GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools

Problem, Formatting or Query -  Send Feedback

Was this page helpful?-10+1


rfc:rfc6632

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Ersue, Ed. Request for Comments: 6632 Nokia Siemens Networks Category: Informational B. Claise ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco Systems, Inc.

                                                             June 2012
        An Overview of the IETF Network Management Standards

Abstract

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

Status of This Memo

 This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
 published for informational purposes.
 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
 (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
 received public review and has been approved for publication by the
 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
 approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
 Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
 http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6632.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 1] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2012 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
 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
 to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
 described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

 1. Introduction ....................................................4
    1.1. Scope and Target Audience ..................................4
    1.2. Related Work ...............................................5
    1.3. Terminology ................................................6
 2. Core Network Management Protocols ...............................8
    2.1. Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) ..................8
         2.1.1. Architectural Principles of SNMP ....................8
         2.1.2. SNMP and Its Versions ...............................9
         2.1.3. Structure of Managed Information (SMI) .............11
         2.1.4. SNMP Security and Access Control Models ............12
                2.1.4.1. Security Requirements on the SNMP
                         Management Framework ......................12
                2.1.4.2. User-Based Security Model (USM) ...........12
                2.1.4.3. View-Based Access Control Model (VACM) ....13
         2.1.5. SNMP Transport Subsystem and Transport Models ......13
                2.1.5.1. SNMP Transport Security Model .............14
    2.2. Syslog Protocol ...........................................15
    2.3. IP Flow Information eXport (IPFIX) and Packet
         SAMPling (PSAMP) Protocols ................................16
    2.4. Network Configuration .....................................19
         2.4.1. Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) ...........19
         2.4.2. YANG - NETCONF Data Modeling Language ..............21
 3. Network Management Protocols and Mechanisms with
    Specific Focus .................................................23
    3.1. IP Address Management .....................................23
         3.1.1. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) .........23
         3.1.2. Ad Hoc Network Autoconfiguration ...................24
    3.2. IPv6 Network Operations ...................................25
    3.3. Policy-Based Management ...................................26
         3.3.1. IETF Policy Framework ..............................26

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 2] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

         3.3.2. Use of Common Open Policy Service (COPS)
                for Policy Provisioning (COPS-PR) ..................26
    3.4. IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) .............................27
    3.5. Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS) .......29
    3.6. Diameter Base Protocol (Diameter) .........................31
    3.7. Control and Provisioning of Wireless Access Points
         (CAPWAP) ..................................................35
    3.8. Access Node Control Protocol (ANCP) .......................36
    3.9. Application Configuration Access Protocol (ACAP) ..........36
    3.10. XML Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP) .................37
 4. Network Management Data Models .................................38
    4.1. IETF Network Management Data Models .......................39
         4.1.1. Generic Infrastructure Data Models .................39
         4.1.2. Link-Layer Data Models .............................40
         4.1.3. Network-Layer Data Models ..........................40
         4.1.4. Transport-Layer Data Models ........................40
         4.1.5. Application-Layer Data Models ......................41
         4.1.6. Network Management Infrastructure Data Models ......41
    4.2. Network Management Data Models - FCAPS View ...............41
         4.2.1. Fault Management ...................................42
         4.2.2. Configuration Management ...........................44
         4.2.3. Accounting Management ..............................45
         4.2.4. Performance Management .............................46
         4.2.5. Security Management ................................48
 5. Security Considerations ........................................49
 6. Contributors ...................................................51
 7. Acknowledgements ...............................................52
 8. Informative References .........................................52
 Appendix A. High-Level Classification of Management Protocols
             and Data Models .......................................77
   A.1. Protocols Classified by Standards Maturity in the IETF .....77
   A.2. Protocols Matched to Management Tasks ......................79
   A.3. Push versus Pull Mechanism .................................80
   A.4. Passive versus Active Monitoring ...........................80
   A.5. Supported Data Model Types and Their Extensibility  ........81
 Appendix B. New Work Related to IETF Management Standards .........83
   B.1. Energy Management (EMAN) ...................................83

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 3] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

1. Introduction

1.1. Scope and Target Audience

 This document gives an overview of the IETF network management
 standards and summarizes existing and ongoing development of IETF
 Standards Track network management protocols and data models.  The
 document refers to other overview documents where they exist and
 classifies the standards for easy orientation.
 The target audience of the document is, on the one hand, IETF working
 groups, which aim to select appropriate standard management protocols
 and data models to address their needs concerning network management.
 On the other hand, the document can be used as an overview and
 guideline by non-IETF Standards Development Organizations (SDOs)
 planning to use IETF management technologies and data models for the
 realization of management applications.  The document can also be
 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 that seek to get an
 overview of the current set of the IETF network management protocols
 such as network administrators or newcomers to the IETF.
 Section 2 gives an overview of the IETF core network management
 standards with a special focus on Simple Network Management Protocol
 (SNMP), syslog, IP Flow Information eXport / Packet SAMPling (IPFIX/
 PSAMP), and Network Configuration (NETCONF).  Section 3 discusses
 IETF management protocols and mechanisms with a specific focus, e.g.,
 IP address management or IP performance management.  Section 4
 discusses IETF data models, such as MIB modules, IPFIX Information
 Elements, Syslog Structured Data Elements, and YANG modules designed
 to address a specific set of management issues and provides two
 complementary overviews for the network management data models
 standardized within the IETF.  Section 4.1 focuses on a broader view
 of models classified into categories such as generic and
 infrastructure data models as well as data models matched to
 different layers.  Whereas Section 4.2 structures the data models
 following the management application view and maps them to the
 network management tasks fault, configuration, accounting,
 performance, and security management.
 Appendix A guides the reader for the high-level selection of
 management standards.  For this, the section classifies the protocols
 according to high-level criteria, such as push versus pull
 mechanisms, 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

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 4] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 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 in the IETF.
 This document mainly refers to Proposed, Draft, or Internet Standard
 documents from the IETF (see [RFCSEARCH]).  Whenever valuable, Best
 Current Practice (BCP) documents are referenced.  In exceptional
 cases, and if the document provides substantial guideline for
 standard usage or fills an essential gap, Experimental and
 Informational RFCs are noticed and ongoing work is mentioned.
 Information on active and concluded IETF working groups (e.g., their
 charters, published or currently active documents, and mail archives)
 can be found at [IETF-WGS]).
 Note that this document does not cover OAM technologies on the data-
 path including MPLS forwarding plane and control plane protocols
 (e.g., OAM of tunnels, MPLS-TP OAM, and pseudowire) as well as the
 corresponding management models and MIB modules.  For a list of
 related work, see Section 1.2.

1.2. Related Work

 "Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid" [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 their usage scenarios.
 "Overview of the 2002 IAB Network Management Workshop" [RFC3535]
 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 within the IETF.
 "Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management of New
 Protocols and Extensions" [RFC5706] recommends working groups
 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.
 "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Management Overview" [RFC4221]
 describes the management architecture for MPLS and indicates the
 interrelationships between the different MIB modules used for MPLS

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 5] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 network management, where "Operations, Administration, and
 Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based Transport Networks" [RFC6371]
 describes the OAM Framework for MPLS-based Transport Networks.
 "An Overview of Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
 Mechanisms" [OAM-OVERVIEW] gives an overview of the OAM toolset for
 detecting and reporting connection failures or measuring connection
 performance parameters.
 "An Overview of the OAM Tool Set for MPLS-based Transport Networks"
 [OAM-ANALYSIS] provides an overview of the OAM toolset for MPLS-based
 Transport Networks including a brief summary of MPLS-TP OAM
 requirements and functions and of generic mechanisms created in the
 MPLS data plane to allow the OAM packets run in-band and share their
 fate with data packets.  The protocol definitions for each MPLS-TP
 OAM tool are listed in separate documents, which are referenced.
 "MPLS-TP MIB-based Management Overview" [MPLSTP-MIB] describes the
 MIB-based architecture for MPLS-TP, and indicates the
 interrelationships between different existing MIB modules that can be
 leveraged for MPLS-TP network management and identifies areas where
 additional MIB modules are required.
 Note that so far, the IETF has not developed specific technologies
 for the management of sensor networks.  IP-based sensors or
 constrained devices in such an environment, i.e., with very limited
 memory and CPU resources, can use, e.g., application-layer protocols
 to do simple resource management and monitoring.

1.3. Terminology

 This document does not describe standard requirements.  Therefore,
 key words from RFC 2119 [RFC2119] are not used in the document.
 o  3GPP: 3rd Generation Partnership Project, a collaboration between
    groups of telecommunications associations, to prepare the third-
    generation (3G) mobile phone system specification.
 o  Agent: A software module that performs the network management
    functions requested by network management stations.  An agent may
    be implemented in any network element that is to be managed, such
    as a host, bridge, or router.  The 'management server' in NETCONF
    terminology.
 o  BCP: An IETF Best Current Practice document.
 o  CLI: Command Line Interface.  A management interface that system
    administrators can use to interact with networking equipment.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 6] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 o  Data model: A mapping of the contents of an information model into
    a form that is specific to a particular type of datastore 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 IP-related code point
    allocations.
 o  Information model: An abstraction and representation of entities
    in a managed environment, their properties, attributes,
    operations, and the way they relate to each other, independent of
    any specific repository, protocol, or platform (see [RFC3444]).
 o  ITU-T: International Telecommunication Union - Telecommunication
    Standardization Sector
 o  Managed object: A management abstraction of a resource; a piece of
    management information in a MIB module.  In the context of SNMP, a
    structured set of data variables that represent some resource to
    be managed or other aspect of a managed device.
 o  Manager: An entity that acts in a manager role, either a user or
    an application.  The counterpart to an agent.  A 'management
    client' in NETCONF terminology.
 o  Management Information Base (MIB): An information repository with
    a collection of related objects that represent the resources to be
    managed.
 o  MIB module: MIB modules usually contain object definitions, may
    contain definitions of event notifications, and sometimes include
    compliance statements in terms of appropriate object and event
    notification groups.  A MIB that is provided by a management agent
    is typically composed of multiple instantiated MIB modules.
 o  Modeling language: A modeling language is any artificial language
    that can be used to express information or knowledge or systems in
    a structure that is defined by a consistent set of rules.
    Examples are Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)
    [STD58], XML Schema Definition (XSD) [XSD-1], and YANG [RFC6020].

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 7] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 o  Notification: An unsolicited message sent by an agent to a
    management station to notify it of an unusual event.
 o  OAM: Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
 o  PDU: Protocol Data Unit, a unit of data, which is specified in a
    protocol of a given layer consisting protocol-control information
    and possibly layer-specific data.
 o  Principal: An application, an individual, or a set of individuals
    acting in a particular role, on whose behalf access to a service
    or MIB is allowed.
 o  RELAX NG: REgular LAnguage for XML Next Generation, a schema
    language for XML [RELAX-NG].
 o  SDO: Standards Development Organization
 o  SMI: Structure of Managed Information, the notation and grammar
    for the managed information definition used to define MIB modules
    [STD58].
 o  STDnn: An Internet Standard published at IETF, also referred as
    Standard, e.g., [STD62].
 o  URI: Uniform Resource Identifier, a string of characters used to
    identify a name or a resource on the Internet [STD66].  Can be
    classified as locators (URLs), as names (URNs), or as both.
 o  XPATH: XML Path Language, a query language for selecting nodes
    from an XML document [XPATH].

2. Core Network Management Protocols

2.1. Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)

2.1.1. Architectural Principles of SNMP

 The SNMPv3 Framework [RFC3410], builds upon both the original SNMPv1
 and SNMPv2 Frameworks.  The basic structure and components for the
 SNMP Framework did not change between its versions and comprises the
 following components:
 o  managed nodes, each with an SNMP entity providing remote access to
    management instrumentation (the agent),
 o  at least one SNMP entity with management applications (the
    manager), and

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 8] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 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,
 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, the following standards build up the basis of the current
 SNMP Management Framework:
 o  the SNMPv3 protocol [STD62],
 o  the modeling language SMIv2 [STD58], and
 o  the MIB modules for different management issues.
 The SNMPv3 Framework extends the architectural principles of SNMPv1
 and SNMPv2 by:
 o  building on these three basic architectural components, in some
    cases, incorporating them from the SNMPv2 Framework by reference,
    and
 o  by using the same layering principles in the definition of new
    capabilities in the security and administration portion of the
    architecture.

2.1.2. SNMP and Its Versions

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

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 9] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 Following the manager-agent paradigm, an agent can generate
 notifications and send them as unsolicited messages to the management
 application.
 SNMPv2 enhances this basic functionality with an Inform PDU, a bulk
 transfer capability and other functional extensions like an
 administrative model for access control, security extensions, and
 Manager-to-Manager communication.  SNMPv2 entities can have a dual
 role as manager and agent.  However, neither SNMPv1 nor SNMPv2 offers
 sufficient security features.  To address the security deficiencies
 of SNMPv1/v2, SNMPv3 [STD62] has been issued.
 "Coexistence between Version 1, Version 2, and Version 3 of the
 Internet-standard Network Management Framework" [BCP074] 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.  It also describes the mapping between the message
 processing and security models.
 SNMP utilizes the MIB, 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 aspects of a protocol fail or encounter 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 the monitoring of fault and performance data
 and with its stateless nature, SNMP also works well for status
 polling and determining the operational state of specific
 functionality.  The widespread use of counters in standard MIB
 modules permits the interoperable comparison of statistics across
 devices from different vendors.  Counters have been especially useful
 in monitoring bytes and packets going in and out over various
 protocol interfaces.  SNMP is often used to poll a basic parameter of
 a device (e.g., sysUpTime, which reports the time since the last re-
 initialization of the network management portion of the device) to
 check for operational liveliness and to detect discontinuities in
 counters.  Some operators also use SNMP for configuration management
 in their environment (e.g., for systems based on Data Over Cable
 Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS) such as cable modems).

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 10] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 SNMPv1 [RFC1157] has been declared Historic and its use is not
 recommended due to its lack of security features.  "Introduction to
 Community-based SNMPv2" [RFC1901] is an Experimental RFC, which has
 been declared Historic, and its use is not recommended due to its
 lack of security features.
 Use of SNMPv3 [STD62] 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) [STD07],
 User Datagram Protocol (UDP) [STD06], 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 "Structure and Identification of Management
 Information for TCP/IP-based Internets" [RFC1155] and "Concise MIB
 Definitions" [RFC1212], both part of [STD16].  [RFC1215] specifies
 conventions for defining SNMP traps.  Note that SMIv1 is outdated and
 its use is not recommended.
 SMIv2 is the new notation for managed information definitions and
 should be used to define MIB modules.  SMIv2 is specified in the
 following RFCs.  With the exception of BCP 74, they are all part of
 [STD58]:

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 11] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 o  [RFC2578] defines Version 2 of the Structure of Management
    Information (SMIv2),
 o  [RFC2579] defines the textual conventions macro for defining new
    types and it provides a core set of generally useful textual
    convention definitions,
 o  [RFC2580] defines conformance statements and requirements for
    defining agent and manager capabilities, and
 o  [BCP074] 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 are applicable to any
 security model used in an SNMP Management Framework.  This section
 lists primary and secondary threats, and threats that are of lesser
 importance (see [RFC3411] for the detailed description of the
 security threats).
 The primary threats against which SNMP Security Models can provide
 protection are, "modification of information" by an unauthorized
 entity, and "masquerade", i.e., the danger that management operations
 not authorized for some principal may be attempted by assuming the
 identity of another principal.
 Secondary threats against which SNMP Security Models can provide
 protection are "message stream modification", e.g., reordering,
 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 the SNMP Security Model does not
 protect, since they are deemed to be of lesser importance in this
 context: Denial of Service and Traffic Analysis (see [RFC3411]).

2.1.4.2. User-Based Security Model (USM)

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

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 12] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 The USM supports following security services:
 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 is defined in [RFC3415] and enables the
 configuration of agents to provide different levels of access to the
 agent's MIB.  An agent entity can restrict access to a certain
 portion of its MIB, e.g., restrict some principals to view only
 performance-related statistics or disallow other principals to read
 those performance-related statistics.  An agent entity can also
 restrict the access to monitoring (read-only) as opposed to
 monitoring and configuration (read-write) of a certain portion of its
 MIB, e.g., allowing only a single designated principal to update
 configuration parameters.
 VACM defines five elements that make up the Access Control Model:
 groups, security level, contexts, MIB views, and access policy.
 Access to a MIB module is controlled by means of a MIB view.
 See [RFC3415] for a detailed description of SNMPv3 VACM.

2.1.5. SNMP Transport Subsystem and Transport Models

 The User-based Security Model (USM) was designed to be independent of
 other existing security infrastructures to ensure it could function
 when third-party authentication services were not available.  As a
 result, USM utilizes a separate user and key-management

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 13] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 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, and in the Experimental
 RFC [RFC3430] defining SNMP over TCP.

2.1.5.1. SNMP Transport Security Model

 The SNMP Transport Security Model [RFC5591] is an alternative to the
 existing SNMPv1 and SNMPv2 Community-based Security Models [BCP074],
 and the User-based Security Model [RFC3414], part of [STD62].
 The Transport Security Model utilizes one or more lower-layer
 security mechanisms to provide message-oriented security services.
 These include authentication of the sender, encryption, timeliness
 checking, and data integrity checking.
 A secure Transport Model sets up an authenticated and possibly
 encrypted session between the Transport Models of two SNMP engines.
 After a transport-layer session is established, SNMP messages can be
 sent through this session from one SNMP engine to the other.  The new
 Transport Model supports the sending of multiple SNMP messages
 through the same session to amortize the costs of establishing a
 security association.
 The Secure Shell (SSH) Transport Model [RFC5592] and the Transport
 Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model [RFC6353] are current examples
 of Transport Security Models.
 The SSH Transport Model makes use of the commonly deployed SSH
 security and key-management infrastructure.  Furthermore, [RFC5592]
 defines MIB objects for monitoring and managing the SSH Transport
 Model for SNMP.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 14] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Model [RFC6353] uses
 either the TLS protocol [RFC5246] or the Datagram Transport Layer
 Security (DTLS) protocol [RFC6347].  The TLS and DTLS protocols
 provide authentication and privacy services for SNMP applications.
 The TLS Transport Model supports the sending of SNMP messages over
 TLS and TCP and over DTLS and UDP.  Furthermore, [RFC6353] defines
 MIB objects for managing the TLS Transport Model for SNMP.
 [RFC5608] describes the use of a Remote Authentication Dial-In User
 Service (RADIUS) service by SNMP secure Transport Models for
 authentication of users and authorization of services.  Access
 control authorization, i.e., how RADIUS attributes and messages are
 applied to the specific application area of SNMP Access Control
 Models, and VACM in particular has been specified in [RFC6065].

2.2. Syslog Protocol

 Syslog is a mechanism for distribution of logging information
 initially used on Unix systems (see [RFC3164] for BSD syslog).  The
 IETF Syslog Protocol [RFC5424] introduces a layered architecture
 allowing the use of any number of transport protocols, including
 reliable and secure transports, for transmission of syslog messages.
 The Syslog protocol enables a machine to send system log messages
 across networks to event message collectors.  The protocol is simply
 designed to transport and distribute these event messages.  By
 default, no acknowledgements of the receipt are made, except the
 reliable delivery extensions specified in [RFC3195] are used.  The
 Syslog protocol and process does not require a stringent coordination
 between the transport sender and the receiver.  Indeed, the
 transmission of syslog messages may be started on a device without a
 receiver being configured, or even actually physically present.
 Conversely, many devices will most likely be able to receive messages
 without explicit configuration or definitions.
 BSD syslog had little uniformity for the message format and the
 content of syslog messages.  The body of a BSD syslog message has
 traditionally been unstructured text.  This content is human
 friendly, but difficult to parse for applications.  With the Syslog
 Protocol [RFC5424], 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] also 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

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 15] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 syslog messages.  [RFC5676] defines an SNMP MIB module to represent
 syslog messages for the purpose of sending those syslog messages as
 notifications to SNMP notification receivers.  [RFC5674] defines the
 way alarms are sent in syslog, which includes the mapping of ITU-
 perceived severities onto syslog message fields and a number of
 alarm-specific definitions from ITU-T X.733 [ITU-X733] and the IETF
 Alarm MIB [RFC3877].
 "Signed Syslog Messages" [RFC5848] 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's layered architecture provides support for a
 number of transport mappings.  For interoperability purposes and
 especially in managed networks, where the network path has been
 explicitly provisioned for UDP syslog traffic, the Syslog protocol
 can be used over UDP [RFC5426].  However, to support congestion
 control and reliability, [RFC5426] strongly recommends the use of the
 TLS transport.
 Furthermore, the IETF defined the TLS Transport Mapping for syslog in
 [RFC5425], which provides a secure connection for the transport of
 syslog messages.  [RFC5425] describes the security threats to syslog
 and how TLS can be used to counter such threats.  [RFC6012] defines
 the Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Transport Mapping for
 syslog, which can be used if a connectionless transport is desired.
 For information on MIB modules related to syslog, see Section 4.2.1.

2.3. IP Flow Information eXport (IPFIX) and Packet SAMPling (PSAMP)

    Protocols
 "Specification of the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Protocol for
 the Exchange of IP Traffic Flow Information" (the IPFIX Protocol)
 [RFC5101] defines a push-based data export mechanism for transferring
 IP flow information in a compact binary format from an Exporter to a
 Collector.
 "Architecture for IP Flow Information Export" (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
 Collecting Process that receives flow information as IPFIX Data
 Records.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 16] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 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 [STD07] and UDP [STD06].
 SCTP is used with its Partial Reliability extension (PR-SCTP)
 specified in [RFC3758].  [RFC6526] specifies an extension to
 [RFC5101], when using the PR-SCTP [RFC3758].  The extension offers
 several advantages over IPFIX export, e.g., the ability to calculate
 Data Record losses for PR-SCTP, immediate reuse of Template IDs
 within an SCTP stream, reduced likelihood of Data Record loss, and
 reduced demands on the Collecting Process.
 IPFIX transmits IP flow information in Data Records containing IPFIX
 Information Elements (IEs) defined by the IPFIX Information Model
 [RFC5102].  IPFIX IEs 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 the methods described in [RFC5473] (for further discussion on
 IPFIX IEs, see Section 4).
 The IPFIX Information Model is extensible.  New IEs can be registered
 at IANA (see "IPFIX Information Elements" in [IANA-PROT]).  IPFIX
 also supports the use of proprietary, i.e., enterprise-specific IEs.
 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 IEs for reporting packet
 information with the IPFIX/PSAMP protocol.
 The IPFIX model of an IP traffic flow is unidirectional.  [RFC5103]
 adds means of reporting bidirectional flows to IPFIX, for example,
 both directions of packet flows of a TCP connection.
 When enterprise-specific IEs 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 a means of exporting extended type information for
 enterprise-specific Information Elements from an Exporter to a
 Collector.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 17] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 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
 [RFC6241] (see Section 2.4.1).  The "Configuration Data Model for
 IPFIX and PSAMP" (the IPFIX Configuration Data Model) [CONF-MODEL]
 has been specified using Unified Modeling Language (UML) class
 diagrams.  The data model is formally defined using the YANG modeling
 language [RFC6020] (see Section 2.4.2).
 At the time of this writing, a framework for IPFIX flow mediation is
 in preparation, which addresses the need for mediation of flow
 information in IPFIX applications in large operator networks, e.g.,
 for aggregating huge amounts of flow data and for anonymization of
 flow information (see the problem statement in [RFC5982]).
 The IPFIX Mediation Framework [RFC6183] defines the intermediate
 device between Exporters and Collectors, which provides an IPFIX
 mediation by receiving a record stream from, e.g., a Collecting
 Process, hosting one or more Intermediate Processes to transform this
 stream, and exporting the transformed record stream into IPFIX
 messages via an Exporting Process.
 Examples for mediation functions are flow aggregation, flow
 selection, and anonymization of traffic information (see [RFC6235]).
 Privacy, integrity, and authentication of the 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 mechanisms and rely on the security mechanism of the
 underlying transport protocol, such as TLS [RFC5246] and DTLS
 [RFC6347].
 The primary goal of IPFIX is the reporting of the flow accounting for
 flexible flow definitions and usage-based accounting.  As described
 in the IPFIX Applicability Statement [RFC5472], there are also other
 applications such as traffic profiling, traffic engineering,
 intrusion detection, and QoS monitoring, that require flow-based
 traffic measurements and can be realized using IPFIX.  Furthermore,

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 18] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 the IPFIX Applicability Statement explains the relation of IPFIX to
 other framework and protocols such as PSAMP, RMON (Remote Network
 Monitoring MIB, Section 4.2.1), and IPPM (IP Performance Metrics,
 Section 3.4)).  Similar flow information could be also used for
 security monitoring.  The addition of Performance Metrics in the
 IPFIX IANA registry [IANA-IPFIX], will extend the IPFIX use case to
 performance management.
 Note that even if the initial IPFIX focus has been around IP flow
 information exchange, non-IP-related IEs are now specified in the
 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 non-IP related IEs (such as SIP monitoring IEs).
 The IPFIX structured data [RFC6313] is an extension to the IPFIX
 protocol, which supports hierarchical structured data and lists
 (sequences) of Information Elements in Data Records.  This extension
 allows the definition of complex data structures such as variable-
 length lists and specification of hierarchical containment
 relationships between templates.  Furthermore, the extension provides
 the semantics to express the relationship among multiple list
 elements in a structured Data Record.
 For information on data models related to the management of the IPFIX
 and PSAMP protocols, see Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2.  For information
 on IPFIX/PSAMP IEs, see Section 4.2.3.

2.4. Network Configuration

2.4.1. Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)

 The IAB workshop on Network Management [RFC3535] determined advanced
 requirements for configuration management:
 o  robustness: Minimizing disruptions and maximizing stability,
 o  a task-oriented view,
 o  extensibility 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,

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 19] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 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  dumping and reloading a device configuration in a textual format
    in a standard manner across multiple vendors and device types,
 o  a human interface and a programmatic interface,
 o  a data modeling language with a human-friendly syntax,
 o  easy conflict detection and configuration validation, and
 o  secure transport, authentication, and robust access control.
 The NETCONF protocol [RFC6241] provides mechanisms to install,
 manipulate, and delete the configuration of network devices and aims
 to address the configuration management requirements pointed out 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].  The
 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).
 The 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 [RFC6022], by using the modeling
 language YANG [RFC6020] (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.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 20] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 The NETCONF working group defined the SSH transport protocol as the
 mandatory transport binding [RFC6242].  Other optional transport
 bindings are TLS [RFC5539], Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol
 (BEEP) over TLS [RFC4744], and Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP)
 over HTTP over TLS [RFC4743].
 The NETCONF Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC6536] provides standard
 mechanisms to restrict protocol access to particular users with a
 pre-configured subset of operations and content.

2.4.2. YANG - NETCONF Data Modeling Language

 Following the guidelines of the IAB management workshop [RFC3535],
 the NETMOD working group developed a data modeling language defining
 the semantics of operational and configuration data, notifications,
 and operations [RFC6020].  The new data modeling language, called
 YANG, maps directly to XML-encoded content (on the wire) and will
 serve as the normative description of NETCONF data models.
 YANG has the 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 the expression of constraints on data models by means
    of type restrictions and XML Path Language (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 the seamless
    augmentation of standard data models with proprietary extensions.
 o  YANG data models can be partitioned into collections of features,
    allowing low-end devices only to 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.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 21] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 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.
 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 the 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 [SMI-YANG].
 Several independent and open source implementations of the YANG data
 modeling language and associated tools are available.
 While YANG is a relatively recent data modeling language, some data
 models have already been produced.  The specification of the base
 NETCONF protocol operations has been revised and uses YANG as the
 normative modeling language to specify its operations [RFC6241].  The
 IPFIX working group prepared the normative model for configuring and
 monitoring IPFIX- and PSAMP-compliant monitoring devices using the
 YANG modeling language [CONF-MODEL].

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 22] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 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 Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2.

3. Network Management Protocols and Mechanisms with Specific Focus

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

3.1. IP Address Management

3.1.1. Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP)

 Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) [RFC2131] provides a
 framework for passing configuration information to hosts on a TCP/IP
 network and, as such, enables autoconfiguration in IP networks.  In
 addition to IP address management, DHCP can also provide other
 configuration information, such as default routers, the IP addresses
 of recursive DNS servers, and the IP addresses of NTP servers.  As
 described in [RFC6272], DHCP can be used for IPv4 and IPv6 Address
 Allocation and Assignment as well as for Service Discovery.
 There are two versions of DHCP: one for IPv4 (DHCPv4) [RFC2131] and
 one for IPv6 (DHCPv6) [RFC3315].  DHCPv4 was defined as an extension
 to BOOTP (Bootstrap Protocol) [RFC0951].  DHCPv6 was subsequently
 defined to accommodate new functions required by IPv6 such as
 assignment of multiple addresses to an interface and to address
 limitations in the design of DHCPv4 resulting from its origins in
 BOOTP.  While both versions bear the same name and perform the same
 functionality, the details of DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 are sufficiently
 different that they can be considered separate protocols.
 In addition to the assignment of IP addresses and other configuration
 information, DHCP options like the Relay Agent Information option
 (DHCPv4) [RFC3046] and, the Interface-Id Option (DHCPv6) [RFC3315]
 are widely used by ISPs.
 DHCPv6 includes Prefix Delegation [RFC3633], which is used to
 provision a router with an IPv6 prefix for use in the subnetwork
 supported by the router.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 23] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 The following are examples of DHCP options that provide configuration
 information or access to specific servers.  A complete list of DHCP
 options is available at [IANA-PROT].
 o  "DNS Configuration options for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
    for IPV6 (DHCPv6)" [RFC3646] describes DHCPv6 options for passing
    a list of available DNS recursive name servers and a domain search
    list to a client.
 o  "DHCP Options for Service Location Protocol" [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 Service Location Protocol (SLP) User
    and Service Agents can be achieved.
 o  "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv6) Options for Session
    Initiation Protocol (SIP) Servers" [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  "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Options for Broadcast
    and Multicast Control Servers" [RFC4280] defines DHCPv6 options to
    discover the Broadcast and Multicast Service (BCMCS) controller in
    an IP network.
 Built directly on UDP and IP, DHCP itself has no security provisions.
 There are two different classes of potential security issues related
 to DHCP: unauthorized DHCP Servers and unauthorized DHCP Clients.
 The recommended solutions to these risks generally involve providing
 security at lower layers, e.g., careful control over physical access
 to the network, security techniques implemented at Layer 2 but also
 IPsec at Layer 3 can be used to provide authentication.

3.1.2. Ad Hoc Network Autoconfiguration

 Ad hoc nodes need to configure their network interfaces with locally
 unique addresses as well as globally routable IPv6 addresses, in
 order to communicate with devices on the Internet.  The IETF AUTOCONF
 working group developed [RFC5889], which describes the addressing
 model for ad hoc networks and how nodes in these networks configure
 their addresses.
 The ad hoc nodes under consideration are expected to be able to
 support multi-hop communication by running MANET (Mobile Ad Hoc
 Network) routing protocols as developed by the IETF MANET working
 group.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 24] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 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 parts of the system that
 are ad hoc unaware, 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 (V6OPS) 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  "Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers" [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  "Transition Scenarios for 3GPP Networks" [RFC3574] lists different
    scenarios in 3GPP defined packet network that would need IPv6 and
    IPv4 transition, where "Analysis on IPv6 Transition in Third
    Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Networks" [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  "Scenarios and Analysis for Introducing IPv6 into ISP Networks"
    [RFC4029] describes and analyzes different scenarios for the
    introduction of IPv6 into an ISP's existing IPv4 network.  "IPv6
    Deployment Scenarios in 802.16 Networks" [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  "Application Aspects of IPv6 Transition" [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  "IANA-Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Address Space" [RFC6598]
    updates RFC 5735 and requested the allocation of an IPv4/10
    address block to be used as "Shared Carrier-Grade Network Address

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 25] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

    Translation (CGN) Space" by Service Providers to number the
    interfaces that connect CGN devices to Customer Premises Equipment
    (CPE).

3.3. Policy-Based Management

3.3.1. IETF Policy Framework

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

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

      (COPS-PR)
 [RFC3159] defines the Structure of Policy Provisioning Information
 (SPPI), an extension to the SMIv2 modeling language used to write
 Policy Information Base (PIB) modules.  COPS-PR [RFC3084] uses the
 Common Open Policy Service (COPS) protocol [RFC2748] for the
 provisioning of policy information.  COPS provides a simple client/
 server model for supporting policy control over QoS signaling
 protocols.  The COPS-PR specification is independent of the type of
 policy being provisioned (QoS, security, etc.) but focuses on the
 mechanisms and conventions used to communicate provisioned
 information between policy-decision-points (PDPs) and policy
 enforcement points (PEPs).  Policy data is modeled using PIB modules.
 COPS-PR has not been widely deployed, and operators have stated that
 its use of binary encoding for management data makes it difficult to
 develop automated scripts for simple configuration management tasks

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 26] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 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 Proposed 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 they 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.
 IPPMs have been adopted by different organizations, e.g., the Metro
 Ethernet Forum.
 Note that this document does not aim to cover OAM technologies on the
 data-path and, as such, the discussion of IPPM-based active versus
 passive monitoring as well as the data plane measurement and its
 diagnostics is rather incomplete.  For a detailed overview and
 discussion of IETF OAM standards and IPPM measurement mechanisms, the
 reader is referred to the documents listed at the end of Section 1.2
 ("Related Work") but especially to [OAM-OVERVIEW].

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 27] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 The following are essential IPPM documents:
 o  "Framework for IP Performance Metrics" [RFC2330] defines a general
    framework for particular metrics developed by the IPPM working
    group, and it defines the fundamental concepts of 'metric' and
    'measurement methodology'.  It also 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  "A One-way Delay Metric for IPPM" [RFC2679] defines a metric for
    the one-way delay of packets across Internet paths.  It builds on
    notions introduced in the IPPM Framework document.
 o  "A Round-trip Delay Metric for IPPM" [RFC2681] defines a metric
    for the round-trip delay of packets across network paths and
    closely follows the corresponding metric for one-way delay.
 o  "IP Packet Delay Variation Metric for IP Performance Metrics
    (IPPM)" [RFC3393] refers to a metric for variation in the 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  "A One-way Packet Loss Metric for IPPM" [RFC2680] defines a metric
    for one-way packet loss across Internet paths.
 o  "A One-Way Packet Duplication Metric" [RFC5560] defines a metric
    for the case where multiple copies of a packet are received, and
    it discusses methods to summarize the results of streams.
 o  "Packet Reordering Metrics" [RFC4737] 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  "IPPM Metrics for Measuring Connectivity" [RFC2678] defines a
    series of metrics for connectivity between a pair of Internet
    hosts.
 o  "Framework for Metric Composition" [RFC5835] describes a detailed
    framework for composing and aggregating metrics.
 o  "Guidelines for Considering New Performance Metric Development"
    [BCP170] describes the framework and process for developing
    Performance Metrics of protocols and applications transported over
    IETF-specified protocols.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 28] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 To measure these metrics, two protocols and a sampling method have
 been standardized:
 o  "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP)" [RFC4656] measures
    unidirectional characteristics such as one-way delay and one-way
    loss between network devices and enables the interoperability of
    these measurements.  OWAMP is discussed in more detail in
    [OAM-OVERVIEW].
 o  "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)" [RFC5357] adds
    round-trip or two-way measurement capabilities to OWAMP.  TWAMP is
    discussed in more detail in [OAM-OVERVIEW].
 o  "Network performance measurement with periodic streams" [RFC3432]
    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 4.2.4.

3.5. Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS)

 "Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)" [RFC2865]
 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 "Radius Accounting"
 [RFC2866] describes a protocol for carrying accounting information
 between a NAS 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
 the networks of fixed broadband access provider as well as cellular
 broadband operators.
 RADIUS uses attributes to carry the specific authentication,
 authorization, information, and configuration details.  RADIUS is
 extensible with a known limitation of a maximum of 255 attribute
 codes and 253 octets as attribute content length.  RADIUS has Vendor-
 Specific Attributes (VSAs), 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.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 29] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 The RADIUS protocol uses a shared secret along with the MD5 hash
 algorithm to secure passwords [RFC1321].  Based on the known threads,
 additional protection like IPsec tunnels [RFC4301] are used to
 further protect the RADIUS traffic.  However, building and
 administering large IPsec-protected networks may become a management
 burden, especially when the IPsec-protected RADIUS infrastructure
 should provide inter-provider connectivity.  Moving towards TLS-based
 security solutions [RFC5246] and establishing dynamic trust
 relationships between RADIUS servers has become a trend.  Since the
 introduction of TCP transport for RADIUS [RFC6613], it became natural
 to have TLS support for RADIUS.  An ongoing work is "Transport Layer
 Security (TLS) encryption for RADIUS" [RFC6614].
 "RADIUS Attributes for Tunnel Protocol Support" [RFC2868] 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.  "Signalling Connection
 Control Part User Adaptation Layer (SUA)" [RFC3868] defines the
 necessary attributes, attribute values, and the required IANA
 registries.
 "RADIUS and IPv6" [RFC3162] specifies the operation of RADIUS over
 IPv6 and the RADIUS attributes used to support the IPv6 network
 access.  "RADIUS Delegated-IPv6-Prefix Attribute" [RFC4818] describes
 how to transport delegated IPv6 prefix information over RADIUS.
 "RADIUS Attributes for Virtual LAN and Priority Support" [RFC4675]
 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.
 "Common Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)
 Implementation Issues and Suggested Fixes" [RFC5080] 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.
 "RADIUS Extension for Digest Authentication" [RFC5090] 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.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 30] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 "Carrying Location Objects in RADIUS and DIAMETER" [RFC5580]
 describes procedures for conveying access-network ownership and
 location information based on civic and geospatial location formats
 in RADIUS and diameter.
 "Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS) Authorization
 for Network Access Server (NAS) Management" [RFC5607] specifies
 required RADIUS attributes and their values for authorizing a
 management access to a NAS.  Both local and remote management are
 supported, with access rights and management privileges.  Specific
 provisions are made for remote management via Framed Management
 protocols, such as SNMP and NETCONF, and for management access over a
 secure transport protocol.
 "RADIUS (Remote Authentication Dial In User Service) Support For
 Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)" [RFC3579] describes how to
 use RADIUS to convey an EAP [RFC3748] payload between the
 authenticator and the EAP server using RADIUS.  RFC 3579 is widely
 implemented, for example, in WLAN and 802.1 X environments.  "IEEE
 802.1X Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) Usage
 Guidelines" [RFC3580] describes how to use RADIUS with IEEE 802.1X
 authenticators.  In the context of 802.1X and EAP-based
 authentication, the VSAs described in [RFC2458] have been widely
 accepted by the industry.  "RADIUS Extensions" [RFC2869] is another
 important RFC related to EAP use.  RFC 2869 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 Sections 4.2.3 and 4.2.5).

3.6. Diameter Base Protocol (Diameter)

 Diameter [RFC3588] provides an Authentication, Authorization, and
 Accounting (AAA) framework for applications such as network access or
 IP mobility.  Diameter is also intended to work in local AAA and in
 roaming scenarios.  Diameter provides an upgrade path for RADIUS but
 is not directly backwards compatible.
 Diameter is designed to resolve a number of known problems with
 RADIUS.  Diameter supports server failover, reliable transport over
 TCP and SCTP, well-documented functions for proxy, redirect and relay
 agent functions, server-initiated messages, auditability, and
 capability negotiation.  Diameter also provides a larger attribute
 space for Attribute-Value Pairs (AVPs) and identifiers than RADIUS.
 Diameter features make it especially appropriate for environments,

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 31] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 where the providers of services are in different administrative
 domains than the maintainer (protector) of confidential user
 information.
 Other notable differences to RADIUS are as follows:
 o  Network and Transport Layer Security (IPsec or TLS),
 o  Stateful and stateless models,
 o  Dynamic discovery of peers (using DNS Service Record (SRV) and
    Naming Authority Pointer (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 a unique IANA-
 assigned application identifier and can add new command codes and/or
 new mandatory AVPs.
 The Diameter application identifier space has been divided into
 Standards Track and 'First Come First Served' vendor-specific
 applications.  The following are examples of Diameter applications
 published at IETF:
 o  Diameter Base Protocol Application [RFC3588]: Required support
    from all Diameter implementations.
 o  Diameter Base Accounting Application [RFC3588]: A Diameter
    application using an accounting protocol based on a server-
    directed model with capabilities for real-time delivery of
    accounting information.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 32] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 o  Diameter Mobile IPv4 Application [RFC4004]: A Diameter application
    that allows a Diameter server to authenticate, authorize, and
    collect accounting information for Mobile IPv4 services rendered
    to a mobile node.
 o  Diameter Network Access Server Application (NASREQ, [RFC4005]): A
    Diameter application used for AAA services in the NAS environment.
 o  Diameter Extensible Authentication Protocol Application [RFC4072]:
    A Diameter application that carries EAP packets between a NAS and
    a back-end authentication server.
 o  Diameter Credit-Control Application [RFC4006]: A Diameter
    application that can be used to implement real-time credit-control
    for a variety of end-user services such as network access, Session
    Initiation Protocol (SIP) services, messaging services, and
    download services.
 o  Diameter Session Initiation Protocol Application [RFC4740]: A
    Diameter application designed to be used in conjunction with SIP
    and provides a Diameter client co-located with a SIP server, with
    the ability to request the authentication of users and
    authorization of SIP resources usage from a Diameter server.
 o  Diameter Quality-of-Service Application [RFC5866]: A Diameter
    application allowing network elements to interact with Diameter
    servers when allocating QoS resources in the network.
 o  Diameter Mobile IPv6 IKE (MIP6I) Application [RFC5778]: A Diameter
    application that enables the interaction between a Mobile IP home
    agent and a Diameter server and is used when the mobile node is
    authenticated and authorized using IKEv2 [RFC5996].
 o  Diameter Mobile IPv6 Auth (MIP6A) Application [RFC5778]: A
    Diameter application that enables the interaction between a Mobile
    IP home agent and a Diameter server and is used when the mobile
    node is authenticated and authorized using the Mobile IPv6
    Authentication Protocol [RFC4285].
 The large majority of Diameter applications are vendor-specific and
 mainly used in various SDOs outside the 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.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 33] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 One part of diameter's extensibility mechanism is an easy and
 consistent way of creating new commands for the need of applications.
 RFC 3588 proposed to define diameter command code allocations with a
 new RFC.  This policy decision caused undesired use and redefinition
 of existing command 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 ongoing development of an update of the base protocol [DIAMETER],
 which introduces TLS as the preferred security mechanism and
 deprecates the in-band security negotiation for TLS.
 Some Diameter protocol enhancements and clarifications that logically
 fit better into [DIAMETER], are also needed on the existing
 deployments based on RFC 3588.  Therefore, protocol extensions
 specifically usable in large inter-provider roaming network scenarios
 are made available for RFC 3588.  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 NAI formatted with multiple realms.  These multi-realm
    Network Access Identifiers are used in order to force the routing
    of request messages through a predefined list of mediating realms.
 o  "Diameter Straightforward-Naming Authority Pointer (S-NAPTR)
    Usage" [RFC6408] describes an improved DNS-based dynamic Diameter
    agent discovery mechanism without having to do diameter capability
    exchange beforehand with a number of agents.
 There have been a growing number of Diameter Framework documents from
 the IETF that basically are just a collection of AVPs for a specific
 purpose or a system architecture with semantic AVP descriptions and a
 logic for "imaginary" applications.  From a 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 the IETF.  Below are examples of a few
 recent AVP and Framework documents:

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 34] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 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 AAA infrastructures by using the diameter NAS-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 (MAG and LMA) and a AAA server within a PMIPv6 Domain.
 For information on MIB modules related to diameter, see
 Section 4.2.5.

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

 Wireless LAN (WLAN) product architectures have evolved from single
 autonomous Access Points to systems consisting of a centralized
 Access Controller (AC) and Wireless Termination Points (WTPs).  The
 general goal of centralized control architectures is to move access
 control, including user authentication and authorization, mobility
 management, and radio management from the single access point to a
 centralized controller, where an Access Point pulls the information
 from the AC.
 Based on "Architecture Taxonomy for Control and Provisioning of
 Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP)" [RFC4118], the CAPWAP working group
 developed the CAPWAP protocol [RFC5415] to facilitate control,
 management, and provisioning of WTPs specifying the services,
 functions, and resources relating to 802.11 WLAN Termination Points
 in order to allow for interoperable implementations of WTPs and ACs.
 The protocol defines the CAPWAP control plane, including the
 primitives to control data access.  The protocol document also
 specifies how configuration management of WTPs can be done and
 defines CAPWAP operations responsible for debugging, gathering
 statistics, logging, and managing firmware 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

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 35] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 binding extensions enable the use with additional wireless
 technologies.  [RFC5416] defines the CAPWAP Protocol Binding for IEEE
 802.11.
 CAPWAP Control messages, and optionally CAPWAP Data messages, are
 secured using DTLS [RFC6347].  DTLS is used as a tightly integrated,
 secure wrapper for the CAPWAP protocol.
 For information on MIB modules related to CAPWAP, see Section 4.2.2.

3.8. Access Node Control Protocol (ANCP)

 The Access Node Control Protocol (ANCP) [RFC6320] realizes a control
 plane between a service-oriented Layer 3 edge device, the 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 AN.
 The main goal of this protocol is to configure and manage access
 equipment and allow them to report information to the NAS in order to
 enable and optimize configuration.
 The framework and requirements for an AN control mechanism and the
 use cases for ANCP are documented in [RFC5851].
 ANCP offers authentication and authorization between AN and NAS nodes
 and provides replay protection and data-origin authentication.  The
 ANCP solution is also robust against Denial-of-Service (DoS) attacks.
 Furthermore, the ANCP solution is recommended to offer
 confidentiality protection.  Security Threats and Security
 Requirements for ANCP are discussed in [RFC5713].

3.9. Application Configuration Access Protocol (ACAP)

 The Application Configuration Access Protocol (ACAP) [RFC2244] is
 designed to support remote storage and access of program option,
 configuration, and preference information.  The datastore model is
 designed to allow a client relatively simple access to interesting
 data, to allow new information to be easily added without server
 reconfiguration, 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 that allow interesting personal information
 to be shared and group information to be restricted.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 36] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 ACAP's primary purpose is to allow applications access to their
 configuration data from multiple network-connected computers.  Users
 can then use any network-connected computer, run any ACAP-enabled
 application, and have access to their own configuration data.  To
 enable wide usage client simplicity has been preferred to server or
 protocol simplicity whenever reasonable.
 The ACAP 'authenticate' command uses Simple Authentication and
 Security Layer (SASL) [RFC4422] to provide basic authentication,
 authorization, integrity, and privacy services.  All ACAP
 implementations are required to implement the CRAM-MD5 (Challenge-
 Response Authentication Mechanism) [RFC2195] for authentication,
 which can be disabled based on the site security policy.

3.10. XML Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP)

 The Extensible Markup Language (XML) Configuration Access Protocol
 (XCAP) [RFC4825] has been designed for and is commonly used with SIP-
 based solutions, in particular, for instant messages, presence, and
 SIP conferences.  XCAP is a protocol that allows a client to read,
 write, and modify application configuration data stored in XML format
 on a server, where the main functionality is provided by so-called
 "XCAP Application Usages".
 XCAP is a protocol that can be used to manipulate per-user data.
 XCAP is a set of conventions for mapping XML documents and document
 components into HTTP URIs, rules for how the modification of one
 resource affects another, data validation constraints, and
 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.
 The following list summarizes important XCAP application usages:
 o  XCAP server capabilities [RFC4825] can be read by clients to
    determine which extensions, application usages, or namespaces a
    server supports.
 o  A resource lists application is any application that needs access
    to a list of resources, identified by a URI, to which operations,
    such as subscriptions, can be applied [RFC4826].

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 37] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 o  A Resource List Server (RLS) Services application is a SIP
    application, where a server receives SIP SUBSCRIBE requests for
    resources and generates subscriptions towards the resource list
    [RFC4826].
 o  A Presence Rules application uses authorization policies, also
    known as authorization rules, to specify what presence information
    can be given to which watchers, and when [RFC4827].
 o  A 'pidf-manipulation' application defines how XCAP is used to
    manipulate the contents of PIDF-based presence documents
    [RFC4827].

4. Network Management Data Models

 This section provides two complementary overviews for the network
 management data models standardized at IETF.  The first subsection
 focuses on a broader view of models classified into categories such
 as generic and infrastructure data models as well as data models
 matched to different layers.  The second subsection is structured
 following the management application view and focuses mainly on the
 data models for the network management tasks fault, configuration,
 accounting, performance, and security management (see [FCAPS]).
 Note that the IETF does not use the FCAPS view as an organizing
 principle for its data models.  However, the FCAPS view is used
 widely outside of the IETF for the realization of management tasks
 and applications.  Section 4.2 aims to address the FCAPS view to
 enable people outside of the IETF to understand the relevant data
 models in the IETF.
 The different data models covered in this section are MIB modules,
 IPFIX Information Elements, Syslog Structured Data Elements, and YANG
 modules.  There are many technology-specific IETF data models, such
 as transmission and protocol MIBs, which are not mentioned in this
 document and can be found at [RFCSEARCH].
 This section gives an overview of management data models that have
 reached Draft or Proposed Standard status at the IETF.  In
 exceptional cases, important Informational RFCs are referenced.  The
 advancement process for management data models beyond Proposed
 Standard status, has been defined in [BCP027] with a more pragmatic
 approach and special considerations on data model specification
 interoperability.  However, most IETF management data models never
 advanced beyond Proposed Standard.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 38] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

4.1. IETF Network Management Data Models

 The data models defined by the IETF can be broadly classified into
 the following categories depicted in Figure 1.
   +-----------+  +-------------------------------+  +-----------+
   |           |  | application-layer data models |  |  network  |
   |  generic  |  +-------------------------------+  | management|
   |  infra-   |  |  transport-layer data models  |  |  infra-   |
   | structure |  +-------------------------------+  | structure |
   |   data    |  |   network-layer data models   |  |   data    |
   |  models   |  +-------------------------------+  |  models   |
   |           |  |    link-layer data models     |  |           |
   +-----------+  +-------------------------------+  +-----------+
        Figure 1: Categories of Network Management Data Models
 Each of the categories is briefly described below.  Note that the
 classification used here is intended to provide orientation and
 reflects how most data models have been developed in the IETF by the
 various working groups.  This classification does not aim to classify
 correctly all data models that have been defined by the IETF so far.
 The network layering model in the middle of Figure 1 follows the
 four-layer model of the Internet as defined in [RFC1021].
 The network management object identifiers for use with IETF MIB
 modules defined in the IETF can be found under the IANA registry at
 [SMI-NUMBERS].

4.1.1. Generic Infrastructure Data Models

 Generic infrastructure data models provide core abstractions that
 many other data models are built upon.  The most important example is
 the interfaces data model defined in the IF-MIB [RFC2863].  It
 provides the basic notion of network interfaces and allows expressing
 stacking/layering relationships between interfaces.  The interfaces
 data model also provides basic monitoring objects that are widely
 used for performance and fault management.
 The second important infrastructure data model is defined in the
 Entity MIB [RFC4133].  It exports the containment hierarchy of the
 physical entities (slots, modules, ports) that make up a networking
 device and, as such, it is a key data model for inventory management.
 Physical entities can have pointers to other data models that provide
 more specific information about them (e.g., physical ports usually
 point to the related network interface).  Entity MIB extensions exist
 for physical sensors such as temperature sensors embedded on line
 cards or sensors that report fan rotation speeds [RFC3433].  The

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 39] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 Entity State MIB [RFC4268] models states and alarms of physical
 entities.  Some vendors have extended the basic Entity MIB with
 several proprietary data models.

4.1.2. Link-Layer Data Models

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

4.1.3. Network-Layer Data Models

 There are data models in the form of MIB modules covering IP/ICMP
 [RFC4293] [RFC4292] network protocols and their extensions (e.g.,
 Mobile IP), the core protocols of the Internet.  In addition, there
 are data models covering popular unicast routing protocols (OSPF
 [RFC4750], IS-IS [RFC4444], BGP-4 [RFC4273]) and multicast routing
 protocols (PIM [RFC5060]).
 Detailed models also exist for performance measurements in the form
 of IP Performance Metrics [RFC2330] (see Section 3.4).
 The necessary data model infrastructure for configuration data models
 covering network layers are currently being defined using NETCONF
 [RFC6242] and YANG [RFC6020].

4.1.4. Transport-Layer Data Models

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

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 40] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

4.1.5. Application-Layer Data Models

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

4.1.6. Network Management Infrastructure Data Models

 A number of data models are concerned with the network management
 system itself.  This includes, in addition to a set of SNMP MIB
 modules for monitoring and configuring SNMP itself [RFC3410], some
 MIB modules providing generic functions such as the calculation of
 expressions over MIB objects, generic functions for thresholding and
 event generation, event notification logging functions, and data
 models to represent alarms [RFC2981] [RFC2982] [RFC3014] [RFC3877].
 In addition, there are data models that allow the execution of basic
 reachability and path discovery tests [RFC4560].  Another collection
 of MIB modules provides remote monitoring functions, ranging from the
 data link layer up to the application layer.  This is known as the
 "RMON family of MIB modules" [RFC3577].
 The IPFIX Protocol [RFC5101] (Section 2.3) is used to export
 information about network flows collected at so-called Observation
 Points (typically, a network interface).  The IEs [RFC5102] carried
 in IPFIX cover the majority of the network and transport layer header
 fields and a few link-layer-specific fields.  Work is underway to
 further extend the standardized information that can be carried in
 IPFIX.
 The Syslog Protocol document [RFC5424] (Section 2.2) defines an
 initial set of Structured Data Elements (SDEs) that relate to content
 time quality, content origin, and meta-information about the message,
 such as language.  Proprietary SDEs can be used to supplement the
 IETF-defined SDEs.

4.2. Network Management Data Models - FCAPS View

 This subsection follows the management application view and aims to
 match the data models to network management tasks for fault,
 configuration, accounting, performance, and security management
 ([FCAPS]).  As OAM is a general term that refers to a toolset, which
 can be used for fault detection, isolation, and performance
 measurement, aspects of FCAPS in the context of the data path, such

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 41] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 as fault and performance management, are also discussed in "An
 Overview of Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
 Mechanisms" [OAM-OVERVIEW].
 Some of the data models do not fit into one single FCAPS category per
 design but span multiple areas.  For example, there are many
 technology-specific IETF data models, such as transmission and
 protocol MIBs, which cover multiple FCAPS categories, and therefore
 are not mentioned in this subsection and can be found at [RFCSEARCH].

4.2.1. Fault Management

 Fault management encloses a set of functions to detect, isolate,
 notify, and correct faults encountered in a network as well as to
 maintain and examine error logs.  The data models below can be
 utilized to realize a fault management application.
 [RFC3418], part of SNMPv3 standard [STD62], is a MIB module
 containing objects in the system group that are often polled to
 determine if a device is still operating, and sysUpTime can be used
 to detect if the network management portion of the system has
 restarted and counters have been re-initialized.
 [RFC3413], part of SNMPv3 standard [STD62], is a MIB module including
 objects designed for managing notifications, including tables for
 addressing, retry parameters, security, lists of targets for
 notifications, and user customization filters.
 The Interfaces Group MIB [RFC2863] builds on the old standard for MIB
 II [STD17] and is used as a primary MIB module for managing and
 monitoring the status of network interfaces.  The Interfaces Group
 MIB defines a generic set of managed objects for network interfaces,
 and it provides the infrastructure for additional managed objects
 specific to particular types of network interfaces, such as Ethernet.
 [RFC4560] defines a MIB module for performing ping, traceroute, and
 lookup operations at a host.  For troubleshooting purposes, it is
 useful to be able to initiate and retrieve the results of ping or
 traceroute operations when they are performed at a remote host.
 The RMON (Remote Network Monitoring) MIB [STD59] can be configured to
 recognize conditions on existing MIB variables (most notably error
 conditions) and continuously check for them.  When one of these
 conditions occurs, the event may be logged, and management stations
 may be notified in a number of ways (for further discussion on RMON,
 see Section 4.2.4).

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 42] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 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 the following:
 o  a mechanism for expressing state transition models for persistent
    problem states,
 o  a mechanism to correlate a notification with subsequent state
    transition notifications about the same entity/object, and
 o  a generic alarm reporting mechanism (extends ITU-T work on X.733
    [ITU-X733]).
 In particular, [RFC3878] defines objects for controlling the
 reporting of alarm conditions and extends ITU-T work on M.3100
 Amendment 3 [ITU-M3100].
 Other MIB modules that may be applied to fault management with SNMP
 include:
 o  NOTIFICATION-LOG-MIB [RFC3014] describes managed objects used for
    logging SNMP Notifications.
 o  ENTITY-STATE-MIB [RFC4268] describes extensions to the Entity MIB
    to provide information about the state of physical entities.
 o  ENTITY-SENSOR-MIB [RFC3433] describes managed objects for
    extending the Entity MIB to provide generalized access to
    information related to physical sensors, which are often found in
    networking equipment (such as chassis temperature, fan RPM, power
    supply voltage).
 The Syslog protocol document [RFC5424] defines an initial set of 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.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 43] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 An IPFIX MIB module [RFC5815] has been defined for monitoring IPFIX
 Meters, Exporters, and Collectors (see Section 2.3).  The ongoing
 work on the PSAMP MIB module extends the IPFIX MIB modules by managed
 objects for monitoring PSAMP implementations [PSAMP-MIB].
 The NETCONF working group defined the data model necessary to monitor
 the NETCONF protocol [RFC6022] with the modeling language YANG.  The
 monitoring data model includes information about NETCONF datastores,
 sessions, locks, and statistics, which facilitate the management of a
 NETCONF server.  The NETCONF monitoring document also defines methods
 for NETCONF clients to discover the data models supported by a
 NETCONF server and defines the operation <get-schema> to retrieve
 them.

4.2.2. Configuration Management

 Configuration management focuses on establishing and maintaining
 consistency of a system and defines the functionality to configure
 its functional and physical attributes as well as operational
 information throughout its life.  Configuration management includes
 configuration of network devices, inventory management, and software
 management.  The data models below can be used to utilize
 configuration management.
 MIB modules for monitoring of network configuration (e.g., for
 physical and logical network topologies) already exist and provide
 some of the desired capabilities.  New MIB modules might be developed
 for the target functionality to allow operators to monitor and modify
 the operational parameters, such as timer granularity, event
 reporting thresholds, target addresses, etc.
 [RFC3418], part of [STD62], contains objects in the system group
 useful, e.g., for identifying the type of device and the location of
 the device, the person responsible for the device.  The SNMPv3
 standard [STD62] furthermore includes objects designed for
 configuring principals, access control rules, notification
 destinations, and for configuring proxy-forwarding SNMP agents, which
 can be used to forward messages through firewalls and NAT devices.
 The Entity MIB [RFC4133] supports mainly inventory management and is
 used for managing multiple logical and physical entities matched to a
 single SNMP agent.  This module provides a useful mechanism for
 identifying the entities comprising a system and defines event
 notifications for configuration changes that may be useful to
 management applications.
 [RFC3165] defines a set of managed objects that enable the delegation
 of management scripts to distributed managers.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 44] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 For configuring IPFIX and PSAMP devices, the IPFIX working group
 developed the IPFIX Configuration Data Model [CONF-MODEL], by using
 the YANG modeling language and in close collaboration with the NETMOD
 working group (see Section 2.4.2).  The model specifies the necessary
 data for configuring and monitoring Selection Processes, caches,
 Exporting Processes, and Collecting Processes of IPFIX- and PSAMP-
 compliant monitoring devices.
 At the time of this writing, the NETMOD working group is developing
 core system and interface models in YANG.
 The CAPWAP protocol exchanges message elements using the Type-Length-
 Value (TLV) format.  The base TLVs are specified in [RFC5415], while
 the TLVs for IEEE 802.11 are specified in [RFC5416].  The CAPWAP Base
 MIB [RFC5833] specifies managed objects for the modeling the CAPWAP
 protocol and provides configuration and WTP status-monitoring aspects
 of CAPWAP, where the CAPWAP Binding MIB [RFC5834] defines managed
 objects for the modeling of the CAPWAP protocol for IEEE 802.11
 wireless binding.
 Note: RFC 5833 and RFC 5834 have been published as Informational RFCs
 to provide the basis for future work on a SNMP management of the
 CAPWAP protocol.

4.2.3. Accounting Management

 Accounting management collects usage information of network
 resources.  Note that the IETF does not define any mechanisms related
 to billing and charging.  Many technology-specific MIBs (link layer,
 network layer, transport layer, or application layer) contain
 counters but are not primarily targeted for accounting and,
 therefore, are not included in this section.
 "RADIUS Accounting Client MIB for IPv6" [RFC4670] defines RADIUS
 Accounting Client MIB objects that support version-neutral IP
 addressing formats.
 "RADIUS Accounting Server MIB for IPv6" [RFC4671] 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.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 45] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 The IPFIX Information Elements (IEs) have been initially defined in
 the IPFIX Information Model [RFC5102] and registered with IANA
 [IANA-IPFIX].  The IPFIX IEs are composed of two types:
 o  IEs related to identification of IP flows such as header
    information, derived packet properties, IGP and BGP next-hop IP
    address, BGP AS, etc., and
 o  IEs related to counter and timestamps, such as per-flow counters
    (e.g., octet count, packet count), flow start times, flow end
    times, and flow duration, etc.
 The Information Elements specified in the IPFIX Information Model
 [RFC5102] are used by the PSAMP protocol where applicable.  PSAMP
 Parameters defined in the PSAMP protocol specification are registered
 at [IANA-PSAMP].  An additional set of PSAMP Information Elements for
 reporting packet information with the IPFIX/PSAMP protocol such as
 Sampling-related IEs are specified in the PSAMP Information Model
 [RFC5477].  These IEs fulfill the requirements on reporting of
 different sampling and filtering techniques specified in [RFC5475].

4.2.4. Performance Management

 Performance management covers a set of functions that evaluate and
 report the performance of network elements and the network, with the
 goal to maintain the overall network performance at a defined level.
 Performance management functionality includes monitoring and
 measurement of network performance parameters, gathering statistical
 information, maintaining and examining activity logs.  The data
 models below can be used for performance management tasks.
 The RMON (Remote Network Monitoring) MIB [STD59] defines objects for
 collecting data related to network performance and traffic from
 remote monitoring devices.  An organization may employ many remote
 monitoring probes, one per network segment, to monitor its network.
 These devices may be used by a network service provider to access a
 (distant) client network.  Most of the objects in the RMON MIB module
 are suitable for the monitoring of any type of network, while some of
 them are specific to the monitoring of Ethernet networks.
 RMON allows a probe to be configured to perform diagnostics and to
 collect network statistics continuously, even when communication with
 the management station may not be possible or efficient.  The alarm
 group periodically takes statistical samples from variables in the
 probe and compares them to previously configured thresholds.  If the
 monitored variable crosses a threshold, an event is generated.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 46] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 "Introduction to the Remote Monitoring (RMON) Family of MIB Modules"
 [RFC3577] describes the documents associated with the RMON Framework
 and how they relate to each other.
 The RMON-2 MIB [RFC4502] extends RMON by providing RMON analysis up
 to the application layer and defines performance data to monitor.
 The SMON MIB [RFC2613] extends RMON by providing RMON analysis for
 switched networks.
 "Remote Monitoring 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.
 "Remote Network Monitoring Management Information Base for High
 Capacity Networks" [RFC3273] defines objects for managing RMON
 devices for use on high-speed networks.
 "Remote Monitoring MIB Extensions for Interface Parameters
 Monitoring" [RFC3144] describes an extension to the RMON MIB with a
 method of sorting the interfaces of a monitored device according to
 values of parameters specific to this interface.
 [RFC4710] describes Real-Time Application Quality of Service
 Monitoring (RAQMON), which is part of the RMON protocol family.
 RAQMON supports end-to-end QoS monitoring for multiple concurrent
 applications and does not relate to a specific application transport.
 RAQMON is scalable and works well with encrypted payload and
 signaling.  RAQMON uses TCP to transport RAQMON PDUs.
 [RFC4711] proposes an extension to the Remote Monitoring MIB [STD59]
 and describes managed objects used for RAQMON.  [RFC4712] specifies
 two transport mappings for the RAQMON information model using TCP as
 a native transport and SNMP to carry the RAQMON information from a
 RAQMON Data Source (RDS) to a RAQMON Report Collector (RRC).
 "Application Performance Measurement MIB" [RFC3729] uses the
 architecture created in the RMON MIB and defines objects by providing
 measurement and analysis of the application performance as
 experienced by end-users.  [RFC3729] enables the measurement of the
 quality of service delivered to end-users by applications.
 "Transport Performance Metrics MIB" [RFC4150] describes managed
 objects used for monitoring selectable Performance Metrics and
 statistics derived from the monitoring of network packets and sub-
 application level transactions.  The metrics can be defined through
 reference to existing IETF, ITU, and other SDOs' documents.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 47] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 The IPPM working group has defined "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)
 Metrics Registry" [RFC4148].  Note that with the publication of
 [RFC6248], [RFC4148] and the corresponding IANA registry for IPPM
 metrics have been declared Obsolete and shouldn't be used.
 The IPPM working group defined the "Information Model and XML Data
 Model for Traceroute Measurements" [RFC5388], which defines a common
 information model dividing the IEs 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.
 "Session Initiation Protocol Event Package for Voice Quality
 Reporting" [RFC6035] defines a SIP event package that enables the
 collection and reporting of metrics that measure the quality for
 Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) sessions.

4.2.5. Security Management

 Security management provides the set of functions to protect the
 network and system from unauthorized access and includes functions
 such as creating, deleting, and controlling security services and
 mechanisms, key management, reporting security-relevant events, and
 authorizing user access and privileges.  Based on their support for
 authentication and authorization, RADIUS and diameter are seen as
 security management protocols.  The data models below can be used to
 utilize security management.
 [RFC3414], part of [STD62], specifies the procedures for providing
 SNMPv3 message-level security and includes a MIB module for remotely
 monitoring and managing the configuration parameters for the USM.
 [RFC3415], part of [STD62], describes the procedures for controlling
 access to management information in the SNMPv3 architecture and
 includes a MIB module, which defines managed objects to access
 portions of an SNMP engine's Local Configuration Datastore (LCD).  As
 such, this MIB module enables remote management of the configuration
 parameters of the VACM.
 The NETCONF Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC6536] addresses the need
 for access control mechanisms for the operation and content layers of
 NETCONF, as defined in [RFC6241].  As such, the NACM proposes
 standard mechanisms to restrict NETCONF protocol access for
 particular users to a pre-configured subset of all available NETCONF
 protocol operations and content within a particular server.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 48] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 There are numerous MIB modules defined for multiple purposes to use
 with RADIUS:
 o  "RADIUS Authentication Client MIB for IPv6" [RFC4668] 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  "RADIUS Authentication Server MIB for IPv6" [RFC4669] defines
    RADIUS Authentication Server MIB objects that support version-
    neutral IP addressing formats and defines a set of extensions for
    RADIUS authentication server functions.
 o  "RADIUS Dynamic Authorization Client MIB" [RFC4672] defines the
    MIB module for entities implementing the client side of the
    Dynamic Authorization Extensions to RADIUS [RFC5176].
 o  "RADIUS Dynamic Authorization Server MIB" [RFC4673] defines the
    MIB module for entities implementing the server side of the
    Dynamic Authorization Extensions to RADIUS [RFC5176].
 The MIB Module definitions in [RFC4668], [RFC4669], [RFC4672],
 [RFC4673] are intended to be used only for RADIUS over UDP and do not
 support RADIUS over TCP.  There is also a recommendation that RADIUS
 clients and servers implementing RADIUS over TCP should not reuse
 earlier listed MIB modules to perform statistics counting for RADIUS-
 over-TCP connections.
 Currently, there are no standardized MIB modules for diameter
 applications, which can be considered as a lack on the management
 side of diameter nodes.

5. Security Considerations

 This document gives an overview of IETF network management standards
 and summarizes existing and ongoing development of IETF Standards
 Track network management protocols and data models.  As such, it does
 not have any security implications in or of itself.
 For each specific technology discussed in the document a summary of
 its security usage has been given in corresponding chapters.  In a
 few cases, e.g., for SNMP, a detailed description of developed
 security mechanisms has been provided.
 The attention of the reader is particularly drawn to the security
 discussion in following document sections:
 o  SNMP Security and Access Control Models in Section 2.1.4.1,

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 49] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 o  User-based Security Model (USM) in Section 2.1.4.2,
 o  View-based Access Control Model (VACM) in Section 2.1.4.3,
 o  SNMP Transport Security Model in Section 2.1.5.1,
 o  Secure syslog message delivery in Section 2.2,
 o  Use of secure NETCONF message transport and the NETCONF Access
    Control Model (NACM) in Section 2.4.1,
 o  Message authentication for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
    (DHCP) in Section 3.1.1,
 o  Security for Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS)
    in conjunction with EAP and IEEE 802.1X authenticators in
    Section 3.5,
 o  Built-in and transport security for the Diameter Base Protocol in
    Section 3.6,
 o  Transport security for Control And Provisioning of Wireless Access
    Points (CAPWAP) in Section 3.7,
 o  Built-in security for Access Node Control Protocol (ANCP) in
    Section 3.8,
 o  Security for Application Configuration Access Protocol (ACAP) in
    Section 3.9,
 o  Security for XML Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP) in
    Section 3.10, and
 o  Data models for Security Management in Section 4.2.5.
 The authors would also like to refer to detailed security
 consideration sections for specific management standards described in
 this document, which contain comprehensive discussion of security
 implications of the particular management protocols and mechanisms.
 Among others, security consideration sections of following documents
 should be carefully read before implementing the technology.
 o  For SNMP security in general, subsequent security consideration
    sections in [STD62], which includes RFCs 3411-3418,
 o  Security considerations section in Section 8 of [BCP074] for the
    coexistence of SNMP versions 1, 2, and 3,

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 50] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 o  Security considerations for the SNMP Transport Security Model in
    Section 8 of [RFC5591],
 o  Security considerations for the Secure Shell Transport Model for
    SNMP in Section 9 of [RFC5592],
 o  Security considerations for the TLS Transport Model for SNMP in
    Section 9 of [RFC6353],
 o  Security considerations for the TLS Transport Mapping for syslog
    in Section 6 of [RFC5425],
 o  Security considerations for the IPFIX Protocol Specification in
    Section 11 of [RFC5101],
 o  Security considerations for the NETCONF protocol in Section 9 of
    [RFC6241] and the SSH transport in Section 6 of [RFC6242],
 o  Security considerations for the NETCONF Access Control Model
    (NACM) in Section 3.7 of [RFC6536],
 o  Security considerations for DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 in Section 7 of
    [RFC2131] and Section 23. of [RFC3315],
 o  Security considerations for RADIUS in Section 8 of [RFC2865],
 o  Security considerations for diameter in Section 13 of [RFC3588],
 o  Security considerations for the CAPWAP protocol in Section 12 of
    [RFC5415],
 o  Security considerations for the ANCP protocol in Section 11 of
    [RFC6320], and
 o  Security considerations for the XCAP protocol in Section 14 of
    [RFC4825].

6. Contributors

 Following persons made significant contributions to and reviewed this
 document:
 o  Ralph Droms (Cisco) - revised the section on IP Address Management
    and DHCP.
 o  Jouni Korhonen (Nokia Siemens Networks) - contributed the sections
    on RADIUS and diameter.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 51] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 o  Al Morton (AT&T) - contributed to the section on IP Performance
    Metrics.
 o  Juergen Quittek (NEC) - contributed the section on IPFIX/PSAMP.
 o  Juergen Schoenwaelder (Jacobs University Bremen) - contributed the
    sections on IETF Network Management Data Models and YANG.

7. Acknowledgements

 The editor would like to thank Fred Baker, Alex Clemm, Miguel A.
 Garcia, Simon Leinen, Christopher Liljenstolpe, Tom Petch, Randy
 Presuhn, Dan Romascanu, Juergen Schoenwaelder, Tina Tsou, and Henk
 Uijterwaal for their valuable suggestions and comments in the OPSAWG
 sessions and on the mailing list.
 The editor would like to especially thank Dave Harrington, who
 created the document "Survey of IETF Network Management Standards" a
 few years ago, which has been used as a starting point and enhanced
 with a special focus on the description of the IETF network
 management standards and management data models.

8. 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>.
 [BCP027]        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.
 [BCP074]        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.
 [BCP170]        Clark, A. and B. Claise, "Guidelines for Considering
                 New Performance Metric Development", BCP 170,
                 RFC 6390, October 2011.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 52] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 [CONF-MODEL]    Muenz, G., Claise, B., and P. Aitken, "Configuration
                 Data Model for IPFIX and PSAMP", Work in Progress,
                 July 2011.
 [DIAMETER]      Fajardo, V., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn,
                 "Diameter Base Protocol", Work in Progress,
                 April 2012.
 [DMTF-CIM]      DMTF, "Common Information Model Schema, Version
                 2.27.0", November 2010,
                 <http://www.dmtf.org/standards/cim>.
 [EMAN-WG]       IETF, "EMAN Working Group",
                 <http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/eman>.
 [FCAPS]         International Telecommunication Union, "X.700:
                 Management Framework For Open Systems Interconnection
                 (OSI) For CCITT Applications", September 1992,
                 <http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.700-199209-I/en>.
 [IANA-AAA]      Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "Authentication,
                 Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Parameters",
                 February 2012,
                 <http://www.iana.org/assignments/aaa-parameters>.
 [IANA-IPFIX]    Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "IP Flow
                 Information Export (IPFIX) Entities", May 2012,
                 <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipfix>.
 [IANA-PROT]     Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "Protocol
                 Registries", <http://www.iana.org/protocols/>.
 [IANA-PSAMP]    Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "Packet Sampling
                 (PSAMP) Parameters", April 2009,
                 <http://www.iana.org/assignments/psamp-parameters>.
 [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>.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 53] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 [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>.
 [MPLSTP-MIB]    King, D. and V. Mahalingam, "Multiprotocol Label
                 Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) MIB-based
                 Management Overview", Work in Progress, April 2012.
 [OAM-ANALYSIS]  Sprecher, N. and L. Fang, "An Overview of the OAM
                 Tool Set for MPLS based Transport Networks", Work
                 in Progress, April 2012.
 [OAM-OVERVIEW]  Mizrahi, T., Sprecher, N., Bellagamba, E., and Y.
                 Weingarten, "An Overview of Operations,
                 Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Mechanisms",
                 Work in Progress, March 2012.
 [PSAMP-MIB]     Dietz, T., Claise, B., and J. Quittek, "Definitions
                 of Managed Objects for Packet Sampling", Work
                 in Progress, October 2011.
 [RELAX-NG]      OASIS, "RELAX NG Specification, Committee
                 Specification 3 December 2001", December 2001, <http:
                 //www.oasis-open.org/committees/relax-ng/
                 spec-20011203.html>.
 [RFC0951]       Croft, B. and J. Gilmore, "Bootstrap Protocol",
                 RFC 951, September 1985.
 [RFC1021]       Partridge, C. and G. Trewitt, "High-level Entity
                 Management System (HEMS)", RFC 1021, October 1987.
 [RFC1155]       Rose, M. and K. McCloghrie, "Structure and
                 identification of management information for TCP/
                 IP-based internets", STD 16, RFC 1155, May 1990.
 [RFC1157]       Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M., and J. Davin,
                 "Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 15,
                 RFC 1157, May 1990.
 [RFC1212]       Rose, M. and K. McCloghrie, "Concise MIB
                 definitions", STD 16, RFC 1212, March 1991.
 [RFC1215]       Rose, M., "Convention for defining traps for use with
                 the SNMP", RFC 1215, March 1991.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 54] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 [RFC1321]       Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm",
                 RFC 1321, April 1992.
 [RFC1470]       Enger, R. and J. Reynolds, "FYI on a Network
                 Management Tool Catalog: Tools for Monitoring and
                 Debugging TCP/IP Internets and Interconnected
                 Devices", RFC 1470, June 1993.
 [RFC1901]       Case, J., McCloghrie, K., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M.,
                 and S. Waldbusser, "Introduction to Community-based
                 SNMPv2", RFC 1901, January 1996.
 [RFC2026]       Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process --
                 Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
 [RFC2119]       Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
                 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
 [RFC2127]       Roeck, G., "ISDN Management Information Base using
                 SMIv2", RFC 2127, March 1997.
 [RFC2131]       Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",
                 RFC 2131, March 1997.
 [RFC2195]       Klensin, J., Catoe, R., and P. Krumviede, "IMAP/POP
                 AUTHorize Extension for Simple Challenge/Response",
                 RFC 2195, September 1997.
 [RFC2244]       Newman, C. and J. Myers, "ACAP -- Application
                 Configuration Access Protocol", RFC 2244,
                 November 1997.
 [RFC2287]       Krupczak, C. and J. Saperia, "Definitions of System-
                 Level Managed Objects for Applications", RFC 2287,
                 February 1998.
 [RFC2330]       Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,
                 "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330,
                 May 1998.
 [RFC2458]       Lu, H., Krishnaswamy, M., Conroy, L., Bellovin, S.,
                 Burg, F., DeSimone, A., Tewani, K., Davidson, P.,
                 Schulzrinne, H., and K. Vishwanathan, "Toward the
                 PSTN/Internet Inter-Networking --Pre-PINT
                 Implementations", RFC 2458, November 1998.
 [RFC2515]       Tesink, K., "Definitions of Managed Objects for ATM
                 Management", RFC 2515, February 1999.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 55] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 [RFC2564]       Kalbfleisch, C., Krupczak, C., Presuhn, R., and J.
                 Saperia, "Application Management MIB", RFC 2564,
                 May 1999.
 [RFC2578]       McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J.
                 Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Structure of Management
                 Information Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578,
                 April 1999.
 [RFC2579]       McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J.
                 Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Textual Conventions for SMIv2",
                 STD 58, RFC 2579, April 1999.
 [RFC2580]       McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., and J. Schoenwaelder,
                 "Conformance Statements for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580,
                 April 1999.
 [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 Informational [Page 56] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 [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.
 [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 Informational [Page 57] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 [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.
 [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,
                 RFC 3411, December 2002.
 [RFC3413]       Levi, D., Meyer, P., and B. Stewart, "Simple Network
                 Management Protocol (SNMP) Applications", STD 62,
                 RFC 3413, December 2002.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 58] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 [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
                 Management Workshop", RFC 3535, May 2003.
 [RFC3574]       Soininen, J., "Transition Scenarios for 3GPP
                 Networks", RFC 3574, August 2003.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 59] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 [RFC3577]       Waldbusser, S., Cole, R., Kalbfleisch, C., and D.
                 Romascanu, "Introduction to the Remote Monitoring
                 (RMON) Family of MIB Modules", RFC 3577, August 2003.
 [RFC3579]       Aboba, B. and P. Calhoun, "RADIUS (Remote
                 Authentication Dial In User Service) Support For
                 Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)", RFC 3579,
                 September 2003.
 [RFC3580]       Congdon, P., Aboba, B., Smith, A., Zorn, G., and J.
                 Roese, "IEEE 802.1X Remote Authentication Dial In
                 User Service (RADIUS) Usage Guidelines", RFC 3580,
                 September 2003.
 [RFC3588]       Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and
                 J. Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588,
                 September 2003.
 [RFC3589]       Loughney, J., "Diameter Command Codes for Third
                 Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Release 5",
                 RFC 3589, September 2003.
 [RFC3606]       Ly, F., Noto, M., Smith, A., Spiegel, E., and K.
                 Tesink, "Definitions of Supplemental Managed Objects
                 for ATM Interface", RFC 3606, November 2003.
 [RFC3633]       Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for
                 Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version
                 6", RFC 3633, December 2003.
 [RFC3646]       Droms, R., "DNS Configuration options for Dynamic
                 Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)",
                 RFC 3646, December 2003.
 [RFC3729]       Waldbusser, S., "Application Performance Measurement
                 MIB", RFC 3729, March 2004.
 [RFC3748]       Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J.,
                 and H. Levkowetz, "Extensible Authentication Protocol
                 (EAP)", RFC 3748, June 2004.
 [RFC3758]       Stewart, R., Ramalho, M., Xie, Q., Tuexen, M., and P.
                 Conrad, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)
                 Partial Reliability Extension", RFC 3758, May 2004.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 60] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 [RFC3868]       Loughney, J., Sidebottom, G., Coene, L., Verwimp, G.,
                 Keller, J., and B. Bidulock, "Signalling Connection
                 Control Part User Adaptation Layer (SUA)", RFC 3868,
                 October 2004.
 [RFC3873]       Pastor, J. and M. Belinchon, "Stream Control
                 Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Management Information
                 Base (MIB)", RFC 3873, September 2004.
 [RFC3877]       Chisholm, S. and D. Romascanu, "Alarm Management
                 Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3877, September 2004.
 [RFC3878]       Lam, H., Huynh, A., and D. Perkins, "Alarm Reporting
                 Control Management Information Base (MIB)", RFC 3878,
                 September 2004.
 [RFC3917]       Quittek, J., Zseby, T., Claise, B., and S. Zander,
                 "Requirements for IP Flow Information Export
                 (IPFIX)", RFC 3917, October 2004.
 [RFC3954]       Claise, B., "Cisco Systems NetFlow Services Export
                 Version 9", RFC 3954, October 2004.
 [RFC4004]       Calhoun, P., Johansson, T., Perkins, C., Hiller, T.,
                 and P. McCann, "Diameter Mobile IPv4 Application",
                 RFC 4004, August 2005.
 [RFC4005]       Calhoun, P., Zorn, G., Spence, D., and D. Mitton,
                 "Diameter Network Access Server Application",
                 RFC 4005, August 2005.
 [RFC4006]       Hakala, H., Mattila, L., Koskinen, J-P., Stura, M.,
                 and J. Loughney, "Diameter Credit-Control
                 Application", RFC 4006, August 2005.
 [RFC4022]       Raghunarayan, R., "Management Information Base for
                 the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)", RFC 4022,
                 March 2005.
 [RFC4029]       Lind, M., Ksinant, V., Park, S., Baudot, A., and P.
                 Savola, "Scenarios and Analysis for Introducing IPv6
                 into ISP Networks", RFC 4029, March 2005.
 [RFC4038]       Shin, M-K., Hong, Y-G., Hagino, J., Savola, P., and
                 E. Castro, "Application Aspects of IPv6 Transition",
                 RFC 4038, March 2005.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 61] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 [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.
 [RFC4113]       Fenner, B. and J. Flick, "Management Information Base
                 for the User Datagram Protocol (UDP)", RFC 4113,
                 June 2005.
 [RFC4118]       Yang, L., Zerfos, P., and E. Sadot, "Architecture
                 Taxonomy for Control and Provisioning of Wireless
                 Access Points (CAPWAP)", RFC 4118, June 2005.
 [RFC4133]       Bierman, A. and K. McCloghrie, "Entity MIB (Version
                 3)", RFC 4133, August 2005.
 [RFC4148]       Stephan, E., "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Metrics
                 Registry", BCP 108, RFC 4148, August 2005.
 [RFC4150]       Dietz, R. and R. Cole, "Transport Performance Metrics
                 MIB", RFC 4150, August 2005.
 [RFC4188]       Norseth, K. and E. Bell, "Definitions of Managed
                 Objects for Bridges", RFC 4188, September 2005.
 [RFC4213]       Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition
                 Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213,
                 October 2005.
 [RFC4215]       Wiljakka, J., "Analysis on IPv6 Transition in Third
                 Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Networks",
                 RFC 4215, October 2005.
 [RFC4221]       Nadeau, T., Srinivasan, C., and A. Farrel,
                 "Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Management
                 Overview", RFC 4221, November 2005.
 [RFC4268]       Chisholm, S. and D. Perkins, "Entity State MIB",
                 RFC 4268, November 2005.
 [RFC4273]       Haas, J. and S. Hares, "Definitions of Managed
                 Objects for BGP-4", RFC 4273, January 2006.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 62] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 [RFC4280]       Chowdhury, K., Yegani, P., and L. Madour, "Dynamic
                 Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Options for
                 Broadcast and Multicast Control Servers", RFC 4280,
                 November 2005.
 [RFC4285]       Patel, A., Leung, K., Khalil, M., Akhtar, H., and K.
                 Chowdhury, "Authentication Protocol for Mobile IPv6",
                 RFC 4285, January 2006.
 [RFC4292]       Haberman, B., "IP Forwarding Table MIB", RFC 4292,
                 April 2006.
 [RFC4293]       Routhier, S., "Management Information Base for the
                 Internet Protocol (IP)", RFC 4293, April 2006.
 [RFC4301]       Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
                 Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.
 [RFC4318]       Levi, D. and D. Harrington, "Definitions of Managed
                 Objects for Bridges with Rapid Spanning Tree
                 Protocol", RFC 4318, December 2005.
 [RFC4363]       Levi, D. and D. Harrington, "Definitions of Managed
                 Objects for Bridges with Traffic Classes, Multicast
                 Filtering, and Virtual LAN Extensions", RFC 4363,
                 January 2006.
 [RFC4422]       Melnikov, A. and K. Zeilenga, "Simple Authentication
                 and Security Layer (SASL)", RFC 4422, June 2006.
 [RFC4444]       Parker, J., "Management Information Base for
                 Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS)",
                 RFC 4444, April 2006.
 [RFC4502]       Waldbusser, S., "Remote Network Monitoring Management
                 Information Base Version 2", RFC 4502, May 2006.
 [RFC4546]       Raftus, D. and E. Cardona, "Radio Frequency (RF)
                 Interface Management Information Base for Data over
                 Cable Service Interface Specifications (DOCSIS) 2.0
                 Compliant RF Interfaces", RFC 4546, June 2006.
 [RFC4560]       Quittek, J. and K. White, "Definitions of Managed
                 Objects for Remote Ping, Traceroute, and Lookup
                 Operations", RFC 4560, June 2006.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 63] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 [RFC4564]       Govindan, S., Cheng, H., Yao, ZH., Zhou, WH., and L.
                 Yang, "Objectives for Control and Provisioning of
                 Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP)", RFC 4564,
                 July 2006.
 [RFC4656]       Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J.,
                 and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement
                 Protocol (OWAMP)", RFC 4656, September 2006.
 [RFC4663]       Harrington, D., "Transferring MIB Work from IETF
                 Bridge MIB WG to IEEE 802.1 WG", RFC 4663,
                 September 2006.
 [RFC4668]       Nelson, D., "RADIUS Authentication Client MIB for
                 IPv6", RFC 4668, August 2006.
 [RFC4669]       Nelson, D., "RADIUS Authentication Server MIB for
                 IPv6", RFC 4669, August 2006.
 [RFC4670]       Nelson, D., "RADIUS Accounting Client MIB for IPv6",
                 RFC 4670, August 2006.
 [RFC4671]       Nelson, D., "RADIUS Accounting Server MIB for IPv6",
                 RFC 4671, August 2006.
 [RFC4672]       De Cnodder, S., Jonnala, N., and M. Chiba, "RADIUS
                 Dynamic Authorization Client MIB", RFC 4672,
                 September 2006.
 [RFC4673]       De Cnodder, S., Jonnala, N., and M. Chiba, "RADIUS
                 Dynamic Authorization Server MIB", RFC 4673,
                 September 2006.
 [RFC4675]       Congdon, P., Sanchez, M., and B. Aboba, "RADIUS
                 Attributes for Virtual LAN and Priority Support",
                 RFC 4675, September 2006.
 [RFC4706]       Morgenstern, M., Dodge, M., Baillie, S., and U.
                 Bonollo, "Definitions of Managed Objects for
                 Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line 2 (ADSL2)",
                 RFC 4706, November 2006.
 [RFC4710]       Siddiqui, A., Romascanu, D., and E. Golovinsky,
                 "Real-time Application Quality-of-Service Monitoring
                 (RAQMON) Framework", RFC 4710, October 2006.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 64] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 [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.
 [RFC4743]       Goddard, T., "Using NETCONF over the Simple Object
                 Access Protocol (SOAP)", RFC 4743, December 2006.
 [RFC4744]       Lear, E. and K. Crozier, "Using the NETCONF Protocol
                 over the Blocks Extensible Exchange Protocol (BEEP)",
                 RFC 4744, December 2006.
 [RFC4750]       Joyal, D., Galecki, P., Giacalone, S., Coltun, R.,
                 and F. Baker, "OSPF Version 2 Management Information
                 Base", RFC 4750, December 2006.
 [RFC4780]       Lingle, K., Mule, J-F., Maeng, J., and D. Walker,
                 "Management Information Base for the Session
                 Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4780, April 2007.
 [RFC4789]       Schoenwaelder, J. and T. Jeffree, "Simple Network
                 Management Protocol (SNMP) over IEEE 802 Networks",
                 RFC 4789, November 2006.
 [RFC4803]       Nadeau, T. and A. Farrel, "Generalized Multiprotocol
                 Label Switching (GMPLS) Label Switching Router (LSR)
                 Management Information Base", RFC 4803,
                 February 2007.
 [RFC4818]       Salowey, J. and R. Droms, "RADIUS Delegated-IPv6-
                 Prefix Attribute", RFC 4818, April 2007.
 [RFC4825]       Rosenberg, J., "The Extensible Markup Language (XML)
                 Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP)", RFC 4825,
                 May 2007.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 65] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 [RFC4826]       Rosenberg, J., "Extensible Markup Language (XML)
                 Formats for Representing Resource Lists", RFC 4826,
                 May 2007.
 [RFC4827]       Isomaki, M. and E. Leppanen, "An Extensible Markup
                 Language (XML) Configuration Access Protocol (XCAP)
                 Usage for Manipulating Presence Document Contents",
                 RFC 4827, May 2007.
 [RFC4898]       Mathis, M., Heffner, J., and R. Raghunarayan, "TCP
                 Extended Statistics MIB", RFC 4898, May 2007.
 [RFC4960]       Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
                 RFC 4960, September 2007.
 [RFC5060]       Sivaramu, R., Lingard, J., McWalter, D., Joshi, B.,
                 and A. Kessler, "Protocol Independent Multicast MIB",
                 RFC 5060, January 2008.
 [RFC5080]       Nelson, D. and A. DeKok, "Common Remote
                 Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)
                 Implementation Issues and Suggested Fixes", RFC 5080,
                 December 2007.
 [RFC5085]       Nadeau, T. and C. Pignataro, "Pseudowire Virtual
                 Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV): A Control
                 Channel for Pseudowires", RFC 5085, December 2007.
 [RFC5090]       Sterman, B., Sadolevsky, D., Schwartz, D., Williams,
                 D., and W. Beck, "RADIUS Extension for Digest
                 Authentication", RFC 5090, February 2008.
 [RFC5101]       Claise, B., "Specification of the IP Flow Information
                 Export (IPFIX) Protocol for the Exchange of IP
                 Traffic Flow Information", RFC 5101, January 2008.
 [RFC5102]       Quittek, J., Bryant, S., Claise, B., Aitken, P., and
                 J. Meyer, "Information Model for IP 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.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 66] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 [RFC5181]       Shin, M-K., Han, Y-H., Kim, S-E., and D. Premec,
                 "IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in 802.16 Networks",
                 RFC 5181, May 2008.
 [RFC5224]       Brenner, M., "Diameter Policy Processing
                 Application", RFC 5224, March 2008.
 [RFC5246]       Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer
                 Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
                 August 2008.
 [RFC5277]       Chisholm, S. and H. Trevino, "NETCONF Event
                 Notifications", RFC 5277, July 2008.
 [RFC5357]       Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and
                 J. Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol
                 (TWAMP)", RFC 5357, October 2008.
 [RFC5388]       Niccolini, S., Tartarelli, S., Quittek, J., Dietz,
                 T., and M. Swany, "Information Model and XML Data
                 Model for Traceroute Measurements", RFC 5388,
                 December 2008.
 [RFC5415]       Calhoun, P., Montemurro, M., and D. Stanley, "Control
                 And Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP)
                 Protocol Specification", RFC 5415, March 2009.
 [RFC5416]       Calhoun, P., Montemurro, M., and D. Stanley, "Control
                 and Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP)
                 Protocol Binding for IEEE 802.11", RFC 5416,
                 March 2009.
 [RFC5424]       Gerhards, R., "The Syslog Protocol", RFC 5424,
                 March 2009.
 [RFC5425]       Miao, F., Ma, Y., and J. Salowey, "Transport Layer
                 Security (TLS) Transport Mapping for Syslog",
                 RFC 5425, March 2009.
 [RFC5426]       Okmianski, A., "Transmission of Syslog Messages over
                 UDP", RFC 5426, March 2009.
 [RFC5427]       Keeni, G., "Textual Conventions for Syslog
                 Management", RFC 5427, March 2009.
 [RFC5431]       Sun, D., "Diameter ITU-T Rw Policy Enforcement
                 Interface Application", RFC 5431, March 2009.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 67] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 [RFC5447]       Korhonen, J., Bournelle, J., Tschofenig, H., Perkins,
                 C., and K. Chowdhury, "Diameter Mobile IPv6: Support
                 for Network Access Server to Diameter Server
                 Interaction", RFC 5447, February 2009.
 [RFC5470]       Sadasivan, G., Brownlee, N., Claise, B., and J.
                 Quittek, "Architecture for IP Flow Information
                 Export", RFC 5470, March 2009.
 [RFC5472]       Zseby, T., Boschi, E., Brownlee, N., and B. Claise,
                 "IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Applicability",
                 RFC 5472, March 2009.
 [RFC5473]       Boschi, E., Mark, L., and B. Claise, "Reducing
                 Redundancy in IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) and
                 Packet Sampling (PSAMP) Reports", RFC 5473,
                 March 2009.
 [RFC5474]       Duffield, N., Chiou, D., Claise, B., Greenberg, A.,
                 Grossglauser, M., and J. Rexford, "A Framework for
                 Packet Selection and Reporting", RFC 5474,
                 March 2009.
 [RFC5475]       Zseby, T., Molina, M., Duffield, N., Niccolini, S.,
                 and F. Raspall, "Sampling and Filtering Techniques
                 for IP Packet Selection", RFC 5475, March 2009.
 [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.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 68] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 [RFC5580]       Tschofenig, H., Adrangi, F., Jones, M., Lior, A., and
                 B. Aboba, "Carrying Location Objects in RADIUS and
                 Diameter", RFC 5580, August 2009.
 [RFC5590]       Harrington, D. and J. Schoenwaelder, "Transport
                 Subsystem for the Simple Network Management Protocol
                 (SNMP)", RFC 5590, June 2009.
 [RFC5591]       Harrington, D. and W. Hardaker, "Transport Security
                 Model for the Simple Network Management Protocol
                 (SNMP)", RFC 5591, June 2009.
 [RFC5592]       Harrington, D., Salowey, J., and W. Hardaker, "Secure
                 Shell Transport Model for the Simple Network
                 Management Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 5592, June 2009.
 [RFC5607]       Nelson, D. and G. Weber, "Remote Authentication
                 Dial-In User Service (RADIUS) Authorization for
                 Network Access Server (NAS) Management", RFC 5607,
                 July 2009.
 [RFC5608]       Narayan, K. and D. Nelson, "Remote Authentication
                 Dial-In User Service (RADIUS) Usage for Simple
                 Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Transport Models",
                 RFC 5608, August 2009.
 [RFC5610]       Boschi, E., Trammell, B., Mark, L., and T. Zseby,
                 "Exporting Type Information for IP Flow Information
                 Export (IPFIX) Information Elements", RFC 5610,
                 July 2009.
 [RFC5650]       Morgenstern, M., Baillie, S., and U. Bonollo,
                 "Definitions of Managed Objects for Very High Speed
                 Digital Subscriber Line 2 (VDSL2)", RFC 5650,
                 September 2009.
 [RFC5655]       Trammell, B., Boschi, E., 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.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 69] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 [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
                 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.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 70] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 [RFC5833]       Shi, Y., Perkins, D., Elliott, C., and Y. Zhang,
                 "Control and Provisioning of Wireless Access Points
                 (CAPWAP) Protocol Base MIB", RFC 5833, May 2010.
 [RFC5834]       Shi, Y., Perkins, D., Elliott, C., and Y. Zhang,
                 "Control and Provisioning of Wireless Access Points
                 (CAPWAP) Protocol Binding MIB for IEEE 802.11",
                 RFC 5834, May 2010.
 [RFC5835]       Morton, A. and S. Van den Berghe, "Framework for
                 Metric Composition", RFC 5835, April 2010.
 [RFC5848]       Kelsey, J., Callas, J., and A. Clemm, "Signed Syslog
                 Messages", RFC 5848, May 2010.
 [RFC5851]       Ooghe, S., Voigt, N., Platnic, M., Haag, T., and S.
                 Wadhwa, "Framework and Requirements for an Access
                 Node Control Mechanism in Broadband Multi-Service
                 Networks", RFC 5851, May 2010.
 [RFC5866]       Sun, D., McCann, P., Tschofenig, H., Tsou, T., Doria,
                 A., and G. Zorn, "Diameter Quality-of-Service
                 Application", RFC 5866, May 2010.
 [RFC5880]       Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding
                 Detection (BFD)", RFC 5880, June 2010.
 [RFC5889]       Baccelli, E. and M. Townsley, "IP Addressing Model in
                 Ad Hoc Networks", RFC 5889, September 2010.
 [RFC5982]       Kobayashi, A. and B. Claise, "IP Flow Information
                 Export (IPFIX) Mediation: Problem Statement",
                 RFC 5982, August 2010.
 [RFC5996]       Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., and P. Eronen,
                 "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)",
                 RFC 5996, September 2010.
 [RFC6012]       Salowey, J., Petch, T., Gerhards, R., and H. Feng,
                 "Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Transport
                 Mapping for Syslog", RFC 6012, October 2010.
 [RFC6020]       Bjorklund, M., "YANG - A Data Modeling Language for
                 the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)",
                 RFC 6020, October 2010.
 [RFC6021]       Schoenwaelder, J., "Common YANG Data Types",
                 RFC 6021, October 2010.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 71] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 [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",
                 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.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 72] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 [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.
 [RFC6347]       Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport
                 Layer Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, January 2012.
 [RFC6353]       Hardaker, W., "Transport Layer Security (TLS)
                 Transport Model for the Simple Network Management
                 Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 6353, July 2011.
 [RFC6371]       Busi, I. and D. Allan, "Operations, Administration,
                 and Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based Transport
                 Networks", RFC 6371, September 2011.
 [RFC6408]       Jones, M., Korhonen, J., and L. Morand, "Diameter
                 Straightforward-Naming Authority Pointer (S-NAPTR)
                 Usage", RFC 6408, November 2011.
 [RFC6410]       Housley, R., Crocker, D., and E. Burger, "Reducing
                 the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels", BCP 9,
                 RFC 6410, October 2011.
 [RFC6526]       Claise, B., Aitken, P., Johnson, A., and G. Muenz,
                 "IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Per Stream
                 Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Stream",
                 RFC 6526, March 2012.
 [RFC6536]       Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration
                 Protocol (NETCONF) Access Control Model", RFC 6536,
                 March 2012.
 [RFC6598]       Weil, J., Kuarsingh, V., Donley, C., Liljenstolpe,
                 C., and M. Azinger, "IANA-Reserved IPv4 Prefix for
                 Shared Address Space", BCP 153, RFC 6598, April 2012.
 [RFC6613]       DeKok, A., "RADIUS over TCP", RFC 6613, May 2012.
 [RFC6614]       Winter, S., McCauley, M., Venaas, S., and K.
                 Wierenga, "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Encryption
                 for RADIUS", RFC 6614, May 2012.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 73] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 [RFCSEARCH]     RFC Editor, "RFC Index Search Engine",
                 <http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html>.
 [SMI-NUMBERS]   IANA, "Network Management Parameters - SMI OID List",
                 May 2012,
                 <http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers>.
 [SMI-YANG]      Schoenwaelder, J., "Translation of SMIv2 MIB Modules
                 to YANG Modules", Work in Progress, April 2012.
 [STD06]         Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
                 August 1980.
 [STD07]         Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
                 RFC 793, September 1981.
 [STD16]         Rose, M. and K. McCloghrie, "Structure and
                 identification of management information for TCP/
                 IP-based internets", STD 16, RFC 1155, May 1990.
                 Rose, M. and K. McCloghrie, "Concise MIB
                 definitions", STD 16, RFC 1212, March 1991.
 [STD17]         McCloghrie, K. and M. Rose, "Management Information
                 Base for Network Management of TCP/IP-based
                 internets:MIB-II", STD 17, RFC 1213, March 1991.
 [STD58]         McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J.
                 Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Structure of Management
                 Information Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578,
                 April 1999.
                 McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J.
                 Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Textual Conventions for SMIv2",
                 STD 58, RFC 2579, April 1999.
                 McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J.
                 Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Conformance Statements for
                 SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580, April 1999.
 [STD59]         Waldbusser, S., "Remote Network Monitoring Management
                 Information Base", STD 59, RFC 2819, May 2000.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 74] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 [STD62]         Harrington, D., Presuhn, R., and B. Wijnen, "An
                 Architecture for Describing Simple Network Management
                 Protocol (SNMP) Management Frameworks", STD 62,
                 RFC 3411, December 2002.
                 Case, J., Harrington, D., Presuhn, R., and B. Wijnen,
                 "Message Processing and Dispatching for the Simple
                 Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 62, RFC
                 3412, December 2002.
                 Levi, D., Meyer, P., and B. Stewart, "Simple Network
                 Management Protocol (SNMP) Applications", STD 62, RFC
                 3413, December 2002.
                 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.
                 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.
                 Presuhn, R., Ed., "Version 2 of the Protocol
                 Operations for the Simple Network Management Protocol
                 (SNMP)", STD 62, RFC 3416, December 2002.
                 Presuhn, R., Ed., "Transport Mappings for the Simple
                 Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 62, RFC
                 3417, December 2002.
                 Presuhn, R., Ed., "Management Information Base (MIB)
                 for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)",
                 STD 62, RFC 3418, December 2002.
 [STD66]         Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter,
                 "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax",
                 STD 66, RFC 3986, January 2005.
 [XPATH]         World Wide Web Consortium, "XML Path Language (XPath)
                 Version 1.0", November 1999,
                 <http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xpath-19991116>.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 75] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

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

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 76] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

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).

A.1. Protocols Classified by Standards Maturity in the IETF

 This section classifies the management protocols according their
 standard maturity in the IETF.  The IETF standard maturity levels
 Proposed, Draft, or Internet Standard, are defined in [RFC2026] (as
 amended by [RFC6410]).  An Internet Standard is characterized by a
 high degree of technical maturity and by a generally held belief that
 the specified protocol or service provides significant benefit to the
 Internet community.
 The table below covers the standard maturity of the different
 protocols listed in this document.  Note that only the main protocols
 (and not their extensions) are noted.  An RFC search tool listing the
 current document status is available at [RFCSEARCH].

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 77] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 +---------------------------------------------+---------------------+
 | Protocol                                    | Maturity Level      |
 +---------------------------------------------+---------------------+
 | SNMP [STD62][RFC3411] (Section 2.1)         | Internet Standard   |
 |                                             |                     |
 | Syslog [RFC5424] (Section 2.2)              | Proposed Standard   |
 |                                             |                     |
 | IPFIX [RFC5101] (Section 2.3)               | Proposed Standard   |
 |                                             |                     |
 | PSAMP [RFC5476] (Section 2.3)               | Proposed Standard   |
 |                                             |                     |
 | NETCONF [RFC6241] (Section 2.4.1)           | Proposed Standard   |
 |                                             |                     |
 | DHCP for IPv4 [RFC2131] (Section 3.1.1)     | Draft Standard      |
 |                                             |                     |
 | DHCP for IPv6 [RFC3315] (Section 3.1.1)     | Proposed Standard   |
 |                                             |                     |
 | OWAMP [RFC4656] (Section 3.4)               | Proposed Standard   |
 |                                             |                     |
 | TWAMP [RFC5357] (Section 3.4)               | Proposed Standard   |
 |                                             |                     |
 | RADIUS [RFC2865] (Section 3.5)              | Draft Standard      |
 |                                             |                     |
 | Diameter [RFC3588] (Section 3.6)            | Proposed Standard   |
 |                                             |                     |
 | CAPWAP [RFC5416] (Section 3.7)              | Proposed Standard   |
 |                                             |                     |
 | ANCP [RFC6320] (Section 3.8)                | Proposed Standard   |
 |                                             |                     |
 | Ad hoc network configuration [RFC5889]      | Informational       |
 | (Section 3.1.2)                             |                     |
 |                                             |                     |
 | ACAP [RFC2244] (Section 3.9)                | Proposed Standard   |
 |                                             |                     |
 | XCAP [RFC4825] (Section 3.10)               | Proposed Standard   |
 +---------------------------------------------+---------------------+
    Table 1: Protocols Classified by Standard Maturity in the IETF

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 78] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

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 | Config.    | Accounting  | Performance  | Security   |
 |            | Mgmt       | Mgmt        | Mgmt         | Mgmt       |
 +------------+------------+-------------+--------------+------------+
 | SNMP       | SNMP       | SNMP        | SNMP         |            |
 | notif.     | config.    | monitoring  | monitoring   |            |
 | with trap  | with 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. 2.4.1) | (S. 2.3)    | (S. 2.3)     |            |
 |            |            |             |              |            |
 | Syslog     | ANCP       | RADIUS      |              | RADIUS     |
 | (S. 2.2)   | (S. 3.8)   | Accounting  |              | Authent.&  |
 |            |            | (S. 3.5)    |              | Authoriz.  |
 |            |            |             |              | (S. 3.5)   |
 |            |            |             |              |            |
 |            | AUTOCONF   | Diameter    |              | Diameter   |
 |            | (S. 3.1.2) | Accounting  |              | Authent.&  |
 |            |            | (S. 3.6)    |              | Authoriz.  |
 |            |            |             |              | (S. 3.6)   |
 |            |            |             |              |            |
 |            | ACAP       |             |              |            |
 |            | (S. 3.9)   |             |              |            |
 |            |            |             |              |            |
 |            | XCAP       |             |              |            |
 |            | (S. 3.10)  |             |              |            |
 |            |            |             |              |            |
 |            | DHCP       |             |              |            |
 |            | (S. 3.1.1) |             |              |            |
 +------------+------------+-------------+--------------+------------+
            Table 2: Protocols Matched to Management Tasks
 Note: Corresponding section numbers are given in parentheses.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 79] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

A.3. Push versus Pull Mechanism

 A pull mechanism is characterized by the Network Management System
 (NMS) pulling the management information out of network elements,
 when needed.  A push mechanism is characterized by the network
 elements pushing the management information to the NMS, either when
 the information is available or on a regular basis.
 Client/Server protocols, such as DHCP, ANCP, ACAP, and XCAP are not
 listed in Table 3.
 +---------------------------------+---------------------------------+
 | Protocols supporting the Pull   | Protocols supporting the Push   |
 | mechanism                       | mechanism                       |
 +---------------------------------+---------------------------------+
 | SNMP (except notifications)     | SNMP notifications              |
 | (Section 2.1)                   | (Section 2.1)                   |
 | NETCONF (except notifications)  | NETCONF notifications           |
 | (Section 2.4.1)                 | (Section 2.4.1)                 |
 | CAPWAP (Section 3.7)            | Syslog (Section 2.2)            |
 |                                 | IPFIX (Section 2.3)             |
 |                                 | PSAMP (Section 2.3)             |
 |                                 | RADIUS accounting               |
 |                                 | (Section 3.5)                   |
 |                                 | Diameter accounting             |
 |                                 | (Section 3.6)                   |
 +---------------------------------+---------------------------------+
    Table 3: Protocol Classification by Push versus Pull Mechanism

A.4. Passive versus Active Monitoring

 Monitoring can be divided into two categories: passive and active
 monitoring.  Passive monitoring can perform the network traffic
 monitoring, monitoring of a device, or the accounting of network
 resource consumption by users.  Active monitoring, as used in this
 document, focuses mainly on active network monitoring and relies on
 the injection of specific traffic (also called "synthetic traffic"),
 which is then monitored.  The monitoring focus is indicated in the
 table below as "network", "device", or "accounting".
 This classification excludes non-monitoring protocols, such as
 configuration protocols: Ad hoc network autoconfiguration, ANCP, and
 XCAP.  Note that some of the active monitoring protocols, in the
 context of the data path, e.g., ICMP Ping and Traceroute [RFC1470],
 Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) [RFC5880], and PWE3 Virtual
 Circuit Connectivity Verification (VCCV) [RFC5085] are covered in
 [OAM-OVERVIEW].

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 80] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 +---------------------------------+---------------------------------+
 | Protocols supporting passive    | Protocols supporting active     |
 | monitoring                      | monitoring                      |
 +---------------------------------+---------------------------------+
 | IPFIX (network) (Section 2.3)   | OWAMP (network) (Section 3.4)   |
 | PSAMP (network) (Section 2.3)   | TWAMP (network) (Section 3.4)   |
 | SNMP (network and device)       |                                 |
 | (Section 2.1)                   |                                 |
 | NETCONF (device)                |                                 |
 | (Section 2.4.1)                 |                                 |
 | RADIUS (accounting)             |                                 |
 | (Section 3.5)                   |                                 |
 | Diameter (accounting)           |                                 |
 | (Section 3.6)                   |                                 |
 | CAPWAP (device) (Section 3.7)   |                                 |
 +---------------------------------+---------------------------------+
    Table 4: Protocols for Passive and Active Monitoring and Their
                           Monitoring Focus
 The application of SNMP to passive traffic monitoring (e.g., with
 RMON-MIB) or active monitoring (with IPPM MIB) depends on the MIB
 modules used.  However, the 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 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 Informational [Page 81] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 +-------------+---------------+------------------+------------------+
 | Protocol    | Data Modeling | Data Model       | Proprietary Data |
 |             |               | Extensions       | Modeling         |
 |             |               |                  | Extensions       |
 +-------------+---------------+------------------+------------------+
 | SNMP        | MIB modules   | New MIB modules  | Enterprise-      |
 | (S. 2.1)    | defined with  | specified in new | specific MIB     |
 |             | SMI           | RFCs             | modules          |
 |             | (S. 2.1.3)    |                  |                  |
 |             |               |                  |                  |
 | Syslog      | Structured    | With the         | Enterprise-      |
 | (S. 2.2)    | Data Elements | procedure to add | specific SDEs    |
 |             | (SDEs)        | Structured Data  |                  |
 |             | (S. 4.2.1)    | ID in [RFC5424]  |                  |
 |             |               |                  |                  |
 | IPFIX       | IPFIX         | With the         | Enterprise-      |
 | (S. 2.3)    | Information   | procedure to add | specific         |
 |             | Elements,     | Information      | Information      |
 |             | IPFIX IANA    | Elements         | Elements         |
 |             | registry at   | specified in     | [RFC5101]        |
 |             | [IANA-IPFIX]  | [RFC5102]        |                  |
 |             | (S. 2.3)      |                  |                  |
 |             |               |                  |                  |
 | PSAMP       | PSAMP         | With the         | Enterprise-      |
 | (S. 2.3)    | Information   | procedure to add | specific         |
 |             | Elements, as  | Information      | Information      |
 |             | an extension  | Elements         | Elements         |
 |             | to IPFIX      | specified in     | [RFC5101]        |
 |             | [IANA-IPFIX], | [RFC5102]        |                  |
 |             | and PSAMP     |                  |                  |
 |             | IANA registry |                  |                  |
 |             | at            |                  |                  |
 |             | [IANA-PSAMP]  |                  |                  |
 |             | (S. 2.3)      |                  |                  |
 |             |               |                  |                  |
 | NETCONF     | YANG modules  | New YANG modules | Enterprise-      |
 | (S. 2.4.1)  | (S. 2.4.2)    | specified in new | specific YANG    |
 |             |               | RFCs following   | modules          |
 |             |               | the guideline in |                  |
 |             |               | [RFC6087]        |                  |
 |             |               |                  |                  |
 | IPPM OWAMP/ | IPPM metrics  | New IPPM metrics | Not applicable   |
 | TWAMP       | (*) (S. 3.4)  | (S. 3.4)         |                  |
 | (S. 3.4)    |               |                  |                  |

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 82] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 |             |               |                  |                  |
 | RADIUS      | TLVs          | RADIUS-related   | Vendor-Specific  |
 | (S. 3.5)    |               | registries at    | Attributes       |
 |             |               | [IANA-AAA] and   | [RFC2865]        |
 |             |               | [IANA-PROT]      |                  |
 |             |               |                  |                  |
 | Diameter    | AVPs          | Diameter-related | Vendor-Specific  |
 | (S. 3.6)    |               | registry at      | Attributes       |
 |             |               | [IANA-AAA]       | [RFC2865]        |
 |             |               |                  |                  |
 | CAPWAP      | TLVs          | New bindings     | Vendor-specific  |
 | (S. 3.7)    |               | specified in new | TLVs             |
 |             |               | RFCs             |                  |
 +-------------+---------------+------------------+------------------+
             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 government regulation
 on energy consumption and production.
 The basic objective of energy management is operating communication
 networks and other equipment 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 controlled energy usage as they are mainly
 instrumented for functions such as fault, configuration, accounting,
 performance, and security management.  These devices are not
 instrumented to be aware of energy consumption.  There are very few
 means specified in IETF documents for energy management, which
 includes the areas of power monitoring, energy monitoring, and power
 state control.
 A particular difference between energy management and other
 management tasks is that in some cases energy consumption of a device
 is not measured at the device itself but reported by a different
 place.  For example, at a Power over Ethernet (PoE) sourcing device
 or at a smart power strip, where one device is effectively metering
 another remote device.  This requires a clear definition of the

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 83] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 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
 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 is working on the
 management of energy-aware devices, covered by the following items:
 o  The 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  The energy management framework, which will describe extensions to
    the 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  The 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  The Power and Energy Monitoring MIB document will document
    defining managed objects for the monitoring of power states and
    energy consumption/production.  The monitoring of power states
    includes the following: retrieving power states, properties of
    power states, current power state, power state transitions, and
    power state statistics.  The managed objects will provide means of
    reporting detailed properties of the actual energy rate (power)
    and of accumulated energy.  Further, they will provide information
    on electrical power quality.

Ersue & Claise Informational [Page 84] RFC 6632 IETF Management Standards June 2012

 o  The Battery MIB document will define managed objects for battery
    monitoring, which will provide means of reporting detailed
    properties of the actual charge, age, and state of a battery and
    of battery statistics.
 o  The applicability statement will describe the variety of
    applications that can use the energy framework and associated MIB
    modules.  Potential examples are building networks, home energy
    gateway, etc.  Finally, the document will also discuss
    relationships of the framework to other architectures and
    frameworks (such as Smart Grid).  The applicability statement will
    explain the relationship between the work in this WG and other
    existing standards, e.g., from the IEC, ANSI, DMTF, etc.  Note
    that the EMAN WG will be looking into existing standards such as
    those from the IEC, ANSI, DMTF and others, and reuse existing work
    as much as possible.
 The documents of the EMAN working group can be found at [EMAN-WG].

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 Informational [Page 85]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc6632.txt · Last modified: 2012/06/02 01:41 (external edit)