文档库 最新最全的文档下载
当前位置:文档库 › rfc1155(SMI)

rfc1155(SMI)

rfc1155(SMI)
rfc1155(SMI)

Network Working Group M. Rose Request for Comments: 1155 Performance Systems International Obsoletes: RFC 1065 K. McCloghrie Hughes LAN Systems May 1990 Structure and Identification of Management Information

for TCP/IP-based Internets

Table of Contents

1. Status of this Memo (1)

2. Introduction (2)

3. Structure and Identification of Management Information (4)

3.1 Names (4)

3.1.1 Directory (5)

3.1.2 Mgmt (6)

3.1.3 Experimental (6)

3.1.4 Private (7)

3.2 Syntax (7)

3.2.1 Primitive Types (7)

3.2.1.1 Guidelines for Enumerated INTEGERs (7)

3.2.2 Constructor Types (8)

3.2.3 Defined Types (8)

3.2.3.1 NetworkAddress (8)

3.2.3.2 IpAddress (8)

3.2.3.3 Counter (8)

3.2.3.4 Gauge (9)

3.2.3.5 TimeTicks (9)

3.2.3.6 Opaque (9)

3.3 Encodings (9)

4. Managed Objects (10)

4.1 Guidelines for Object Names (10)

4.2 Object Types and Instances (10)

4.3 Macros for Managed Objects (14)

5. Extensions to the MIB (16)

6. Definitions (17)

7. Acknowledgements (20)

8. References (21)

9. Security Considerations (21)

10. Authors’ Addresses (22)

1. Status of this Memo

This RFC is a re-release of RFC 1065, with a changed "Status of this Memo", plus a few minor typographical corrections. The technical Rose & McCloghrie [Page 1]

content of the document is unchanged from RFC 1065.

This memo provides the common definitions for the structure and

identification of management information for TCP/IP-based internets. In particular, together with its companion memos which describe the

management information base along with the network management

protocol, these documents provide a simple, workable architecture and system for managing TCP/IP-based internets and in particular, the

Internet.

This memo specifies a Standard Protocol for the Internet community.

Its status is "Recommended". TCP/IP implementations in the Internet which are network manageable are expected to adopt and implement this specification.

The Internet Activities Board recommends that all IP and TCP

implementations be network manageable. This implies implementation

of the Internet MIB (RFC-1156) and at least one of the two

recommended management protocols SNMP (RFC-1157) or CMOT (RFC-1095). It should be noted that, at this time, SNMP is a full Internet

standard and CMOT is a draft standard. See also the Host and Gateway Requirements RFCs for more specific information on the applicability of this standard.

Please refer to the latest edition of the "IAB Official Protocol

Standards" RFC for current information on the state and status of

standard Internet protocols.

Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

2. Introduction

This memo describes the common structures and identification scheme

for the definition of management information used in managing

TCP/IP-based internets. Included are descriptions of an object

information model for network management along with a set of generic types used to describe management information. Formal descriptions

of the structure are given using Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) [1].

This memo is largely concerned with organizational concerns and

administrative policy: it neither specifies the objects which are

managed, nor the protocols used to manage those objects. These

concerns are addressed by two companion memos: one describing the

Management Information Base (MIB) [2], and the other describing the

Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) [3].

This memo is based in part on the work of the Internet Engineering Rose & McCloghrie [Page 2]

Task Force, particularly the working note titled "Structure and

Identification of Management Information for the Internet" [4]. This memo uses a skeletal structure derived from that note, but differs in one very significant way: that note focuses entirely on the use of

OSI-style network management. As such, it is not suitable for use

with SNMP.

This memo attempts to achieve two goals: simplicity and

extensibility. Both are motivated by a common concern: although the management of TCP/IP-based internets has been a topic of study for

some time, the authors do not feel that the depth and breadth of such understanding is complete. More bluntly, we feel that previous

experiences, while giving the community insight, are hardly

conclusive. By fostering a simple SMI, the minimal number of

constraints are imposed on future potential approaches; further, by

fostering an extensible SMI, the maximal number of potential

approaches are available for experimentation.

It is believed that this memo and its two companions comply with the guidelines set forth in RFC 1052, "IAB Recommendations for the

Development of Internet Network Management Standards" [5] and RFC

1109, "Report of the Second Ad Hoc Network Management Review Group"

[6]. In particular, we feel that this memo, along with the memo

describing the management information base, provide a solid basis for network management of the Internet.

Rose & McCloghrie [Page 3]

3. Structure and Identification of Management Information

Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed the Management Information Base or MIB. Objects in the MIB are

defined using Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) [1].

Each type of object (termed an object type) has a name, a syntax, and an encoding. The name is represented uniquely as an OBJECT

IDENTIFIER. An OBJECT IDENTIFIER is an administratively assigned

name. The administrative policies used for assigning names are

discussed later in this memo.

The syntax for an object type defines the abstract data structure

corresponding to that object type. For example, the structure of a

given object type might be an INTEGER or OCTET STRING. Although in

general, we should permit any ASN.1 construct to be available for use in defining the syntax of an object type, this memo purposely

restricts the ASN.1 constructs which may be used. These restrictions are made solely for the sake of simplicity.

The encoding of an object type is simply how instances of that object type are represented using the object’s type syntax. Implicitly tied to the notion of an object’s syntax and encoding is how the object is represented when being transmitted on the network. This memo

specifies the use of the basic encoding rules of ASN.1 [7].

It is beyond the scope of this memo to define either the MIB used for network management or the network management protocol. As mentioned earlier, these tasks are left to companion memos. This memo attempts to minimize the restrictions placed upon its companions so as to

maximize generality. However, in some cases, restrictions have been made (e.g., the syntax which may be used when defining object types

in the MIB) in order to encourage a particular style of management.

Future editions of this memo may remove these restrictions.

3.1. Names

Names are used to identify managed objects. This memo specifies

names which are hierarchical in nature. The OBJECT IDENTIFIER

concept is used to model this notion. An OBJECT IDENTIFIER can be

used for purposes other than naming managed object types; for

example, each international standard has an OBJECT IDENTIFIER

assigned to it for the purposes of identification. In short, OBJECT IDENTIFIERs are a means for identifying some object, regardless of

the semantics associated with the object (e.g., a network object, a

standards document, etc.)

An OBJECT IDENTIFIER is a sequence of integers which traverse a

Rose & McCloghrie [Page 4]

global tree. The tree consists of a root connected to a number of

labeled nodes via edges. Each node may, in turn, have children of

its own which are labeled. In this case, we may term the node a

subtree. This process may continue to an arbitrary level of depth.

Central to the notion of the OBJECT IDENTIFIER is the understanding

that administrative control of the meanings assigned to the nodes may be delegated as one traverses the tree. A label is a pairing of a

brief textual description and an integer.

The root node itself is unlabeled, but has at least three children

directly under it: one node is administered by the International

Organization for Standardization, with label iso(1); another is

administrated by the International Telegraph and Telephone

Consultative Committee, with label ccitt(0); and the third is jointly administered by the ISO and the CCITT, joint-iso-ccitt(2).

Under the iso(1) node, the ISO has designated one subtree for use by other (inter)national organizations, org(3). Of the children nodes

present, two have been assigned to the U.S. National Institutes of

Standards and Technology. One of these subtrees has been transferred by the NIST to the U.S. Department of Defense, dod(6).

As of this writing, the DoD has not indicated how it will manage its subtree of OBJECT IDENTIFIERs. This memo assumes that DoD will

allocate a node to the Internet community, to be administered by the Internet Activities Board (IAB) as follows:

internet OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso org(3) dod(6) 1 }

That is, the Internet subtree of OBJECT IDENTIFIERs starts with the

prefix:

1.3.6.1.

This memo, as a standard approved by the IAB, now specifies the

policy under which this subtree of OBJECT IDENTIFIERs is

administered. Initially, four nodes are present:

directory OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { internet 1 }

mgmt OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { internet 2 }

experimental OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { internet 3 }

private OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { internet 4 }

3.1.1. Directory

The directory(1) subtree is reserved for use with a future memo that discusses how the OSI Directory may be used in the Internet.

Rose & McCloghrie [Page 5]

3.1.2. Mgmt

The mgmt(2) subtree is used to identify objects which are defined in IAB-approved documents. Administration of the mgmt(2) subtree is

delegated by the IAB to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority for

the Internet. As RFCs which define new versions of the Internet-

standard Management Information Base are approved, they are assigned an OBJECT IDENTIFIER by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority for

identifying the objects defined by that memo.

For example, the RFC which defines the initial Internet standard MIB would be assigned management document number 1. This RFC would use

the OBJECT IDENTIFIER

{ mgmt 1 }

or

1.3.6.1.

2.1

in defining the Internet-standard MIB.

The generation of new versions of the Internet-standard MIB is a

rigorous process. Section 5 of this memo describes the rules used

when a new version is defined.

3.1.3. Experimental

The experimental(3) subtree is used to identify objects used in

Internet experiments. Administration of the experimental(3) subtree is delegated by the IAB to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority of the Internet.

For example, an experimenter might received number 17, and would have available the OBJECT IDENTIFIER

{ experimental 17 }

or

1.3.6.1.3.17

for use.

As a part of the assignment process, the Internet Assigned Numbers

Authority may make requirements as to how that subtree is used.

Rose & McCloghrie [Page 6]

3.1.

4. Private

The private(4) subtree is used to identify objects defined

unilaterally. Administration of the private(4) subtree is delegated by the IAB to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority for the

Internet. Initially, this subtree has at least one child:

enterprises OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { private 1 }

The enterprises(1) subtree is used, among other things, to permit

parties providing networking subsystems to register models of their

products.

Upon receiving a subtree, the enterprise may, for example, define new MIB objects in this subtree. In addition, it is strongly recommended that the enterprise will also register its networking subsystems

under this subtree, in order to provide an unambiguous identification mechanism for use in management protocols. For example, if the

"Flintstones, Inc." enterprise produced networking subsystems, then they could request a node under the enterprises subtree from the

Internet Assigned Numbers Authority. Such a node might be numbered: 1.3.6.1.4.1.42

The "Flintstones, Inc." enterprise might then register their "Fred

Router" under the name of:

1.3.6.1.4.1.4

2.1.1

3.2. Syntax

Syntax is used to define the structure corresponding to object types. ASN.1 constructs are used to define this structure, although the full generality of ASN.1 is not permitted.

The ASN.1 type ObjectSyntax defines the different syntaxes which may be used in defining an object type.

3.2.1. Primitive Types

Only the ASN.1 primitive types INTEGER, OCTET STRING, OBJECT

IDENTIFIER, and NULL are permitted. These are sometimes referred to as non-aggregate types.

3.2.1.1. Guidelines for Enumerated INTEGERs

If an enumerated INTEGER is listed as an object type, then a named-

number having the value 0 shall not be present in the list of

Rose & McCloghrie [Page 7]

enumerations. Use of this value is prohibited.

3.2.2. Constructor Types

The ASN.1 constructor type SEQUENCE is permitted, providing that it

is used to generate either lists or tables.

For lists, the syntax takes the form:

SEQUENCE { , ..., }

where each resolves to one of the ASN.1 primitive types listed above. Further, these ASN.1 types are always present (the DEFAULT

and OPTIONAL clauses do not appear in the SEQUENCE definition).

For tables, the syntax takes the form:

SEQUENCE OF

where resolves to a list constructor.

Lists and tables are sometimes referred to as aggregate types.

3.2.3. Defined Types

In addition, new application-wide types may be defined, so long as

they resolve into an IMPLICITly defined ASN.1 primitive type, list,

table, or some other application-wide type. Initially, few

application-wide types are defined. Future memos will no doubt

define others once a consensus is reached.

3.2.3.1. NetworkAddress

This CHOICE represents an address from one of possibly several

protocol families. Currently, only one protocol family, the Internet family, is present in this CHOICE.

3.2.3.2. IpAddress

This application-wide type represents a 32-bit internet address. It is represented as an OCTET STRING of length 4, in network byte-order.

When this ASN.1 type is encoded using the ASN.1 basic encoding rules, only the primitive encoding form shall be used.

3.2.3.3. Counter

This application-wide type represents a non-negative integer which Rose & McCloghrie [Page 8]

monotonically increases until it reaches a maximum value, when it

wraps around and starts increasing again from zero. This memo

specifies a maximum value of 2^32-1 (4294967295 decimal) for

counters.

3.2.3.

4. Gauge

This application-wide type represents a non-negative integer, which

may increase or decrease, but which latches at a maximum value. This memo specifies a maximum value of 2^32-1 (4294967295 decimal) for

gauges.

3.2.3.5. TimeTicks

This application-wide type represents a non-negative integer which

counts the time in hundredths of a second since some epoch. When

object types are defined in the MIB which use this ASN.1 type, the

description of the object type identifies the reference epoch.

3.2.3.6. Opaque

This application-wide type supports the capability to pass arbitrary ASN.1 syntax. A value is encoded using the ASN.1 basic rules into a string of octets. This, in turn, is encoded as an OCTET STRING, in

effect "double-wrapping" the original ASN.1 value.

Note that a conforming implementation need only be able to accept and recognize opaquely-encoded data. It need not be able to unwrap the

data and then interpret its contents.

Further note that by use of the ASN.1 EXTERNAL type, encodings other than ASN.1 may be used in opaquely-encoded data.

3.3. Encodings

Once an instance of an object type has been identified, its value may be transmitted by applying the basic encoding rules of ASN.1 to the

syntax for the object type.

Rose & McCloghrie [Page 9]

4. Managed Objects

Although it is not the purpose of this memo to define objects in the MIB, this memo specifies a format to be used by other memos which

define these objects.

An object type definition consists of five fields:

OBJECT:

-------

A textual name, termed the OBJECT DESCRIPTOR, for the object type, along with its corresponding OBJECT IDENTIFIER.

Syntax:

The abstract syntax for the object type. This must resolve to an instance of the ASN.1 type ObjectSyntax (defined below).

Definition:

A textual description of the semantics of the object type.

Implementations should ensure that their instance of the object

fulfills this definition since this MIB is intended for use in

multi-vendor environments. As such it is vital that objects have consistent meaning across all machines.

Access:

One of read-only, read-write, write-only, or not-accessible.

Status:

One of mandatory, optional, or obsolete.

Future memos may also specify other fields for the objects which they define.

4.1. Guidelines for Object Names

No object type in the Internet-Standard MIB shall use a sub-

identifier of 0 in its name. This value is reserved for use with

future extensions.

Each OBJECT DESCRIPTOR corresponding to an object type in the

internet-standard MIB shall be a unique, but mnemonic, printable

string. This promotes a common language for humans to use when

discussing the MIB and also facilitates simple table mappings for

user interfaces.

4.2. Object Types and Instances

An object type is a definition of a kind of managed object; it is Rose & McCloghrie [Page 10]

declarative in nature. In contrast, an object instance is an

instantiation of an object type which has been bound to a value. For example, the notion of an entry in a routing table might be defined

in the MIB. Such a notion corresponds to an object type; individual entries in a particular routing table which exist at some time are

object instances of that object type.

A collection of object types is defined in the MIB. Each such

subject type is uniquely named by its OBJECT IDENTIFIER and also has a textual name, which is its OBJECT DESCRIPTOR. The means whereby

object instances are referenced is not defined in the MIB. Reference to object instances is achieved by a protocol-specific mechanism: it is the responsibility of each management protocol adhering to the SMI to define this mechanism.

An object type may be defined in the MIB such that an instance of

that object type represents an aggregation of information also

represented by instances of some number of "subordinate" object

types. For example, suppose the following object types are defined

in the MIB:

OBJECT:

-------

atIndex { atEntry 1 }

Syntax:

INTEGER

Definition:

The interface number for the physical address.

Access:

read-write.

Status:

mandatory.

OBJECT:

-------

atPhysAddress { atEntry 2 }

Syntax:

OCTET STRING

Definition:

The media-dependent physical address.

Rose & McCloghrie [Page 11]

read-write.

Status:

mandatory.

OBJECT:

-------

atNetAddress { atEntry 3 }

Syntax:

NetworkAddress

Definition:

The network address corresponding to the media-dependent physical address.

Access:

read-write.

Status:

mandatory.

Then, a fourth object type might also be defined in the MIB:

OBJECT:

-------

atEntry { atTable 1 }

Syntax:

AtEntry ::= SEQUENCE {

atIndex

INTEGER,

atPhysAddress

OCTET STRING,

atNetAddress

NetworkAddress

}

Definition:

An entry in the address translation table.

Access:

read-write.

Rose & McCloghrie [Page 12]

mandatory.

Each instance of this object type comprises information represented

by instances of the former three object types. An object type

defined in this way is called a list.

Similarly, tables can be formed by aggregations of a list type. For example, a fifth object type might also be defined in the MIB:

OBJECT:

------

atTable { at 1 }

Syntax:

SEQUENCE OF AtEntry

Definition:

The address translation table.

Access:

read-write.

Status:

mandatory.

such that each instance of the atTable object comprises information

represented by the set of atEntry object types that collectively

constitute a given atTable object instance, that is, a given address translation table.

Consider how one might refer to a simple object within a table.

Continuing with the previous example, one might name the object type { atPhysAddress }

and specify, using a protocol-specific mechanism, the object instance { atNetAddress } = { internet "10.0.0.52" }

This pairing of object type and object instance would refer to all

instances of atPhysAddress which are part of any entry in some

address translation table for which the associated atNetAddress value is { internet "10.0.0.52" }.

To continue with this example, consider how one might refer to an

aggregate object (list) within a table. Naming the object type

Rose & McCloghrie [Page 13]

{ atEntry }

and specifying, using a protocol-specific mechanism, the object

instance

{ atNetAddress } = { internet "10.0.0.52" }

refers to all instances of entries in the table for which the

associated atNetAddress value is { internet "10.0.0.52" }.

Each management protocol must provide a mechanism for accessing

simple (non-aggregate) object types. Each management protocol

specifies whether or not it supports access to aggregate object

types. Further, the protocol must specify which instances are

"returned" when an object type/instance pairing refers to more than

one instance of a type.

To afford support for a variety of management protocols, all

information by which instances of a given object type may be usefully distinguished, one from another, is represented by instances of

object types defined in the MIB.

4.3. Macros for Managed Objects

In order to facilitate the use of tools for processing the definition of the MIB, the OBJECT-TYPE macro may be used. This macro permits

the key aspects of an object type to be represented in a formal way. OBJECT-TYPE MACRO ::=

BEGIN

TYPE NOTATION ::= "SYNTAX" type (TYPE ObjectSyntax)

"ACCESS" Access

"STATUS" Status

VALUE NOTATION ::= value (VALUE ObjectName)

Access ::= "read-only"

| "read-write"

| "write-only"

| "not-accessible"

Status ::= "mandatory"

| "optional"

| "obsolete"

END

Given the object types defined earlier, we might imagine the

following definitions being present in the MIB:

atIndex OBJECT-TYPE

Rose & McCloghrie [Page 14]

SYNTAX INTEGER

ACCESS read-write

STATUS mandatory

::= { atEntry 1 }

atPhysAddress OBJECT-TYPE

SYNTAX OCTET STRING

ACCESS read-write

STATUS mandatory

::= { atEntry 2 }

atNetAddress OBJECT-TYPE

SYNTAX NetworkAddress

ACCESS read-write

STATUS mandatory

::= { atEntry 3 }

atEntry OBJECT-TYPE

SYNTAX AtEntry

ACCESS read-write

STATUS mandatory

::= { atTable 1 }

atTable OBJECT-TYPE

SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF AtEntry

ACCESS read-write

STATUS mandatory

::= { at 1 }

AtEntry ::= SEQUENCE {

atIndex

INTEGER,

atPhysAddress

OCTET STRING,

atNetAddress

NetworkAddress

}

The first five definitions describe object types, relating, for

example, the OBJECT DESCRIPTOR atIndex to the OBJECT IDENTIFIER {

atEntry 1 }. In addition, the syntax of this object is defined

(INTEGER) along with the access permitted (read-write) and status

(mandatory). The sixth definition describes an ASN.1 type called

AtEntry.

Rose & McCloghrie [Page 15]

5. Extensions to the MIB

Every Internet-standard MIB document obsoletes all previous such

documents. The portion of a name, termed the tail, following the

OBJECT IDENTIFIER

{ mgmt version-number }

used to name objects shall remain unchanged between versions. New

versions may:

(1) declare old object types obsolete (if necessary), but not

delete their names;

(2) augment the definition of an object type corresponding to a

list by appending non-aggregate object types to the object types

in the list; or,

(3) define entirely new object types.

New versions may not:

(1) change the semantics of any previously defined object without changing the name of that object.

These rules are important because they admit easier support for

multiple versions of the Internet-standard MIB. In particular, the

semantics associated with the tail of a name remain constant

throughout different versions of the MIB. Because multiple versions of the MIB may thus coincide in "tail-space," implementations

supporting multiple versions of the MIB can be vastly simplified.

However, as a consequence, a management agent might return an

instance corresponding to a superset of the expected object type.

Following the principle of robustness, in this exceptional case, a

manager should ignore any additional information beyond the

definition of the expected object type. However, the robustness

principle requires that one exercise care with respect to control

actions: if an instance does not have the same syntax as its

expected object type, then those control actions must fail. In both the monitoring and control cases, the name of an object returned by

an operation must be identical to the name requested by an operation. Rose & McCloghrie [Page 16]

6. Definitions

RFC1155-SMI DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN

EXPORTS -- EVERYTHING

internet, directory, mgmt,

experimental, private, enterprises,

OBJECT-TYPE, ObjectName, ObjectSyntax, SimpleSyntax, ApplicationSyntax, NetworkAddress, IpAddress,

Counter, Gauge, TimeTicks, Opaque;

-- the path to the root

internet OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso org(3) dod(6) 1 } directory OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { internet 1 }

mgmt OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { internet 2 }

experimental OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { internet 3 }

private OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { internet 4 }

enterprises OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { private 1 }

-- definition of object types

OBJECT-TYPE MACRO ::=

BEGIN

TYPE NOTATION ::= "SYNTAX" type (TYPE ObjectSyntax)

"ACCESS" Access

"STATUS" Status

VALUE NOTATION ::= value (VALUE ObjectName)

Access ::= "read-only"

| "read-write"

| "write-only"

| "not-accessible"

Status ::= "mandatory"

| "optional"

| "obsolete"

END

-- names of objects in the MIB

ObjectName ::=

OBJECT IDENTIFIER

Rose & McCloghrie [Page 17]

-- syntax of objects in the MIB

ObjectSyntax ::=

CHOICE {

simple

SimpleSyntax,

-- note that simple SEQUENCEs are not directly

-- mentioned here to keep things simple (i.e.,

-- prevent mis-use). However, application-wide

-- types which are IMPLICITly encoded simple

-- SEQUENCEs may appear in the following CHOICE

application-wide

ApplicationSyntax

}

SimpleSyntax ::=

CHOICE {

number

INTEGER,

string

OCTET STRING,

object

OBJECT IDENTIFIER,

empty

NULL

}

ApplicationSyntax ::=

CHOICE {

address

NetworkAddress,

counter

Counter,

gauge

Gauge,

ticks

TimeTicks,

arbitrary

Opaque

Rose & McCloghrie [Page 18]

-- other application-wide types, as they are

-- defined, will be added here

}

-- application-wide types

NetworkAddress ::=

CHOICE {

internet

IpAddress

}

IpAddress ::=

[APPLICATION 0] -- in network-byte order IMPLICIT OCTET STRING (SIZE (4))

Counter ::=

[APPLICATION 1]

IMPLICIT INTEGER (0..4294967295)

Gauge ::=

[APPLICATION 2]

IMPLICIT INTEGER (0..4294967295)

TimeTicks ::=

[APPLICATION 3]

IMPLICIT INTEGER (0..4294967295)

Opaque ::=

[APPLICATION 4] -- arbitrary ASN.1 value, IMPLICIT OCTET STRING -- "double-wrapped" END

Rose & McCloghrie [Page 19]

7. Acknowledgements

This memo was influenced by three sets of contributors to earlier

drafts:

First, Lee Labarre of the MITRE Corporation, who as author of the

NETMAN SMI [4], presented the basic roadmap for the SMI.

Second, several individuals who provided valuable comments on this

memo prior to its initial distribution:

James R. Davin, Proteon

Mark S. Fedor, NYSERNet

Craig Partridge, BBN Laboratories

Martin Lee Schoffstall, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Wengyik Yeong, NYSERNet

Third, the IETF MIB working group:

Karl Auerbach, Epilogue Technology

K. Ramesh Babu, Excelan

Lawrence Besaw, Hewlett-Packard

Jeffrey D. Case, University of Tennessee at Knoxville

James R. Davin, Proteon

Mark S. Fedor, NYSERNet

Robb Foster, BBN

Phill Gross, The MITRE Corporation

Bent Torp Jensen, Convergent Technology

Lee Labarre, The MITRE Corporation

Dan Lynch, Advanced Computing Environments

Keith McCloghrie, The Wollongong Group

Dave Mackie, 3Com/Bridge

Craig Partridge, BBN (chair)

Jim Robertson, 3Com/Bridge

Marshall T. Rose, The Wollongong Group

Greg Satz, cisco

Martin Lee Schoffstall, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Lou Steinberg, IBM

Dean Throop, Data General

Unni Warrier, Unisys

Rose & McCloghrie [Page 20]

相关文档