[Docs] [txt|pdf] [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: May 3, 2012                                 Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                        October 31, 2011


          An Overview of the IETF Network Management Standards
                  draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-02

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
   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.

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 May 3, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   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



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.1.  Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)  . . . . . . . .  7
       2.1.1.  Architectural Principles of SNMP . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       2.1.2.  SNMP and its Versions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       2.1.3.  Structure of Managed Information (SMI) . . . . . . . . 10
       2.1.4.  SNMP Security and Access Control Models  . . . . . . . 11
       2.1.5.  SNMP Transport Subsystem and Transport Models  . . . . 13
     2.2.  SYSLOG Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     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)  . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     3.4.  IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
     3.5.  Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)  . . . 28
     3.6.  Diameter Base Protocol (DIAMETER)  . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
     3.7.  Control And Provisioning of Wireless Access Points
           (CAPWAP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
     3.8.  Access Node Control Protocol (ANCP)  . . . . . . . . . . . 34
     3.9.  Application Configuration Access Protocol (ACAP) . . . . . 34
     3.10. XML Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP) . . . . . . . . . 35
   4.  Network Management Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
     4.1.  Fault Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
     4.2.  Configuration Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
     4.3.  Accounting Management  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
     4.4.  Performance Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


     4.5.  Security Management  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
   7.  Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
   8.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
   9.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
   Appendix A.  High Level Classification of Management Protocols
                and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
     A.1.  Protocols classified by the Standard Maturity at IETF  . . 64
     A.2.  Protocols Matched to Management Tasks  . . . . . . . . . . 65
     A.3.  Push versus Pull Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
     A.4.  Passive versus Active Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
     A.5.  Supported Data Model Types and their Extensibility . . . . 67
   Appendix B.  New Work related to IETF Management Standards . . . . 69
     B.1.  Energy Management (EMAN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
   Appendix C.  Open issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
   Appendix D.  Change Log  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
     D.1.  01-02  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
     D.2.  00-01  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
     D.3.  draft-ersue-opsawg-management-fw-03-00 . . . . . . . . . . 72
     D.4.  Change Log from draft-ersue-opsawg-management-fw . . . . . 73
       D.4.1.  02-03  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
       D.4.2.  01-02  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
       D.4.3.  00-01  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73



























Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


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 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 Proposed, Draft and Standard Level data models, such as MIB
   modules, IPFIX Information Elements, SYSLOG Structured Data Elements,
   and YANG modules designed to address specific set of management
   issues.  The data models are structured following the management
   application view and mapped 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
   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 Full Standard
   documents at IETF (see [RFCSEARCH]).  As far as valuable Best Current
   Practice (BCP) documents are referenced.  In exceptional cases and if



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   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: The final document will not contain any references to Internet-
   Drafts.  Current references in the document are assumed to be
   published soon.

   RFC Editor: Please delete the note above before publication.

1.2.  Related Work

   [RFC6272] 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.

   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.

   Note that the document does not cover OAM technologies on the data-
   path, e.g.  OAM of tunnels, MPLS-TP OAM, Pseudowire, etc.  [RFC6371]
   describes the OAM Framework for MPLS-based Transport Networks.  There
   is an ongoing work on the overview of the OAM toolset for detecting
   and reporting connection failures or measurement of connection
   performance parameters [I-D.ietf-opsawg-oam-overview].



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


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

   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.



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   o  Management Information Base (MIB): An information repository with
      related collection of objects that represent an aggregation of
      resources to be managed.  MIB modules are defined by using the
      modeling language SMI.

   o  MIB module: A MIB definition, typically for a particular network
      technology feature, that constitutes a subtree in an object
      identifier tree.  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, XSD, and YANG.

   o  Notification: An event message.

   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  Relax NG: REgular LAnguage for XML Next Generation, a schema
      language for XML.

   o  SDO: Standard Development Organization

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

   o  URI: Uniform Resource Identifier, a string of characters used to
      identify a name or a resource on the Internet.  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.

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:



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   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.

   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 [RFC2578][RFC2579], 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.








Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


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 a Trap PDU, an Inform
   message, a bulk 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 was issued as a set of Proposed
   Standards (see [STD62]).

   [BCP74][RFC3584] "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 (see [RFC3584]).

   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



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   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 reinitialization 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] is a Full Standard that the IETF has declared
   Historic and it is not recommended due to its lack of security
   features.  "Community-based SNMPv2" [RFC1901] is an Experimental RFC,
   which IETF has declared Historic and it is not recommended due to its
   lack of security features.

   SNMPv3 [STD62] is a Full Standard that is recommended 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][RFC0793], User Datagram Protocol (UDP) [STD6][RFC0768],
   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



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


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

   o  [STD58][RFC2579] defines common MIB "Textual Conventions",

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

   o  [RFC3584] 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
   principal threats, secondary threats, and threats which are of lesser
   importance (see [RFC3411] for the detailed description of the
   security threats).

   The principal 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 within this
   architecture 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 a Security Model within this
   architecture does not protect, since they are deemed to be of lesser
   importance in this context: "Denial of Service" and "Traffic
   Analysis" (see [RFC3411]).




Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


2.1.4.2.  User-Based Security Model (USM)

   SNMPv3 [STD62] introduced the User Security Model (USM).  USM
   provides authentication and privacy services for SNMP and is
   specified in [RFC3414].  Specifically, USM is designed to secure
   against the principal 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.

   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 [RFC3415] enables the configuration of agents to
   provide different levels of access to the agent's MIB.  An agent
   entity can restrict access to its MIB for a particular manager entity
   in two ways:

   o  The agent entity can restrict access to a certain portion of its
      MIB, e.g., an agent may restrict most manager principals to
      viewing performance-related statistics and allow only a single
      designated manager principal to view and update configuration
      parameters.

   o  The agent can limit the operations that a principal can use on
      that portion of the MIB.  E.g., a particular manager principal
      could be limited to read-only access to a portion of an agent's
      MIB.



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   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.

   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 Security Model [RFC3584], the SNMPv2c Security Model
   [RFC3584], and the User-based Security Model [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.



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 13]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   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 or the Datagram TLS (DTLS) 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.

   Note: Different IETF standards use security layers to address
   security threads (e.g.  TLS [RFC5246], Simple Authentication and
   Security Layer (SASL) [RFC4422], and SSH [RFC4251]).  Diverse
   management interfaces from IETF use a secure transport layer to
   provide secure information and message exchange to build management
   applications, e.g.  SYSLOG [RFC5424], IPFIX [RFC5101] and NETCONF
   [RFC4741].

   [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
   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.  IETF documented the status quo of
   the BSD SYSLOG protocol in the Informational [RFC3164].  The IETF
   SYSLOG protocol [RFC5424] obsoletes [RFC3164] and introduces a
   layered architecture allowing the use of any number of transport
   protocols, including reliable and secure transports, for transmission
   of SYSLOG messages.

   The body of an BSD SYSLOG message has traditionally been unstructured
   text.  This content is human-friendly, but difficult to parse for
   applications.  The content of BSD SYSLOG messages correlate across
   vendors and with other event reporting such as SNMP traps.

   The SYSLOG protocol enables a machine to send system log messages



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 14]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   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 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 and the IETF Alarm MIB.

   [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.

   The SYSLOG protocol layered architecture provides support for any
   number of transport mappings.  However, for interoperability
   purposes, SYSLOG protocol implementers are required to support the
   transmission of SYSLOG Messages over UDP as defined in [RFC5426].

   [RFC3195] 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



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 15]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   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 4.1.

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

   The IPFIX protocol [RFC5101], IP Flow Information eXport, is a
   Proposed Standard, which 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)
   specified in [RFC3758].  [I-D.ietf-ipfix-export-per-sctp-stream]
   specifies an extension to RFC 5101, 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).




Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 16]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   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 to IPFIX for reporting bi-directional flows, 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 for providing type
   information of 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
   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
   [RFC4741] (see Section 2.4.1).  The 'Configuration Data Model for
   IPFIX and PSAMP' is ongoing work and is specified using Unified
   Modeling Language (UML) class diagrams.  The data model is formally
   defined using the YANG modeling language [RFC6020] in
   [I-D.draft-ietf-ipfix-configuration-model] (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



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 17]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   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
   [RFC4347].

   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, IPPM.  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.

   With further information elements, IPFIX can also be applied to
   monitoring of application-level protocols, for example, Session
   Initiation Protocol (SIP) [RFC3261] and related media transfer
   protocols.  Requirements to such a monitoring on the application
   level include measuring signaling quality (e.g., session request
   delay, session completion ratio, or hops for request), media Quality
   of Service (QoS) (e.g., jitter, delay or bit rate), and user
   experience (e.g., Mean Opinion Score).

   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



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 18]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   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 4.1 and Section 4.2.  For information
   on IPFIX/PSAMP IEs see Section 4.3.

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,

   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





Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 19]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   o  Secure transport, authentication, and robust access control.

   The NETCONF protocol [RFC4741] is a Proposed Standard that 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 [RFC4742].  Other optional transport
   bindings are TLS [RFC5539], BEEP (over TLS) [RFC4744], and SOAP (over
   HTTP over TLS) [RFC4743].

   The NETCONF working group updated the NETCONF base protocol standard
   as [RFC6241] and the SSH transport protocol mapping as [RFC6242].

   At the time of this writing NETCONF Access Control Model (NACM) is
   being specified.  NACM proposes standard mechanisms to restrict
   protocol access to particular users with a pre-configured subset of
   operations and content.




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


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


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].

   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.



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 21]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   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 is currently preparing the normative model for
   configuring and monitoring IPFIX and PSAMP compliant monitoring
   devices using the YANG modeling language
   [I-D.draft-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 4.1 and Section 4.2.

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.




Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 22]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


3.1.  IP Address Management

3.1.1.  Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP)

   The Draft Standard Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP)
   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 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 lists of DHCP
   options are available at [IANA-PROT].

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

   o  [RFC2610] 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.





Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 23]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   o  [RFC3319] 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] defines DHCPv6 options to discover the Broadcast and
      Multicast Service (BCMCS) controller in an IP network.

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

   o  The Proposed Standard [RFC4213] 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] lists different scenarios in 3GPP defined packet network
      that would need IPv6 and IPv4 transition, where [RFC4215] 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] describes and analyzes different scenarios for the
      introduction of IPv6 into an ISP's existing IPv4 network.



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 24]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


      [RFC5181] 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] 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  [I-D.weil-shared-transition-space-request] 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
   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



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 25]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   Policy Information Base (PIB) modules.  COPS-PR [RFC3084] uses the
   Common Open Policy Service (COPS) protocol [RFC2748] for provisioning
   of policy information.  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.

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 introduced widely in the
   industry and adopted by different SDOs such as the Metro Ethernet
   Forum.




Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 26]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   Following are examples of essential IPPM documents published as
   Proposed Standard:

   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
      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] [RFC6390] "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 have been standardized:



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 27]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   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.

   o  [RFC5357] "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", adds
      round-trip or two-way measurement capabilities to OWAMP.

   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].

   For information on MIB modules related to IP Performance Metrics see
   Section 4.4.

3.5.  Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)

   RADIUS [RFC2865], the Remote Authentication Dial In User Service, is
   a Draft Standard that 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
   are used to further protect the RADIUS traffic.  However, building
   and administering large IPsec protected networks may become a



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 28]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   management burden, especially when IPsec protected RADIUS
   infrastructure should provide inter-provider connectivity.  A trend
   has been moving towards TLS-based security solutions 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
   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



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 29]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   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) payload between the authenticator and
   the EAP server using RADIUS.  RFC3579 is widely implemented, for
   example, in WLAN and 802.1X environment.  [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] 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 4.3 and Section 4.5 ).

3.6.  Diameter Base Protocol (DIAMETER)

   DIAMETER [RFC3588] is a Proposed Standard that 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,




Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 30]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   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,

   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 an 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],

   o  Diameter Base Accounting Application [RFC3588],

   o  Diameter Mobile IPv4 Application [RFC4004],

   o  Diameter Network Access Server Application (NASREQ, [RFC4005]),

   o  Diameter Extensible Authentication Protocol Application [RFC4072],

   o  Diameter Credit-Control Application [RFC4006],

   o  Diameter Session Initiation Protocol Application [RFC4740], and

   o  Diameter Quality-of-Service Application [RFC5866].

   o  Diameter Mobile IPv6 IKE (MIP6I) Application [RFC5778].




Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 31]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   o  Diameter Mobile IPv6 Auth (MIP6A) Application [RFC5778].

   o  Diameter Relay Agent Application [RFC3588].

   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].  One of the major changes is the
   introduction of TLS as the preferred security mechanism and
   deprecating 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:

   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  The ongoing work on "Diameter Extended NAPTR" [I-D.ietf-dime-
      extended-naptr] describes an improved DNS-based dynamic DIAMETER
      Agent discovery mechanism without having to do DIAMETER capability
      exchange beforehand with a number of agents.



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 32]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   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 4.5.

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
   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



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 33]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   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 [RFC4347].  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.

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
   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 a
   Proposed Standard protocol 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



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 34]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   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] is a Proposed Standard protocol that allows a client
   to read, write, and modify application configuration data stored in
   XML format on a server.

   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
   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.

4.  Network Management Data Models

   This section lists management data models standardized at IETF, which
   can be reused and applied to different management solutions.  The



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 35]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   subsections below are structured following the management application
   view and focus mainly on the management data models for the network
   management tasks fault, configuration, accounting, performance, and
   security management.

   The advancement process for management data models beyond Proposed
   Standard status, has been defined in [BCP27][RFC2438] with a more
   pragmatic approach and special considerations on data model
   specification interoperability.  However, most IETF management data
   models never advance beyond Proposed Standard.

   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 different data models covered in this section are MIB modules,
   IPFIX Information Elements, SYSLOG Structured Data Elements, and YANG
   modules.

   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.  This
   document provides an overview of IETF data models with an FCAPS view
   to enable people outside of IETF to understand the relevant data
   models.  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].

4.1.  Fault Management

   Draft Standards:

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

   [RFC3413], part of SNMPv3 standard [STD62], includes 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 MIB II [RFC1229] and is
   used for managing and monitoring of network interfaces.  The
   'interfaces' group in MIB II [RFC1229] defines a generic set of
   managed objects and provides the means for additional managed objects
   specific to particular types of network interfaces, such as Ethernet.
   Extensions to the 'interfaces' group for media-specific management



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 36]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   can be defined based on these managed objects.  Experience with
   media-specific MIB modules has shown that the model defined by MIB-II
   is too simplistic and static for some types of media-specific
   management.  The Interfaces Group MIB incorporates the interfaces
   group extensions documented in MIB II and standardizes an evolution
   to this model as well as fills in the detected gaps.

   An RMON (Remote Network Monitoring) monitor [RFC2819] can be
   configured to recognize conditions, most notably error conditions,
   and continuously to check for them.  When one of these conditions
   occurs, the event may be logged, and management stations may be
   notified in a number of ways (for further discussion on RMON see
   Section 4.4).

   Proposed Standards:

   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 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



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 37]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


      supply voltage).

   The SYSLOG protocol document [RFC5424] defines an initial set of
   Structured Data Elements (SDEs) that relate to content time quality,
   content origin, and meta-information about the message, such as
   language.  Proprietary SDEs can be used to supplement the IETF-
   defined SDEs.

   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 necessary data model to monitor
   the NETCONF protocol with the modeling language YANG [RFC6022].  The
   monitoring data model includes information about NETCONF datastores,
   sessions, locks, and statistics, which facilitate the management of a
   NETCONF server.  NETCONF monitoring RFC 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.  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.

   Draft standards:

   [RFC3418] contains objects in the system group useful e.g. for
   identifying the type of device, the location of the device, the
   person responsible for the device.  [RFC3413], part of STD 62 SNMPv3,
   includes objects designed for configuring notification destinations,
   and for configuring proxy- forwarding SNMP agents, which can be used
   to forward messages through firewalls and Network Address Translation
   (NAT) devices.

   The Interfaces Group MIB [RFC2863] is used for the configuration and
   monitoring of network interface parameters.  [RFC2863] includes the



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 38]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   'interfaces' group of MIB-II and discusses the experience gained from
   the definition of numerous media-specific MIB modules for use in
   conjunction with the 'interfaces' group for managing various sub-
   layers beneath the internetwork-layer.

   Proposed standards:

   The Entity MIB [RFC4133] is used for managing multiple logical and
   physical entities managed by a single SNMP agent.  This module
   provides a useful mechanism for identifying the entities comprising a
   system.  There are also event notifications defined for configuration
   changes that may be useful to management applications.

   [RFC3165] supports the use of user-written scripts to delegate
   management functionality.

   Policy Based Management MIB [RFC4011] defines objects that enable
   policy-based monitoring using SNMP, using a scripting language, and a
   script execution environment.

   Few vendors have implemented MIB modules that support scripting.
   Some vendors consider running user-developed scripts within the
   managed device as a violation of support agreements.

   For configuring IPFIX and PSMAP devices, the IPFIX working group is
   currently developing an XML-based configuration data model [I-D.ietf-
   ipfix-configuration-model], in close collaboration with the NETMOD
   working group.  IPFIX configuration data model uses YANG as modeling
   language (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.

   Non-standard data models:

   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.



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 39]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


4.3.  Accounting Management

   Non-standard data models:

   [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
   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: IEs related
   to identification of IP flows and IEs related to counter and
   timestamps.

   Following are examples of IEs related to identification of IP flows:

   o  Identifiers for line cards, ports, interfaces, etc...

   o  IP header fields such as source and destination IP addresses

   o  Transport header fields such as UDP and TCP ports

   o  Sub-IP header fields such as source and destination MAC address,
      MPLS label stack entries

   o  Derived packet properties such as IGP and BGP next hop IP address,
      BGP AS, etc.

   o  Min/max flow properties such as the minimum and maximum IP total
      length and Time To Live (TTL)

   Below are examples of IEs related to counter and timestamps:

   o  Flow timestamps such as flow start times, flow end times, and flow
      duration,




Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 40]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   o  Per flow counters such as octets count, packets count,

   o  Miscellaneous flow properties such as flow duration.

   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].

4.4.  Performance Management

   Full Standards:

   RMON (Remote Network Monitoring) MIB [RFC2819] has the Full Standard
   status [STD59] and defines objects for managing remote network
   devices and collecting data related to network performance and
   traffic.  An organization may employ many remote management probes,
   one per network segment, to manage its internet.  These devices may
   be used by a network service provider to access a client network,
   often geographically remote.  Most of the objects in the RMON MIB
   module are suitable for the management of any type of network, where
   some of them are specific to management 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.

   The RMON host group discovers hosts on the network by keeping a list
   of source and destination MAC Addresses seen in good packets
   promiscuously received from the network, and contains statistics
   associated with each host.  The hostTopN group is used to prepare
   reports that describe the hosts that top a list ordered by one of
   their statistics.  The available statistics are samples of one of
   their base statistics over an interval specified by the management
   station.  Thus, these statistics are rate based.  The management
   station also selects how many such hosts are reported.

   The RMON matrix group stores statistics for conversations between
   sets of two addresses.  The filter group allows packets to be matched
   by a filter equation.  These matched packets form a data stream that



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 41]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   may be captured or may generate events.  The Packet Capture group
   allows packets to be captured after they flow through a channel.  The
   event group controls the generation and notification of events from
   this device.

   Draft standards:

   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.

   Proposed standards:

   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 is part of the RMON protocol family, and supports
   end-2-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
   [RFC2819] and describes managed objects used for real-time
   application Quality of Service (QoS) monitoring.  [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
   architecture created in the RMON MIB and defines objects by providing
   measurement and analysis of the application performance as
   experienced by end-users.  Application performance measurement
   measures the quality of service delivered to end-users by
   applications.




Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 42]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   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 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.

   The IPPM working group has defined [BCP108][RFC4148] "IP Performance
   Metrics (IPPM) Metrics Registry".  The IANA-assigned registry
   contains an initial set of OBJECT IDENTITIES to currently defined
   metrics in the IETF as well as defines the rules for adding IP
   Performance Metrics that are defined in the future.  However, the
   current registry structure has been found to be insufficiently
   detailed to uniquely identify IPPM metrics.  Due to the ambiguities
   between the current metrics registrations and the metrics used, and
   the apparent non-adoption of the registry in practice, it has been
   proposed to reclassify [RFC4148] as Obsolete.

   Note: With the publication of [RFC6248] the latest IANA registry for
   IPPM metrics and [RFC4148] have been declared Obsolete and IANA
   prevents registering new metrics.  Actual users can continue using
   the current registry and its contents.

   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.

4.5.  Security Management

   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



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 43]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


      RADIUS authentication server functions.

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

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

   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], [RFC4670],
   [RFC4671], [RFC4672], [RFC4673] are intended to be used only for
   RADIUS over UDP and therefore do not support RADIUS/TCP.  There is
   also a recommendation that RADIUS clients and servers implementing
   RADIUS/TCP should not re-use earlier listed MIB modules to perform
   statistics counting for RADIUS/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' [I-D.ietf-dime-
   diameter-base-protocol-mib] and the 'Diameter Credit-Control
   Application' [I-D.ietf-dime-diameter-cc-appl-mib].

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 introduces no new security concerns.

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





Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 44]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


7.  Contributors

   Following persons made significant contributions to 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
      section on YANG.

8.  Acknowledgements

   The editor would like to thank to Tom Petch, Dan Romascanu, Henk
   Uijterwaal, Alex Clemm, and Randy Presuhn 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.  While this draft expired, the editor used it as a
   starting point and enhanced it with a special focus on the
   description of the IETF network management standards and management
   data models.

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>.

   [BCP108]      Emile, S., "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Metrics
                 Registry", August 2005.

   [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



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 45]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


                 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>.

   [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
                 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, <http://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>.

   [RFC0768]     Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
                 August 1980.

   [RFC0793]     Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
                 RFC 793, September 1981.




Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 46]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


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

   [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.

   [RFC1229]     McCloghrie, K., "Extensions to the generic-interface
                 MIB", RFC 1229, May 1991.

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

   [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.

   [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.

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

   [RFC2438]     O'Dell, M., Alvestrand, H., Wijnen, B., and S. Bradner,
                 "Advancement of MIB specifications on the IETF
                 Standards Track", BCP 27, RFC 2438, October 1998.



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 47]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   [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.

   [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.

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




Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 48]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   [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. 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.



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 49]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   [RFC3159]     McCloghrie, K., Fine, M., Seligson, J., Chan, K., Hahn,
                 S., Sahita, R., Smith, A., and F. Reichmeyer,
                 "Structure of Policy Provisioning Information (SPPI)",
                 RFC 3159, August 2001.

   [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.

   [RFC3261]     Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G.,
                 Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M.,
                 and E. Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol",
                 RFC 3261, June 2002.

   [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", 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,



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 50]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


                 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 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 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



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 51]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


                 Management Workshop", RFC 3535, May 2003.

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

   [RFC3584]     Frye, R., Levi, D., Routhier, S., and B. Wijnen,
                 "Coexistence between Version 1, Version 2, and Version
                 3 of the Internet-standard Network Management
                 Framework", BCP 74, RFC 3584, August 2003.

   [RFC3588]     Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and
                 J. Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588,
                 September 2003.

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

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




Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 52]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   [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, 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.

   [RFC4011]     Waldbusser, S., Saperia, J., and T. Hongal, "Policy
                 Based Management MIB", RFC 4011, 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) Application",
                 RFC 4072, August 2005.

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




Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 53]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   [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.

   [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",
                 RFC 4215, October 2005.

   [RFC4251]     Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, "The Secure Shell (SSH)
                 Protocol Architecture", RFC 4251, January 2006.

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

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

   [RFC4347]     Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
                 Security", RFC 4347, April 2006.

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

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

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

   [RFC4669]     Nelson, D., "RADIUS Authentication Server MIB for



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 54]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


                 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, 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.

   [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 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.

   [RFC4741]     Enns, R., "NETCONF Configuration Protocol", RFC 4741,
                 December 2006.

   [RFC4742]     Wasserman, M. and T. Goddard, "Using the NETCONF
                 Configuration Protocol over Secure SHell (SSH)",
                 RFC 4742, December 2006.



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 55]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   [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.

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

   [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.

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

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



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 56]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


                 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.

   [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.

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



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 57]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


                 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.

   [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.



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 58]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


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

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



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 59]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


                 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.

   [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



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 60]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


                 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", RFC 5866, May 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.

   [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 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",



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 61]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


                 BCP 158, RFC 6158, March 2011.

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

   [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.

   [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.

   [RFC6390]     Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering
                 New Performance Metric Development", BCP 170, RFC 6390,
                 October 2011.

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



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 62]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


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

   [STD58]       McCloghrie, K., David, D., and J. Juergen, "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.

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

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

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



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 63]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


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 Full Standard, are defined in [RFC2026].  IETF
   specifications must have "multiple, independent, and interoperable
   implementations" before they can be advanced from Proposed to Draft
   Standard status.  An Internet or Full Standard (also referred as
   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)             | Full Standard   |
   | SYSLOG [RFC5424] (Section 2.2)                  | Proposed        |
   |                                                 | Standard        |
   | IPFIX [RFC5101] (Section 2.3)                   | Proposed        |
   |                                                 | Standard        |
   | PSAMP [RFC5476] (Section 2.3)                   | Proposed        |
   |                                                 | Standard        |
   | NETCONF [RFC4741] (Section 2.4.1)               | Full 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)                   | Full 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        |
   | XCAP [RFC4825] (Section 3.10)                   | Proposed        |
   |                                                 | Standard        |
   +-------------------------------------------------+-----------------+



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 64]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


        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.

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.



Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 65]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   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.















Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 66]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   +---------------------------------+---------------------------------+
   | 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 May 3, 2012                 [Page 67]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   +----------------+--------------------+---------------+-------------+
   | Protocol       | Data Modeling      | Approach to   | Proprietary |
   |                |                    | extend the    | Data        |
   |                |                    | Data Model    | 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 4.1)      | 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      |             |
   |                |                    | specified in  |             |
   |                |                    | [RFC5102]     |             |
   | PSAMP          | PSAMP Information  | With the      | Enterprise  |
   | (Section 2.3)  | Elements, PSAMP    | procedure to  | specific    |
   |                | IANA registry at   | add           | Information |
   |                | [IANA-PSAMP]       | Information   | Elements    |
   |                | (Section 2.3)      | Elements      |             |
   |                |                    | specified in  |             |
   |                |                    | [RFC5102]     |             |
   | 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]    | (VSA)       |
   |                |                    | and           |             |
   |                |                    | [IANA-PROT]   |             |





Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 68]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   | DIAMETER       | Attribute-Value    | DIAMETER      | Vendor      |
   | (Section 3.6)  | Pairs (AVP)        | related       | Specific    |
   |                |                    | registry at   | Attributes  |
   |                |                    | [IANA-AAA]    | (VSA)       |
   | 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, in which cases 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 May 3, 2012                 [Page 69]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   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 for 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 for reporting detailed
      properties of the actual charge, age, and state of a battery and
      of battery statistics.





Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 70]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   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 the other existing standards such
      as those from the IEC, ANSI, DMTF, and others.  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.  Open issues

   o  Add a section or appendix for the high-level overview of IETF MIB
      modules in contrast to the overview of data models following the
      FCAPS-based view for management applications

Appendix D.  Change Log

   RFC EDITOR: Please remove this appendix before publication.

D.1.  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 [I-D.weil-shared-transition-space-request] assuming that
      it'll get published pretty fast

   o  Added RFC references

   o  Removed text on expired drafts








Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 71]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


D.2.  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"

   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

D.3.  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





Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 72]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   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.

   o  Added numerous references

D.4.  Change Log from draft-ersue-opsawg-management-fw

D.4.1.  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.

D.4.2.  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.

D.4.3.  00-01

   o  Extended text for SNMP





Ersue & Claise             Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 73]


Internet-Draft          IETF Management Standards           October 2011


   o  Extended RADIUS and DIAMETER sections.

   o  Added references.

   o  Bug fixing.

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 May 3, 2012                 [Page 74]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/