As per Relevance of the word definition, we have this rfc below:
Network Working Group V.
Request for Comments: 1052
April 1988
IAB Recommendations for the Development
Internet Network Management
Status of this
This memo is intended to convey to the Internet community and
interested parties the recommendations of the Internet
Board (IAB) for the development of network management protocols
use in the TCP/IP environment. The memo does NOT, in and of itself
define or propose an Official Internet Protocol. It does reflect
however, the policy of the IAB with respect to further
management development in the short and the long term.
of this memo is unlimited
At the IAB meeting on 21 March 88 in videoconference, the report
the Ad Hoc Network Management Review Committee was reviewed.
recommendations of the committee were endorsed by the IAB
direction given to the chairman of the Internet Engineering
Force to take the necessary steps to implement the recommendations
The IAB expressed its gratitude for the efforts of the HEMS, SNMP
CMIP/CMIS working groups and urged that parties with
interest in the outcome of the network management working
convey their ideas and issues to the relevant working group chairmen
The IETF chairman was directed to form two new working groups, one
which would be responsible for the further specification
definition of elements to be included in the Management
Base (MIB). The other would be responsible for defining
to the Simple Network Management Protocol to accommodate the short
term needs of the network vendor and operator communities.
longer-term needs of the Internet community are to be met using
ISO CMIS/CMIP framework as a basis. A working group of the
exists for this work and would continue its work, coordinating
the two new groups and reporting to the IETF chairman for guidance
The output of the MIB working group is to be provided to both
SNMP working group and the CMIS/CMIP ["Netman"] working group so
to assure compatibility of monitored items for both
management frameworks
Cerf [Page 1]
RFC 1052 Internet Management April 1988
Specific
The IAB recommends that the Simple Network Management Protocol
adopted as the BASIS for network management in the short-term
Extensions may be required to the existing SNMP specification
accommodate additional data types or to deal with functional
performance issues arising as multiple SNMP implementations
deployed and applied, especially in multi-vendor applications
The SNMP working group constituted by the IETF is charged
considering requirements not met by the present SNMP definition
defining extensions, if necessary, to accommodate these needs,
preparing revisions of the SNMP specifications to address any
extensions
The IAB urges the working group to be extremely sensitive to the
to keep SNMP simple, to work quickly to come to concensus on
revisions needed and to promulgate expeditiously the results of
work in one or more RFCs within the next 90 days. The IETF
is responsible for resolving disagreements arising if they cannot
resolved within the working group and is instructed to
problems quickly to the IAB should resolution not be forthcoming
The IAB further recommends that the MIB working group begin its
equally expeditiously, taking as its starting inputs the
definitions found in the existing High-Level Entity
Systems (HEMS) RFC-1024, the SNMP IDEA-11, and CMIS/CMIP IDEAs
It is the intention of the IAB that the MIB definitions be
both to the SNMP system in the short term and CMIS/CMIP for TCP/IP
the longer term. The three working groups will have to
their efforts carefully to achieve these objectives
1. Rapid convergence and definition for SNMP
2. Rapid convergence and definition for the TCP/IP MIB
3. Provision for transitioning from SNMP to CMIP/CMIS
4. Early demonstration of the CMIP/CMIS capability using
TCP/IP MIB
The IAB remains extremely interested in progress towards these
and intends to have representation, whenever possible, in the
working group and IETF plenary activities
Cerf [Page 2]
RFC 1052 Internet Management April 1988
REPORT OF THE AD HOC NETWORK MANAGEMENT REVIEW
Edited by Vinton Cerf,
March 1988
EXECUTIVE
On 29 February 88, an ad hoc committee was convened to review
network management options for the Internet in particular and
TCP/IP protocol suite in general. This meeting was called at
request of the Internet Activities Board in the course of
its responsibilities to the Federal Research Internet
Council (FRICC) and by the MITRE Corporation as a consequence of
work for the U.S. Air Force on the ULANA project
At the conclusion of the one day meeting, it was agreed that
following recommendations be forwarded to the Internet
Board chairman, Dr. David C. Clark, for consideration at the next
meeting scheduled for 21 March
1. In the short term, the Internet community should adopt
adapt the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) for use as
basis of common network management throughout the system
(Rationale: The software is available and in operation.)
2. In the longer term, the Internet research community and
vendors should develop, deploy and test a network
system based on the International Standards Organization (ISO
Common Management Information Services/Common
Information Protocol (CMIS/CMIP).
(Rationale: The Internet community can take the high ground
protocol development by virtue of the experimental environment
which it can operate. Recommendations to the ISO from
community, the IAB and the vendors will carry great weight if
are in the language of the ISO common network management
and if they are rooted in actual experience with
and use in the field.)
3. Responsibility for the SNMP effort should be placed in
hands of an IETF task force
(Rationale: Eliminate vendor-specific bias or control over
SNMP and its evolution and harmonize inputs from the
community.)
Cerf [Page 3]
RFC 1052 Internet Management April 1988
4. As a high priority effort, define an extended
Information Base (MIB) for SNMP and TCP/IP CMIP to bring them
closer conformance with the MIB defined for the
HighLevel Entity Management System (HEMS).
(Rationale: The HEMS effort produced a very thorough and widely
discussed set of elements to monitor, along with definitions
the semantics of these elements. The current SNMP definitions
more restricted and the CMIP definitions less precise
Implementation of SNMP in a timely and useful fashion through
Internet cannot be satisfactorily completed without such
definition of information elements in hand.)
The ad hoc committee therefore recommends immediate action by
IAB on all four of these points. It should be noted that
resolution would not have been possible in such a timely
without the statesman-like efforts of Craig Partridge who, at
end of the day, recommended that the HEMS effort be withdrawn
consideration so as to pave the way for an Internet-
agreement. In consideration of this unselfish act, the ad
committee urges the IAB to approve the recommendations above
to instruct the IETF to move quickly to accept and act on the
items requiring completion
1.
During its development history, the community of researchers
developers, implementors and users of the DARPA/DoD TCP/IP
suite have experimented with a wide range of protocols in a
of different networking environments. The Internet has grown
especially in the last few years, as a result of the
availability of software and hardware supporting this system.
scaling of the size and scope of the Internet and increased use
its technology in commercial applications has underscored
researchers, developers and vendors the need for a common
management framework within which TCP/IP products can be made
work
In recognition of this need, several efforts were started to
network management concepts which might be applied to the
and to the internet technology in general. Three of these
had made sufficient progress by the end of 1987 that it became
that some choices had to be made or the community would find
with a set of incompatible network management tools. These
included the High-Level Entity Management System (HEMS), the
Gateway Monitoring Protocol (SGMP) and the Common
Information Service/Protocol
Cerf [Page 4]
RFC 1052 Internet Management April 1988
The latter is an ISO initiative which was adapted to Internet use
a vendor-initiated effort. The HEMS work was carried out in
context of the Gateway Monitoring group of the Internet
Task Force. The SGMP effort was carried out largely in the
context of the NYSERNET and SURAnet regional networks which
network management facilities to operate satisfactorily
Independent of the general Internet situation and requirements,
U.S. Air Force has been pursuing a Universal Local Area
Architecture (ULANA) for its own use. The principal agent for
development of the ULANA specifications is the MITRE Corporation
Faced with several long and short term network management options
the MITRE ULANA specification team initiated an effort
substantial vendor participation called the NETMAN working group
It was against this fabric of various options that the IAB
a chairman to convene a review committee to discuss these
options and to make recommendations on long and short term choices
The MITRE Corporation co-sponsored this work to further its aims
the specification of the ULANA design
Reference material listed at the end of this report was provided
advance of the meeting
2.
Rather than attempting to produce minutes of the meeting,
section summarizes in very high level terms the substance of
discussion which took place during most of the meeting.
viewgraphs can be made available to IAB/FRICC members interested
their contents
The agenda was followed fairly closely with the
presentations made in the order suggested: HEMS, SGMP, CMIP/CMIS
The HEMS effort has established a benchmark for other
management work in the sense that it took a comprehensive
view of the problem and went into considerable detail on the
of the underlying management information database, the mechanics
access to and reporting of information, considerations of scaling
performance (e.g., Query Language vs Remote Procedure Call style),
definition of information required and so on. HEMS has
implemented in an experimental version from which some
performance measurements were taken. Serious vendor interest in
protocol was expressed by Cisco Systems and implementation
were under way as of the meeting
The SGMP effort, though somewhat less documented, was rooted in
Cerf [Page 5]
RFC 1052 Internet Management April 1988
practical need for network management tools for the NYSERNET
SURAnet, and, by extension, other components of the Internet
Implementations of it exist, in its RFC-1028 form (probably with
experimental extensions based on experience gained from the
work), and are in use today. Serious vendor support for this work
found at Proteon and, more recently, in the NSFNET effort by MERIT
IBM and MCI, specifically in the IBM Network Switching System (NSS
nodes. Applications running above SGMP exist and provide
monitoring information, presented in easily grasped form
The ISO CMIS/CMIP effort, voluminously documented, has had almost
implementation as yet. Reports from Unisys/SDC about an
implementation were heard at the meeting. There is
momentum in the international community for the adoption of
service and protocol suite for network management. The
Proposal is out for its second ballot (it failed to make
International Standard on its first ballot). There is vocal
support for this work, based on the premise that ultimately the
protocol suite will propagate and the vendors must support it
In general, all of the network management proposals make use of
Abstract Syntax Notation 1 (ASN.1) which has emerged from the
efforts as a kind of lingua franca for the representation
arbitrary data structures. The data types used in the
Management Information Base (aspects of network components to
monitored) are the most restricted of the three proposals,
to integers and octet strings only. HEMS has the most
Management Information Base and added some rather unique ideas
as self-knowledge about what could be monitored so that
device/unit/component could respond to a query asking "what can
tell me about yourself and your operation and how is it represented?"
(!). CMIS/CMIP is probably the broadest in scope, but less
defined at this point, with respect to information which should
monitored. The draft RFCs referenced above relating to the CMIS/
concerning items to be monitored are still in the definition stages
A point made strongly by the HEMS team was their concern that
Remote Operations basis for CMIP may not scale well into a very
Internet which needs to be monitored from a few central sites
Remote Operations is a term used by ISO and means, roughly, what
Internet community has long referred to as Remote Procedure Calls
If each atomic action is a Remote Procedure Call, the HEMS
argues that increasing Internet size and potential delays may
constrain the amount and timeliness of information which can
collected. The HEMS design uses, instead, a general query
approach which permits more elaborate, multi-variable queries to
formulated at the requesting site and processed at the
site(s).
Cerf [Page 6]
RFC 1052 Internet Management April 1988
Although it does substantial injustice to the very lucid and
presentations by representatives of each of the network
research groups, I have chosen to leave out much of the detail
this report and move directly to the points of agreement which
reached by the Committee
3. POINTS OF
(i) Future Internet development is a joint interest of the R&
community, the vendor community and the user community
[Editor's comment: The development of the Internet is now not
dependent on research work, but on the hardware and software
vendors selling to both commercial ("internet") and the
environment ("Internet"). Moreover, the Internet users are not
concerned with network research; many of the components of
Internet are based on vendor-supplied and supported subsystems.]
(ii) We still don't have a common understanding of
[Inter]Network Management really is
[Editor's comment: We haven't tried to manage the Internet as
collection of autonomous systems in an effective way, yet.]
(iii) We will learn what [Inter]Network Management is by doing it
(a) in as large a scale as is
(b) with as much diversity of implementation as
(c) over as wide a range of protocol layers as
(d) with as much administrative diversity as we can stand
(iv) There are more than HEMS, SGMP and CMIS/CMIP as
candidates
HEMS, SGMP, CMIS/CMIP [multiple profiles], NETVIEW
LANMANAGER, Network Computing Forum "Fat Document"...
[Editor's comment: The multiplicity of options is motivation
coalescing the energy of the Internet environment around single
and long term foci so as to make more substantial progress in
understanding network management per point (iii).]
(v) Define the Management Information Base for TCP/IP suite NOW
(vi) Seek a seat for IETF on ANSI, ISO and/or CCITT!!!
Cerf [Page 7]
RFC 1052 Internet Management April 1988
[Editor's comment: This may actually be feasible.]
(vii) Define a CMIS interface to any of the surviving
management schemes so as to provide a migration path to ISO
4. RESOLUTION AND
In a dramatic act of statesmanship, Craig Partridge volunteered
the HEMS proposal be dropped in favor of the other two efforts,
and CMIS/CMIP - IF THIS WOULD LEAD TO INTERNET-WIDE AGREEMENT ON
NETWORK MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE SHORT AND LONG TERM
A rationale for the long term was proposed, based on the
that the ISO initiatives, and the U.S. Government issuance of
GOSIP guidelines, would ultimately require at least the
users, and hence their vendor suppliers, to use ISO-based
and tools. In this rationale, the Internet research community and
vendors would "take the high ground" in network management
implementing the CMIS/CMIP on top of the TCP/IP protocol suite
deploy it widely for experimental use in the Internet
Neither the ISO nor any other organization, including the
for Open Systems (COS) has anything close to the laboratory in
that the Internet represents. By taking the initiative, the
working groups can establish credibility based on experience
will make it far more feasible to affect the evolution of the
network management and other related efforts. The Internet
will be able to speak with authority about problems with the
or definition of CMIS/CMIP based on real implementation
and use, rather than solely analytic means
In the short term, however, the Internet desperately needs tools
apply to the operational management problems associated with
rapid growth. Given the present state of advanced implementation
the SGMP and its relative simplicity, the general agreement was
SGMP (or its re-named successor, SNMP) should be quickly brought
more complete specification for widespread implementation and use
In short, the ad hoc committee recommends
1. In the short term, the Internet community should adopt
adapt the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) for use as
basis of common network management throughout the system
(Rationale: The software is available and in operation.)
2. In the longer term, the Internet research community and
vendors should develop, deploy and test a network
Cerf [Page 8]
RFC 1052 Internet Management April 1988
system based on the International Standards Organization (ISO
Common Management Information Services/Common
Information Protocol (CMIS/CMIP).
(Rationale: The Internet community can take the high ground
protocol development by virtue of the experimental environment
which it can operate. Recommendations to the ISO from
community, the IAB and the vendors will carry great weight if
are in the language of the ISO common network management
and if they are rooted in actual experience with
and use in the field.)
3. Responsibility for the SNMP effort should be placed in
hands of an IETF task force
(Rationale: Eliminate vendor-specific bias or control over
SNMP and its evolution and harmonize inputs from the
community.)
4. As a high priority effort, define an extended
Information Base (MIB) for SNMP and TCP/IP CMIP to bring them
closer conformance with the MIB defined for the
HighLevel Entity Management System (HEMS). (Rationale
The HEMS effort produced a very thorough and widely-discussed
of elements to monitor, along with definitions of the semantics
these elements. The current SNMP definitions are more
and the CMIP definitions less precise. Implementation of SNMP in
timely and useful fashion through the Internet cannot
satisfactorily completed without such a definition of
elements in hand.)
Cerf [Page 9]
RFC 1052 Internet Management April 1988
MEMBERS OF THE AD HOC NET MANAGEMENT REVIEW
Amatzia Ben-
Sytek Corp
1225 Charleston Rd
Mountain View, CA 94043
Amatzia@amadeus.stanford.
Bob
USC-
4676 Admiralty
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
braden@isi.
Jeff
University of
200 Stokely Management
Knoxville, TN 37996
case@utkcs2.cs.utk.
Vint Cerf -
Corp. for National Research
1895 Preston White Dr., Suite 100
Reston, VA 22091
(703) 620-8990
Cerf@ISI.
Chuck
Proteon, Inc
2 Technology Dr
Westborough, MA 01536
jrd@monk.proteon.
Stephen
UNISYS Corp
System Development
5151 Camino
Camarillo, CA 93010
dunford@cam.unisys.
Mark
125 Jordan
Troy, NY 12180
fedor@nisc.nyser.
Cerf [Page 10]
RFC 1052 Internet Management April 1988
Phill Gross - IETF
MITRE
1820 Dolley Madison Blvd
McLean, VA 22012
Gross@Gateway.MITRE.
Lee
MITRE
Burlington
Bedford, MA 01730
cel@mitre-bedford.
Dan
Advanced Computing
480 San Antonio Rd
Mountain View, CA 94040
Lynch@isi.
Jim
Apple Computer, Inc
MS 27-0
20525 Mariani Ave
Cupertino, CA 95014
Mathis@Apple.
Craig
BBN
10 Moulton St
Cambridge, MA 02238
craig@bbn.
Marshall T.
The Wollongong Group, Inc
1129 San Antonio
Palo Alto, CA 94043
MRose@twg.
Greg
Cisco
1360 Willow Rd., Suite 201
Menlo Park, CA 94301
satz@cisco.
Martin Lee
125 Jordan
Troy, NY 12180
schoff@nisc.nyser.
Cerf [Page 11]
RFC 1052 Internet Management April 1988
Glenn
Center for Integrated Systems, Room 216
Stanford
Stanford, CA 94305
Trewitt@amadeus.stanford.
MEETING LOCATION: San Diego Supercomputer Center, UC San
LOCAL ARRANGEMENTS: Paul Love,
MEETING DATE: 29 February 1988
AGENDA ITEMS
0900 Introductions and Objectives/
0915 HEMS: Craig Partridge and Glenn
1030
1045 SGMP - Jeff
1145 CMIP/CMIS - Amatzia Ben-
1245 Lunch
1430 TCP/IP and ISO: Politics, Technology, Penetration/
1530
1545 Tradeoffs among alternate paths (Discussion
1700 Resolution of
1730 Summary of conclusions/
1800
Cerf [Page 12]
RFC 1052 Internet Management April 1988
The following reference material was provided in advance of
meeting. Note that some of the citations include
descriptors (such as IDEA numbers or DRAFT letter codes),
example, IDEA-13 or DRAFT-AAAA. IDEA notes may be updated from
to time reusing the same number. The IDEA notes are the
notes of the Engineering Task Force. The DRAFT is a
notation and may not be meaningful for more than a few months
(1) Craig Partridge, "A UNIX Implementation of HEMS", USENIX
February 1988. [Available from C. Partridge, BBN Labs
(2) Craig Partridge and Glenn Trewitt, "The High-Level
Management System", RFC-1021.
(3) Craig Partridge and Glenn Trewitt, "The High-Level
Management Protocol", RFC-1022.
(4) Glenn Trewitt and Craig Partridge, "The HEMS Monitoring
Control Language", RFC-1023.
(5) Craig Partridge and Glenn Trewitt, "HEMS
Definitions", RFC-1024.
(6) Craig Partridge and Glenn Trewitt, "The High-Level
Management System", IEEE Network magazine, March 1988.
SGMP/
(1) James Davin, Jeff Case, Mark Fedor and Martin Schoffstall, "
Simple Gateway Monitoring Protocol", RFC-1028, November 1987.
(2) James Davin, Jeff Case, Mark Fedor and Martin Schoffstall, "
Simple Network Management Protocol", IDEA-11, February 1988,
obsoletes RFC-1028 when issued
(3) Jeffrey R. Case, James R. Davin, Mark S. Fedor, Martin L
Schoffstall, "Introduction to the Simple Gateway
Protocol", IEEE Network Magazine, March 1988.
CMIS/
(1) Amatzia Ben-Artzi, "Network Management for TCP/IP Network:
Overview", IDEA-12, February 1988.
Cerf [Page 13]
RFC 1052 Internet Management April 1988
(2) Lee LaBarre, " TCP/IP Network Management
Agreements", IDEA-13, January 1988.
(3) Lee LaBarre, "Data Link Layer Management Information
MAC802.3", DRAFT-MMMM, February 1988.
(4) Lee LaBarre, "Network Layer Management Information: IP",
DRAFT-NNNN, February 1988.
(5) Marshall Rose, "ISO Presentation Services on Top of TCP/IP
based Internets", DRAFT-PPPP, February 1988.
(6) Lee LaBarre, "Structure and Identification of
Information for the Internet", DRAFT-SMI, February 1988.
(7) Lee LaBarre, "Transport Layer Management Information: TCP",
DRAFT-TTTT, February 1988.
(8) Lee LaBarre, "Transport Layer Management Information: UDP",
DRAFT-UUUU, February 1988.
(9) ISO/IEC JTC 1/21 N 2058, "2nd DP 9595-1 Information
Systems - Open Systems Interconnection - Management
Service Definition - Part 1: Overview", December 1987.
(10) ISO/IEC JTC 1/21 N 2059, "2nd DP 9595-2,
Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection -
Information Service Definition - Part 2: Common
Information Service Definition", December 1987.
(11) ISO/IEC JTC 1/21 N 2060, "2nd DP 9596-2,
Processing Systems - Open Systems Interconnection -
Information Protocol Specification - Part 2: Common
Information Protocol", December 1987.
(12) ISO/TC97/SC21/WG4 N 472, "US Comments on the Proposal
Extension of the Common Management Information Services
Protocol: Creation and Deletion Functions", November 1987.
(13) JTC1/SC21/WG4 N 482, "Proposal to extend M-Set and M
Confirmed-Set to allow adding and removing values of a multi
valued attribute", November 1987.
(14) S. Mark Klerer, "The OSI Management Architecture:
Overview", IEEE Network Magazine, March 1988.
Cerf [Page 14]
if you see any problems within the linking, don't worry be happy,
this is version 0.1 of the Relevance System and you gotta expect some crappy subroutines sometimes,
just be content we did not write this in Java, which would have made this "bigger and better" HAHAHHA.
RFC documents can be found at I.E.T.F.
Relevance System Copyright © 2002 Spectrum WorldResearch
other technical nosh by ServerMasters Corporation
collaboration of BobX
