doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 787 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc2039.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc2039.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..baad1a2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc2039.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,787 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                    C. Kalbfleisch
+Request for Comments: 2039                    OnRamp Technologies, Inc.
+Category: Informational                                   November 1996
+
+
+    Applicablity of Standards Track MIBs to Management of World Wide
+                              Web Servers
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  This memo
+   does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of
+   this memo is unlimited.
+
+1. Abstract
+
+   This document was produced at the request of the Network Management
+   Area Director following the HTTP-MIB BOF at the 35th IETF meeting to
+   report on the applicability of the existing standards track MIBs to
+   management of WWW servers.
+
+   Requirements for management of a World Wide Web (WWW) server are
+   presented.  The applicable existing standards track MIBs are then
+   examined.  Finally, an analysis of the additional groups of MIB
+   attributes that are needed to meet the requirements is presented.
+
+Table of Contents
+
+  1.     Abstract.................................................1
+  2.     Overview.................................................2
+  3.     Requirements.............................................3
+  3.1    Operational Model Requirements...........................3
+  3.1.1. Host specific and Application Monitoring.................3
+  3.1.2. Dependencies among applications..........................3
+  3.1.3. Error generation and reporting...........................3
+  3.1.4. Capacity planning........................................4
+  3.1.5. Log Digester.............................................4
+  3.2.   Service Model Requirements...............................4
+  3.2.1. Retrieval services.......................................4
+  3.2.2. Document information store -- managing documents.........4
+  3.2.3. Server configuration.....................................4
+  3.2.4. Server Control...........................................4
+  3.2.5. Quality of Service.......................................4
+  4.     Relationship to existing IETF efforts....................5
+  4.1.   MIB-II [2]...............................................5
+  4.2.   Host Resources MIB [3]...................................5
+  4.3.   Network Services Monitoring MIB [4]......................6
+  4.4.   Application MIB [5]......................................7
+
+
+
+Kalbfleisch                  Informational                      [Page 1]
+
+RFC 2039                     WWW Track MIBs                November 1996
+
+
+  5.     Summary of Existing Standards Track MIBs.................8
+  6.     Definition of additional attributes......................9
+  7.     Usage Scenarios.........................................11
+  8.     Conclusion..............................................11
+  9.     References..............................................13
+  10.    Acknowledgments.........................................13
+  11.    Further Information.....................................14
+  12.    Security Considerations.................................14
+  13.    Authors' Address........................................14
+
+2. Overview
+
+   The World Wide Web (WWW) is a network of information, accessible via
+   a simple easy to use interface.  The information is often presented
+   in HyperText or multi-media.  The information is provided by servers
+   which are located all around the world.  The usability of the web
+   depends largely on the performance of these servers. WWW servers are
+   typically monitored through log files.  This becomes a difficult task
+   when a single organization is responsible for a number of servers.
+   Since many organizations currently use the Internet Standard SNMP to
+   manage their network devices, it is desirable to treat these WWW
+   servers as additional devices within this framework. This will allow
+   a single Network Management Station (NMS) to automate the management
+   of a number of WWW servers as well as the entire enterprise. Defining
+   a standard for this purpose allows a single management application to
+   manage a number of servers from a variety of vendors.  Additionally,
+   a formal definition of what has to be managed and how to manage it
+   tends to lead to integrated and improved performance and fault
+   management.
+
+   Content providers are interested in the access statistics and
+   configuration of their sites. The content provider may be the same or
+   a different organization than the one that maintains the server as a
+   whole. It may be possible to realize the new paradigm of "Customer
+   Network Management" to provide this information to the content
+   provider. This means that there exists a distinct organization
+   different than the network operations center that is also interested
+   in the management information from a device. Customer network
+   management is desirable to allow each content provider on a server to
+   access information about his own documents independent of the rest.
+
+   Various organizations may be interested in SNMP manageable WWW
+   clients and proxies as well. At this time, our focus is on WWW
+   servers. A natural extension to this work could be a framework for
+   managing WWW Clients and general information retrieval systems like
+   WWW proxies, NNTP, GOPHER, FTP and WAIS.  The focus of this document
+   remains the management of WWW servers.
+
+
+
+
+Kalbfleisch                  Informational                      [Page 2]
+
+RFC 2039                     WWW Track MIBs                November 1996
+
+
+3. Requirements
+
+   WWW servers can be viewed from several perspectives when assigning
+   management responsibilities.  For the sake of discussion, these
+   perspectives are named the Operational Model and the Service Model.
+   The Operational Model views WWW servers as computers with hardware,
+   disk, OS and web server software.  This model represents the actual
+   resources that make up the machine so that it can be monitored from
+   the perspective of resource utilization.  The Service Model views the
+   WWW server as a black box that simply handles the responses to
+   requests from clients located on the web.
+
+   The two models compliment each other while providing distinct
+   information about the server.  Members of the organization
+   responsible for the WWW server, may be interested in one and/or both
+   of the management models.  For this reason, the management
+   information should be scalable, for one or both models to be
+   implemented independent of the other.
+
+   With this in mind, the requirements for WWW server management can are
+   summarized below by expanding upon those generated at the HTTP-MIB
+   BOF.
+
+3.1  Operational Model Requirements
+
+3.1.1. Host specific and Application Monitoring
+
+   This includes monitoring the utilization of CPU, disk and network
+   capacity.
+
+3.1.2. Dependencies among applications.
+
+   Some systems implement a number of services within a single piece of
+   code. Others use multiple pieces of code to implement the same set of
+   services. Because of this, dependencies develop among processes.
+   These dependencies become critical when a particular process needs to
+   be stopped, restarted or reconfigured. These dependencies need to be
+   defined within the management information so that management
+   applications can operate the systems correctly.
+
+3.1.3. Error generation and reporting
+
+   The WWW server generally reports errors via logging facilities.  The
+   format of the log file is not well defined.  It is required that a
+   standard facility for error reporting be utilized.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kalbfleisch                  Informational                      [Page 3]
+
+RFC 2039                     WWW Track MIBs                November 1996
+
+
+3.1.4. Capacity planning
+
+   It is required to obtain statistics which can be used for capacity
+   planning purposes. This includes planning for increased network
+   bandwidth, computing power, disk space, number of concurrent server
+   threads, etc.
+
+3.1.5. Log Digester
+
+   WWW servers generally report status information by data generated in
+   Common Log Format [1].  This information needs to be preserved as
+   attributes in a MIB to facilitate remote monitoring providing a
+   standard way to represent and retrieve the management information.
+
+3.2. Service Model Requirements
+
+3.2.1. Retrieval services
+
+   Retrieval services are an abstract decoupling the information space
+   from the underlying transport mechanism.  The goal at this time is to
+   focus on the requirements for management of WWW servers. There may be
+   considerable overlap with other types of servers like (FTP, NNTP,
+   GOPHER and WAIS).  The term "retrieval services" is used here to
+   retain this abstraction.  It is required to get statistics about the
+   usage and performance of the retrieval services.
+
+3.2.2. Document information store -- managing documents.
+
+   Information from a WWW server can be static (a file) or dynamic (the
+   output of some processing).  Management of these two types of
+   information sources range from maintaining access statistics and
+   access permissions to verifying the operational status of all
+   applications that provide the dynamic information.
+
+3.2.3. Server configuration.
+
+   It is desirable to be able to centralize configuration management of
+   the servers within an enterprise.
+
+3.2.4. Server Control.
+
+   WWW servers generally need to be controlled in regards to starting
+   and stopping them as well as rotating log files.
+
+3.2.5. Quality of Service
+
+   Provide an indication of the quality of service the WWW server is
+   providing.
+
+
+
+Kalbfleisch                  Informational                      [Page 4]
+
+RFC 2039                     WWW Track MIBs                November 1996
+
+
+4. Relationship to existing IETF efforts
+
+   In general, a WWW server is made up of or depends upon the following
+   components:
+
+      -a general purpose workstation running some operating system
+      -http server software to answers requests from the network
+      -various support routines like CGI programs or external
+       applications (like DBMS) used to access information
+      -a document store on one or more storage devices
+
+   The health and performance of each of the above components is of
+   interest when managing a WWW server.
+
+   There are a number of standards track MIB modules that are of
+   interest to the above list of items.  This list includes MIB-II [2],
+   Host Resources MIB [3], Network Service Monitoring MIB [4] and
+   Application MIB [5].
+
+   This creates an impressive list of attributes to be implemented.  A
+   definition of various levels of management of a WWW server is desired
+   so that the implementor may scale his implementation in chunks which
+   may include various components of each section.  For instance, this
+   may allow customer network management without requiring the other
+   groups being implemented.
+
+4.1. MIB-II [2]
+
+   MIB-II defines the managed objects which should be contained within
+   TCP/IP based devices.
+
+   The WWW server should support the applicable portions of MIB-II.
+   This set probably includes, as a minimum, the following groups:
+   system, interfaces, udp, icmp, tcp and snmp.
+
+4.2. Host Resources MIB [3]
+
+   This MIB defines a uniform set of objects useful for the management
+   of host computers independently of the operating system, network
+   services, or any software application.
+
+   The MIB is structured as six groups; each specified as either
+   "mandatory" or "optional".  If ANY "optional" group of the MIB is
+   implemented, then ALL "mandatory" groups of the MIB must also be
+   implemented.  This may cause implementation problems for some
+   developers since many of these attributes require intimate knowledge
+   of the OS.
+
+
+
+
+Kalbfleisch                  Informational                      [Page 5]
+
+RFC 2039                     WWW Track MIBs                November 1996
+
+
+   The groups defined by the MIB are:
+
+      -System Group                           Mandatory
+      -Storage Group                          Mandatory
+      -Device Group                           Mandatory
+
+                -device types
+                -device table
+                -processor table
+                -network table
+                -printer table
+                -disk storage table
+                -partition table
+                -file-system table
+                -file-system types
+      -Running Software Group                 Optional
+      -Running Software Performance Group     Optional
+      -Installed Software Group               Optional
+
+   The system group provides general status information about the host.
+   The storage and device groups define the information about the
+   configuration and status of the resources which compose the host.  It
+   defines the resources which make up a generic host system and how
+   they relate to each other.  Much of this information is useful for
+   managing various aspects of a WWW server, like the file system and
+   CPU utilization.  This information is useful for meeting the
+   operational requirements. Much of this information is however more
+   detailed than many WWW server managers require for service level
+   requirements.
+
+   The remaining groups define software components which are installed
+   and/or running on the host.  Performance information is defined which
+   extends that defined for each running process.  Unfortunately, the
+   mapping between running software and installed software is difficult
+   since it is related by a foreign key (Product ID) which does not
+   appear to be required to exist in either table [6]. There is no
+   provision to represent a group of processes which together perform
+   some task (IE an application made up of multiple processes). The
+   Applications MIB WG plans to address these deficiencies.
+
+4.3. Network Services Monitoring MIB [4]
+
+   This MIB is one of three documents produced by the MADMAN (Message
+   And Directory MANagement) Working group.  It defines a set of general
+   purpose attributes which would be appropriate for a range of
+   applications that provide network services.  This definition is from
+   the perspective of the service without considering the implementation
+   in terms of host computers or processes.  Attributes provide
+
+
+
+Kalbfleisch                  Informational                      [Page 6]
+
+RFC 2039                     WWW Track MIBs                November 1996
+
+
+   statistics and status on the in-bound and out-bound associations that
+   are currently active, and which have been active.
+
+   This MIB is intended to be the minimum set of attributes common
+   across a number of Network Service Applications.  Additional
+   attributes are to be defined as necessary to manage specific network
+   service applications.  WWW servers clearly fall into the category of
+   network service applications.  All attributes in this MIB are
+   relevant to WWW servers.
+
+   The MIB consists of two tables:
+
+           -applTable                  Mandatory
+           -assocTable                 Optional
+
+   The applTable describes applications that provide network services
+   and keeps statistics of the current number of active associations and
+   the total number of associations since application initialization.
+   The assocTable contains more detailed information about active
+   associations.
+
+   The other two MIBs defined by MADMAN, MTA MIB [7] and DSA MIB [8],
+   are not relevant to the management of WWW services.  They do,
+   however, demonstrate how to extend the Network Services Monitoring
+   MIB for a specific set of applications.
+
+4.4. Application MIB [5]
+
+   The Application MIB WG is defining two separate MIBs: the sysApplMib
+   and the applMib.  The first defines attributes that can be monitored
+   without instrumenting the applications.  The second will define
+   additional attributes requiring application instrumentation.
+
+   The sysApplMIB allows for the description of applications as a
+   collection of executables, and files installed and executing on a
+   host computer. The objects support configuration, fault and
+   performance management of some of the basic attributes of application
+   software.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kalbfleisch                  Informational                      [Page 7]
+
+RFC 2039                     WWW Track MIBs                November 1996
+
+
+   The groups defined in the sysApplMIB are:
+
+           -System Application Installed Group     Mandatory
+                   -sysApplInstalledTable
+                   -sysApplCfgElmtTable
+
+           -System Application Run Group           Mandatory
+                   -sysApplRunTable
+                   -SysApplPastRunTable
+                   -sysApplElmtRunTable
+                   -sysApplElmtPastRunTable
+
+   The sysApplInstalledTable captures what applications are installed on
+   a particular host and the sysApplCfgElmtTable provides information
+   regarding the executables and non executable files which collectively
+   compose the application. The sysApplRunTable contains the application
+   instances which are currently running and the sysApplPastRunTable
+   contains a history about applications which have previously executed
+   on the host. The sysApplElmtRunTable contains the process instances
+   which are currently running and sysApplElmtPastRunTable contains a
+   history about processes which have previously executed on the host.
+
+   It should be noted that two implementations of the same set of
+   network services may each define a different set of processes and
+   files within this MIB.  Ultimately enough management information is
+   needed so that these different implementations can at least be
+   managed similarly.
+
+   WWW servers fall into the general category of application software.
+   Therefore the attributes of this MIB are applicable if the process
+   level detail is requested to meet the Operational Model requirements.
+
+   The Application MIB WG is to resolve the problems described above
+   with the relationship between the running and installed software of
+   the Host Resources MIB.
+
+5. Summary of Existing Standards Track MIBs
+
+   The existing MIBs are largely orthogonal as demonstrated by the
+   diagram below.  Host Resources relates network information to the
+   interfaces defined in MIB-II.  The system application MIB relates its
+   running element table to the equivalent entry in the Host Resources
+   running software table.
+
+   It should be noted that the running software of the Host Resources
+   includes ALL software running on the host, while the running element
+   table of the system application MIB only includes "interesting"
+   processes of monitored applications.
+
+
+
+Kalbfleisch                  Informational                      [Page 8]
+
+RFC 2039                     WWW Track MIBs                November 1996
+
+
+   In the diagram below, "Other Services", "Application Specific MIBs"
+   and "Application MIB" represent work to be done or in progress.
+
+                          +---------------+
+                          |  Application  |
+                          | Specific MIBs |
+                          +---------------+
+                                 |
+  +--------+ +---+ +---+  +---------------+
+  |Other   | |MTA| |DSA|  |  Application  |
+  |services| |MIB| |MIB|  |      MIB      |
+  +--------+ +---+ +---+  +---------------+
+      |        |     |           |
+  +--------------------+  +---------------+  +--------------+  +------+
+  |  Network Services  |  |    System     |  |Host Resources|  |MIB-II|
+  |   Monitoring MIB   |  |Application MIB|--|     MIB      |--|      |
+  +--------------------+  +---------------+  +--------------+  +------+
+
+   The stack of MIBs above "Network Services Monitoring MIB" represent
+   monitoring from the Service Model.  The other stacks represent
+   monitoring from the Operational Model.  Neither of these stacks goes
+   to the level of specific detail for any application. The author is of
+   the opinion that HTTP or Web Server specific MIBs would exist at the
+   top of each stack to represent the service and implementation view of
+   the server respectively.  There should be a relationship between
+   these two perspectives defined so that the correlations between the
+   two perspectives is possible.  This relationship would be useful for
+   general application and service monitoring in addition to just web
+   servers.  However, it is not of specific interest to either the
+   MADMAN WG or the Application MIB WG. It is therefore suggested that
+   such a relationship is defined in a general case outside of either of
+   those groups that would be applicable for WWW servers as well as for
+   other application to service mappings.
+
+6. Definition of additional attributes
+
+   The existing MIB attributes meet the Operational Model Requirement
+   for tracking information specific to a host.  Specifically, MIB-II,
+   Host Resources and the Applications MIB address these items. The
+   Network Services MIB addresses a portion of the service model
+   requirement for the decoupling of the information space from the
+   transport mechanism.
+
+   Several sets of additional attributes are needed to meet the
+   remaining requirements. These additional attributes may be generally
+   applicable to other network information retrieval services (like FTP,
+   NNTP, GOPHER and WAIS) as well as client and proxy management.
+   Management of these services is not the scope of this document.
+
+
+
+Kalbfleisch                  Informational                      [Page 9]
+
+RFC 2039                     WWW Track MIBs                November 1996
+
+
+   These additional attributes can be classified as:
+
+   1) Definition of relationship between the Network Services Monitoring
+      and Application MIBs.  This allows the functional organization of
+      the server to be known.  It allows the management application to
+      understand the effect of restarting specific processes on the
+      services provided.  This addresses the Operational Model
+      requirement to model dependencies between applications.
+
+   2) Additions to generic Network Services Monitoring MIB. A draft [9]
+      has already been circulated due to the work of a mailing list and
+      a sample implementation.  These attributes list a summary at the
+      service level of the configuration and the health of the server.
+      From this, performance metrics can be observed.  In addition, the
+      health of the server in terms of data timeouts is known.  These
+      attributes address the requirement for Operational Model tracking
+      of specific activity and the requirement for Service Model
+      retrieval services.
+
+   3) Document storage and access statistics are needed to address
+      service model requirements.
+
+   4) Additions to Application MIB are required to address server
+      configuration requirements in the service model.
+
+   5) Error and fault management attributes are required to address
+      requirements for tracking specific activity of the web server.
+
+   6) Configuration and Control are items that may be able to be defined
+      in a general way within the applications MIB.  If not, a specific
+      definition would be required here.
+
+   Of the items listed above, (1) is needed on a general basis.  The
+   others appear to the author as WWW server specific unless the scope
+   of the work is opened to WWW clients and proxies as well as other
+   services (like NNTP, FTP, GOPHER and WAIS).
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kalbfleisch                  Informational                     [Page 10]
+
+RFC 2039                     WWW Track MIBs                November 1996
+
+
+7. Usage Scenarios
+
+   The example scenario will be a single host computer which implements
+   WWW services using the "virtual domain" concept.  In this model, a
+   single host performs as the WWW server for one or more addresses.
+   For the purpose of example, we will specify that there are three
+   domains being serviced from this host whose WWW servers are:
+
+           -www.a.com
+           -www.b.com
+           -www.c.com
+
+   Some implementations may implement these services as one set of
+   processes that handle requests for each of the addresses.  Others may
+   implement these services as a set of processes for each address.
+   This means that the relationship defined between the Network Services
+   Monitoring MIB and Application MIB components of the management
+   information may vary between different implementations of the same
+   configuration.
+
+   MIB-II and Host Resources would provide the information about the
+   host including the CPU, disk and network.  The Host Resource running
+   table provide information on the processes in the system.
+
+   There would be an entry in the Network Services Monitoring applTable
+   for each virtual domain.  In addition, the assocTable shows which
+   connections are currently active.  An extension to the association
+   table would be helpful to provide information as to what is being
+   transmitted.
+
+   The sysApplMib would have entries in its installed software tables
+   for the web server software and each "interesting" component.  This
+   should include the server binary, CGI programs, configuration files
+   and possibly the server log files.  Depending on the implementation
+   of the server, the processes for each domain may show up in the same
+   or different running software tables.
+
+   Additional information as described in the previous section would
+   round out the management information that would be available for the
+   WWW server.
+
+8. Conclusion
+
+   A number of currently defined attributes are useful for management of
+   a WWW server. Specifically, MIB-II and Host Resources should be
+   considered for monitoring the health of the machine in terms of host
+   and network configuration and capacity.  The Network Services
+   Monitoring MIB and the Application MIBs provide a general framework
+
+
+
+Kalbfleisch                  Informational                     [Page 11]
+
+RFC 2039                     WWW Track MIBs                November 1996
+
+
+   to represent the components of the WWW server from both a service and
+   implementation perspective.  The Network Services Monitoring MIB
+   suggests that extensions are necessary to cover specific network
+   application monitoring. A set of such attributes can be well defined
+   to provide status information of the WWW server.  The Application MIB
+   suggests similar extensions.  Some of these attributes may be generic
+   to all applications, and thus be implemented within the scope of the
+   applMib. It is the opinion of this author that there will still
+   remain specific instrumentation for WWW servers that can not, and
+   should not, be covered in the Network Services Monitoring and
+   Application MIBs.
+
+   Since the Network Services Monitoring MIB and the Applications MIB
+   represent orthogonal efforts of management, it is desirable to define
+   the relationship between the two in a standard way.  This definition
+   is probably more than a simple pointer from one table to another.
+   Since it is outside the scope of either of those efforts, it is this
+   author's opinion that that definition could and should be addressed
+   within the scope of defining management of a specific application (IE
+   WWW servers). This defintion although defined for a particular
+   application, should be useful in a general way to describe the
+   relationship between the Network Services Monitoring MIB and the
+   Applications MIB.
+
+   Additional attributes are needed in order to meet all of the
+   requirements specified in this document.  An IETF standard would
+   prevent independent developments of this effort in many enterprise
+   MIBs.  It also allows management applications to control servers from
+   multiple vendors.  It is likely that as the work in this area
+   progresses, the management information will be useful for other
+   Network Information Retrieval services (like FTP, GOPHER, WAIS and
+   NNTP) as well.
+
+   Finally, the Operational Model and Service Model Requirements lead to
+   two main uses of the management information.  Design of the MIB
+   including the usage of the existing MIBs should allow one or the
+   other or both of these models to be implemented in a standard way.
+   This may be desirable depending specifically on the audience of the
+   data, the cost of instrumentation and the resources of the system.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kalbfleisch                  Informational                     [Page 12]
+
+RFC 2039                     WWW Track MIBs                November 1996
+
+
+9. References
+
+ [1] Anonymous, "Logging in the W3C httpd",
+     http://www.w3.org/hypertext/WWW/Daemon/User/Config/Logging.html,
+     W3C, July 1995.
+
+ [2] McCloghrie, K., and M. Rose, Editors, "Management Information
+     Base for Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets: MIB-
+     II", STD 17, RFC 1213, Hughes LAN Systems, Performance
+     Systems International, March 1991.
+
+ [3] Grillo, P., and S. Waldbusser, "Host Resources MIB", RFC 1514,
+     Network Innovations, Intel Corporation, Carnegie Mellon
+     University, September 1993.
+
+ [4] Kille, S., and N. Freed, "Network Services Monitoring MIB",
+     RFC 1565, ISODE Consortium, Innosoft, January 1994.
+
+ [5] Saperia, J., C. Krupczak, R. Sturm, and J. Weinstock, "Definition
+     of Managed Objects for Applications", Work in Progress.
+
+ [6] Krupczak, C. and S. Waldbusser, "Applicability of Host Resources
+     MIB to Application Management", Empire Technologies, Inc.,
+     International Network Services, October 1995.
+
+ [7] Kille, S., and N. Freed, "Mail Monitoring MIB", RFC 1566, ISODE
+     Consortium, Innosoft, January 1994.
+
+ [8] Mansfield, G., and S. Kille, "X.500 Directory Monitoring MIB",
+     RFC 1567, AIC Systems Laboratory, ISODE Consortium, January 1994.
+
+ [9] Hazewinkel, H., E. van Hengstum, A. Pras, "Definitions of Managed
+     Objects for HTTP", Work in Progress.
+
+10. Acknowledgments
+
+   This document was produced at the request of the Network Management
+   Area Director following the HTTP-MIB BOF at the 35th IETF meeting to
+   report on the applicability of the existing standards track MIBs to
+   management of WWW servers.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kalbfleisch                  Informational                     [Page 13]
+
+RFC 2039                     WWW Track MIBs                November 1996
+
+
+   The author gratefully acknowledges the comments of the following
+   individuals:
+
+            Ned Freed, ned@innosoft.com
+                Innosoft, Inc.
+
+            Harrie Hazewinkel, hazewink@cs.utwente.nl
+                University of Twente
+
+            Cheryl Krupczak, cheryl@empiretech.com
+                Empire Technologies, Inc.
+
+            Rui Meneses, rui.meneses@jrc.it
+                Centre for Earth Observation
+
+            Jon Saperia, saperia@bgs.com
+                BGS Systems, Inc.
+
+            Juergen Schoenwaelder, schoenw@cs.utwente.nl
+                University of Twente
+
+            Chris Wellens, chrisw@iwl.com
+                InterWorking Labs, Inc.
+
+11. Further Information
+
+   The current status of the HTTP-MIB standardization can be found on
+   the World Wide Web at <URL:http://http-mib.onramp.net/>.  An email
+   list is in operation for discussion of this topic.  To subscribe,
+   send email to "http-mib-request@onramp.net" with the message body of
+   "subscribe HTTP-MIB".
+
+12. Security Considerations
+
+   Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
+
+13. Authors' Address
+
+   Carl W. Kalbfleisch
+   OnRamp Technologies, Inc.
+   Email: cwk@onramp.net
+   1950 Stemmons Frwy
+   2026 INFOMART
+   Dallas, TX 75207, USA               Tel: (214) 672-7246
+   cwk@onramp.net                      Fax: (214) 672-7275
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Kalbfleisch                  Informational                     [Page 14]
+