doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 1739 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc3416.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc3416.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e8c580d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc3416.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,1739 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                            Editor of this version:
+Request for Comments: 3416                                    R. Presuhn
+STD: 62                                               BMC Software, Inc.
+Obsoletes: 1905                             Authors of previous version:
+Category: Standards Track                                        J. Case
+                                                     SNMP Research, Inc.
+                                                           K. McCloghrie
+                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
+                                                                 M. Rose
+                                            Dover Beach Consulting, Inc.
+                                                           S. Waldbusser
+                                          International Network Services
+                                                           December 2002
+
+
+                Version 2 of the Protocol Operations for
+             the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
+   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
+   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
+   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
+   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+Abstract
+
+   This document defines version 2 of the protocol operations for the
+   Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP).  It defines the syntax and
+   elements of procedure for sending, receiving, and processing SNMP
+   PDUs.  This document obsoletes RFC 1905.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Presuhn, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 1]
+
+RFC 3416              Protocol Operations for SNMP         December 2002
+
+
+Table of Contents
+
+   1. Introduction ................................................    3
+   2. Overview ....................................................    4
+   2.1. Management Information ....................................    4
+   2.2. Retransmission of Requests ................................    4
+   2.3. Message Sizes .............................................    4
+   2.4. Transport Mappings ........................................    5
+   2.5. SMIv2 Data Type Mappings ..................................    6
+   3. Definitions .................................................    6
+   4. Protocol Specification ......................................    9
+   4.1. Common Constructs .........................................    9
+   4.2. PDU Processing ............................................   10
+   4.2.1. The GetRequest-PDU ......................................   10
+   4.2.2. The GetNextRequest-PDU ..................................   11
+   4.2.2.1. Example of Table Traversal ............................   12
+   4.2.3. The GetBulkRequest-PDU ..................................   14
+   4.2.3.1. Another Example of Table Traversal ....................   17
+   4.2.4. The Response-PDU ........................................   18
+   4.2.5. The SetRequest-PDU ......................................   19
+   4.2.6. The SNMPv2-Trap-PDU .....................................   22
+   4.2.7. The InformRequest-PDU ...................................   23
+   5. Notice on Intellectual Property .............................   24
+   6. Acknowledgments .............................................   24
+   7. Security Considerations .....................................   26
+   8. References ..................................................   26
+   8.1. Normative References ......................................   26
+   8.2. Informative References ....................................   27
+   9. Changes from RFC 1905 .......................................   28
+   10. Editor's Address ...........................................   30
+   11. Full Copyright Statement ...................................   31
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Presuhn, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 2]
+
+RFC 3416              Protocol Operations for SNMP         December 2002
+
+
+1.  Introduction
+
+   The SNMP Management Framework at the time of this writing consists of
+   five major components:
+
+      -  An overall architecture, described in STD 62, RFC 3411
+         [RFC3411].
+
+      -  Mechanisms for describing and naming objects and events for the
+         purpose of management.  The first version of this Structure of
+         Management Information (SMI) is called SMIv1 and described in
+         STD 16, RFC 1155 [RFC1155], STD 16, RFC 1212 [RFC1212] and RFC
+         1215 [RFC1215].  The second version, called SMIv2, is described
+         in STD 58, RFC 2578 [RFC2578], STD 58, RFC 2579 [RFC2579] and
+         STD 58, RFC 2580 [RFC2580].
+
+      -  Message protocols for transferring management information.  The
+         first version of the SNMP message protocol is called SNMPv1 and
+         described in STD 15, RFC 1157 [RFC1157].  A second version of
+         the SNMP message protocol, which is not an Internet standards
+         track protocol, is called SNMPv2c and described in RFC 1901
+         [RFC1901] and STD 62, RFC 3417 [RFC3417].  The third version of
+         the message protocol is called SNMPv3 and described in STD 62,
+         RFC 3417 [RFC3417], RFC 3412 [RFC3412] and RFC 3414 [RFC3414].
+
+      -  Protocol operations for accessing management information.  The
+         first set of protocol operations and associated PDU formats is
+         described in STD 15, RFC 1157 [RFC1157].  A second set of
+         protocol operations and associated PDU formats is described in
+         this document.
+
+      -  A set of fundamental applications described in STD 62, RFC 3413
+         [RFC3413] and the view-based access control mechanism described
+         in STD 62, RFC 3415 [RFC3415].
+
+   A more detailed introduction to the SNMP Management Framework at the
+   time of this writing can be found in RFC 3410 [RFC3410].
+
+   Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed
+   the Management Information Base or MIB.  Objects in the MIB are
+   defined using the mechanisms defined in the SMI.
+
+   This document, Version 2 of the Protocol Operations for the Simple
+   Network Management Protocol, defines the operations of the protocol
+   with respect to the sending and receiving of PDUs to be carried by
+   the message protocol.
+
+
+
+
+
+Presuhn, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 3]
+
+RFC 3416              Protocol Operations for SNMP         December 2002
+
+
+2.  Overview
+
+   SNMP entities supporting command generator or notification receiver
+   applications (traditionally called "managers") communicate with SNMP
+   entities supporting command responder or notification originator
+   applications (traditionally called "agents").  The purpose of this
+   protocol is the transport of management information and operations.
+
+2.1.  Management Information
+
+   The term "variable" refers to an instance of a non-aggregate object
+   type defined according to the conventions set forth in the SMI
+   [RFC2578] or the textual conventions based on the SMI [RFC2579].  The
+   term "variable binding" normally refers to the pairing of the name of
+   a variable and its associated value.  However, if certain kinds of
+   exceptional conditions occur during processing of a retrieval
+   request, a variable binding will pair a name and an indication of
+   that exception.
+
+   A variable-binding list is a simple list of variable bindings.
+
+   The name of a variable is an OBJECT IDENTIFIER which is the
+   concatenation of the OBJECT IDENTIFIER of the corresponding object-
+   type together with an OBJECT IDENTIFIER fragment identifying the
+   instance.  The OBJECT IDENTIFIER of the corresponding object-type is
+   called the OBJECT IDENTIFIER prefix of the variable.
+
+2.2.  Retransmission of Requests
+
+   For all types of request in this protocol, the receiver is required
+   under normal circumstances, to generate and transmit a response to
+   the originator of the request.  Whether or not a request should be
+   retransmitted if no corresponding response is received in an
+   appropriate time interval, is at the discretion of the application
+   originating the request.  This will normally depend on the urgency of
+   the request.  However, such an application needs to act responsibly
+   in respect to the frequency and duration of re-transmissions.  See
+   BCP 41 [RFC2914] for discussion of relevant congestion control
+   principles.
+
+2.3.  Message Sizes
+
+   The maximum size of an SNMP message is limited to the minimum of:
+
+   (1)   the maximum message size which the destination SNMP entity can
+         accept; and,
+
+
+
+
+
+Presuhn, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 4]
+
+RFC 3416              Protocol Operations for SNMP         December 2002
+
+
+   (2)   the maximum message size which the source SNMP entity can
+         generate.
+
+   The former may be known on a per-recipient basis; and in the absence
+   of such knowledge, is indicated by transport domain used when sending
+   the message.  The latter is imposed by implementation-specific local
+   constraints.
+
+   Each transport mapping for the SNMP indicates the minimum message
+   size which a SNMP implementation must be able to produce or consume.
+   Although implementations are encouraged to support larger values
+   whenever possible, a conformant implementation must never generate
+   messages larger than allowed by the receiving SNMP entity.
+
+   One of the aims of the GetBulkRequest-PDU, specified in this
+   protocol, is to minimize the number of protocol exchanges required to
+   retrieve a large amount of management information.  As such, this PDU
+   type allows an SNMP entity supporting command generator applications
+   to request that the response be as large as possible given the
+   constraints on message sizes.  These constraints include the limits
+   on the size of messages which the SNMP entity supporting command
+   responder applications can generate, and the SNMP entity supporting
+   command generator applications can receive.
+
+   However, it is possible that such maximum sized messages may be
+   larger than the Path MTU of the path across the network traversed by
+   the messages.  In this situation, such messages are subject to
+   fragmentation.  Fragmentation is generally considered to be harmful
+   [FRAG], since among other problems, it leads to a decrease in the
+   reliability of the transfer of the messages.  Thus, an SNMP entity
+   which sends a GetBulkRequest-PDU must take care to set its parameters
+   accordingly, so as to reduce the risk of fragmentation.  In
+   particular, under conditions of network stress, only small values
+   should be used for max-repetitions.
+
+2.4.  Transport Mappings
+
+   It is important to note that the exchange of SNMP messages requires
+   only an unreliable datagram service, with every message being
+   entirely and independently contained in a single transport datagram.
+   Specific transport mappings and encoding rules are specified
+   elsewhere [RFC3417].  However, the preferred mapping is the use of
+   the User Datagram Protocol [RFC768].
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Presuhn, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 5]
+
+RFC 3416              Protocol Operations for SNMP         December 2002
+
+
+2.5.  SMIv2 Data Type Mappings
+
+   The SMIv2 [RFC2578] defines 11 base types (INTEGER, OCTET STRING,
+   OBJECT IDENTIFIER, Integer32, IpAddress, Counter32, Gauge32,
+   Unsigned32, TimeTicks, Opaque, Counter64) and the BITS construct.
+   The SMIv2 base types are mapped to the corresponding selection type
+   in the SimpleSyntax and ApplicationSyntax choices of the ASN.1 SNMP
+   protocol definition.  Note that the INTEGER and Integer32 SMIv2 base
+   types are mapped to the integer-value selection type of the
+   SimpleSyntax choice.  Similarly, the Gauge32 and Unsigned32 SMIv2
+   base types are mapped to the unsigned-integer-value selection type of
+   the ApplicationSyntax choice.
+
+   The SMIv2 BITS construct is mapped to the string-value selection type
+   of the SimpleSyntax choice.  A BITS value is encoded as an OCTET
+   STRING, in which all the named bits in (the definition of) the
+   bitstring, commencing with the first bit and proceeding to the last
+   bit, are placed in bits 8 (high order bit) to 1 (low order bit) of
+   the first octet, followed by bits 8 to 1 of each subsequent octet in
+   turn, followed by as many bits as are needed of the final subsequent
+   octet, commencing with bit 8.  Remaining bits, if any, of the final
+   octet are set to zero on generation and ignored on receipt.
+
+3.  Definitions
+
+   The PDU syntax is defined using ASN.1 notation [ASN1].
+
+   SNMPv2-PDU DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
+
+   ObjectName ::= OBJECT IDENTIFIER
+
+   ObjectSyntax ::= CHOICE {
+         simple           SimpleSyntax,
+         application-wide ApplicationSyntax }
+
+   SimpleSyntax ::= CHOICE {
+         integer-value   INTEGER (-2147483648..2147483647),
+         string-value    OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..65535)),
+         objectID-value  OBJECT IDENTIFIER }
+
+   ApplicationSyntax ::= CHOICE {
+         ipAddress-value        IpAddress,
+         counter-value          Counter32,
+         timeticks-value        TimeTicks,
+         arbitrary-value        Opaque,
+         big-counter-value      Counter64,
+         unsigned-integer-value Unsigned32 }
+
+
+
+
+Presuhn, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 6]
+
+RFC 3416              Protocol Operations for SNMP         December 2002
+
+
+   IpAddress ::= [APPLICATION 0] IMPLICIT OCTET STRING (SIZE (4))
+
+   Counter32 ::= [APPLICATION 1] IMPLICIT INTEGER (0..4294967295)
+
+   Unsigned32 ::= [APPLICATION 2] IMPLICIT INTEGER (0..4294967295)
+
+   Gauge32 ::= Unsigned32
+
+   TimeTicks ::= [APPLICATION 3] IMPLICIT INTEGER (0..4294967295)
+
+   Opaque ::= [APPLICATION 4] IMPLICIT OCTET STRING
+
+   Counter64 ::= [APPLICATION 6]
+                 IMPLICIT INTEGER (0..18446744073709551615)
+
+   -- protocol data units
+
+   PDUs ::= CHOICE {
+        get-request      GetRequest-PDU,
+        get-next-request GetNextRequest-PDU,
+        get-bulk-request GetBulkRequest-PDU,
+        response         Response-PDU,
+        set-request      SetRequest-PDU,
+        inform-request   InformRequest-PDU,
+        snmpV2-trap      SNMPv2-Trap-PDU,
+        report           Report-PDU }
+
+   -- PDUs
+
+   GetRequest-PDU ::= [0] IMPLICIT PDU
+
+   GetNextRequest-PDU ::= [1] IMPLICIT PDU
+
+   Response-PDU ::= [2] IMPLICIT PDU
+
+   SetRequest-PDU ::= [3] IMPLICIT PDU
+
+   -- [4] is obsolete
+
+   GetBulkRequest-PDU ::= [5] IMPLICIT BulkPDU
+
+   InformRequest-PDU ::= [6] IMPLICIT PDU
+
+   SNMPv2-Trap-PDU ::= [7] IMPLICIT PDU
+
+   --   Usage and precise semantics of Report-PDU are not defined
+   --   in this document.  Any SNMP administrative framework making
+   --   use of this PDU must define its usage and semantics.
+
+
+
+Presuhn, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 7]
+
+RFC 3416              Protocol Operations for SNMP         December 2002
+
+
+   Report-PDU ::= [8] IMPLICIT PDU
+
+   max-bindings INTEGER ::= 2147483647
+
+   PDU ::= SEQUENCE {
+           request-id INTEGER (-214783648..214783647),
+
+           error-status                -- sometimes ignored
+               INTEGER {
+                   noError(0),
+                   tooBig(1),
+                   noSuchName(2),      -- for proxy compatibility
+                   badValue(3),        -- for proxy compatibility
+                   readOnly(4),        -- for proxy compatibility
+                   genErr(5),
+                   noAccess(6),
+                   wrongType(7),
+                   wrongLength(8),
+                   wrongEncoding(9),
+                   wrongValue(10),
+                   noCreation(11),
+                   inconsistentValue(12),
+                   resourceUnavailable(13),
+                   commitFailed(14),
+                   undoFailed(15),
+                   authorizationError(16),
+                   notWritable(17),
+                   inconsistentName(18)
+               },
+
+           error-index                 -- sometimes ignored
+               INTEGER (0..max-bindings),
+
+           variable-bindings           -- values are sometimes ignored
+               VarBindList
+       }
+
+   BulkPDU ::=                         -- must be identical in
+       SEQUENCE {                      -- structure to PDU
+           request-id      INTEGER (-214783648..214783647),
+           non-repeaters   INTEGER (0..max-bindings),
+           max-repetitions INTEGER (0..max-bindings),
+
+           variable-bindings           -- values are ignored
+               VarBindList
+       }
+
+   -- variable binding
+
+
+
+Presuhn, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 8]
+
+RFC 3416              Protocol Operations for SNMP         December 2002
+
+
+   VarBind ::= SEQUENCE {
+           name ObjectName,
+
+           CHOICE {
+               value          ObjectSyntax,
+               unSpecified    NULL,    -- in retrieval requests
+
+                                       -- exceptions in responses
+               noSuchObject   [0] IMPLICIT NULL,
+               noSuchInstance [1] IMPLICIT NULL,
+               endOfMibView   [2] IMPLICIT NULL
+           }
+       }
+
+   -- variable-binding list
+
+   VarBindList ::= SEQUENCE (SIZE (0..max-bindings)) OF VarBind
+
+   END
+
+4.  Protocol Specification
+
+4.1.  Common Constructs
+
+   The value of the request-id field in a Response-PDU takes the value
+   of the request-id field in the request PDU to which it is a response.
+   By use of the request-id value, an application can distinguish the
+   (potentially multiple) outstanding requests, and thereby correlate
+   incoming responses with outstanding requests.  In cases where an
+   unreliable datagram service is used, the request-id also provides a
+   simple means of identifying messages duplicated by the network.  Use
+   of the same request-id on a retransmission of a request allows the
+   response to either the original transmission or the retransmission to
+   satisfy the request.  However, in order to calculate the round trip
+   time for transmission and processing of a request-response
+   transaction, the application needs to use a different request-id
+   value on a retransmitted request.  The latter strategy is recommended
+   for use in the majority of situations.
+
+   A non-zero value of the error-status field in a Response-PDU is used
+   to indicate that an error occurred to prevent the processing of the
+   request.  In these cases, a non-zero value of the Response-PDU's
+   error-index field provides additional information by identifying
+   which variable binding in the list caused the error.  A variable
+   binding is identified by its index value.  The first variable binding
+   in a variable-binding list is index one, the second is index two,
+   etc.
+
+
+
+
+Presuhn, et al.             Standards Track                     [Page 9]
+
+RFC 3416              Protocol Operations for SNMP         December 2002
+
+
+   SNMP limits OBJECT IDENTIFIER values to a maximum of 128 sub-
+   identifiers, where each sub-identifier has a maximum value of
+   2**32-1.
+
+4.2.  PDU Processing
+
+   In the elements of procedure below, any field of a PDU which is not
+   referenced by the relevant procedure is ignored by the receiving SNMP
+   entity.  However, all components of a PDU, including those whose
+   values are ignored by the receiving SNMP entity, must have valid
+   ASN.1 syntax and encoding.  For example, some PDUs (e.g., the
+   GetRequest-PDU) are concerned only with the name of a variable and
+   not its value.  In this case, the value portion of the variable
+   binding is ignored by the receiving SNMP entity.  The unSpecified
+   value is defined for use as the value portion of such bindings.
+
+   On generating a management communication, the message "wrapper" to
+   encapsulate the PDU is generated according to the "Elements of
+   Procedure" of the administrative framework in use.  The definition of
+   "max-bindings" imposes an upper bound on the number of variable
+   bindings.  In practice, the size of a message is also limited by
+   constraints on the maximum message size.  A compliant implementation
+   must support as many variable bindings in a PDU or BulkPDU as fit
+   into the overall maximum message size limit of the SNMP engine, but
+   no more than 2147483647 variable bindings.
+
+   On receiving a management communication, the "Elements of Procedure"
+   of the administrative framework in use is followed, and if those
+   procedures indicate that the operation contained within the message
+   is to be performed locally, then those procedures also indicate the
+   MIB view which is visible to the operation.
+
+4.2.1.  The GetRequest-PDU
+
+   A GetRequest-PDU is generated and transmitted at the request of an
+   application.
+
+   Upon receipt of a GetRequest-PDU, the receiving SNMP entity processes
+   each variable binding in the variable-binding list to produce a
+   Response-PDU.  All fields of the Response-PDU have the same values as
+   the corresponding fields of the received request except as indicated
+   below.  Each variable binding is processed as follows:
+
+   (1)   If the variable binding's name exactly matches the name of a
+         variable accessible by this request, then the variable
+         binding's value field is set to the value of the named
+         variable.
+
+
+
+
+Presuhn, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 10]
+
+RFC 3416              Protocol Operations for SNMP         December 2002
+
+
+   (2)   Otherwise, if the variable binding's name does not have an
+         OBJECT IDENTIFIER prefix which exactly matches the OBJECT
+         IDENTIFIER prefix of any (potential) variable accessible by
+         this request, then its value field is set to "noSuchObject".
+
+   (3)   Otherwise, the variable binding's value field is set to
+         "noSuchInstance".
+
+   If the processing of any variable binding fails for a reason other
+   than listed above, then the Response-PDU is re-formatted with the
+   same values in its request-id and variable-bindings fields as the
+   received GetRequest-PDU, with the value of its error-status field set
+   to "genErr", and the value of its error-index field is set to the
+   index of the failed variable binding.
+
+   Otherwise, the value of the Response-PDU's error-status field is set
+   to "noError", and the value of its error-index field is zero.
+
+   The generated Response-PDU is then encapsulated into a message.  If
+   the size of the resultant message is less than or equal to both a
+   local constraint and the maximum message size of the originator, it
+   is transmitted to the originator of the GetRequest-PDU.
+
+   Otherwise, an alternate Response-PDU is generated.  This alternate
+   Response-PDU is formatted with the same value in its request-id field
+   as the received GetRequest-PDU, with the value of its error-status
+   field set to "tooBig", the value of its error-index field set to
+   zero, and an empty variable-bindings field.  This alternate
+   Response-PDU is then encapsulated into a message.  If the size of the
+   resultant message is less than or equal to both a local constraint
+   and the maximum message size of the originator, it is transmitted to
+   the originator of the GetRequest-PDU.  Otherwise, the snmpSilentDrops
+   [RFC3418] counter is incremented and the resultant message is
+   discarded.
+
+4.2.2.  The GetNextRequest-PDU
+
+   A GetNextRequest-PDU is generated and transmitted at the request of
+   an application.
+
+   Upon receipt of a GetNextRequest-PDU, the receiving SNMP entity
+   processes each variable binding in the variable-binding list to
+   produce a Response-PDU.  All fields of the Response-PDU have the same
+   values as the corresponding fields of the received request except as
+   indicated below.  Each variable binding is processed as follows:
+
+      (1)   The variable is located which is in the lexicographically
+            ordered list of the names of all variables which are
+
+
+
+Presuhn, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 11]
+
+RFC 3416              Protocol Operations for SNMP         December 2002
+
+
+            accessible by this request and whose name is the first
+            lexicographic successor of the variable binding's name in
+            the incoming GetNextRequest-PDU.  The corresponding variable
+            binding's name and value fields in the Response-PDU are set
+            to the name and value of the located variable.
+
+      (2)   If the requested variable binding's name does not
+            lexicographically precede the name of any variable
+            accessible by this request, i.e., there is no lexicographic
+            successor, then the corresponding variable binding produced
+            in the Response-PDU has its value field set to
+            "endOfMibView", and its name field set to the variable
+            binding's name in the request.
+
+   If the processing of any variable binding fails for a reason other
+   than listed above, then the Response-PDU is re-formatted with the
+   same values in its request-id and variable-bindings fields as the
+   received GetNextRequest-PDU, with the value of its error-status field
+   set to "genErr", and the value of its error-index field is set to the
+   index of the failed variable binding.
+
+   Otherwise, the value of the Response-PDU's error-status field is set
+   to "noError", and the value of its error-index field is zero.
+
+   The generated Response-PDU is then encapsulated into a message.  If
+   the size of the resultant message is less than or equal to both a
+   local constraint and the maximum message size of the originator, it
+   is transmitted to the originator of the GetNextRequest-PDU.
+
+   Otherwise, an alternate Response-PDU is generated.  This alternate
+   Response-PDU is formatted with the same values in its request-id
+   field as the received GetNextRequest-PDU, with the value of its
+   error-status field set to "tooBig", the value of its error-index
+   field set to zero, and an empty variable-bindings field.  This
+   alternate Response-PDU is then encapsulated into a message.  If the
+   size of the resultant message is less than or equal to both a local
+   constraint and the maximum message size of the originator, it is
+   transmitted to the originator of the GetNextRequest-PDU.  Otherwise,
+   the snmpSilentDrops [RFC3418] counter is incremented and the
+   resultant message is discarded.
+
+4.2.2.1.  Example of Table Traversal
+
+   An important use of the GetNextRequest-PDU is the traversal of
+   conceptual tables of information within a MIB.  The semantics of this
+   type of request, together with the method of identifying individual
+   instances of objects in the MIB, provides access to related objects
+   in the MIB as if they enjoyed a tabular organization.
+
+
+
+Presuhn, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 12]
+
+RFC 3416              Protocol Operations for SNMP         December 2002
+
+
+   In the protocol exchange sketched below, an application retrieves the
+   media-dependent physical address and the address-mapping type for
+   each entry in the IP net-to-media Address Translation Table [RFC1213]
+   of a particular network element.  It also retrieves the value of
+   sysUpTime [RFC3418], at which the mappings existed.  Suppose that the
+   command responder's IP net-to-media table has three entries:
+
+   Interface-Number  Network-Address  Physical-Address  Type
+
+      1            10.0.0.51     00:00:10:01:23:45  static
+      1             9.2.3.4      00:00:10:54:32:10  dynamic
+      2            10.0.0.15     00:00:10:98:76:54  dynamic
+
+   The SNMP entity supporting a command generator application begins by
+   sending a GetNextRequest-PDU containing the indicated OBJECT
+   IDENTIFIER values as the requested variable names:
+
+    GetNextRequest ( sysUpTime,
+                   ipNetToMediaPhysAddress,
+                   ipNetToMediaType )
+
+   The SNMP entity supporting a command responder application responds
+   with a Response-PDU:
+
+    Response (( sysUpTime.0 =  "123456" ),
+               ( ipNetToMediaPhysAddress.1.9.2.3.4 = "000010543210" ),
+            ( ipNetToMediaType.1.9.2.3.4 =  "dynamic" ))
+
+   The SNMP entity supporting the command generator application
+   continues with:
+
+    GetNextRequest ( sysUpTime,
+                   ipNetToMediaPhysAddress.1.9.2.3.4,
+                   ipNetToMediaType.1.9.2.3.4 )
+
+   The SNMP entity supporting the command responder application responds
+   with:
+
+    Response (( sysUpTime.0 =  "123461" ),
+               ( ipNetToMediaPhysAddress.1.10.0.0.51 = "000010012345" ),
+            ( ipNetToMediaType.1.10.0.0.51 =  "static" ))
+
+   The SNMP entity supporting the command generator application
+   continues with:
+
+    GetNextRequest ( sysUpTime,
+                   ipNetToMediaPhysAddress.1.10.0.0.51,
+                   ipNetToMediaType.1.10.0.0.51 )
+
+
+
+Presuhn, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 13]
+
+RFC 3416              Protocol Operations for SNMP         December 2002
+
+
+   The SNMP entity supporting the command responder application responds
+   with:
+
+    Response (( sysUpTime.0 =  "123466" ),
+               ( ipNetToMediaPhysAddress.2.10.0.0.15 = "000010987654" ),
+            ( ipNetToMediaType.2.10.0.0.15 =  "dynamic" ))
+
+   The SNMP entity supporting the command generator application
+   continues with:
+
+    GetNextRequest ( sysUpTime,
+                   ipNetToMediaPhysAddress.2.10.0.0.15,
+                   ipNetToMediaType.2.10.0.0.15 )
+
+   As there are no further entries in the table, the SNMP entity
+   supporting the command responder application responds with the
+   variables that are next in the lexicographical ordering of the
+   accessible object names, for example:
+
+    Response (( sysUpTime.0 =  "123471" ),
+               ( ipNetToMediaNetAddress.1.9.2.3.4 = "9.2.3.4" ),
+            ( ipRoutingDiscards.0 =  "2" ))
+
+   Note how, having reached the end of the column for
+   ipNetToMediaPhysAddress, the second variable binding from the command
+   responder application has now "wrapped" to the first row in the next
+   column.  Furthermore, note how, having reached the end of the
+   ipNetToMediaTable for the third variable binding, the command
+   responder application has responded with the next available object,
+   which is outside that table.  This response signals the end of the
+   table to the command generator application.
+
+4.2.3.  The GetBulkRequest-PDU
+
+   A GetBulkRequest-PDU is generated and transmitted at the request of
+   an application.  The purpose of the GetBulkRequest-PDU is to request
+   the transfer of a potentially large amount of data, including, but
+   not limited to, the efficient and rapid retrieval of large tables.
+
+   Upon receipt of a GetBulkRequest-PDU, the receiving SNMP entity
+   processes each variable binding in the variable-binding list to
+   produce a Response-PDU with its request-id field having the same
+   value as in the request.
+
+   For the GetBulkRequest-PDU type, the successful processing of each
+   variable binding in the request generates zero or more variable
+   bindings in the Response-PDU.  That is, the one-to-one mapping
+   between the variable bindings of the GetRequest-PDU, GetNextRequest-
+
+
+
+Presuhn, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 14]
+
+RFC 3416              Protocol Operations for SNMP         December 2002
+
+
+   PDU, and SetRequest-PDU types and the resultant Response-PDUs does
+   not apply for the mapping between the variable bindings of a
+   GetBulkRequest-PDU and the resultant Response-PDU.
+
+   The values of the non-repeaters and max-repetitions fields in the
+   request specify the processing requested.  One variable binding in
+   the Response-PDU is requested for the first N variable bindings in
+   the request and M variable bindings are requested for each of the R
+   remaining variable bindings in the request.  Consequently, the total
+   number of requested variable bindings communicated by the request is
+   given by N + (M * R), where N is the minimum of:  a) the value of the
+   non-repeaters field in the request, and b) the number of variable
+   bindings in the request; M is the value of the max-repetitions field
+   in the request; and R is the maximum of:  a) number of variable
+   bindings in the request - N, and b)  zero.
+
+   The receiving SNMP entity produces a Response-PDU with up to the
+   total number of requested variable bindings communicated by the
+   request.  The request-id shall have the same value as the received
+   GetBulkRequest-PDU.
+
+   If N is greater than zero, the first through the (N)-th variable
+   bindings of the Response-PDU are each produced as follows:
+
+   (1)   The variable is located which is in the lexicographically
+         ordered list of the names of all variables which are accessible
+         by this request and whose name is the first lexicographic
+         successor of the variable binding's name in the incoming
+         GetBulkRequest-PDU.  The corresponding variable binding's name
+         and value fields in the Response-PDU are set to the name and
+         value of the located variable.
+
+   (2)   If the requested variable binding's name does not
+         lexicographically precede the name of any variable accessible
+         by this request, i.e., there is no lexicographic successor,
+         then the corresponding variable binding produced in the
+         Response-PDU has its value field set to "endOfMibView", and its
+         name field set to the variable binding's name in the request.
+
+   If M and R are non-zero, the (N + 1)-th and subsequent variable
+   bindings of the Response-PDU are each produced in a similar manner.
+   For each iteration i, such that i is greater than zero and less than
+   or equal to M, and for each repeated variable, r, such that r is
+   greater than zero and less than or equal to R, the (N + ( (i-1) * R )
+   + r)-th variable binding of the Response-PDU is produced as follows:
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Presuhn, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 15]
+
+RFC 3416              Protocol Operations for SNMP         December 2002
+
+
+   (1)   The variable which is in the lexicographically ordered list of
+         the names of all variables which are accessible by this request
+         and whose name is the (i)-th lexicographic successor of the (N
+         + r)-th variable binding's name in the incoming
+         GetBulkRequest-PDU is located and the variable binding's name
+         and value fields are set to the name and value of the located
+         variable.
+
+   (2)   If there is no (i)-th lexicographic successor, then the
+         corresponding variable binding produced in the Response-PDU has
+         its value field set to "endOfMibView", and its name field set
+         to either the last lexicographic successor, or if there are no
+         lexicographic successors, to the (N + r)-th variable binding's
+         name in the request.
+
+   While the maximum number of variable bindings in the Response-PDU is
+   bounded by N + (M * R), the response may be generated with a lesser
+   number of variable bindings (possibly zero) for either of three
+   reasons.
+
+   (1)   If the size of the message encapsulating the Response-PDU
+         containing the requested number of variable bindings would be
+         greater than either a local constraint or the maximum message
+         size of the originator, then the response is generated with a
+         lesser number of variable bindings.  This lesser number is the
+         ordered set of variable bindings with some of the variable
+         bindings at the end of the set removed, such that the size of
+         the message encapsulating the Response-PDU is approximately
+         equal to but no greater than either a local constraint or the
+         maximum message size of the originator.  Note that the number
+         of variable bindings removed has no relationship to the values
+         of N, M, or R.
+
+   (2)   The response may also be generated with a lesser number of
+         variable bindings if for some value of iteration i, such that i
+         is greater than zero and less than or equal to M, that all of
+         the generated variable bindings have the value field set to
+         "endOfMibView".  In this case, the variable bindings may be
+         truncated after the (N + (i * R))-th variable binding.
+
+   (3)   In the event that the processing of a request with many
+         repetitions requires a significantly greater amount of
+         processing time than a normal request, then a command responder
+         application may terminate the request with less than the full
+         number of repetitions, providing at least one repetition is
+         completed.
+
+
+
+
+
+Presuhn, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 16]
+
+RFC 3416              Protocol Operations for SNMP         December 2002
+
+
+   If the processing of any variable binding fails for a reason other
+   than listed above, then the Response-PDU is re-formatted with the
+   same values in its request-id and variable-bindings fields as the
+   received GetBulkRequest-PDU, with the value of its error-status field
+   set to "genErr", and the value of its error-index field is set to the
+   index of the variable binding in the original request which
+   corresponds to the failed variable binding.
+
+   Otherwise, the value of the Response-PDU's error-status field is set
+   to "noError", and the value of its error-index field to zero.
+
+   The generated Response-PDU (possibly with an empty variable-bindings
+   field) is then encapsulated into a message.  If the size of the
+   resultant message is less than or equal to both a local constraint
+   and the maximum message size of the originator, it is transmitted to
+   the originator of the GetBulkRequest-PDU.  Otherwise, the
+   snmpSilentDrops [RFC3418] counter is incremented and the resultant
+   message is discarded.
+
+4.2.3.1.  Another Example of Table Traversal
+
+   This example demonstrates how the GetBulkRequest-PDU can be used as
+   an alternative to the GetNextRequest-PDU.  The same traversal of the
+   IP net-to-media table as shown in Section 4.2.2.1 is achieved with
+   fewer exchanges.
+
+   The SNMP entity supporting the command generator application begins
+   by sending a GetBulkRequest-PDU with the modest max-repetitions value
+   of 2, and containing the indicated OBJECT IDENTIFIER values as the
+   requested variable names:
+
+    GetBulkRequest [ non-repeaters = 1, max-repetitions = 2 ]
+                  ( sysUpTime,
+                    ipNetToMediaPhysAddress,
+                    ipNetToMediaType )
+
+   The SNMP entity supporting the command responder application responds
+   with a Response-PDU:
+
+    Response (( sysUpTime.0 =  "123456" ),
+               ( ipNetToMediaPhysAddress.1.9.2.3.4 = "000010543210" ),
+            ( ipNetToMediaType.1.9.2.3.4 =  "dynamic" ),
+               ( ipNetToMediaPhysAddress.1.10.0.0.51 = "000010012345" ),
+            ( ipNetToMediaType.1.10.0.0.51 =  "static" ))
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Presuhn, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 17]
+
+RFC 3416              Protocol Operations for SNMP         December 2002
+
+
+   The SNMP entity supporting the command generator application
+   continues with:
+
+     GetBulkRequest [ non-repeaters = 1, max-repetitions = 2 ]
+                     ( sysUpTime,
+                       ipNetToMediaPhysAddress.1.10.0.0.51,
+                       ipNetToMediaType.1.10.0.0.51 )
+
+   The SNMP entity supporting the command responder application responds
+   with:
+
+    Response (( sysUpTime.0 =  "123466" ),
+               ( ipNetToMediaPhysAddress.2.10.0.0.15 = "000010987654" ),
+               ( ipNetToMediaType.2.10.0.0.15 = "dynamic" ),
+               ( ipNetToMediaNetAddress.1.9.2.3.4 = "9.2.3.4" ),
+            ( ipRoutingDiscards.0 =  "2" ))
+
+   Note how, as in the first example, the variable bindings in the
+   response indicate that the end of the table has been reached.  The
+   fourth variable binding does so by returning information from the
+   next available column; the fifth variable binding does so by
+   returning information from the first available object
+   lexicographically following the table.  This response signals the end
+   of the table to the command generator application.
+
+4.2.4.  The Response-PDU
+
+   The Response-PDU is generated by an SNMP entity only upon receipt of
+   a GetRequest-PDU, GetNextRequest-PDU, GetBulkRequest-PDU,
+   SetRequest-PDU, or InformRequest-PDU, as described elsewhere in this
+   document.
+
+   If the error-status field of the Response-PDU is non-zero, the value
+   fields of the variable bindings in the variable binding list are
+   ignored.
+
+   If both the error-status field and the error-index field of the
+   Response-PDU are non-zero, then the value of the error-index field is
+   the index of the variable binding (in the variable-binding list of
+   the corresponding request) for which the request failed.  The first
+   variable binding in a request's variable-binding list is index one,
+   the second is index two, etc.
+
+   A compliant SNMP entity supporting a command generator application
+   must be able to properly receive and handle a Response-PDU with an
+   error-status field equal to "noSuchName", "badValue", or "readOnly".
+   (See sections 1.3 and 4.3 of [RFC2576].)
+
+
+
+
+Presuhn, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 18]
+
+RFC 3416              Protocol Operations for SNMP         December 2002
+
+
+   Upon receipt of a Response-PDU, the receiving SNMP entity presents
+   its contents to the application which generated the request with the
+   same request-id value.  For more details, see [RFC3412].
+
+4.2.5.  The SetRequest-PDU
+
+   A SetRequest-PDU is generated and transmitted at the request of an
+   application.
+
+   Upon receipt of a SetRequest-PDU, the receiving SNMP entity
+   determines the size of a message encapsulating a Response-PDU having
+   the same values in its request-id and variable-bindings fields as the
+   received SetRequest-PDU, and the largest possible sizes of the
+   error-status and error-index fields.  If the determined message size
+   is greater than either a local constraint or the maximum message size
+   of the originator, then an alternate Response-PDU is generated,
+   transmitted to the originator of the SetRequest-PDU, and processing
+   of the SetRequest-PDU terminates immediately thereafter.  This
+   alternate Response-PDU is formatted with the same values in its
+   request-id field as the received SetRequest-PDU, with the value of
+   its error-status field set to "tooBig", the value of its error-index
+   field set to zero, and an empty variable-bindings field.  This
+   alternate Response-PDU is then encapsulated into a message.  If the
+   size of the resultant message is less than or equal to both a local
+   constraint and the maximum message size of the originator, it is
+   transmitted to the originator of the SetRequest-PDU.  Otherwise, the
+   snmpSilentDrops [RFC3418] counter is incremented and the resultant
+   message is discarded.  Regardless, processing of the SetRequest-PDU
+   terminates.
+
+   Otherwise, the receiving SNMP entity processes each variable binding
+   in the variable-binding list to produce a Response-PDU.  All fields
+   of the Response-PDU have the same values as the corresponding fields
+   of the received request except as indicated below.
+
+   The variable bindings are conceptually processed as a two phase
+   operation.  In the first phase, each variable binding is validated;
+   if all validations are successful, then each variable is altered in
+   the second phase.  Of course, implementors are at liberty to
+   implement either the first, or second, or both, of these conceptual
+   phases as multiple implementation phases.  Indeed, such multiple
+   implementation phases may be necessary in some cases to ensure
+   consistency.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Presuhn, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 19]
+
+RFC 3416              Protocol Operations for SNMP         December 2002
+
+
+   The following validations are performed in the first phase on each
+   variable binding until they are all successful, or until one fails:
+
+   (1)   If the variable binding's name specifies an existing or non-
+         existent variable to which this request is/would be denied
+         access because it is/would not be in the appropriate MIB view,
+         then the value of the Response-PDU's error-status field is set
+         to "noAccess", and the value of its error-index field is set to
+         the index of the failed variable binding.
+
+   (2)   Otherwise, if there are no variables which share the same
+         OBJECT IDENTIFIER prefix as the variable binding's name, and
+         which are able to be created or modified no matter what new
+         value is specified, then the value of the Response-PDU's
+         error-status field is set to "notWritable", and the value of
+         its error-index field is set to the index of the failed
+         variable binding.
+
+   (3)   Otherwise, if the variable binding's value field specifies,
+         according to the ASN.1 language, a type which is inconsistent
+         with that required for all variables which share the same
+         OBJECT IDENTIFIER prefix as the variable binding's name, then
+         the value of the Response-PDU's error-status field is set to
+         "wrongType", and the value of its error-index field is set to
+         the index of the failed variable binding.
+
+   (4)   Otherwise, if the variable binding's value field specifies,
+         according to the ASN.1 language, a length which is inconsistent
+         with that required for all variables which share the same
+         OBJECT IDENTIFIER prefix as the variable binding's name, then
+         the value of the Response-PDU's error-status field is set to
+         "wrongLength", and the value of its error-index field is set to
+         the index of the failed variable binding.
+
+   (5)   Otherwise, if the variable binding's value field contains an
+         ASN.1 encoding which is inconsistent with that field's ASN.1
+         tag, then the value of the Response-PDU's error-status field is
+         set to "wrongEncoding", and the value of its error-index field
+         is set to the index of the failed variable binding.  (Note that
+         not all implementation strategies will generate this error.)
+
+   (6)   Otherwise, if the variable binding's value field specifies a
+         value which could under no circumstances be assigned to the
+         variable, then the value of the Response-PDU's error-status
+         field is set to "wrongValue", and the value of its error-index
+         field is set to the index of the failed variable binding.
+
+
+
+
+
+Presuhn, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 20]
+
+RFC 3416              Protocol Operations for SNMP         December 2002
+
+
+   (7)   Otherwise, if the variable binding's name specifies a variable
+         which does not exist and could not ever be created (even though
+         some variables sharing the same OBJECT IDENTIFIER prefix might
+         under some circumstances be able to be created), then the value
+         of the Response-PDU's error-status field is set to
+         "noCreation", and the value of its error-index field is set to
+         the index of the failed variable binding.
+
+   (8)   Otherwise, if the variable binding's name specifies a variable
+         which does not exist but can not be created under the present
+         circumstances (even though it could be created under other
+         circumstances), then the value of the Response-PDU's error-
+         status field is set to "inconsistentName", and the value of its
+         error-index field is set to the index of the failed variable
+         binding.
+
+   (9)   Otherwise, if the variable binding's name specifies a variable
+         which exists but can not be modified no matter what new value
+         is specified, then the value of the Response-PDU's error-status
+         field is set to "notWritable", and the value of its error-index
+         field is set to the index of the failed variable binding.
+
+   (10)  Otherwise, if the variable binding's value field specifies a
+         value that could under other circumstances be held by the
+         variable, but is presently inconsistent or otherwise unable to
+         be assigned to the variable, then the value of the Response-
+         PDU's error-status field is set to "inconsistentValue", and the
+         value of its error-index field is set to the index of the
+         failed variable binding.
+
+   (11)  When, during the above steps, the assignment of the value
+         specified by the variable binding's value field to the
+         specified variable requires the allocation of a resource which
+         is presently unavailable, then the value of the Response-PDU's
+         error-status field is set to "resourceUnavailable", and the
+         value of its error-index field is set to the index of the
+         failed variable binding.
+
+   (12)  If the processing of the variable binding fails for a reason
+         other than listed above, then the value of the Response-PDU's
+         error-status field is set to "genErr", and the value of its
+         error-index field is set to the index of the failed variable
+         binding.
+
+   (13)  Otherwise, the validation of the variable binding succeeds.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Presuhn, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 21]
+
+RFC 3416              Protocol Operations for SNMP         December 2002
+
+
+   At the end of the first phase, if the validation of all variable
+   bindings succeeded, then the value of the Response-PDU's error-status
+   field is set to "noError" and the value of its error-index field is
+   zero, and processing continues as follows.
+
+   For each variable binding in the request, the named variable is
+   created if necessary, and the specified value is assigned to it.
+   Each of these variable assignments occurs as if simultaneously with
+   respect to all other assignments specified in the same request.
+   However, if the same variable is named more than once in a single
+   request, with different associated values, then the actual assignment
+   made to that variable is implementation-specific.
+
+   If any of these assignments fail (even after all the previous
+   validations), then all other assignments are undone, and the
+   Response-PDU is modified to have the value of its error-status field
+   set to "commitFailed", and the value of its error-index field set to
+   the index of the failed variable binding.
+
+   If and only if it is not possible to undo all the assignments, then
+   the Response-PDU is modified to have the value of its error-status
+   field set to "undoFailed", and the value of its error-index field is
+   set to zero.  Note that implementations are strongly encouraged to
+   take all possible measures to avoid use of either "commitFailed" or
+   "undoFailed" - these two error-status codes are not to be taken as
+   license to take the easy way out in an implementation.
+
+   Finally, the generated Response-PDU is encapsulated into a message,
+   and transmitted to the originator of the SetRequest-PDU.
+
+4.2.6.  The SNMPv2-Trap-PDU
+
+   An SNMPv2-Trap-PDU is generated and transmitted by an SNMP entity on
+   behalf of a notification originator application.  The SNMPv2-Trap-PDU
+   is often used to notify a notification receiver application at a
+   logically remote SNMP entity that an event has occurred or that a
+   condition is present.  There is no confirmation associated with this
+   notification delivery mechanism.
+
+   The destination(s) to which an SNMPv2-Trap-PDU is sent is determined
+   in an implementation-dependent fashion by the SNMP entity.  The first
+   two variable bindings in the variable binding list of an SNMPv2-
+   Trap-PDU are sysUpTime.0 [RFC3418] and snmpTrapOID.0 [RFC3418]
+   respectively.  If the OBJECTS clause is present in the invocation of
+   the corresponding NOTIFICATION-TYPE macro, then each corresponding
+   variable, as instantiated by this notification, is copied, in order,
+
+
+
+
+
+Presuhn, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 22]
+
+RFC 3416              Protocol Operations for SNMP         December 2002
+
+
+   to the variable-bindings field.  If any additional variables are
+   being included (at the option of the generating SNMP entity), then
+   each is copied to the variable-bindings field.
+
+4.2.7.  The InformRequest-PDU
+
+   An InformRequest-PDU is generated and transmitted by an SNMP entity
+   on behalf of a notification originator application.  The
+   InformRequest-PDU is often used to notify a notification receiver
+   application that an event has occurred or that a condition is
+   present.  This is a confirmed notification delivery mechanism,
+   although there is, of course, no guarantee of delivery.
+
+   The destination(s) to which an InformRequest-PDU is sent is specified
+   by the notification originator application.  The first two variable
+   bindings in the variable binding list of an InformRequest-PDU are
+   sysUpTime.0 [RFC3418] and snmpTrapOID.0 [RFC3418] respectively.  If
+   the OBJECTS clause is present in the invocation of the corresponding
+   NOTIFICATION-TYPE macro, then each corresponding variable, as
+   instantiated by this notification, is copied, in order, to the
+   variable-bindings field.  If any additional variables are being
+   included (at the option of the generating SNMP entity), then each is
+   copied to the variable-bindings field.
+
+   Upon receipt of an InformRequest-PDU, the receiving SNMP entity
+   determines the size of a message encapsulating a Response-PDU with
+   the same values in its request-id, error-status, error-index and
+   variable-bindings fields as the received InformRequest-PDU.  If the
+   determined message size is greater than either a local constraint or
+   the maximum message size of the originator, then an alternate
+   Response-PDU is generated, transmitted to the originator of the
+   InformRequest-PDU, and processing of the InformRequest-PDU terminates
+   immediately thereafter.  This alternate Response-PDU is formatted
+   with the same values in its request-id field as the received
+   InformRequest-PDU, with the value of its error-status field set to
+   "tooBig", the value of its error-index field set to zero, and an
+   empty variable-bindings field.  This alternate Response-PDU is then
+   encapsulated into a message.  If the size of the resultant message is
+   less than or equal to both a local constraint and the maximum message
+   size of the originator, it is transmitted to the originator of the
+   InformRequest-PDU.  Otherwise, the snmpSilentDrops [RFC3418] counter
+   is incremented and the resultant message is discarded.  Regardless,
+   processing of the InformRequest-PDU terminates.
+
+   Otherwise, the receiving SNMP entity:
+
+   (1)   presents its contents to the appropriate application;
+
+
+
+
+Presuhn, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 23]
+
+RFC 3416              Protocol Operations for SNMP         December 2002
+
+
+   (2)   generates a Response-PDU with the same values in its request-id
+         and variable-bindings fields as the received InformRequest-PDU,
+         with the value of its error-status field set to "noError" and
+         the value of its error-index field set to zero; and
+
+   (3)   transmits the generated Response-PDU to the originator of the
+         InformRequest-PDU.
+
+5.  Notice on Intellectual Property
+
+   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
+   intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
+   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
+   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
+   might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
+   has made any effort to identify any such rights.  Information on the
+   IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
+   standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11.  Copies of
+   claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
+   licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
+   obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
+   proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
+   be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
+
+   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
+   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
+   rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
+   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF Executive
+   Director.
+
+6.  Acknowledgments
+
+   This document is the product of the SNMPv3 Working Group.  Some
+   special thanks are in order to the following Working Group members:
+
+      Randy Bush
+      Jeffrey D. Case
+      Mike Daniele
+      Rob Frye
+      Lauren Heintz
+      Keith McCloghrie
+      Russ Mundy
+      David T. Perkins
+      Randy Presuhn
+      Aleksey Romanov
+      Juergen Schoenwaelder
+      Bert Wijnen
+
+
+
+
+Presuhn, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 24]
+
+RFC 3416              Protocol Operations for SNMP         December 2002
+
+
+   This version of the document, edited by Randy Presuhn, was initially
+   based on the work of a design team whose members were:
+
+      Jeffrey D. Case
+      Keith McCloghrie
+      David T. Perkins
+      Randy Presuhn
+      Juergen Schoenwaelder
+
+   The previous versions of this document, edited by Keith McCloghrie,
+   was the result of significant work by four major contributors:
+
+      Jeffrey D. Case
+      Keith McCloghrie
+      Marshall T. Rose
+      Steven Waldbusser
+
+   Additionally, the contributions of the SNMPv2 Working Group to the
+   previous versions are also acknowledged.  In particular, a special
+   thanks is extended for the contributions of:
+
+      Alexander I. Alten
+      Dave Arneson
+      Uri Blumenthal
+      Doug Book
+      Kim Curran
+      Jim Galvin
+      Maria Greene
+      Iain Hanson
+      Dave Harrington
+      Nguyen Hien
+      Jeff Johnson
+      Michael Kornegay
+      Deirdre Kostick
+      David Levi
+      Daniel Mahoney
+      Bob Natale
+      Brian O'Keefe
+      Andrew Pearson
+      Dave Perkins
+      Randy Presuhn
+      Aleksey Romanov
+      Shawn Routhier
+      Jon Saperia
+      Juergen Schoenwaelder
+      Bob Stewart
+
+
+
+
+
+Presuhn, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 25]
+
+RFC 3416              Protocol Operations for SNMP         December 2002
+
+
+      Kaj Tesink
+      Glenn Waters
+      Bert Wijnen
+
+7.  Security Considerations
+
+   The protocol defined in this document by itself does not provide a
+   secure environment.  Even if the network itself is secure (for
+   example by using IPSec), there is no control as to who on the secure
+   network is allowed access to management information.
+
+   It is recommended that the implementors consider the security
+   features as provided by the SNMPv3 framework.  Specifically, the use
+   of the User-based Security Model STD 62, RFC 3414 [RFC3414] and the
+   View-based Access Control Model STD 62, RFC 3415 [RFC3415] is
+   recommended.
+
+   It is then a customer/user responsibility to ensure that the SNMP
+   entity is properly configured so that:
+
+      -  only those principals (users) having legitimate rights can
+         access or modify the values of any MIB objects supported by
+         that entity;
+
+      -  the occurrence of particular events on the entity will be
+         communicated appropriately;
+
+      -  the entity responds appropriately and with due credence to
+         events and information that have been communicated to it.
+
+8.  References
+
+8.1.  Normative References
+
+   [RFC768]    Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
+               August 1980.
+
+   [RFC2578]   McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J.,
+               Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Structure of Management
+               Information Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578, April
+               1999.
+
+   [RFC2579]   McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J.,
+               Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Textual Conventions for
+               SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2579, April 1999.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Presuhn, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 26]
+
+RFC 3416              Protocol Operations for SNMP         December 2002
+
+
+   [RFC2580]   McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J.,
+               Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Conformance Statements for
+               SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580, April 1999.
+
+   [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.
+
+   [RFC3412]   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.
+
+   [RFC3413]   Levi, D., Meyer, P. and B. Stewart, "Simple Network
+               Management Protocol (SNMP) Applications", STD 62, RFC
+               3413, December 2002.
+
+   [RFC3414]   Blumenthal, U. and B. Wijnen, "The 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., Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and S.
+               Waldbusser, "Transport Mappings for the Simple Network
+               Management Protocol", STD 62, RFC 3417, December 2002.
+
+   [RFC3418]   Presuhn, R., Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and S.
+               Waldbusser, "Management Information Base (MIB) for the
+               Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 62, RFC
+               3418, December 2002.
+
+   [ASN1]      Information processing systems - Open Systems
+               Interconnection - Specification of Abstract Syntax
+               Notation One (ASN.1), International Organization for
+               Standardization.  International Standard 8824, December
+               1987.
+
+8.2.  Informative References
+
+   [FRAG]      Kent, C. and J. Mogul, "Fragmentation Considered
+               Harmful," Proceedings, ACM SIGCOMM '87, Stowe, VT, August
+               1987.
+
+
+
+Presuhn, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 27]
+
+RFC 3416              Protocol Operations for SNMP         December 2002
+
+
+   [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", STD 15, RFC 1157,
+               May 1990.
+
+   [RFC1212]   Rose, M. and K. McCloghrie, "Concise MIB Definitions",
+               STD 16, RFC 1212, March 1991.
+
+   [RFC1213]   McCloghrie, K. and M. Rose, Editors, "Management
+               Information Base for Network Management of TCP/IP-based
+               internets: MIB-II", STD 17, RFC 1213, March 1991.
+
+   [RFC1215]   Rose, M., "A Convention for Defining Traps for use with
+               the SNMP", RFC 1215, March 1991.
+
+   [RFC1901]   Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser,
+               "Introduction to Community-based SNMPv2", RFC 1901,
+               January 1996.
+
+   [RFC2576]   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",
+               RFC 2576, March 2000.
+
+   [RFC2863]   McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group
+               MIB", RFC 2863, June 2000.
+
+   [RFC2914]   Floyd, S., "Congestion Control Principles", BCP 41, RFC
+               2914, September 2000.
+
+   [RFC3410]   Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D. and B. Stewart,
+               "Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet-
+               Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410, December 2002.
+
+9.  Changes from RFC 1905
+
+   These are the changes from RFC 1905:
+
+      -  Corrected spelling error in copyright statement;
+
+      -  Updated copyright date;
+
+      -  Updated with new editor's name and contact information;
+
+      -  Added notice on intellectual property;
+
+
+
+Presuhn, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 28]
+
+RFC 3416              Protocol Operations for SNMP         December 2002
+
+
+      -  Cosmetic fixes to layout and typography;
+
+      -  Added table of contents;
+
+      -  Title changed;
+
+      -  Updated document headers and footers;
+
+      -  Deleted the old clause 2.3, entitled "Access to Management
+         Information";
+
+      -  Changed the way in which request-id was defined, though with
+         the same ultimate syntax and semantics, to avoid coupling with
+         SMI.  This does not affect the protocol in any way;
+
+      -  Replaced the word "exception" with the word "error" in the old
+         clause 4.1.  This does not affect the protocol in any way;
+
+      -  Deleted the first two paragraphs of the old clause 4.2;
+
+      -  Clarified the maximum number of variable bindings that an
+         implementation must support in a PDU.  This does not affect the
+         protocol in any way;
+
+      -  Replaced occurrences of "SNMPv2 application" with
+         "application";
+
+      -  Deleted three sentences in old clause 4.2.3 describing the
+         handling of an impossible situation.  This does not affect the
+         protocol in any way;
+
+      -  Clarified the use of the SNMPv2-Trap-Pdu in the old clause
+         4.2.6.  This does not affect the protocol in any way;
+
+      -  Aligned description of the use of the InformRequest-Pdu in old
+         clause 4.2.7 with the architecture.  This does not affect the
+         protocol in any way;
+
+      -  Updated references;
+
+      -  Re-wrote introduction clause;
+
+      -  Replaced manager/agent/SNMPv2 entity terminology with
+         terminology from RFC 2571.  This does not affect the protocol
+         in any way;
+
+      -  Eliminated IMPORTS from the SMI, replaced with equivalent in-
+         line ASN.1.  This does not affect the protocol in any way;
+
+
+
+Presuhn, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 29]
+
+RFC 3416              Protocol Operations for SNMP         December 2002
+
+
+      -  Added notes calling attention to two different manifestations
+         of reaching the end of a table in the table walk examples;
+
+      -  Added content to security considerations clause;
+
+      -  Updated ASN.1 comment on use of Report-PDU.  This does not
+         affect the protocol in any way;
+
+      -  Updated acknowledgments section;
+
+      -  Included information on handling of BITS;
+
+      -  Deleted spurious comma in ASN.1 definition of PDUs;
+
+      -  Added abstract;
+
+      -  Made handling of additional variable bindings in informs
+         consistent with that for traps.  This was a correction of an
+         editorial oversight, and reflects implementation practice;
+
+      -  Added reference to RFC 2914.
+
+10.  Editor's Address
+
+   Randy Presuhn
+   BMC Software, Inc.
+   2141 North First Street
+   San Jose, CA  95131
+   USA
+
+   Phone: +1 408 546 1006
+   EMail: randy_presuhn@bmc.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Presuhn, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 30]
+
+RFC 3416              Protocol Operations for SNMP         December 2002
+
+
+11.  Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
+   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
+   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
+   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
+   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
+   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
+   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
+   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
+   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
+   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
+   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
+   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
+   English.
+
+   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
+   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
+
+   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
+   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
+   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
+   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
+   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
+   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+Acknowledgement
+
+   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
+   Internet Society.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Presuhn, et al.             Standards Track                    [Page 31]
+