home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Network Working Working Group U. Warrier
- Request for Comments: 1189 Netlabs
- Obsoletes: RFC 1095 L. Besaw
- Hewlett-Packard
- L. LaBarre
- The Mitre Corporation
- B. Handspicker
- Digital Equipment Corporation
- October 1990
-
-
- The Common Management Information Services
- and Protocols for the Internet
- (CMOT and CMIP)
-
- Status of this Memo
-
- This memo defines a network management architecture that uses the
- International Organization for Standardization's (ISO) Common
- Management Information Services/Common Management Information
- Protocol (CMIS/CMIP) in the Internet. This RFC specifies an IAB
- standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests
- discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the
- current edition of the "IAB Official Protocol Standards" for the
- standardization state and status of this protocol.
-
- Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
-
- Table of Contents
-
- 1. Overview ................................................... 2
- 2. Introduction ............................................... 3
- 3. Protocol Overview .......................................... 4
- 3.1. The CMOT Protocol Suite .................................. 5
- 3.2. The CMIP Protocol Suite .................................. 6
- 3.3. Conformance Requirements ................................. 6
- 4. Common Management Information Service Element .............. 7
- 4.1. Association Policies ..................................... 7
- 4.2. CMIS Services ............................................ 9
- 4.2.1 General Agreements on Users of CMIS ..................... 9
- 4.2.2 Specific Agreements on Users of CMIS .................... 10
- 4.3. CMIP Agreements .......................................... 10
- 5. Services Required by CMIP .................................. 10
- 6. Acknowledgements ........................................... 11
- 7. References ................................................. 11
- 8. Security Considerations..................................... 14
- 9. Authors' Addresses.......................................... 14
-
-
-
-
- Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker [Page 1]
-
- RFC 1189 CMOT and CMIP October 1990
-
-
- 1. Overview
-
- This memo is a revision of RFC 1095 - "The Common Management
- Information Services and Protocol over TCP/IP" [27]. It defines a
- network management architecture that uses the International
- Organization for Standardization's (ISO) Common Management
- Information Services/Common Management Information Protocol
- (CMIS/CMIP) in the Internet. This architecture provides a means by
- which control and monitoring information can be exchanged between a
- manager and a remote network element. In particular, this memo
- defines the means for implementing the International Standard (IS)
- version of CMIS/CMIP on top of both IP-based and OSI-based Internet
- transport protocols for the purpose of carrying management
- information defined in the Internet-standard management information
- base. Together with the relevant ISO standards and the companion
- RFCs that describe the initial structure of management information
- and management information base, these documents provide the basis
- for a comprehensive architecture and system for managing both IP-
- based and OSI-based internets, and in particular the Internet.
-
- In creating this revision of RFC 1095, the following technical and
- editorial changes were made:
-
- 1) The tutorial section on OSI Management included in RFC 1095
- has been removed from this document. After some revisions,
- the tutorial material may be published as another RFC.
-
- 2) The sections in RFC 1095 which discussed the semantics of how
- to interpret requests in the context of Internet MIBs has been
- removed from this protocol document. This topic is now
- discussed in the OIM-MIB-II draft document. This protocol
- should be useable with MIB-I or MIB-II. But, it will also be
- able to exploit the new features of the OIM-MIB-II.
-
- 3) This document is based on the final International Standards
- for CMIS/CMIP (ISO 9595/9596) rather than the Draft
- International Standards.
-
- 4) Many of the original agreements defined in RFC 1095 have been
- accepted and included in the OIW NMSIG implementers agreements.
- Rather than duplicating these agreements, they have been removed
- from this memo. This document should be read in conjunction
- with ISO 9595/9596 (CMIS/CMIP) and the OIW Stable Agreements
- document.
-
- 5) The Association Negotiation describe in RFC 1095 has been
- changed to align with current international and national
- agreements. But, it has retained backwards compatibility with
-
-
-
- Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker [Page 2]
-
- RFC 1189 CMOT and CMIP October 1990
-
-
- the assignment of an Application Context Name which is identical
- to the Application Context Name specified in RFC 1095.
-
- 2. Introduction
-
- This memo is the output of the OSI Internet Management Working Group
- of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). As directed by the
- Internet Activites Board (IAB) in RFC 1052, it addresses the need for
- a long-term network management system based on ISO CMIS/CMIP. This
- memo contains a set of protocol agreements for implementing a network
- management system based on these ISO Management standards. Now that
- CMIS/CMIP has been voted an International Standard (IS), it has
- become a stable basis for product development. This profile
- specifies how to apply CMIP to management of both IP-based and OSI-
- based Internet networks. Network management using ISO CMIP to manage
- IP-based networks will be refered to as "CMIP Over TCP/IP" (CMOT).
- Network management using ISO CMIP to manage OSI-based networks will
- be refered to as "CMIP". This memo specifies the protocol agreements
- necessary to implement CMIP and accompanying ISO protocols over OSI,
- TCP and UDP transport protocols.
-
- This memo must be read in conjunction with ISO and Internet documents
- defining specific protocol standards. Documents defining the
- following ISO standards are required for the implementor: Abstract
- Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) [5, 6], Association Control (ACSE) [7,
- 8], Remote Operations (ROSE) [9, 10], Common Management Information
- Services (CMIS) [11] and Common Management Information Protocol
- (CMIP) [12] with their addenda [32-35]. The specification of a
- lightweight presentation layer protocol is required for use with the
- CMOT section of this profile (see RFC 1085 [13]). The SMI (see RFC
- 1065 [2]), the MIB-I (see RFC 1066 [3]), the MIB-II (see RFC 1156
- [28]), and the OIM-MIB-II (see [29]) are used with this management
- system.
-
- This memo is divided into sections for each of the protocols for
- which implementors' agreements are needed: CMISE, ACSE, ROSE, and,
- for CMOT, the lightweight presentation protocol. The protocol
- profile defined in this memo draws on the technical work of the OSI
- Network Management Forum [14] and the Network Management Special
- Interest Group (NMSIG) of the National Institute of Standards and
- Technology (NIST) (formerly the National Bureau of Standards) [30].
- Wherever possible, an attempt has been made to either directly
- reference or remain consistent with the protocol agreements reached
- by these groups.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker [Page 3]
-
- RFC 1189 CMOT and CMIP October 1990
-
-
- 3. Protocol Overview
-
- This part of the document is a specification of the protocols of the
- OIM architecture. Contained herein are the agreements required to
- implement interoperable network management systems using these
- protocols. The protocol suite defined by these implementors'
- agreements will facilitate communication between equipment of
- different vendors, suppliers, and networks. This will allow the
- emergence of powerful multivendor network management based on ISO
- models and protocols.
-
- The choice of a set of protocol standards together with further
- agreements needed to implement those standards is commonly referred
- to as a "profile." The selection policy for this profile is to use
- existing standards from the international standards community (ISO
- and CCITT) and the Internet community. Existing ISO standards and
- draft standards in the area of OSI network management form the basis
- of this profile. Other ISO application layer standards (ROSE and
- ACSE) are used to support the ISO management protocol (CMIP). To
- ensure interoperability, certain choices and restrictions are made
- here concerning various options and parameters provided by these
- standards. Internet standards are used to provide the underlying
- network transport. These agreements provide a precise statement of
- the implementation choices made for implementing ISO network
- management standards in IP-based and OSI-based internets.
-
- In addition to the OIM working group, there are at least two other
- bodies actively engaged in defining profiles for interoperable OSI
- network management: the OSI Implementors Workshop (OIW) and the OSI
- Network Management Forum. Both of these groups are similar to the
- OIM working group in that they are each defining profiles for using
- ISO standards for network management. Both differ in that they are
- specifying the use only of underlying ISO protocols, while the OIM
- working group is concerned with using OSI management in both OSI and
- TCP/IP networks. In the interest of greater future compatibility,
- the OIM working group has attempted to make this profile conform as
- closely as possible to the ongoing work of these two bodies.
-
- This section will describe the CMOT Protocol Suite, the CMIP Protocol
- Suite and Conformance Requirements common to both CMOT and CMIP.
- Later sections will specify the implementers agreements for specific
- layer protocols that comprise the CMOT and CMIP Protocol Suites.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker [Page 4]
-
- RFC 1189 CMOT and CMIP October 1990
-
-
- 3.1. The CMOT Protocol Suite
-
- The following seven protocols compose the CMOT protocol suite: ISO
- ACSE, ISO DIS ROSE, ISO CMIP, the lightweight presentation protocol
- (LPP), UDP, TCP, and IP. The relation of these protocols to each
- other is briefly summarized in Figure 2.
-
- +----------------------------------------------+
- Management Application Processes
- +----------------------------------------------+
-
- +-------------------+
- CMISE
- ISO 9595/9596
- +-------------------+
-
- +------------------+ +--------------------+
- ACSE ROSE
- ISO IS 8649/8650 ISO DIS 9072-1/2
- +------------------+ +--------------------+
-
- +-----------------------------------------------+
- Lightweight Presentation Protocol (LPP)
- RFC 1085
- +-----------------------------------------------+
-
- +------------------+ +--------------------+
- TCP UDP
- RFC 793 RFC 768
- +------------------+ +--------------------+
-
- +-----------------------------------------------+
- IP
- RFC 791
- +-----------------------------------------------+
-
- Figure 2. The CMOT Protocol Suite
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker [Page 5]
-
- RFC 1189 CMOT and CMIP October 1990
-
-
- 3.2. The CMIP Protocol Suite
-
- The following six protocols compose the CMIP protocol suite: ISO
- ACSE, ISO DIS ROSE, ISO CMIP, ISO Presentation, ISO Session and ISO
- Transport. The relation of these protocols to each other is briefly
- summarized in Figure 3.
-
- +----------------------------------------------+
- Management Application Processes
- +----------------------------------------------+
-
- +-------------------+
- CMISE
- ISO 9595/9596
- +-------------------+
-
- +------------------+ +--------------------+
- ACSE ROSE
- ISO 8649/8650 ISO DIS 9072-1/2
- +------------------+ +--------------------+
-
- +-----------------------------------------------+
- ISO Presentation
- ISO
- +-----------------------------------------------+
-
- +-----------------------------------------------+
- ISO Session
- ISO
- +-----------------------------------------------+
-
- +-----------------------------------------------+
- ISO Transport
- ISO
- +-----------------------------------------------+
-
- Figure 3. The CMIP Protocol Suite
-
- 3.3. Conformance Requirements
-
- A CMOT-conformant system must implement the following protocols:
- ACSE, ROSE, CMIP, LPP, and IP. A CMOT-conformant system must support
- the use of the LPP over either UDP or TCP. The use of the LPP over
- both UDP and TCP on the same system may be supported.
-
- A CMIP-conformant system must implement the following protocols:
- ACSE, ROSE, CMIP, ISO Presentation, ISO Session and ISO Transport.
-
-
-
-
- Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker [Page 6]
-
- RFC 1189 CMOT and CMIP October 1990
-
-
- 4. Common Management Information Service Element
-
- The Common Management Information Service Element (CMISE) is
- specified in two ISO documents. The service definition for the
- Common Management Information Service (CMIS) is given in ISO 9595
- [11]. The protocol specification for the Common Management
- Information Protocol (CMIP) is found in ISO 9596 [12]. In addition,
- the addenda for add/remove support in M-SET [32, 34] must be
- supported for both CMOT and CMIP. The addenda for M-CANCEL-GET [33,
- 35] may be supported by an implementation, but it's use is negotiated
- as part of association negotiation.
-
- 4.1. Association Policies
-
- The following ACSE services are required by CMISE: A-ASSOCIATE, A-
- RELEASE, A-ABORT, and A-P-ABORT. The rest of the CMIP protocol uses
- the RO-INVOKE, RO-RESULT, RO-ERROR, and RO-REJECT services of ROSE.
-
- There are four types of association that may be negotiated between
- managing and managed systems. These types are:
-
- Event M-EVENT-REPORTs may be sent by the
- managed system; no other CMIP PDUs
- are allowed
-
- Event/Monitor same as Event type except that, in
- addition, the managing system may
- also issue M-GET requests and
- receive M-GET responses over the
- association
-
- Monitor/Control managing system may issue M-GET,
- M-SET, M-CREATE, M-DELETE and
- M-ACTION requests over the
- association; no event reporting is
- allowed
-
- Full Mgr/Agent all functions must be supported
-
- A conformant system must support at least one of these Association
- types. Note that a system may play both managing and managed system
- roles, but not on the same association.
-
- The negotiation process uses the A-ASSOCIATE and A-RELEASE services.
- Application Context Name is used to determine the requestor's "role"
- in an association (as managing or managed system) and to determine
- the type of the association.
-
-
-
-
- Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker [Page 7]
-
- RFC 1189 CMOT and CMIP October 1990
-
-
- The following values for Application Context Name are registered for
- for CMOT and CMIP:
-
- {iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6)
- internet(1) mgmt(2) mib(1) oim(9) acn(1)
- cmot1095(1)}
- (for backwards compatible negotiation with RFC 1095 CMOT
- implementations)
-
- {iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6)
- internet(1) mgmt(2) mib(1) oim(9) acn(1)
- manager-event-association(2)}
-
- {iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6)
- internet(1) mgmt(2) mib(1) oim(9) acn(1)
- manager-event-monitor-association(3)}
-
- {iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6)
- internet(1) mgmt(2) mib(1) oim(9) acn(1)
- manager-monitor-control-association(4)}
-
- {iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6)
- internet(1) mgmt(2) mib(1) oim(9) acn(1)
- manager-full-association(5)}
-
- {iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6)
- internet(1) mgmt(2) mib(1) oim(9) acn(1)
- agent-event-association(6)}
-
- The following negotiation rules are to be used:
-
- 1. A managed system may only request an Event
- association and, in fact, must create an Event
- association if it has an event to report and no
- suitable association already exists.
-
- 2. Managing systems may request any association type.
-
- 3. An association is created by the requesting system
- issuing an A-ASSOCIATE request with the
- requestor's AE-TITLE and the desired application
- context. The responding system then returns
- either 1) an A-ASSOCIATE response with the
- requestor's AE-TITLE and the application context
- which it wishes to accept or 2) an A-ASSOCIATE
- response rejecting the association.
-
-
-
-
-
- Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker [Page 8]
-
- RFC 1189 CMOT and CMIP October 1990
-
-
- 4. Managed systems may negotiate "downward" from
- Full to Monitor/Control, Event/Monitor or Event by
- returning the new application context in the
- A-ASSOCIATE response to the managing system during
- the association creation process. In the same
- fashion, managed systems may negotiate from
- Event/Monitor to Event.
-
- 5. When a managing system receives an application
- context in an A-ASSOCIATE response that differs
- from the context sent in an A-ASSOCIATE request it
- may either proceed with the new context or refuse
- the new context by issuing an A-RELEASE request.
-
- A-RELEASE is used when the requestor does not agree with the new
- context. A-ABORT is used for invalid negotiation. If A-ABORT were
- to be used to terminate an association, there exists the potential
- for loss of information, such as pending events or confirmations.
- A-ABORT must be used, however, when a protocol violation occurs or
- where an association is not yet established.
-
- 4.2. CMIS Services
-
- 4.2.1 General Agreements on Users of CMIS
-
- The general agreements on users of CMIS shall be as specified in the
- OIW Stable Agreements [30] section 18.6.2.
-
- The following additional agreements are specified.
-
- o A system need only implement the services and service
- primitives required for the association types (section 4.1)
- that it supports.
-
- o Current/Event times shall be fields shall use 1 millisecond
- granularity. If the system generating the PDU does not have
- the current time, yet does have the time since last boot, then
- GeneralizedTime can be used to encode this information. The
- time since last boot will be added to the base time "0001
- Jan 1 00:00:00.00" using the Gregorian calendar algorithm.
- (In the Gregorian calendar, all years have 365 days except
- those divisible by 4 and not by 400, which have 366.) The use
- of the year 1 as the base year will prevent any confusion
- with current time.
-
- If no meaningful time is available, then the year 0 shall be
- used in GeneralizedTime to indicate this fact.
-
-
-
-
- Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker [Page 9]
-
- RFC 1189 CMOT and CMIP October 1990
-
-
- 4.2.2 Specific Agreements on Users of CMIS
-
- The specific agreements on users of CMIS shall be as specified in the
- OIW Stable Agreements [30] section 18.6.3.
-
- The following additional agreements are specified:
-
- o Event time shall be mandatory for all events.
-
- o Both the "managed Object Class" and "managed Object
- Instance" parameters must be present in the following CMIS
- Service Response/Confirmation primitives: the
- M-EVENT-REPORT Confirmed, the M-GET, the M-SET, the
- M-ACTION, the M-CREATE, and the M-DELETE.
-
- 4.3. CMIP Agreements
-
- The CMIS and CMIP implementers agreements documented in the OIW
- Stable Implementers Agreements [30] plus those mandated by the CMIP
- standard will be used for both CMOT and CMIP. In addition to these
- implementers agreements, the following specific agreements must be
- observed:
-
- o An implementation is required to support all filter items
- except subsetOf, supersetOf, nonNullSetIntersection, and
- substrings.
-
- o The "managedObjectInstance" field must be present in the
- ProcessingFailure Error PDU. The "managedObjectClass"
- field must be present in the NoSuchArgument Error PDU.
-
-
- [Temporary Note: The CMIS/P implementers agreements have reach a
- fairly stable status in the OIW working agreements document. It is
- expected that the CMIS/P agreements (18.6.2 and 18.6.3) will be
- recommended to be moved into the stable agreements document during
- either the June 1990 meetings. Reference [30] points to the presumed
- June 1990 updated version of the stable agreements document.]
-
- 5. Services Required by CMIP
-
- The services required by CMIP shall be as specified in the OIW Stable
- Implementors Agreements [30] section 18.6.5.
-
- The following additional agreements are specified:
-
- o ASCE Requirements: Application contexts shall be as defined
- in section 4.1 of these agreements. The values and defaults
-
-
-
- Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker [Page 10]
-
- RFC 1189 CMOT and CMIP October 1990
-
-
- of parameters to the ACSE parameters given to the presentation
- service are specified in RFC 1085 [13] for CMOT and in the NIST
- Stable Implementers Agreements [30] for CMIP.
-
- o Presentation Requirements: CMOT implementations shall be
- supported by the Lightweight Presentation Protocol (LPP)
- [13]. The LPP may use either TCP or UDP. When UDP is used,
- an implementation need not accept LPP PDUs whose length
- exceeds 484 octets.
-
- o Session Requirements: CMOT implementations will not
- require the session protocol.
-
- 6. Acknowledgements
-
- This RFC is the result of the work of many people. The following
- members of the IETF OSI Internet Management and preceding Netman
- working groups made important contributions:
-
- Amatzia Ben-Artzi, Synoptics
- Asheem Chandna, AT&T Bell Laboratories
- Ken Chapman, Digital Equipment Corporation
- Anthony Chung, Sytek
- George Cohn, Ungermann-Bass
- Gabriele Cressman, Sun Microsystems
- Tom Halcin, Hewlett-Packard
- Pranati Kapadia, Hewlett-Packard
- Lee LaBarre, The MITRE Corporation (co-chair)
- Dave Mackie, 3Com
- Keith McCloghrie, Hughes/InterLan
- Jim Robertson, 3Com
- Milt Roselinsky, CMC
- Marshall Rose, PSI
- John Scott, Data General
- Lou Steinberg, IBM
-
- 7. References
-
- [1] Cerf, V., "IAB Recommendations for the Development of Internet
- Network Management Standards", RFC 1052, IAB, April 1988.
-
- [2] Rose, M., and K. McCloghrie, "Structure and Identification of
- Management Information for TCP/IP-based internets", RFC 1065,
- TWG, August 1988.
-
- [3] McCloghrie, K., and M. Rose, "Management Information Base for
- Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets", RFC 1066, TWG,
- August 1988.
-
-
-
- Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker [Page 11]
-
- RFC 1189 CMOT and CMIP October 1990
-
-
- [4] Case, J., M. Fedor, M. Schoffstall, and J. Davin, "A Simple
- Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 1098, (Obsoletes RFC
- 1067), University of Tennessee at Knoxville, NYSERNet, Inc.,
- Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, MIT Laboratory for Computer
- Science, April 1989.
-
- [5] ISO 8824: "Information Processing Systems - Open Systems
- Interconnection, Specification of Abstract Syntax Notation One
- (ASN.1)", Geneva, March 1988.
-
- [6] ISO 8825: "Information Processing Systems - Open Systems
- Interconnection, Specification of Basic Encoding Rules for
- Abstract Notation One (ASN.1)", Geneva, March 1988.
-
- [7] ISO 8649: "Information Processing Systems - Open Systems
- Interconnection, Service Definition for Association Control
- Service Element".
-
- [8] ISO 8650: "Information Processing Systems - Open Systems
- Interconnection, Protocol Specification for Association Control
- Service Element".
-
- [9] CCITT Recommendation X.219, Working Document for ISO 9072-1:
- "Information processing systems - Text Communication, Remote
- Operations: Model, Notation and Service Definition", Gloucester,
- November 1987.
-
- [10] CCITT Recommendation X.229, Working Document for ISO 9072-2:
- "Information processing systems - Text Communication, Remote
- Operations: Protocol Specification", Gloucester, November 1987.
-
- [11] ISO 9595: "Information Processing Systems - Open Systems
- Interconnection, Management Information Service Definition - Part
- 2: Common Management Information Service", 22 December 1988.
-
- [12] ISO 9596: "Information Processing Systems - Open Systems
- Interconnection, Management Information Protocol Specification -
- Part 2: Common Management Information Protocol", 22 December
- 1988.
-
- [13] Rose, M., "ISO Presentation Services on top of TCP/IP-based
- internets", RFC 1085, TWG, December 1988.
-
- [14] OSI Network Management Forum, "Forum Interoperable Interface
- Protocols", September 1988.
-
- [15] ISO DIS 7498-4: "Information Processing Systems - Open Systems
- Interconnection, Basic Reference Model - Part 4: OSI Management
-
-
-
- Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker [Page 12]
-
- RFC 1189 CMOT and CMIP October 1990
-
-
- Framework".
-
- [16] ISO/IEC JTC1/SC21/WG4 N571: "Information Processing Systems -
- Open Systems Interconnection, Systems Management: Overview",
- London, July 1988.
-
- [17] Klerer, S. Mark, "The OSI Management Architecture: An Overview",
- IEEE Network Magazine, March 1988.
-
- [18] Ben-Artzi, A., "Network Management for TCP/IP Networks: An
- Overview", Internet Engineering Task Force working note, April
- 1988.
-
- [19] ISO/IEC JTC1/SC21/WG4 N3324: "Information Processing Pystems -
- Open Systems Interconnection, Management Information Services -
- Structure of Management Information - Part I: Management
- Information Model", Sydney, December 1988.
-
- [20] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", RFC 768, USC/Information
- Sciences Institute, August 1980.
-
- [21] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", RFC 793,
- USC/Information Sciences Institute, September 1981.
-
- [22] ISO DP 9534: "Information processing systems - Open Systems
- Interconnection, Application Layer Structure", 10 March 1987.
-
- [23] Rose, M., and D. Cass, "ISO Transport Services on top of the TCP,
- Version: 3", RFC 1006, Northrop Research and Technology Center,
- May 1987.
-
- [24] ISO 8822: "Information Processing Systems - Open Systems
- Interconnection, Connection Oriented Presentation Service
- Definition", June 1987.
-
- [25] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", RFC 791, USC/Information
- Sciences Institute, September 1981.
-
- [26] CCITT Draft Recommendation X.500, ISO 9594/1-8: "The Directory",
- Geneva, March 1988.
-
- [27] Warrier, U. and L. Besaw, "The Common Management Information
- Services and Protocol over TCP/IP (CMOT)", RFC 1095, Unisys
- Corporation, Hewlett-Packard, April 1989.
-
- [28] McCloghrie, K., and M. Rose, "Management Information Base for
- Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets", RFC 1156, Hughes
- LAN Systems, Performance Systems International, May 1990.
-
-
-
- Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker [Page 13]
-
- RFC 1189 CMOT and CMIP October 1990
-
-
- [29] LaBarre, L., "OIM MIB-II", working note, December 1989.
-
- [30] NIST NMSIG, "NIST Stable Implementers Agreements", NIST Special
- Publication 500-162, as ammended by June 1990.
-
- [31] NIST NMSIG, "NIST Working Implementers Agreements", December
- 1989.
-
- [32] ISO IS 9595 1989: DAD1: "CMIS Add/Remove Addendum".
-
- [33] ISO IS 9595 1989: DAD2: "CMIS Cancel-Get Addendum".
-
- [34] ISO IS 9596 1989: DAD1: "CMIP Add/Remove Addendum".
-
- [35] ISO IS 9596 1989: DAD2: "CMIP Cancel-Get Addendum".
-
- 8. Security Considerations
-
- Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
-
- 9. Authors' Addresses
-
- Unnikrishnan S. Warrier
- NetLabs
- 11693 San Vicente Blvd
- Suite 348
- Los Angeles, CA 90049
-
- Phone: (213) 476-4070
- Email: unni@netlabs.com
-
-
- Larry Besaw
- Hewlett-Packard
- 3404 East Harmony Road
- Fort Collins, CO 80525
-
- Phone: (303) 229-6022
- Email: lmb%hpcndaw@hplabs.hp.com
-
-
- Lee LaBarre
- Mitre
- Burlington Road
- Bedford, MA 01730
-
- Phone: (617) 271-8507
- Email: cel@mbunix.mitre.org
-
-
-
- Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker [Page 14]
-
- RFC 1189 CMOT and CMIP October 1990
-
-
- Brian D. Handspicker
- Digital Equipment Corporation
- 550 King St.
- Littleton, Ma. 01460
-
- Phone: (508) 486-7894
- Email: bd@vines.enet.dec.com
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker [Page 15]
-