports mainly inventory management and is
   used for managing multiple logical and physical entities matched to a
   single SNMP agent.  This module provides a useful mechanism for
   identifying the entities comprising a system and defines event
   notifications for configuration changes that may be useful to
   management applications.

   [RFC3165] defines a set of managed objects that enable the delegation
   of management scripts to distributed managers.

   For configuring IPFIX and PSMAP devices, the IPFIX working group
   developed the IPFIX configuration data model [I-D.ietf-ipfix-
   configuration-model], by using the YANG modeling language and in
   close collaboration with the NETMOD working group (see
   Section 2.4.2).  The model specifies the necessary data for
   configuring and monitoring selection processes, caches, exporting
   processes, and collecting processes of IPFIX and PSAMP compliant
   monitoring devices.

   At the time of this writing the NETMOD working group is developing
   core system and interface models in YANG.

   The CAPWAP protocol exchanges Type Length Values (TLV).  The base
   TLVs are specified in [RFC5415], while the TLVs for IEEE 802.11 are
   specified in [RFC5416].  CAPWAP Base MIB [RFC5833] specifies managed
   objects for modeling the CAPWAP Protocol and provides configuration
   and WTP status-monitoring aspects of CAPWAP, where CAPWAP Binding MIB
   [RFC5834] defines managed objects for modeling of CAPWAP protocol for
   IEEE 802.11 wireless binding.
   Note: RFC 5833 and RFC 5834 have been published as Informational RFCs
   to provide the basis for future work on a SNMP management of the
   CAPWAP protocol.

4.2.3.  Accounting Management

   Accounting management collects usage information of network
   resources.  Note that IETF does not define any mechanisms related to
   billing and charging.  Many technology specific MIBs (link layer,
   network layer, transport layer or application layer) contain counters
   but are not primarily targeted for accounting, and therefore not
   included in this section.

   [RFC4670] 'RADIUS Accounting Client MIB for IPv6' defines RADIUS
   Accounting Client MIB objects that support version-neutral IP
   addressing formats.

   [RFC4671] 'RADIUS Accounting Server MIB for IPv6' defines RADIUS
   Accounting Server MIB objects that support version-neutral IP



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 44]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   addressing formats.

   IPFIX/PSAMP Information Elements:

   As expressed in Section 2.3, the IPFIX architecture [RFC5470] defines
   components involved in IP flow measurement and reporting of
   information on IP flows.  As such, IPFIX records provide fine-grained
   measurement data for flexible and detailed usage reporting and enable
   usage-based accounting.

   The IPFIX Information Elements (IE) have been initially defined in
   the IPFIX Information Model [RFC5102] and registered at the IANA
   [IANA-IPFIX].  The IPFIX IEs are composed of two types:

   o  IEs related to identification of IP flows such as header
      information, derived packet properties, IGP and BGP next hop IP
      address, BGP AS, etc., and

   o  IEs related to counter and timestamps, such as per-flow counters
      (e.g. octet count, packet count), flow start times, flow end
      times, and flow duration, etc.

   The Information Elements specified in the IPFIX information model
   [RFC5102] are used by the PSAMP protocol where applicable.  Packet
   Sampling (PSAMP) Parameters defined in the PSAMP protocol
   specification are registered at [IANA-PSAMP].  An additional set of
   PSAMP Information Elements for reporting packet information with the
   IPFIX/PSAMP protocol such as Sampling-related IEs are specified in
   the PSAMP Information Model [RFC5477].  These IEs fulfill the
   requirements on reporting of different sampling and filtering
   techniques specified in [RFC5475].

4.2.4.  Performance Management

   Performance management covers a set of functions that evaluate and
   report the performance of network elements and the network, with the
   goal to maintain the overall network performance at a defined level.
   Performance management functionality includes monitoring and
   measurement of network performance parameters, gathering statistical
   information, maintaining and examining activity logs.  The data
   models below can be used for performance management tasks.

   The RMON (Remote Network Monitoring) MIB [STD59][RFC2819] defines
   objects for collecting data related to network performance and
   traffic from remote monitoring devices.  An organization may employ
   many remote monitoring probes, one per network segment, to monitor
   its network.  These devices may be used by a network service provider
   to access a client network, often geographically remote.  Most of the



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 45]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   objects in the RMON MIB module are suitable for the monitoring of any
   type of network, while some of them are specific to the monitoring of
   Ethernet networks.

   RMON allows a probe to be configured to perform diagnostics and to
   collect network statistics continuously, even when communication with
   the management station may not be possible or efficient.  The alarm
   group periodically takes statistical samples from variables in the
   probe and compares them to previously configured thresholds.  If the
   monitored variable crosses a threshold, an event is generated.

   [RFC3577] 'Introduction to the Remote Monitoring (RMON) Family of MIB
   Modules' describes the documents associated with the RMON framework
   and how they relate to each other.

   The RMON-2 MIB [RFC4502] extends RMON by providing RMON analysis up
   to the application layer and defines performance data to monitor.
   The SMON MIB [RFC2613] extends RMON by providing RMON analysis for
   switched networks.

   RMON MIB Extensions for High Capacity Alarms [RFC3434] describes
   managed objects for extending the alarm thresholding capabilities
   found in the RMON MIB and provides similar threshold monitoring of
   objects based on the Counter64 data type.

   RMON MIB Extensions for High Capacity Networks [RFC3273] defines
   objects for managing RMON devices for use on high-speed networks.

   RMON MIB Extensions for Interface Parameters Monitoring [RFC3144]
   describes an extension to the RMON MIB with a method of sorting the
   interfaces of a monitored device according to values of parameters
   specific to this interface.

   [RFC4710] describes Real-Time Application Quality of Service
   Monitoring (RAQMON), which is part of the RMON protocol family.
   RAQMON supports end-to-end QoS monitoring for multiple concurrent
   applications and does not relate to a specific application transport.
   RAQMON is scalable and works well with encrypted payload and
   signaling.  RAQMON uses TCP to transport RAQMON PDUs.

   [RFC4711] proposes an extension to the Remote Monitoring MIB
   [STD59][RFC2819] and describes managed objects used for RAQMON.
   [RFC4712] specifies two transport mappings for the RAQMON information
   model using TCP as a native transport and SNMP to carry the RAQMON
   information from a RAQMON Data Source (RDS) to a RAQMON Report
   Collector (RRC).

   Application Performance Measurement MIB [RFC3729] uses the



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 46]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   architecture created in the RMON MIB and defines objects by providing
   measurement and analysis of the application performance as
   experienced by end-users.  [RFC3729] enables the measurement of the
   quality of service delivered to end-users by applications.

   Transport Performance Metrics MIB [RFC4150] describes managed objects
   used for monitoring selectable performance metrics and statistics
   derived from the monitoring of network packets and sub-application
   level transactions.  The metrics can be defined through reference to
   existing IETF, ITU, and other standards organizations' documents.

   The IPPM working group has defined [RFC4148] "IP Performance Metrics
   (IPPM) Metrics Registry".  Note that with the publication of
   [RFC6248], [RFC4148] and the corresponding IANA registry for IPPM
   metrics have been declared Obsolete and shouldn't be used.

   The IPPM working group defined an Information Model and XML Data
   Model for Traceroute Measurements [RFC5388], which defines a common
   information model dividing the information elements into two
   semantically separated groups (configuration elements and results
   elements) with an additional element to relate configuration elements
   and results elements by means of a common unique identifier.  Based
   on the information model, an XML data model is provided to store the
   results of traceroute measurements.

   SIP Package for Voice Quality Reporting [RFC6035] defines a SIP event
   package that enables the collection and reporting of metrics that
   measure the quality for Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) sessions.

4.2.5.  Security Management

   The security management provides the set of functions to protect the
   network and system from unauthorized access and includes functions
   such as creating, deleting, and controlling security services and
   mechanisms; key management, reporting security-relevant events, and
   authorizing user access and privileges.  Based on their support for
   authentication and authorization, RADIUS and DIAMETER are seen as
   security management protocols.  The data models below can be used to
   utilize security management.

   [RFC3414], part of [STD62], specifies the procedures for providing
   SNMPv3 message level security and includes a MIB module for remotely
   monitoring and managing the configuration parameters for the USM
   security model.

   [RFC3415], part of [STD62], describes the procedures for controlling
   access to management information in the SNMPv3 architecture and
   includes a MIB module, which defines managed objects to access



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 47]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   portions of an SNMP engine's Local Configuration Datastore (LCD).  As
   such, this MIB module enables remote management of the configuration
   parameters of the View-based Access Control Model.

   NETCONF Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC6536] addresses the need for
   access control mechanisms for the operation and content layers of
   NETCONF, as defined in [RFC6241].  As such NACM proposes standard
   mechanisms to restrict NETCONF protocol access for particular users
   to a pre-configured subset of all available NETCONF protocol
   operations and content within a particular server.

   There are numerous MIB modules defined for multiple purposes to use
   with RADIUS:

   o  [RFC4668] 'RADIUS Authentication Client MIB for IPv6' defines
      RADIUS Authentication Client MIB objects that support version-
      neutral IP addressing formats and defines a set of extensions for
      RADIUS authentication client functions.

   o  [RFC4669] 'RADIUS Authentication Server MIB for IPv6' defines
      RADIUS Authentication Server MIB objects that support version-
      neutral IP addressing formats and defines a set of extensions for
      RADIUS authentication server functions.

   o  [RFC4672] 'RADIUS Dynamic Authorization Client MIB' defines the
      MIB module for entities implementing the client side of the
      Dynamic Authorization Extensions to RADIUS [RFC5176].

   o  [RFC4673] 'RADIUS Dynamic Authorization Server MIB' defines the
      MIB module for entities implementing the server side of the
      Dynamic Authorization Extensions to RADIUS [RFC5176].

   The MIB Module definitions in [RFC4668], [RFC4669], [RFC4672],
   [RFC4673] are intended to be used only for RADIUS over UDP and do not
   support RADIUS over TCP.  There is also a recommendation that RADIUS
   clients and servers implementing RADIUS over TCP should not reuse
   earlier listed MIB modules to perform statistics counting for RADIUS
   over TCP connections.

   Currently there are no standardized MIB modules for DIAMETER
   applications, which can be considered as a lack on the management
   side of DIAMETER nodes.  There are ongoing efforts to produce
   standard MIBs for the 'Diameter Base Protocol' and the 'Diameter
   Credit-Control Application'.







Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 48]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


5.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not introduce any new code-points or namespaces
   for registration with IANA.

   Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
   RFC.

6.  Security Considerations

   This document gives an overview of IETF network management standards
   and summarizes existing and ongoing development of IETF standards-
   track network management protocols and data models.  As such it does
   not have any security implications in or of itself.

   For each specific technology discussed in the document a summary of
   its security usage has been given in corresponding chapters.  In a
   few cases, e.g. for SNMP, a detailed description of developed
   security mechanisms has been provided.

   The attention of the reader is particularly drawn to the security
   discussion in following document sections:

   o  SNMP Security and Access Control Models in Section 2.1.4.1,

   o  User-Based Security Model (USM) in Section 2.1.4.2,

   o  View-Based Access Control Model (VACM) in Section 2.1.4.3,

   o  SNMP Transport Security Model in Section 2.1.5.1,

   o  Secure SYSLOG message delivery in Section 2.2,

   o  Use of secure NETCONF message transport and the NETCONF Access
      Control Model (NACM) in Section 2.4.1,

   o  Message authentication for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
      (DHCP) in Section 3.1.1,

   o  Security for Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)
      in conjunction with EAP and IEEE 802.1X authenticators in
      Section 3.5,

   o  Built in and transport security for Diameter Base Protocol
      (DIAMETER) in Section 3.6,

   o  Transport security for Control And Provisioning of Wireless Access
      Points (CAPWAP) in Section 3.7,



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 49]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   o  Built in security for Access Node Control Protocol (ANCP) in
      Section 3.8,

   o  Security for Application Configuration Access Protocol (ACAP) in
      Section 3.9,

   o  Security for XML Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP) in
      Section 3.10, and

   o  Data models for the Security Management in Section 4.2.5.

   The authors would like to refer also to detailed security
   consideration sections for specific management standards described in
   this document, which contain comprehensive discussion of security
   implications of the particular management protocols and mechanisms.
   Among others security consideration sections of following documents
   should be carefully read before implementing the technology.

   o  For SNMP security in general, subsequent security consideration
      sections in [STD62], which includes RFCs 3411-3418,

   o  Security consideration section in Section 8. of [BCP74] for the
      coexistence between SNMP v1, v2, and v3,

   o  Security considerations for the SNMP Transport Security Model in
      Section 8. of [RFC5591],

   o  Security considerations for the Secure Shell Transport Model for
      SNMP in Section 9 of [RFC5592],

   o  Security considerations for the TLS Transport Model for SNMP in
      Section 9. of [RFC6353],

   o  Security considerations for the TLS Transport Mapping for Syslog
      in Section 6 of [RFC5425],

   o  Security considerations for the IPFIX Protocol Specification in
      Section 11. of [RFC5101],

   o  Security considerations for the NETCONF protocol in Section 9. of
      [RFC6241] and the SSH transport in Section 6. of [RFC6242],

   o  Security considerations for the NETCONF Access Control Model
      (NACM) in Section 3.7. of [RFC6536],

   o  Security considerations for DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 in Section 7. of
      [RFC2131] and Section 23. of [RFC3315],




Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 50]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   o  Security considerations for RADIUS in Section 8. of [RFC2865],

   o  Security considerations for DIAMETER in Section 13. of [RFC3588],

   o  Security considerations for the CAPWAP protocol in Section 12. of
      [RFC5415],

   o  Security considerations for the ANCP protocol in Section 11. of
      [RFC6320], and

   o  Security considerations for the XCAP protocol in Section 14. of
      [RFC4825].

7.  Contributors

   Following persons made significant contributions to and reviewed this
   document:

   o  Ralph Droms (Cisco) - revised the section on IP address management
      and DHCP.

   o  Jouni Korhonen (Nokia Siemens Networks) - contributed the sections
      on RADIUS and DIAMETER.

   o  Al Morton (AT&T) - contributed to the section on IP Performance
      Metrics.

   o  Juergen Quittek (NEC) - contributed the section on IPFIX/PSAMP.

   o  Juergen Schoenwaelder (Jacobs University Bremen) - contributed the
      sections on IETF Network Management Data Models and YANG.

8.  Acknowledgements

   The editor would like to thank to Fred Baker, Alex Clemm, Miguel A.
   Garcia, Simon Leinen, Christopher Liljenstolpe, Tom Petch, Randy
   Presuhn, Dan Romascanu, Juergen Schoenwaelder, Tina Tsou, and Henk
   Uijterwaal, for their valuable suggestions, comments in the OPSAWG
   sessions and mailing list.

   The editor would like to especially thank Dave Harrington, who
   created the document "Survey of IETF Network Management Standards" a
   few years ago, which has been used as a starting point and enhanced
   with a special focus on the description of the IETF network
   management standards and management data models.






Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 51]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


9.  Informative References

   [3GPPEPC]                                   3GPP, "Access to the 3GPP
                                               Evolved Packet Core (EPC)
                                               via non-3GPP access
                                               networks", December 2010,
                                               <http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/
                                               Specs/html-info/
                                               24302.htm>.

   [3GPPIMS]                                   3GPP, "Release 10, IP
                                               Multimedia Subsystem
                                               (IMS); Stage 2",
                                               September 2010, <http://
                                               www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/
                                               html-info/23228.htm>.

   [BCP170]                                    Clark, A. and B. Claise,
                                               "Guidelines for
                                               Considering New
                                               Performance Metric
                                               Development",
                                               October 2011.

   [BCP27]                                     D. O'Dell, M.,
                                               "Advancement of MIB
                                               specifications on the
                                               IETF Standards Track",
                                               October 1998.

   [BCP74]                                     Frye, R., "Coexistence
                                               between Version 1,
                                               Version 2, and Version 3
                                               of the Internet-standard
                                               Network Management
                                               Framework", August 2003.

   [DMTF-CIM]                                  DMTF, "Common Information
                                               Model Schema, Version
                                               2.27.0", November 2010, <
                                               http://www.dmtf.org/
                                               standards/cim>.

   [FCAPS]                                     International
                                               Telecommunication Union,
                                               "X.700: Management
                                               Framework For Open
                                               Systems Interconnection



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 52]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


                                               (OSI) For CCITT
                                               Applications",
                                               September 1992, <http://
                                               www.itu.int/rec/
                                               T-REC-X.700-199209-I/en>.

   [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis]                  Fajardo, V., Arkko, J.,
                                               Loughney, J., and G.
                                               Zorn, "Diameter Base
                                               Protocol", draft-ietf-
                                               dime-rfc3588bis-31 (work
                                               in progress), March 2012.

   [I-D.ietf-ipfix-configuration-model]        Muenz, G., Claise, B.,
                                               and P. Aitken,
                                               "Configuration Data Model
                                               for IPFIX and PSAMP", dra
                                               ft-ietf-ipfix-
                                               configuration-model-10
                                               (work in progress),
                                               July 2011.

   [I-D.ietf-ipfix-export-per-sctp-stream]     Claise, B., Aitken, P.,
                                               Johnson, A., and G.
                                               Muenz, "IPFIX Export per
                                               SCTP Stream", draft-ietf-
                                               ipfix-export-per-sctp-
                                               stream-08 (work in
                                               progress), June 2010.

   [I-D.ietf-ipfix-psamp-mib]                  Dietz, T., Claise, B.,
                                               and J. Quittek,
                                               "Definitions of Managed
                                               Objects for Packet
                                               Sampling", draft-ietf-
                                               ipfix-psamp-mib-04 (work
                                               in progress),
                                               October 2011.

   [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-mib-management-overview]  King, D. and V.
                                               Mahalingam,
                                               "Multiprotocol Label
                                               Switching Transport
                                               Profile (MPLS-TP) MIB-
                                               based Management
                                               Overview", draft-ietf-
                                               mpls-tp-mib-management-
                                               overview-07 (work in



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 53]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


                                               progress), March 2012.

   [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis]             Sprecher, N. and L. Fang,
                                               "An Overview of the OAM
                                               Tool Set for MPLS based
                                               Transport Networks", draf
                                               t-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-
                                               analysis-08 (work in
                                               progress), March 2012.

   [I-D.ietf-opsawg-oam-overview]              Mizrahi, T., Sprecher,
                                               N., Bellagamba, E., and
                                               Y. Weingarten, "An
                                               Overview of Operations,
                                               Administration, and
                                               Maintenance (OAM)
                                               Mechanisms", draft-ietf-
                                               opsawg-oam-overview-06
                                               (work in progress),
                                               March 2012.

   [I-D.weil-shared-transition-space-request]  Weil, J., Kuarsingh, V.,
                                               Donley, C., Liljenstolpe,
                                               C., and M. Azinger, "IANA
                                               Reserved IPv4 Prefix for
                                               Shared Address Space", dr
                                               aft-weil-shared-
                                               transition-space-request-
                                               15 (work in progress),
                                               February 2012.

   [IANA-AAA]                                  Internet Assigned Numbers
                                               Authority, "IANA AAA
                                               Parameters", June 2011, <
                                               http://www.iana.org/
                                               assignments/
                                               aaa-parameters/
                                               aaa-parameters.xml>.

   [IANA-IPFIX]                                Internet Assigned Numbers
                                               Authority, "IANA IPFIX
                                               Information Elements",
                                               February 2011, <http://
                                               www.iana.org/assignments/
                                               ipfix/ipfix.xml>.

   [IANA-PROT]                                 Internet Assigned Numbers
                                               Authority, "IANA Protocol



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 54]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


                                               Registries",
                                               October 2010, <http://
                                               www.iana.org/protocols/>.

   [IANA-PSAMP]                                Internet Assigned Numbers
                                               Authority, "IANA PSAMP
                                               Parameters", April 2009,
                                               <http://www.iana.org/
                                               assignments/
                                               psamp-parameters/
                                               psamp-parameters.xml>.

   [IETF-WGS]                                  IETF, "IETF Working
                                               Groups", <http://
                                               datatracker.ietf.org/
                                               wg/>.

   [ITU-M3100]                                 International
                                               Telecommunication Union,
                                               "M.3100: Generic network
                                               information model",
                                               January 2006, <http://
                                               www.itu.int/rec/
                                               T-REC-M.3100-200504-I>.

   [ITU-X680]                                  International
                                               Telecommunication Union,
                                               "X.680: Abstract Syntax
                                               Notation One (ASN.1):
                                               Specification of basic
                                               notation", July 2002, <ht
                                               tp://www.itu.int/ITU-T/
                                               studygroups/com17/
                                               languages/
                                               X.680-0207.pdf>.

   [ITU-X733]                                  International
                                               Telecommunication Union,
                                               "X.733: Systems
                                               Management: Alarm
                                               Reporting Function",
                                               October 1992, <http://
                                               www.itu.int/rec/
                                               T-REC-X.733-199202-I/en>.

   [RELAX-NG]                                  OASIS, "RELAX NG
                                               Specification, Committee
                                               Specification 3 December



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 55]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


                                               2001", December 2001, <ht
                                               tp://www.oasis-open.org/
                                               committees/relax-ng/
                                               spec-20011203.html>.

   [RFC0951]                                   Croft, B. and J. Gilmore,
                                               "Bootstrap Protocol",
                                               RFC 951, September 1985.

   [RFC1021]                                   Partridge, C. and G.
                                               Trewitt, "High-level
                                               Entity Management System
                                               (HEMS)", RFC 1021,
                                               October 1987.

   [RFC1155]                                   Rose, M. and K.
                                               McCloghrie, "Structure
                                               and identification of
                                               management information
                                               for TCP/IP-based
                                               internets", STD 16,
                                               RFC 1155, May 1990.

   [RFC1157]                                   Case, J., Fedor, M.,
                                               Schoffstall, M., and J.
                                               Davin, "Simple Network
                                               Management Protocol
                                               (SNMP)", STD 15,
                                               RFC 1157, May 1990.

   [RFC1212]                                   Rose, M. and K.
                                               McCloghrie, "Concise MIB
                                               definitions", STD 16,
                                               RFC 1212, March 1991.

   [RFC1215]                                   Rose, M., "Convention for
                                               defining traps for use
                                               with the SNMP", RFC 1215,
                                               March 1991.

   [RFC1321]                                   Rivest, R., "The MD5
                                               Message-Digest
                                               Algorithm", RFC 1321,
                                               April 1992.

   [RFC1470]                                   Enger, R. and J.
                                               Reynolds, "FYI on a
                                               Network Management Tool



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 56]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


                                               Catalog: Tools for
                                               Monitoring and Debugging
                                               TCP/IP Internets and
                                               Interconnected Devices",
                                               RFC 1470, June 1993.

   [RFC1901]                                   Case, J., McCloghrie, K.,
                                               McCloghrie, K., Rose, M.,
                                               and S. Waldbusser,
                                               "Introduction to
                                               Community-based SNMPv2",
                                               RFC 1901, January 1996.

   [RFC2026]                                   Bradner, S., "The
                                               Internet Standards
                                               Process -- Revision 3",
                                               BCP 9, RFC 2026,
                                               October 1996.

   [RFC2127]                                   Roeck, G., "ISDN
                                               Management Information
                                               Base using SMIv2",
                                               RFC 2127, March 1997.

   [RFC2131]                                   Droms, R., "Dynamic Host
                                               Configuration Protocol",
                                               RFC 2131, March 1997.

   [RFC2195]                                   Klensin, J., Catoe, R.,
                                               and P. Krumviede, "IMAP/
                                               POP AUTHorize Extension
                                               for Simple Challenge/
                                               Response", RFC 2195,
                                               September 1997.

   [RFC2244]                                   Newman, C. and J. Myers,
                                               "ACAP -- Application
                                               Configuration Access
                                               Protocol", RFC 2244,
                                               November 1997.

   [RFC2287]                                   Krupczak, C. and J.
                                               Saperia, "Definitions of
                                               System-Level Managed
                                               Objects for
                                               Applications", RFC 2287,
                                               February 1998.




Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 57]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   [RFC2330]                                   Paxson, V., Almes, G.,
                                               Mahdavi, J., and M.
                                               Mathis, "Framework for IP
                                               Performance Metrics",
                                               RFC 2330, May 1998.

   [RFC2458]                                   Lu, H., Krishnaswamy, M.,
                                               Conroy, L., Bellovin, S.,
                                               Burg, F., DeSimone, A.,
                                               Tewani, K., Davidson, P.,
                                               Schulzrinne, H., and K.
                                               Vishwanathan, "Toward the
                                               PSTN/Internet Inter-
                                               Networking --Pre-PINT
                                               Implementations",
                                               RFC 2458, November 1998.

   [RFC2515]                                   Tesink, K., "Definitions
                                               of Managed Objects for
                                               ATM Management",
                                               RFC 2515, February 1999.

   [RFC2564]                                   Kalbfleisch, C.,
                                               Krupczak, C., Presuhn,
                                               R., and J. Saperia,
                                               "Application Management
                                               MIB", RFC 2564, May 1999.

   [RFC2578]                                   McCloghrie, K., Ed.,
                                               Perkins, D., Ed., and J.
                                               Schoenwaelder, Ed.,
                                               "Structure of Management
                                               Information Version 2
                                               (SMIv2)", STD 58,
                                               RFC 2578, April 1999.

   [RFC2579]                                   McCloghrie, K., Ed.,
                                               Perkins, D., Ed., and J.
                                               Schoenwaelder, Ed.,
                                               "Textual Conventions for
                                               SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2579,
                                               April 1999.

   [RFC2580]                                   McCloghrie, K., Perkins,
                                               D., and J. Schoenwaelder,
                                               "Conformance Statements
                                               for SMIv2", STD 58,
                                               RFC 2580, April 1999.



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 58]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   [RFC2610]                                   Perkins, C. and E.
                                               Guttman, "DHCP Options
                                               for Service Location
                                               Protocol", RFC 2610,
                                               June 1999.

   [RFC2613]                                   Waterman, R., Lahaye, B.,
                                               Romascanu, D., and S.
                                               Waldbusser, "Remote
                                               Network Monitoring MIB
                                               Extensions for Switched
                                               Networks Version 1.0",
                                               RFC 2613, June 1999.

   [RFC2617]                                   Franks, J., Hallam-Baker,
                                               P., Hostetler, J.,
                                               Lawrence, S., Leach, P.,
                                               Luotonen, A., and L.
                                               Stewart, "HTTP
                                               Authentication: Basic and
                                               Digest Access
                                               Authentication",
                                               RFC 2617, June 1999.

   [RFC2678]                                   Mahdavi, J. and V.
                                               Paxson, "IPPM Metrics for
                                               Measuring Connectivity",
                                               RFC 2678, September 1999.

   [RFC2679]                                   Almes, G., Kalidindi, S.,
                                               and M. Zekauskas, "A One-
                                               way Delay Metric for
                                               IPPM", RFC 2679,
                                               September 1999.

   [RFC2680]                                   Almes, G., Kalidindi, S.,
                                               and M. Zekauskas, "A One-
                                               way Packet Loss Metric
                                               for IPPM", RFC 2680,
                                               September 1999.

   [RFC2681]                                   Almes, G., Kalidindi, S.,
                                               and M. Zekauskas, "A
                                               Round-trip Delay Metric
                                               for IPPM", RFC 2681,
                                               September 1999.

   [RFC2748]                                   Durham, D., Boyle, J.,



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 59]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


                                               Cohen, R., Herzog, S.,
                                               Rajan, R., and A. Sastry,
                                               "The COPS (Common Open
                                               Policy Service)
                                               Protocol", RFC 2748,
                                               January 2000.

   [RFC2753]                                   Yavatkar, R., Pendarakis,
                                               D., and R. Guerin, "A
                                               Framework for Policy-
                                               based Admission Control",
                                               RFC 2753, January 2000.

   [RFC2818]                                   Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over
                                               TLS", RFC 2818, May 2000.

   [RFC2819]                                   Waldbusser, S., "Remote
                                               Network Monitoring
                                               Management Information
                                               Base", STD 59, RFC 2819,
                                               May 2000.

   [RFC2863]                                   McCloghrie, K. and F.
                                               Kastenholz, "The
                                               Interfaces Group MIB",
                                               RFC 2863, June 2000.

   [RFC2865]                                   Rigney, C., Willens, S.,
                                               Rubens, A., and W.
                                               Simpson, "Remote
                                               Authentication Dial In
                                               User Service (RADIUS)",
                                               RFC 2865, June 2000.

   [RFC2866]                                   Rigney, C., "RADIUS
                                               Accounting", RFC 2866,
                                               June 2000.

   [RFC2867]                                   Zorn, G., Aboba, B., and
                                               D. Mitton, "RADIUS
                                               Accounting Modifications
                                               for Tunnel Protocol
                                               Support", RFC 2867,
                                               June 2000.

   [RFC2868]                                   Zorn, G., Leifer, D.,
                                               Rubens, A., Shriver, J.,
                                               Holdrege, M., and I.



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 60]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


                                               Goyret, "RADIUS
                                               Attributes for Tunnel
                                               Protocol Support",
                                               RFC 2868, June 2000.

   [RFC2869]                                   Rigney, C., Willats, W.,
                                               and P. Calhoun, "RADIUS
                                               Extensions", RFC 2869,
                                               June 2000.

   [RFC2981]                                   Kavasseri, R., "Event
                                               MIB", RFC 2981,
                                               October 2000.

   [RFC2982]                                   Kavasseri, R.,
                                               "Distributed Management
                                               Expression MIB",
                                               RFC 2982, October 2000.

   [RFC3014]                                   Kavasseri, R.,
                                               "Notification Log MIB",
                                               RFC 3014, November 2000.

   [RFC3046]                                   Patrick, M., "DHCP Relay
                                               Agent Information
                                               Option", RFC 3046,
                                               January 2001.

   [RFC3084]                                   Chan, K., Seligson, J.,
                                               Durham, D., Gai, S.,
                                               McCloghrie, K., Herzog,
                                               S., Reichmeyer, F.,
                                               Yavatkar, R., and A.
                                               Smith, "COPS Usage for
                                               Policy Provisioning
                                               (COPS-PR)", RFC 3084,
                                               March 2001.

   [RFC3144]                                   Romascanu, D., "Remote
                                               Monitoring MIB Extensions
                                               for Interface Parameters
                                               Monitoring", RFC 3144,
                                               August 2001.

   [RFC3159]                                   McCloghrie, K., Fine, M.,
                                               Seligson, J., Chan, K.,
                                               Hahn, S., Sahita, R.,
                                               Smith, A., and F.



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 61]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


                                               Reichmeyer, "Structure of
                                               Policy Provisioning
                                               Information (SPPI)",
                                               RFC 3159, August 2001.

   [RFC3162]                                   Aboba, B., Zorn, G., and
                                               D. Mitton, "RADIUS and
                                               IPv6", RFC 3162,
                                               August 2001.

   [RFC3164]                                   Lonvick, C., "The BSD
                                               Syslog Protocol",
                                               RFC 3164, August 2001.

   [RFC3165]                                   Levi, D. and J.
                                               Schoenwaelder,
                                               "Definitions of Managed
                                               Objects for the
                                               Delegation of Management
                                               Scripts", RFC 3165,
                                               August 2001.

   [RFC3195]                                   New, D. and M. Rose,
                                               "Reliable Delivery for
                                               syslog", RFC 3195,
                                               November 2001.

   [RFC3273]                                   Waldbusser, S., "Remote
                                               Network Monitoring
                                               Management Information
                                               Base for High Capacity
                                               Networks", RFC 3273,
                                               July 2002.

   [RFC3315]                                   Droms, R., Bound, J.,
                                               Volz, B., Lemon, T.,
                                               Perkins, C., and M.
                                               Carney, "Dynamic Host
                                               Configuration Protocol
                                               for IPv6 (DHCPv6)",
                                               RFC 3315, July 2003.

   [RFC3319]                                   Schulzrinne, H. and B.
                                               Volz, "Dynamic Host
                                               Configuration Protocol
                                               (DHCPv6) Options for
                                               Session Initiation
                                               Protocol (SIP) Servers",



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 62]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


                                               RFC 3319, July 2003.

   [RFC3393]                                   Demichelis, C. and P.
                                               Chimento, "IP Packet
                                               Delay Variation Metric
                                               for IP Performance
                                               Metrics (IPPM)",
                                               RFC 3393, November 2002.

   [RFC3410]                                   Case, J., Mundy, R.,
                                               Partain, D., and B.
                                               Stewart, "Introduction
                                               and Applicability
                                               Statements for Internet-
                                               Standard Management
                                               Framework", RFC 3410,
                                               December 2002.

   [RFC3411]                                   Harrington, D., Presuhn,
                                               R., and B. Wijnen, "An
                                               Architecture for
                                               Describing Simple Network
                                               Management Protocol
                                               (SNMP) Management
                                               Frameworks", STD 62,
                                               RFC 3411, December 2002.

   [RFC3413]                                   Levi, D., Meyer, P., and
                                               B. Stewart, "Simple
                                               Network Management
                                               Protocol (SNMP)
                                               Applications", STD 62,
                                               RFC 3413, December 2002.

   [RFC3414]                                   Blumenthal, U. and B.
                                               Wijnen, "User-based
                                               Security Model (USM) for
                                               version 3 of the Simple
                                               Network Management
                                               Protocol (SNMPv3)",
                                               STD 62, RFC 3414,
                                               December 2002.

   [RFC3415]                                   Wijnen, B., Presuhn, R.,
                                               and K. McCloghrie, "View-
                                               based Access Control
                                               Model (VACM) for the
                                               Simple Network Management



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 63]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


                                               Protocol (SNMP)", STD 62,
                                               RFC 3415, December 2002.

   [RFC3417]                                   Presuhn, R., "Transport
                                               Mappings for the Simple
                                               Network Management
                                               Protocol (SNMP)", STD 62,
                                               RFC 3417, December 2002.

   [RFC3418]                                   Presuhn, R., "Management
                                               Information Base (MIB)
                                               for the Simple Network
                                               Management Protocol
                                               (SNMP)", STD 62,
                                               RFC 3418, December 2002.

   [RFC3430]                                   Schoenwaelder, J.,
                                               "Simple Network
                                               Management Protocol Over
                                               Transmission Control
                                               Protocol Transport
                                               Mapping", RFC 3430,
                                               December 2002.

   [RFC3432]                                   Raisanen, V., Grotefeld,
                                               G., and A. Morton,
                                               "Network performance
                                               measurement with periodic
                                               streams", RFC 3432,
                                               November 2002.

   [RFC3433]                                   Bierman, A., Romascanu,
                                               D., and K. Norseth,
                                               "Entity Sensor Management
                                               Information Base",
                                               RFC 3433, December 2002.

   [RFC3434]                                   Bierman, A. and K.
                                               McCloghrie, "Remote
                                               Monitoring MIB Extensions
                                               for High Capacity
                                               Alarms", RFC 3434,
                                               December 2002.

   [RFC3444]                                   Pras, A. and J.
                                               Schoenwaelder, "On the
                                               Difference between
                                               Information Models and



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 64]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


                                               Data Models", RFC 3444,
                                               January 2003.

   [RFC3460]                                   Moore, B., "Policy Core
                                               Information Model (PCIM)
                                               Extensions", RFC 3460,
                                               January 2003.

   [RFC3535]                                   Schoenwaelder, J.,
                                               "Overview of the 2002 IAB
                                               Network Management
                                               Workshop", RFC 3535,
                                               May 2003.

   [RFC3574]                                   Soininen, J., "Transition
                                               Scenarios for 3GPP
                                               Networks", RFC 3574,
                                               August 2003.

   [RFC3577]                                   Waldbusser, S., Cole, R.,
                                               Kalbfleisch, C., and D.
                                               Romascanu, "Introduction
                                               to the Remote Monitoring
                                               (RMON) Family of MIB
                                               Modules", RFC 3577,
                                               August 2003.

   [RFC3579]                                   Aboba, B. and P. Calhoun,
                                               "RADIUS (Remote
                                               Authentication Dial In
                                               User Service) Support For
                                               Extensible Authentication
                                               Protocol (EAP)",
                                               RFC 3579, September 2003.

   [RFC3580]                                   Congdon, P., Aboba, B.,
                                               Smith, A., Zorn, G., and
                                               J. Roese, "IEEE 802.1X
                                               Remote Authentication
                                               Dial In User Service
                                               (RADIUS) Usage
                                               Guidelines", RFC 3580,
                                               September 2003.

   [RFC3588]                                   Calhoun, P., Loughney,
                                               J., Guttman, E., Zorn,
                                               G., and J. Arkko,
                                               "Diameter Base Protocol",



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 65]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


                                               RFC 3588, September 2003.

   [RFC3589]                                   Loughney, J., "Diameter
                                               Command Codes for Third
                                               Generation Partnership
                                               Project (3GPP) Release
                                               5", RFC 3589,
                                               September 2003.

   [RFC3606]                                   Ly, F., Noto, M., Smith,
                                               A., Spiegel, E., and K.
                                               Tesink, "Definitions of
                                               Supplemental Managed
                                               Objects for ATM
                                               Interface", RFC 3606,
                                               November 2003.

   [RFC3633]                                   Troan, O. and R. Droms,
                                               "IPv6 Prefix Options for
                                               Dynamic Host
                                               Configuration Protocol
                                               (DHCP) version 6",
                                               RFC 3633, December 2003.

   [RFC3646]                                   Droms, R., "DNS
                                               Configuration options for
                                               Dynamic Host
                                               Configuration Protocol
                                               for IPv6 (DHCPv6)",
                                               RFC 3646, December 2003.

   [RFC3729]                                   Waldbusser, S.,
                                               "Application Performance
                                               Measurement MIB",
                                               RFC 3729, March 2004.

   [RFC3748]                                   Aboba, B., Blunk, L.,
                                               Vollbrecht, J., Carlson,
                                               J., and H. Levkowetz,
                                               "Extensible
                                               Authentication Protocol
                                               (EAP)", RFC 3748,
                                               June 2004.

   [RFC3758]                                   Stewart, R., Ramalho, M.,
                                               Xie, Q., Tuexen, M., and
                                               P. Conrad, "Stream
                                               Control Transmission



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 66]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


                                               Protocol (SCTP) Partial
                                               Reliability Extension",
                                               RFC 3758, May 2004.

   [RFC3868]                                   Loughney, J., Sidebottom,
                                               G., Coene, L., Verwimp,
                                               G., Keller, J., and B.
                                               Bidulock, "Signalling
                                               Connection Control Part
                                               User Adaptation Layer
                                               (SUA)", RFC 3868,
                                               October 2004.

   [RFC3873]                                   Pastor, J. and M.
                                               Belinchon, "Stream
                                               Control Transmission
                                               Protocol (SCTP)
                                               Management Information
                                               Base (MIB)", RFC 3873,
                                               September 2004.

   [RFC3877]                                   Chisholm, S. and D.
                                               Romascanu, "Alarm
                                               Management Information
                                               Base (MIB)", RFC 3877,
                                               September 2004.

   [RFC3878]                                   Lam, H., Huynh, A., and
                                               D. Perkins, "Alarm
                                               Reporting Control
                                               Management Information
                                               Base (MIB)", RFC 3878,
                                               September 2004.

   [RFC3917]                                   Quittek, J., Zseby, T.,
                                               Claise, B., and S.
                                               Zander, "Requirements for
                                               IP Flow Information
                                               Export (IPFIX)",
                                               RFC 3917, October 2004.

   [RFC3954]                                   Claise, B., "Cisco
                                               Systems NetFlow Services
                                               Export Version 9",
                                               RFC 3954, October 2004.

   [RFC4004]                                   Calhoun, P., Johansson,
                                               T., Perkins, C., Hiller,



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 67]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


                                               T., and P. McCann,
                                               "Diameter Mobile IPv4
                                               Application", RFC 4004,
                                               August 2005.

   [RFC4005]                                   Calhoun, P., Zorn, G.,
                                               Spence, D., and D.
                                               Mitton, "Diameter Network
                                               Access Server
                                               Application", RFC 4005,
                                               August 2005.

   [RFC4006]                                   Hakala, H., Mattila, L.,
                                               Koskinen, J-P., Stura,
                                               M., and J. Loughney,
                                               "Diameter Credit-Control
                                               Application", RFC 4006,
                                               August 2005.

   [RFC4022]                                   Raghunarayan, R.,
                                               "Management Information
                                               Base for the Transmission
                                               Control Protocol (TCP)",
                                               RFC 4022, March 2005.

   [RFC4029]                                   Lind, M., Ksinant, V.,
                                               Park, S., Baudot, A., and
                                               P. Savola, "Scenarios and
                                               Analysis for Introducing
                                               IPv6 into ISP Networks",
                                               RFC 4029, March 2005.

   [RFC4038]                                   Shin, M-K., Hong, Y-G.,
                                               Hagino, J., Savola, P.,
                                               and E. Castro,
                                               "Application Aspects of
                                               IPv6 Transition",
                                               RFC 4038, March 2005.

   [RFC4057]                                   Bound, J., "IPv6
                                               Enterprise Network
                                               Scenarios", RFC 4057,
                                               June 2005.

   [RFC4072]                                   Eronen, P., Hiller, T.,
                                               and G. Zorn, "Diameter
                                               Extensible Authentication
                                               Protocol (EAP)



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 68]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


                                               Application", RFC 4072,
                                               August 2005.

   [RFC4113]                                   Fenner, B. and J. Flick,
                                               "Management Information
                                               Base for the User
                                               Datagram Protocol (UDP)",
                                               RFC 4113, June 2005.

   [RFC4118]                                   Yang, L., Zerfos, P., and
                                               E. Sadot, "Architecture
                                               Taxonomy for Control and
                                               Provisioning of Wireless
                                               Access Points (CAPWAP)",
                                               RFC 4118, June 2005.

   [RFC4133]                                   Bierman, A. and K.
                                               McCloghrie, "Entity MIB
                                               (Version 3)", RFC 4133,
                                               August 2005.

   [RFC4148]                                   Stephan, E., "IP
                                               Performance Metrics
                                               (IPPM) Metrics Registry",
                                               BCP 108, RFC 4148,
                                               August 2005.

   [RFC4150]                                   Dietz, R. and R. Cole,
                                               "Transport Performance
                                               Metrics MIB", RFC 4150,
                                               August 2005.

   [RFC4188]                                   Norseth, K. and E. Bell,
                                               "Definitions of Managed
                                               Objects for Bridges",
                                               RFC 4188, September 2005.

   [RFC4213]                                   Nordmark, E. and R.
                                               Gilligan, "Basic
                                               Transition Mechanisms for
                                               IPv6 Hosts and Routers",
                                               RFC 4213, October 2005.

   [RFC4215]                                   Wiljakka, J., "Analysis
                                               on IPv6 Transition in
                                               Third Generation
                                               Partnership Project
                                               (3GPP) Networks",



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 69]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


                                               RFC 4215, October 2005.

   [RFC4221]                                   Nadeau, T., Srinivasan,
                                               C., and A. Farrel,
                                               "Multiprotocol Label
                                               Switching (MPLS)
                                               Management Overview",
                                               RFC 4221, November 2005.

   [RFC4268]                                   Chisholm, S. and D.
                                               Perkins, "Entity State
                                               MIB", RFC 4268,
                                               November 2005.

   [RFC4273]                                   Haas, J. and S. Hares,
                                               "Definitions of Managed
                                               Objects for BGP-4",
                                               RFC 4273, January 2006.

   [RFC4280]                                   Chowdhury, K., Yegani,
                                               P., and L. Madour,
                                               "Dynamic Host
                                               Configuration Protocol
                                               (DHCP) Options for
                                               Broadcast and Multicast
                                               Control Servers",
                                               RFC 4280, November 2005.

   [RFC4285]                                   Patel, A., Leung, K.,
                                               Khalil, M., Akhtar, H.,
                                               and K. Chowdhury,
                                               "Authentication Protocol
                                               for Mobile IPv6",
                                               RFC 4285, January 2006.

   [RFC4292]                                   Haberman, B., "IP
                                               Forwarding Table MIB",
                                               RFC 4292, April 2006.

   [RFC4293]                                   Routhier, S., "Management
                                               Information Base for the
                                               Internet Protocol (IP)",
                                               RFC 4293, April 2006.

   [RFC4301]                                   Kent, S. and K. Seo,
                                               "Security Architecture
                                               for the Internet
                                               Protocol", RFC 4301,



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 70]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


                                               December 2005.

   [RFC4318]                                   Levi, D. and D.
                                               Harrington, "Definitions
                                               of Managed Objects for
                                               Bridges with Rapid
                                               Spanning Tree Protocol",
                                               RFC 4318, December 2005.

   [RFC4363]                                   Levi, D. and D.
                                               Harrington, "Definitions
                                               of Managed Objects for
                                               Bridges with Traffic
                                               Classes, Multicast
                                               Filtering, and Virtual
                                               LAN Extensions",
                                               RFC 4363, January 2006.

   [RFC4422]                                   Melnikov, A. and K.
                                               Zeilenga, "Simple
                                               Authentication and
                                               Security Layer (SASL)",
                                               RFC 4422, June 2006.

   [RFC4444]                                   Parker, J., "Management
                                               Information Base for
                                               Intermediate System to
                                               Intermediate System
                                               (IS-IS)", RFC 4444,
                                               April 2006.

   [RFC4502]                                   Waldbusser, S., "Remote
                                               Network Monitoring
                                               Management Information
                                               Base Version 2",
                                               RFC 4502, May 2006.

   [RFC4546]                                   Raftus, D. and E.
                                               Cardona, "Radio Frequency
                                               (RF) Interface Management
                                               Information Base for Data
                                               over Cable Service
                                               Interface Specifications
                                               (DOCSIS) 2.0 Compliant RF
                                               Interfaces", RFC 4546,
                                               June 2006.

   [RFC4560]                                   Quittek, J. and K. White,



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 71]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


                                               "Definitions of Managed
                                               Objects for Remote Ping,
                                               Traceroute, and Lookup
                                               Operations", RFC 4560,
                                               June 2006.

   [RFC4564]                                   Govindan, S., Cheng, H.,
                                               Yao, ZH., Zhou, WH., and
                                               L. Yang, "Objectives for
                                               Control and Provisioning
                                               of Wireless Access Points
                                               (CAPWAP)", RFC 4564,
                                               July 2006.

   [RFC4656]                                   Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum,
                                               B., Karp, A., Boote, J.,
                                               and M. Zekauskas, "A One-
                                               way Active Measurement
                                               Protocol (OWAMP)",
                                               RFC 4656, September 2006.

   [RFC4663]                                   Harrington, D.,
                                               "Transferring MIB Work
                                               from IETF Bridge MIB WG
                                               to IEEE 802.1 WG",
                                               RFC 4663, September 2006.

   [RFC4668]                                   Nelson, D., "RADIUS
                                               Authentication Client MIB
                                               for IPv6", RFC 4668,
                                               August 2006.

   [RFC4669]                                   Nelson, D., "RADIUS
                                               Authentication Server MIB
                                               for IPv6", RFC 4669,
                                               August 2006.

   [RFC4670]                                   Nelson, D., "RADIUS
                                               Accounting Client MIB for
                                               IPv6", RFC 4670,
                                               August 2006.

   [RFC4671]                                   Nelson, D., "RADIUS
                                               Accounting Server MIB for
                                               IPv6", RFC 4671,
                                               August 2006.

   [RFC4672]                                   De Cnodder, S., Jonnala,



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 72]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


                                               N., and M. Chiba, "RADIUS
                                               Dynamic Authorization
                                               Client MIB", RFC 4672,
                                               September 2006.

   [RFC4673]                                   De Cnodder, S., Jonnala,
                                               N., and M. Chiba, "RADIUS
                                               Dynamic Authorization
                                               Server MIB", RFC 4673,
                                               September 2006.

   [RFC4675]                                   Congdon, P., Sanchez, M.,
                                               and B. Aboba, "RADIUS
                                               Attributes for Virtual
                                               LAN and Priority
                                               Support", RFC 4675,
                                               September 2006.

   [RFC4706]                                   Morgenstern, M., Dodge,
                                               M., Baillie, S., and U.
                                               Bonollo, "Definitions of
                                               Managed Objects for
                                               Asymmetric Digital
                                               Subscriber Line 2
                                               (ADSL2)", RFC 4706,
                                               November 2006.

   [RFC4710]                                   Siddiqui, A., Romascanu,
                                               D., and E. Golovinsky,
                                               "Real-time Application
                                               Quality-of-Service
                                               Monitoring (RAQMON)
                                               Framework", RFC 4710,
                                               October 2006.

   [RFC4711]                                   Siddiqui, A., Romascanu,
                                               D., and E. Golovinsky,
                                               "Real-time Application
                                               Quality-of-Service
                                               Monitoring (RAQMON) MIB",
                                               RFC 4711, October 2006.

   [RFC4712]                                   Siddiqui, A., Romascanu,
                                               D., Golovinsky, E.,
                                               Rahman, M., and Y. Kim,
                                               "Transport Mappings for
                                               Real-time Application
                                               Quality-of-Service



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 73]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


                                               Monitoring (RAQMON)
                                               Protocol Data Unit
                                               (PDU)", RFC 4712,
                                               October 2006.

   [RFC4737]                                   Morton, A., Ciavattone,
                                               L., Ramachandran, G.,
                                               Shalunov, S., and J.
                                               Perser, "Packet
                                               Reordering Metrics",
                                               RFC 4737, November 2006.

   [RFC4740]                                   Garcia-Martin, M.,
                                               Belinchon, M., Pallares-
                                               Lopez, M., Canales-
                                               Valenzuela, C., and K.
                                               Tammi, "Diameter Session
                                               Initiation Protocol (SIP)
                                               Application", RFC 4740,
                                               November 2006.

   [RFC4743]                                   Goddard, T., "Using
                                               NETCONF over the Simple
                                               Object Access Protocol
                                               (SOAP)", RFC 4743,
                                               December 2006.

   [RFC4744]                                   Lear, E. and K. Crozier,
                                               "Using the NETCONF
                                               Protocol over the Blocks
                                               Extensible Exchange
                                               Protocol (BEEP)",
                                               RFC 4744, December 2006.

   [RFC4750]                                   Joyal, D., Galecki, P.,
                                               Giacalone, S., Coltun,
                                               R., and F. Baker, "OSPF
                                               Version 2 Management
                                               Information Base",
                                               RFC 4750, December 2006.

   [RFC4780]                                   Lingle, K., Mule, J-F.,
                                               Maeng, J., and D. Walker,
                                               "Management Information
                                               Base for the Session
                                               Initiation Protocol
                                               (SIP)", RFC 4780,
                                               April 2007.



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 74]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   [RFC4789]                                   Schoenwaelder, J. and T.
                                               Jeffree, "Simple Network
                                               Management Protocol
                                               (SNMP) over IEEE 802
                                               Networks", RFC 4789,
                                               November 2006.

   [RFC4803]                                   Nadeau, T. and A. Farrel,
                                               "Generalized
                                               Multiprotocol Label
                                               Switching (GMPLS) Label
                                               Switching Router (LSR)
                                               Management Information
                                               Base", RFC 4803,
                                               February 2007.

   [RFC4818]                                   Salowey, J. and R. Droms,
                                               "RADIUS Delegated-IPv6-
                                               Prefix Attribute",
                                               RFC 4818, April 2007.

   [RFC4825]                                   Rosenberg, J., "The
                                               Extensible Markup
                                               Language (XML)
                                               Configuration Access
                                               Protocol (XCAP)",
                                               RFC 4825, May 2007.

   [RFC4826]                                   Rosenberg, J.,
                                               "Extensible Markup
                                               Language (XML) Formats
                                               for Representing Resource
                                               Lists", RFC 4826,
                                               May 2007.

   [RFC4827]                                   Isomaki, M. and E.
                                               Leppanen, "An Extensible
                                               Markup Language (XML)
                                               Configuration Access
                                               Protocol (XCAP) Usage for
                                               Manipulating Presence
                                               Document Contents",
                                               RFC 4827, May 2007.

   [RFC4898]                                   Mathis, M., Heffner, J.,
                                               and R. Raghunarayan, "TCP
                                               Extended Statistics MIB",
                                               RFC 4898, May 2007.



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 75]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   [RFC4960]                                   Stewart, R., "Stream
                                               Control Transmission
                                               Protocol", RFC 4960,
                                               September 2007.

   [RFC5060]                                   Sivaramu, R., Lingard,
                                               J., McWalter, D., Joshi,
                                               B., and A. Kessler,
                                               "Protocol Independent
                                               Multicast MIB", RFC 5060,
                                               January 2008.

   [RFC5080]                                   Nelson, D. and A. DeKok,
                                               "Common Remote
                                               Authentication Dial In
                                               User Service (RADIUS)
                                               Implementation Issues and
                                               Suggested Fixes",
                                               RFC 5080, December 2007.

   [RFC5085]                                   Nadeau, T. and C.
                                               Pignataro, "Pseudowire
                                               Virtual Circuit
                                               Connectivity Verification
                                               (VCCV): A Control Channel
                                               for Pseudowires",
                                               RFC 5085, December 2007.

   [RFC5090]                                   Sterman, B., Sadolevsky,
                                               D., Schwartz, D.,
                                               Williams, D., and W.
                                               Beck, "RADIUS Extension
                                               for Digest
                                               Authentication",
                                               RFC 5090, February 2008.

   [RFC5101]                                   Claise, B.,
                                               "Specification of the IP
                                               Flow Information Export
                                               (IPFIX) Protocol for the
                                               Exchange of IP Traffic
                                               Flow Information",
                                               RFC 5101, January 2008.

   [RFC5102]                                   Quittek, J., Bryant, S.,
                                               Claise, B., Aitken, P.,
                                               and J. Meyer,
                                               "Information Model for IP



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 76]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


                                               Flow Information Export",
                                               RFC 5102, January 2008.

   [RFC5103]                                   Trammell, B. and E.
                                               Boschi, "Bidirectional
                                               Flow Export Using IP Flow
                                               Information Export
                                               (IPFIX)", RFC 5103,
                                               January 2008.

   [RFC5176]                                   Chiba, M., Dommety, G.,
                                               Eklund, M., Mitton, D.,
                                               and B. Aboba, "Dynamic
                                               Authorization Extensions
                                               to Remote Authentication
                                               Dial In User Service
                                               (RADIUS)", RFC 5176,
                                               January 2008.

   [RFC5181]                                   Shin, M-K., Han, Y-H.,
                                               Kim, S-E., and D. Premec,
                                               "IPv6 Deployment
                                               Scenarios in 802.16
                                               Networks", RFC 5181,
                                               May 2008.

   [RFC5224]                                   Brenner, M., "Diameter
                                               Policy Processing
                                               Application", RFC 5224,
                                               March 2008.

   [RFC5246]                                   Dierks, T. and E.
                                               Rescorla, "The Transport
                                               Layer Security (TLS)
                                               Protocol Version 1.2",
                                               RFC 5246, August 2008.

   [RFC5277]                                   Chisholm, S. and H.
                                               Trevino, "NETCONF Event
                                               Notifications", RFC 5277,
                                               July 2008.

   [RFC5357]                                   Hedayat, K., Krzanowski,
                                               R., Morton, A., Yum, K.,
                                               and J. Babiarz, "A Two-
                                               Way Active Measurement
                                               Protocol (TWAMP)",
                                               RFC 5357, October 2008.



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 77]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   [RFC5388]                                   Niccolini, S.,
                                               Tartarelli, S., Quittek,
                                               J., Dietz, T., and M.
                                               Swany, "Information Model
                                               and XML Data Model for
                                               Traceroute Measurements",
                                               RFC 5388, December 2008.

   [RFC5415]                                   Calhoun, P., Montemurro,
                                               M., and D. Stanley,
                                               "Control And Provisioning
                                               of Wireless Access Points
                                               (CAPWAP) Protocol
                                               Specification", RFC 5415,
                                               March 2009.

   [RFC5416]                                   Calhoun, P., Montemurro,
                                               M., and D. Stanley,
                                               "Control and Provisioning
                                               of Wireless Access Points
                                               (CAPWAP) Protocol Binding
                                               for IEEE 802.11",
                                               RFC 5416, March 2009.

   [RFC5424]                                   Gerhards, R., "The Syslog
                                               Protocol", RFC 5424,
                                               March 2009.

   [RFC5425]                                   Miao, F., Ma, Y., and J.
                                               Salowey, "Transport Layer
                                               Security (TLS) Transport
                                               Mapping for Syslog",
                                               RFC 5425, March 2009.

   [RFC5426]                                   Okmianski, A.,
                                               "Transmission of Syslog
                                               Messages over UDP",
                                               RFC 5426, March 2009.

   [RFC5427]                                   Keeni, G., "Textual
                                               Conventions for Syslog
                                               Management", RFC 5427,
                                               March 2009.

   [RFC5431]                                   Sun, D., "Diameter ITU-T
                                               Rw Policy Enforcement
                                               Interface Application",
                                               RFC 5431, March 2009.



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 78]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   [RFC5447]                                   Korhonen, J., Bournelle,
                                               J., Tschofenig, H.,
                                               Perkins, C., and K.
                                               Chowdhury, "Diameter
                                               Mobile IPv6: Support for
                                               Network Access Server to
                                               Diameter Server
                                               Interaction", RFC 5447,
                                               February 2009.

   [RFC5470]                                   Sadasivan, G., Brownlee,
                                               N., Claise, B., and J.
                                               Quittek, "Architecture
                                               for IP Flow Information
                                               Export", RFC 5470,
                                               March 2009.

   [RFC5472]                                   Zseby, T., Boschi, E.,
                                               Brownlee, N., and B.
                                               Claise, "IP Flow
                                               Information Export
                                               (IPFIX) Applicability",
                                               RFC 5472, March 2009.

   [RFC5473]                                   Boschi, E., Mark, L., and
                                               B. Claise, "Reducing
                                               Redundancy in IP Flow
                                               Information Export
                                               (IPFIX) and Packet
                                               Sampling (PSAMP)
                                               Reports", RFC 5473,
                                               March 2009.

   [RFC5474]                                   Duffield, N., Chiou, D.,
                                               Claise, B., Greenberg,
                                               A., Grossglauser, M., and
                                               J. Rexford, "A Framework
                                               for Packet Selection and
                                               Reporting", RFC 5474,
                                               March 2009.

   [RFC5475]                                   Zseby, T., Molina, M.,
                                               Duffield, N., Niccolini,
                                               S., and F. Raspall,
                                               "Sampling and Filtering
                                               Techniques for IP Packet
                                               Selection", RFC 5475,
                                               March 2009.



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 79]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   [RFC5476]                                   Claise, B., Johnson, A.,
                                               and J. Quittek, "Packet
                                               Sampling (PSAMP) Protocol
                                               Specifications",
                                               RFC 5476, March 2009.

   [RFC5477]                                   Dietz, T., Claise, B.,
                                               Aitken, P., Dressler, F.,
                                               and G. Carle,
                                               "Information Model for
                                               Packet Sampling Exports",
                                               RFC 5477, March 2009.

   [RFC5516]                                   Jones, M. and L. Morand,
                                               "Diameter Command Code
                                               Registration for the
                                               Third Generation
                                               Partnership Project
                                               (3GPP) Evolved Packet
                                               System (EPS)", RFC 5516,
                                               April 2009.

   [RFC5539]                                   Badra, M., "NETCONF over
                                               Transport Layer Security
                                               (TLS)", RFC 5539,
                                               May 2009.

   [RFC5560]                                   Uijterwaal, H., "A One-
                                               Way Packet Duplication
                                               Metric", RFC 5560,
                                               May 2009.

   [RFC5580]                                   Tschofenig, H., Adrangi,
                                               F., Jones, M., Lior, A.,
                                               and B. Aboba, "Carrying
                                               Location Objects in
                                               RADIUS and Diameter",
                                               RFC 5580, August 2009.

   [RFC5590]                                   Harrington, D. and J.
                                               Schoenwaelder, "Transport
                                               Subsystem for the Simple
                                               Network Management
                                               Protocol (SNMP)",
                                               RFC 5590, June 2009.

   [RFC5591]                                   Harrington, D. and W.
                                               Hardaker, "Transport



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 80]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


                                               Security Model for the
                                               Simple Network Management
                                               Protocol (SNMP)",
                                               RFC 5591, June 2009.

   [RFC5592]                                   Harrington, D., Salowey,
                                               J., and W. Hardaker,
                                               "Secure Shell Transport
                                               Model for the Simple
                                               Network Management
                                               Protocol (SNMP)",
                                               RFC 5592, June 2009.

   [RFC5607]                                   Nelson, D. and G. Weber,
                                               "Remote Authentication
                                               Dial-In User Service
                                               (RADIUS) Authorization
                                               for Network Access Server
                                               (NAS) Management",
                                               RFC 5607, July 2009.

   [RFC5608]                                   Narayan, K. and D.
                                               Nelson, "Remote
                                               Authentication Dial-In
                                               User Service (RADIUS)
                                               Usage for Simple Network
                                               Management Protocol
                                               (SNMP) Transport Models",
                                               RFC 5608, August 2009.

   [RFC5610]                                   Boschi, E., Trammell, B.,
                                               Mark, L., and T. Zseby,
                                               "Exporting Type
                                               Information for IP Flow
                                               Information Export
                                               (IPFIX) Information
                                               Elements", RFC 5610,
                                               July 2009.

   [RFC5650]                                   Morgenstern, M., Baillie,
                                               S., and U. Bonollo,
                                               "Definitions of Managed
                                               Objects for Very High
                                               Speed Digital Subscriber
                                               Line 2 (VDSL2)",
                                               RFC 5650, September 2009.

   [RFC5655]                                   Trammell, B., Boschi, E.,



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 81]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


                                               Mark, L., Zseby, T., and
                                               A. Wagner, "Specification
                                               of the IP Flow
                                               Information Export
                                               (IPFIX) File Format",
                                               RFC 5655, October 2009.

   [RFC5674]                                   Chisholm, S. and R.
                                               Gerhards, "Alarms in
                                               Syslog", RFC 5674,
                                               October 2009.

   [RFC5675]                                   Marinov, V. and J.
                                               Schoenwaelder, "Mapping
                                               Simple Network Management
                                               Protocol (SNMP)
                                               Notifications to SYSLOG
                                               Messages", RFC 5675,
                                               October 2009.

   [RFC5676]                                   Schoenwaelder, J., Clemm,
                                               A., and A. Karmakar,
                                               "Definitions of Managed
                                               Objects for Mapping
                                               SYSLOG Messages to Simple
                                               Network Management
                                               Protocol (SNMP)
                                               Notifications", RFC 5676,
                                               October 2009.

   [RFC5706]                                   Harrington, D.,
                                               "Guidelines for
                                               Considering Operations
                                               and Management of New
                                               Protocols and Protocol
                                               Extensions", RFC 5706,
                                               November 2009.

   [RFC5713]                                   Moustafa, H., Tschofenig,
                                               H., and S. De Cnodder,
                                               "Security Threats and
                                               Security Requirements for
                                               the Access Node Control
                                               Protocol (ANCP)",
                                               RFC 5713, January 2010.

   [RFC5717]                                   Lengyel, B. and M.
                                               Bjorklund, "Partial Lock



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 82]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


                                               Remote Procedure Call
                                               (RPC) for NETCONF",
                                               RFC 5717, December 2009.

   [RFC5719]                                   Romascanu, D. and H.
                                               Tschofenig, "Updated IANA
                                               Considerations for
                                               Diameter Command Code
                                               Allocations", RFC 5719,
                                               January 2010.

   [RFC5729]                                   Korhonen, J., Jones, M.,
                                               Morand, L., and T. Tsou,
                                               "Clarifications on the
                                               Routing of Diameter
                                               Requests Based on the
                                               Username and the Realm",
                                               RFC 5729, December 2009.

   [RFC5777]                                   Korhonen, J., Tschofenig,
                                               H., Arumaithurai, M.,
                                               Jones, M., and A. Lior,
                                               "Traffic Classification
                                               and Quality of Service
                                               (QoS) Attributes for
                                               Diameter", RFC 5777,
                                               February 2010.

   [RFC5778]                                   Korhonen, J., Tschofenig,
                                               H., Bournelle, J.,
                                               Giaretta, G., and M.
                                               Nakhjiri, "Diameter
                                               Mobile IPv6: Support for
                                               Home Agent to Diameter
                                               Server Interaction",
                                               RFC 5778, February 2010.

   [RFC5779]                                   Korhonen, J., Bournelle,
                                               J., Chowdhury, K.,
                                               Muhanna, A., and U.
                                               Meyer, "Diameter Proxy
                                               Mobile IPv6: Mobile
                                               Access Gateway and Local
                                               Mobility Anchor
                                               Interaction with Diameter
                                               Server", RFC 5779,
                                               February 2010.




Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 83]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   [RFC5815]                                   Dietz, T., Kobayashi, A.,
                                               Claise, B., and G. Muenz,
                                               "Definitions of Managed
                                               Objects for IP Flow
                                               Information Export",
                                               RFC 5815, April 2010.

   [RFC5833]                                   Shi, Y., Perkins, D.,
                                               Elliott, C., and Y.
                                               Zhang, "Control and
                                               Provisioning of Wireless
                                               Access Points (CAPWAP)
                                               Protocol Base MIB",
                                               RFC 5833, May 2010.

   [RFC5834]                                   Shi, Y., Perkins, D.,
                                               Elliott, C., and Y.
                                               Zhang, "Control and
                                               Provisioning of Wireless
                                               Access Points (CAPWAP)
                                               Protocol Binding MIB for
                                               IEEE 802.11", RFC 5834,
                                               May 2010.

   [RFC5835]                                   Morton, A. and S. Van den
                                               Berghe, "Framework for
                                               Metric Composition",
                                               RFC 5835, April 2010.

   [RFC5848]                                   Kelsey, J., Callas, J.,
                                               and A. Clemm, "Signed
                                               Syslog Messages",
                                               RFC 5848, May 2010.

   [RFC5851]                                   Ooghe, S., Voigt, N.,
                                               Platnic, M., Haag, T.,
                                               and S. Wadhwa, "Framework
                                               and Requirements for an
                                               Access Node Control
                                               Mechanism in Broadband
                                               Multi-Service Networks",
                                               RFC 5851, May 2010.

   [RFC5866]                                   Sun, D., McCann, P.,
                                               Tschofenig, H., Tsou, T.,
                                               Doria, A., and G. Zorn,
                                               "Diameter Quality-of-
                                               Service Application",



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 84]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


                                               RFC 5866, May 2010.

   [RFC5880]                                   Katz, D. and D. Ward,
                                               "Bidirectional Forwarding
                                               Detection (BFD)",
                                               RFC 5880, June 2010.

   [RFC5889]                                   Baccelli, E. and M.
                                               Townsley, "IP Addressing
                                               Model in Ad Hoc
                                               Networks", RFC 5889,
                                               September 2010.

   [RFC5982]                                   Kobayashi, A. and B.
                                               Claise, "IP Flow
                                               Information Export
                                               (IPFIX) Mediation:
                                               Problem Statement",
                                               RFC 5982, August 2010.

   [RFC5996]                                   Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P.,
                                               Nir, Y., and P. Eronen,
                                               "Internet Key Exchange
                                               Protocol Version 2
                                               (IKEv2)", RFC 5996,
                                               September 2010.

   [RFC6012]                                   Salowey, J., Petch, T.,
                                               Gerhards, R., and H.
                                               Feng, "Datagram Transport
                                               Layer Security (DTLS)
                                               Transport Mapping for
                                               Syslog", RFC 6012,
                                               October 2010.

   [RFC6020]                                   Bjorklund, M., "YANG - A
                                               Data Modeling Language
                                               for the Network
                                               Configuration Protocol
                                               (NETCONF)", RFC 6020,
                                               October 2010.

   [RFC6021]                                   Schoenwaelder, J.,
                                               "Common YANG Data Types",
                                               RFC 6021, October 2010.

   [RFC6022]                                   Scott, M. and M.
                                               Bjorklund, "YANG Module



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 85]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


                                               for NETCONF Monitoring",
                                               RFC 6022, October 2010.

   [RFC6035]                                   Pendleton, A., Clark, A.,
                                               Johnston, A., and H.
                                               Sinnreich, "Session
                                               Initiation Protocol Event
                                               Package for Voice Quality
                                               Reporting", RFC 6035,
                                               November 2010.

   [RFC6065]                                   Narayan, K., Nelson, D.,
                                               and R. Presuhn, "Using
                                               Authentication,
                                               Authorization, and
                                               Accounting Services to
                                               Dynamically Provision
                                               View-Based Access Control
                                               Model User-to-Group
                                               Mappings", RFC 6065,
                                               December 2010.

   [RFC6087]                                   Bierman, A., "Guidelines
                                               for Authors and Reviewers
                                               of YANG Data Model
                                               Documents", RFC 6087,
                                               January 2011.

   [RFC6095]                                   Linowski, B., Ersue, M.,
                                               and S. Kuryla, "Extending
                                               YANG with Language
                                               Abstractions", RFC 6095,
                                               March 2011.

   [RFC6110]                                   Lhotka, L., "Mapping YANG
                                               to Document Schema
                                               Definition Languages and
                                               Validating NETCONF
                                               Content", RFC 6110,
                                               February 2011.

   [RFC6158]                                   DeKok, A. and G. Weber,
                                               "RADIUS Design
                                               Guidelines", BCP 158,
                                               RFC 6158, March 2011.

   [RFC6183]                                   Kobayashi, A., Claise,
                                               B., Muenz, G., and K.



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 86]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


                                               Ishibashi, "IP Flow
                                               Information Export
                                               (IPFIX) Mediation:
                                               Framework", RFC 6183,
                                               April 2011.

   [RFC6235]                                   Boschi, E. and B.
                                               Trammell, "IP Flow
                                               Anonymization Support",
                                               RFC 6235, May 2011.

   [RFC6241]                                   Enns, R., Bjorklund, M.,
                                               Schoenwaelder, J., and A.
                                               Bierman, "Network
                                               Configuration Protocol
                                               (NETCONF)", RFC 6241,
                                               June 2011.

   [RFC6242]                                   Wasserman, M., "Using the
                                               NETCONF Protocol over
                                               Secure Shell (SSH)",
                                               RFC 6242, June 2011.

   [RFC6244]                                   Shafer, P., "An
                                               Architecture for Network
                                               Management Using NETCONF
                                               and YANG", RFC 6244,
                                               June 2011.

   [RFC6248]                                   Morton, A., "RFC 4148 and
                                               the IP Performance
                                               Metrics (IPPM) Registry
                                               of Metrics Are Obsolete",
                                               RFC 6248, April 2011.

   [RFC6272]                                   Baker, F. and D. Meyer,
                                               "Internet Protocols for
                                               the Smart Grid",
                                               RFC 6272, June 2011.

   [RFC6313]                                   Claise, B., Dhandapani,
                                               G., Aitken, P., and S.
                                               Yates, "Export of
                                               Structured Data in IP
                                               Flow Information Export
                                               (IPFIX)", RFC 6313,
                                               July 2011.




Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 87]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   [RFC6320]                                   Wadhwa, S., Moisand, J.,
                                               Haag, T., Voigt, N., and
                                               T. Taylor, "Protocol for
                                               Access Node Control
                                               Mechanism in Broadband
                                               Networks", RFC 6320,
                                               October 2011.

   [RFC6347]                                   Rescorla, E. and N.
                                               Modadugu, "Datagram
                                               Transport Layer Security
                                               Version 1.2", RFC 6347,
                                               January 2012.

   [RFC6353]                                   Hardaker, W., "Transport
                                               Layer Security (TLS)
                                               Transport Model for the
                                               Simple Network Management
                                               Protocol (SNMP)",
                                               RFC 6353, July 2011.

   [RFC6371]                                   Busi, I. and D. Allan,
                                               "Operations,
                                               Administration, and
                                               Maintenance Framework for
                                               MPLS-Based Transport
                                               Networks", RFC 6371,
                                               September 2011.

   [RFC6408]                                   Jones, M., Korhonen, J.,
                                               and L. Morand, "Diameter
                                               Straightforward-Naming
                                               Authority Pointer
                                               (S-NAPTR) Usage",
                                               RFC 6408, November 2011.

   [RFC6536]                                   Bierman, A. and M.
                                               Bjorklund, "Network
                                               Configuration Protocol
                                               (NETCONF) Access Control
                                               Model", RFC 6536,
                                               March 2012.

   [RFCSEARCH]                                 IETF, "RFC Index Search
                                               Engine", January 2006, <h
                                               ttp://www.rfc-editor.org/
                                               rfcsearch.html>.




Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 88]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   [SMI-NUMBERS]                               IANA, "Network Management
                                               Parameters - IANA SMI OID
                                               List", March 2012, <http:
                                               //www.iana.org/
                                               assignments/smi-numbers>.

   [STD16]                                     Rose, M. and K.
                                               McCloghrie, "Structure
                                               and Identification of
                                               Management Information
                                               for TCP/IP-based
                                               Internets", May 1990.

   [STD17]                                     McCloghrie, K. and M.
                                               Rose, "Management
                                               Information Base for
                                               Network Management of
                                               TCP/IP-based internets:
                                               MIB-II", March 1991.

   [STD58]                                     McCloghrie, K., Perkins,
                                               D., and J. Schoenwaelder,
                                               "Structure of Management
                                               Information Version 2
                                               (SMIv2)", April 1999.

   [STD59]                                     Waldbusser, S., "Remote
                                               Network Monitoring
                                               Management Information
                                               Base", May 2000.

   [STD6]                                      Postel, J., "User
                                               Datagram Protocol",
                                               August 1980.

   [STD62]                                     Harrington, D., "An
                                               Architecture for
                                               Describing Simple Network
                                               Management Protocol
                                               (SNMP) Management
                                               Frameworks",
                                               December 2002.

   [STD66]                                     Berners-Lee, T.,
                                               Fielding, R., and L.
                                               Masinter, "Uniform
                                               Resource Identifier
                                               (URI): Generic Syntax",



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 89]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


                                               January 2005.

   [STD7]                                      Postel, J., "Transmission
                                               Control Protocol",
                                               September 1981.

   [XPATH]                                     World Wide Web
                                               Consortium, "XML Path
                                               Language (XPath) Version
                                               1.0", November 1999, <htt
                                               p://www.w3.org/TR/1999/
                                               REC-xpath-19991116>.

   [XSD-1]                                     Beech, D., Thompson, H.,
                                               Maloney, M., Mendelsohn,
                                               N., and World Wide Web
                                               Consortium Recommendation
                                               REC-xmlschema-1-20041028,
                                               "XML Schema Part 1:
                                               Structures Second
                                               Edition", October 2004, <
                                               http://www.w3.org/TR/
                                               2004/
                                               REC-xmlschema-1-
                                               20041028>.

Appendix A.  High Level Classification of Management Protocols and Data
             Models

   The following subsections aim to guide the reader for the fast
   selection of the management standard in interest and can be used as a
   dispatcher to forward to the appropriate chapter.  The subsections
   below classify the protocols on one hand according to high-level
   criteria such as push versus pull mechanism, and passive versus
   active monitoring.  On the other hand, the protocols are categorized
   concerning the network management task they address or the data model
   extensibility they provide.  Based on the reader's requirements a
   reduced set of standard protocols and associated data models can be
   selected for further reading.

   As an example, someone outside of IETF typically would look for the
   TWAMP protocol in the Operations and Management Area working groups
   as it addresses performance management.  However, the protocol TWAMP
   has been developed by the IPPM working group in the Transport Area.

   Note that not all protocols have been listed in all classification
   sections.  Some of the protocols, especially the protocols with
   specific focus in Section 3 cannot be clearly classified.  Note also



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 90]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   that COPS and COPS-PR are not listed in the tables, as COPS-PR is not
   recommended to use (see Section 3.3).

A.1.  Protocols classified by the Standard Maturity at IETF

   This section classifies the management protocols according their
   standard maturity at the IETF.  The IETF standard maturity levels
   Proposed, Draft or Internet Standard, are defined in [RFC2026].  An
   Internet Standard is characterized by a high degree of technical
   maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified protocol
   or service provides significant benefit to the Internet community.

   The table below covers the standard maturity of the different
   protocols listed in this document.  Note that only the main protocols
   (and not their extensions) are noted.  An RFC search tool listing the
   current document status is available at [RFCSEARCH].

   +-------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
   | Protocol                                        | Maturity Level  |
   +-------------------------------------------------+-----------------+
   | SNMP [STD62][RFC3411] (Section 2.1)             | Internet        |
   |                                                 | Standard        |
   | SYSLOG [RFC5424] (Section 2.2)                  | Proposed        |
   |                                                 | Standard        |
   | IPFIX [RFC5101] (Section 2.3)                   | Proposed        |
   |                                                 | Standard        |
   | PSAMP [RFC5476] (Section 2.3)                   | Proposed        |
   |                                                 | Standard        |
   | NETCONF [RFC6241] (Section 2.4.1)               | Proposed        |
   |                                                 | Standard        |
   | DHCP for IPv4 [RFC2131] (Section 3.1.1)         | Draft Standard  |
   | DHCP for IPv6 [RFC3315] (Section 3.1.1)         | Proposed        |
   |                                                 | Standard        |
   | OWAMP [RFC4656] (Section 3.4)                   | Proposed        |
   |                                                 | Standard        |
   | TWAMP [RFC5357] (Section 3.4)                   | Proposed        |
   |                                                 | Standard        |
   | RADIUS [RFC2865] (Section 3.5)                  | Draft Standard  |
   | DIAMETER [RFC3588] (Section 3.6)                | Proposed        |
   |                                                 | Standard        |
   | CAPWAP [RFC5416] (Section 3.7)                  | Proposed        |
   |                                                 | Standard        |
   | ANCP [RFC6320] (Section 3.8)                    | Proposed        |
   |                                                 | Standard        |
   | Ad-hoc network configuration [RFC5889]          | Informational   |
   | (Section 3.1.2)                                 |                 |
   | ACAP [RFC2244] (Section 3.9)                    | Proposed        |
   |                                                 | Standard        |



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 91]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   | XCAP [RFC4825] (Section 3.10)                   | Proposed        |
   |                                                 | Standard        |
   +-------------------------------------------------+-----------------+

        Table 1: Protocols classified by Standard Maturity at IETF

A.2.  Protocols Matched to Management Tasks

   This subsection classifies the management protocols matching to the
   management tasks for fault, configuration, accounting, performance,
   and security management.

   +-------------+--------------+------------+-------------+-----------+
   | Fault Mgmt  | Configuratio | Accounting | Performance | Security  |
   |             | nMgmt        | Mgmt       | Mgmt        | Mgmt      |
   +-------------+--------------+------------+-------------+-----------+
   | SNMP        | SNMP         | SNMP       | SNMP        |           |
   | notificatio | configuratio | monitoring | monitoring  |           |
   | nwith trap  | nwith set    | with get   | with get    |           |
   |  operation  |  operation   | operation  | operation   |           |
   |  (S. 2.1.1) |  (S. 2.1.1)  | (S. 2.1.1) | (S. 2.1.1)  |           |
   | IPFIX       | CAPWAP       | IPFIX      | IPFIX       |           |
   | (S. 2.3)    | (S. 3.7)     | (S. 2.3)   | (S. 2.3)    |           |
   | PSAMP       | NETCONF      | PSAMP      | PSAMP       |           |
   | (S. 2.3)    | (S. 2.4)     | (S. 2.3)   | (S. 2.3)    |           |
   | SYSLOG (S.  | ANCP (S.     | RADIUS     |             | RADIUS    |
   | 2.2)        | 3.8)         | Accounting |             | Authent.& |
   |             |              | (S. 3.5)   |             | Authoriz. |
   |             |              |            |             | (S. 3.5)  |
   |             | AUTOCONF (S. | DIAMETER   |             | DIAMETER  |
   |             | 3.1.2)       | Accounting |             | Authent.& |
   |             |              | (S. 3.6)   |             | Authoriz. |
   |             |              |            |             | (S. 3.6)  |
   |             | ACAP         |            |             |           |
   |             | (S. 3.9)     |            |             |           |
   |             | XCAP         |            |             |           |
   |             | (S. 3.10)    |            |             |           |
   |             | DHCP         |            |             |           |
   |             | (S. 3.11)    |            |             |           |
   +-------------+--------------+------------+-------------+-----------+

              Table 2: Protocols Matched to Management Tasks

   Note: Corresponding section numbers are given in parenthesis.







Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 92]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


A.3.  Push versus Pull Mechanism

   A pull mechanism is characterized by the Network Management System
   (NMS) pulling the management information out of network elements,
   when needed.  A push mechanism is characterized by the network
   elements pushing the management information to the NMS, either when
   the information is available, or on a regular basis.

   Client/Server protocols, such as DHCP, ANCP, ACAP, and XCAP are not
   listed in Table 3.

   +---------------------------------+---------------------------------+
   | Protocols supporting the Pull   | Protocols supporting the Push   |
   | mechanism                       | mechanism                       |
   +---------------------------------+---------------------------------+
   | SNMP (except notifications)     | SNMP notifications              |
   | (Section 2.1)                   | (Section 2.1)                   |
   | NETCONF (except notifications)  | NETCONF notifications           |
   | (Section 2.4.1)                 | (Section 2.4.1)                 |
   | CAPWAP (Section 3.7)            | SYSLOG (Section 2.2)            |
   |                                 | IPFIX (Section 2.3)             |
   |                                 | PSAMP (Section 2.3)             |
   |                                 | RADIUS accounting               |
   |                                 | (Section 3.5)                   |
   |                                 | DIAMETER accounting             |
   |                                 | (Section 3.6)                   |
   +---------------------------------+---------------------------------+

      Table 3: Protocol classification by Push versus Pull Mechanism

A.4.  Passive versus Active Monitoring

   Monitoring can be divided into two categories, passive and active
   monitoring.  Passive monitoring can perform the network traffic
   monitoring, monitoring of a device or the accounting of network
   resource consumption by users.  Active monitoring, as used in this
   document, focuses mainly on active network monitoring and relies on
   the injection of specific traffic (also called "synthetic traffic"),
   which is then monitored.  The monitoring focus is indicated in the
   table below as "network", "device" or "accounting".

   This classification excludes non-monitoring protocols, such as
   configuration protocols: Ad-hoc network autoconfiguration, ANCP, and
   XCAP.  Note that some of the active monitoring protocols, in the
   context of the data path, e.g.  ICMP Ping and Traceroute [RFC1470],
   Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) [RFC5880], and PWE3 Virtual
   Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) [RFC5085] are covered in
   [I-D.ietf-opsawg-oam-overview].



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 93]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   +---------------------------------+---------------------------------+
   | Protocols supporting passive    | Protocols supporting active     |
   | monitoring                      | monitoring                      |
   +---------------------------------+---------------------------------+
   | IPFIX (network) (Section 2.3)   | OWAMP (network) (Section 3.4)   |
   | PSAMP (network) (Section 2.3)   | TWAMP (network) (Section 3.4)   |
   | SNMP (network and device)       |                                 |
   | (Section 2.1)                   |                                 |
   | NETCONF (device)                |                                 |
   | (Section 2.4.1)                 |                                 |
   | RADIUS (accounting)             |                                 |
   | (Section 3.5)                   |                                 |
   | DIAMETER (accounting)           |                                 |
   | (Section 3.6)                   |                                 |
   | CAPWAP (device) (Section 3.7)   |                                 |
   +---------------------------------+---------------------------------+

      Table 4: Protocols for passive and active monitoring and their
                             monitoring focus

   The application of SNMP to passive traffic monitoring (e.g. with
   RMON-MIB) or active monitoring (with IPPM MIB) depends on the MIB
   modules used.  However, SNMP protocol itself does not have
   operations, which support active monitoring.  NETCONF can be used for
   passive monitoring, e.g. with the NETCONF Monitoring YANG module
   [RFC6022] for the monitoring of the NETCONF protocol.  CAPWAP
   monitors the status of a Wireless Termination Point.

   RADIUS and DIAMETER are considered as passive monitoring protocols as
   they perform accounting, i.e. counting the number of packets/bytes
   for a specific user.

A.5.  Supported Data Model Types and their Extensibility

   The following table matches the protocols to the associated data
   model types.  Furthermore, the table indicates how the data model can
   be extended based on the available content today and whether the
   protocol contains a built-in mechanism for proprietary extensions of
   the data model.












Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 94]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   +----------------+--------------------+---------------+-------------+
   | Protocol       | Data Modeling      | Data Model    | Proprietary |
   |                |                    | Extensions    | Data        |
   |                |                    |               | Modeling    |
   |                |                    |               | Extensions  |
   +----------------+--------------------+---------------+-------------+
   | SNMP           | MIB modules        | New MIB       | Enterprise  |
   | (Section 2.1)  | defined with SMI   | modules       | specific    |
   |                | (Section 2.1.3)    | specified in  | MIB modules |
   |                |                    | new RFCs      |             |
   | SYSLOG         | Structured Data    | With the      | Enterprise  |
   | (Section 2.2)  | Elements (SDE)     | procedure to  | specific    |
   |                | (Section 4.2.1)    | add           | SDEs        |
   |                |                    | Structured    |             |
   |                |                    | Data ID in    |             |
   |                |                    | [RFC5424]     |             |
   | IPFIX          | IPFIX Information  | With the      | Enterprise  |
   | (Section 2.3)  | Elements, IPFIX    | procedure to  | specific    |
   |                | IANA registry at   | add           | Information |
   |                | [IANA-IPFIX]       | Information   | Elements    |
   |                | (Section 2.3)      | Elements      | [RFC5101]   |
   |                |                    | specified in  |             |
   |                |                    | [RFC5102]     |             |
   | PSAMP          | PSAMP Information  | With the      | Enterprise  |
   | (Section 2.3)  | Elements, as an    | procedure to  | specific    |
   |                | extension to IPFIX | add           | Information |
   |                | [IANA-IPFIX], and  | Information   | Elements    |
   |                | PSAMP IANA         | Elements      | [RFC5101]   |
   |                | registry at        | specified in  |             |
   |                | [IANA-PSAMP]       | [RFC5102]     |             |
   |                | (Section 2.3)      |               |             |
   | NETCONF        | YANG modules       | New YANG      | Enterprise  |
   | (Section 2.4.1 | (Section 2.4.2)    | modules       | specific    |
   | )              |                    | specified in  | YANG        |
   |                |                    | new RFCs      | modules     |
   |                |                    | following the |             |
   |                |                    | guideline in  |             |
   |                |                    | [RFC6087]     |             |
   | IPPM           | IPPM metrics (*)   | New IPPM      | Not         |
   | OWAMP/TWAMP    | (Section 3.4)      | metrics       | applicable  |
   | (Section 3.4)  |                    | (Section 3.4) |             |
   | RADIUS         | Type-Length-Values | RADIUS        | Vendor      |
   | (Section 3.5)  | (TLV)              | related       | Specific    |
   |                |                    | registries at | Attributes  |
   |                |                    | [IANA-AAA]    | [RFC2865]   |
   |                |                    | and           |             |
   |                |                    | [IANA-PROT]   |             |




Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 95]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   | DIAMETER       | Attribute-Value    | DIAMETER      | Vendor      |
   | (Section 3.6)  | Pairs (AVP)        | related       | Specific    |
   |                |                    | registry at   | Attributes  |
   |                |                    | [IANA-AAA]    | [RFC2865]   |
   | CAPWAP         | Type-Length-Values | New bindings  | Vendor      |
   | (Section 3.7)  | (TLV)              | specified in  | specific    |
   |                |                    | new RFCs      | TLVs        |
   +----------------+--------------------+---------------+-------------+

               Table 5: Data Models and their Extensibility

   (*): With the publication of [RFC6248] the latest IANA registry for
   IPFIX metrics has been declared Obsolete.

Appendix B.  New Work related to IETF Management Standards

B.1.  Energy Management (EMAN)

   Energy management is becoming an additional requirement for network
   management systems due to several factors including the rising and
   fluctuating energy costs, the increased awareness of the ecological
   impact of operating networks and devices, and the regulation of
   governments on energy consumption and production.

   The basic objective of energy management is operating communication
   networks and other equipments with a minimal amount of energy while
   still providing sufficient performance to meet service level
   objectives.  Today, most networking and network-attached devices
   neither monitor nor allow control energy usage as they are mainly
   instrumented for functions such as fault, configuration, accounting,
   performance, and security management.  These devices are not
   instrumented to be aware of energy consumption.  There are very few
   means specified in IETF documents for energy management, which
   includes the areas of power monitoring, energy monitoring, and power
   state control.

   A particular difference between energy management and other
   management tasks is that in some cases energy consumption of a device
   is not measured at the device itself but reported by a different
   place.  For example, at a Power over Ethernet (PoE) sourcing device
   or at a smart power strip, where one device is effectively metering
   another remote device.  This requires a clear definition of the
   relationship between the reporting devices and identification of
   remote devices for which monitoring information is provided.  Similar
   considerations will apply to power state control of remote devices,
   for example, at a PoE sourcing device that switches on and off power
   at its ports.  Another example scenario for energy management is a
   gateway to low resourced and lossy network devices in wireless a



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 96]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   building network.  Here the energy management system talks directly
   to the gateway but not necessarily to other devices in the building
   network.

   At the time of this writing the EMAN working group works on the
   management of energy-aware devices, covered by the following items:

   o  Requirements for energy management, specifying energy management
      properties that will allow networks and devices to become energy
      aware.  In addition to energy awareness requirements, the need for
      control functions will be discussed.  Specifically the need to
      monitor and control properties of devices that are remote to the
      reporting device should be discussed.

   o  Energy management framework, which will describe extensions to
      current management framework, required for energy management.
      This includes: power and energy monitoring, power states, power
      state control, and potential power state transitions.  The
      framework will focus on energy management for IP-based network
      equipment (routers, switches, PCs, IP cameras, phones and the
      like).  Particularly, the relationships between reporting devices,
      remote devices, and monitoring probes (such as might be used in
      low-power and lossy networks) need to be elaborated.  For the case
      of a device reporting on behalf of other devices and controlling
      those devices, the framework will address the issues of discovery
      and identification of remote devices.

   o  Energy-aware Networks and Devices MIB document, for monitoring
      energy-aware networks and devices, will address devices
      identification, context information, and potential relationship
      between reporting devices, remote devices, and monitoring probes.

   o  Power and Energy Monitoring MIB document will document defining
      managed objects for monitoring of power states and energy
      consumption/production.  The monitoring of power states includes:
      retrieving power states, properties of power states, current power
      state, power state transitions, and power state statistics.  The
      managed objects will provide means of reporting detailed
      properties of the actual energy rate (power) and of accumulated
      energy.  Further, it will provide information on electrical power
      quality.

   o  Battery MIB document will define managed objects for battery
      monitoring, which will provide means of reporting detailed
      properties of the actual charge, age, and state of a battery and
      of battery statistics.





Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 97]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   o  Applicability statement will describe the variety of applications
      that can use the energy framework and associated MIB modules.
      Potential examples are building networks, home energy gateway,
      etc.  Finally, the document will also discuss relationships of the
      framework to other architectures and frameworks (such as Smart
      Grid).  The applicability statement will explain the relationship
      between the work in this WG and other existing standards e.g. from
      the IEC, ANSI, DMTF, etc.  Note that the EMAN WG will be looking
      into existing standards such as those from the IEC, ANSI, DMTF and
      others, and reuse existing work as much as possible.

Appendix C.  Change Log

   RFC EDITOR: Please remove this appendix before publication.

C.1.  06-07

   o  Addressed IESG requests.

C.2.  05-06

   o  Added a description for each DIAMETER application.

   o  Extend text for XCAP and added descriptions for XCAP application
      usages.

   o  Addressed GEN-area review comments.

   o  Fixed nits and references.

C.3.  04-05

   o  Fixed nits.

C.4.  03-04

   o  Resolved many bugs, nits and open issues.

   o  Reduced text on old and less used RFCs.

   o  Formulated text on drafts, which are not expected to be published
      in IETF 83 time frame, as ongoing work and deleted the reference.

   o  Reduced I-D references and edited remaining ones as easily
      replaceable with RFC references.

   o  Removed textual references that RFCs are Proposed or Draft
      standard.



Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 98]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   o  Removed the categories for Draft, Proposed and Full standards in
      section 4.2.

C.5.  02-03

   o  Added the new subsection 4.1 giving a broader overview of IETF
      management data models.

   o  Reduced text on RMON in section 4.2.4 Performance Management

   o  Resolved bugs, nits and open issues

   o  Added RFC references

C.6.  01-02

   o  Resolved bugs, nits and open issues

   o  Reduced subsections RADIUS and DIAMETER with text on expired
      drafts.

   o  Extended dispatcher tables in Appendix A

   o  Added a note indicating that IETF has not developed so far
      specific technologies for the management of sensor networks.

   o  Added a note that IETF has not used the FCAPS view as an
      organizing principle for its data models.

   o  Added draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request assuming that
      it'll get published pretty fast

   o  Added RFC references

   o  Removed text on expired drafts

C.7.  00-01

   o  Reduced text for the Security Requirements on SNMP and referenced
      to RFC 3411

   o  Reduced subsection on VACM

   o  Merged subsection on "RADIUS Authentication and Authorization with
      SNMP Transport Models" into the section "SNMP Transport Security
      Model"





Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012              [Page 99]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   o  Section on Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) revised by
      Ralph Droms

   o  Subsections on DHCP and Autoconf assembled in section "IP Address
      Management"

   o  Removed subsection on "Extensible Provision Protocol (EPP)"

   o  Introduced new Appendix on "High Level Classification of
      Management Protocols and Data Models"

   o  Deleted detailed positive comments

   o  Resolved some of the I-D references with the correct reference to
      the published RFC number

   o  Added RFC references

   o  Removed text on expired drafts

   o  Resolved bugs, nits and open issues

C.8.  draft-ersue-opsawg-management-fw-03-00

   o  Diverse bug fixing

   o  Incorporated comments from Juergen Schoenwaelder

   o  Reduced detailed text on pro and contra on management technologies

   o  Extended Terminology section with terms and abbreviations

   o  Explained the structure based on the management application view

   o  Definition of 'MIB module' aligned in different sections

   o  Text on SNMP security reduced

   o  All protocol sections discuss now security and AAA as far as
      relevant

   o  Added IPFIX IEs, SYSLOG SDEs, and YANG modules to the data model
      definition

   o  Added text on YANG data modules to section 4.2.

   o  Added text on IPFIX IEs to section 4.3.




Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012             [Page 100]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


   o  Added numerous references

C.9.  Change Log from draft-ersue-opsawg-management-fw

C.9.1.  02-03

   o  Rearranged the document structure using a flat structure putting
      all protocols onto the same level.

   o  Incorporated contributions for RADIUS/DIAMETER, IPFIX/PSAMP, YANG,
      and EMAN.

   o  Added diverse references.

   o  Added Contributors and Acknowledgements sections.

   o  Bug fixing and issue solving.

C.9.2.  01-02

   o  Added terminology section.

   o  Changed the language for neutral standard description addressing
      diverse SDOs.

   o  Extended NETCONF and NETMOD related text.

   o  Extended section for 'IPv6 Network Operations'.

   o  Bug fixing.

C.9.3.  00-01

   o  Extended text for SNMP

   o  Extended RADIUS and DIAMETER sections.

   o  Added references.

   o  Bug fixing.











Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012             [Page 101]

Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards             March 2012


Authors' Addresses

   Mehmet Ersue (editor)
   Nokia Siemens Networks
   St.-Martin-Strasse 53
   Munich  81541
   Germany

   EMail: mehmet.ersue@nsn.com


   Benoit Claise
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   De Kleetlaan 6a b1
   Diegem  1831
   Belgium

   EMail: bclaise@cisco.com

































Ersue & Claise         Expires September 20, 2012             [Page 102]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/