doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 1963 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc3571.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc3571.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..360d996
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc3571.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,1963 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                         D. Rawlins
+Request for Comments: 3571                                           MCI
+Category: Informational                                      A. Kulkarni
+                                                                   Intel
+                                                                 K. Chan
+                                                         Nortel Networks
+                                                            M. Bokaemper
+                                                        Juniper Networks
+                                                                 D. Dutt
+                                                                   Cisco
+                                                             August 2003
+
+
+          Framework Policy Information Base for Usage Feedback
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
+   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
+   memo is unlimited.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.
+
+Abstract
+
+   This document describes a portion of the Policy Information Base
+   (PIB) to control policy usage collection and reporting in a device.
+
+   The provisioning classes specified here allow a Policy Decision Point
+   (PDP) to select which policy objects should collect usage
+   information, what information should be collected and when it should
+   be reported.
+
+   This PIB requires the presence of other PIBs (defined elsewhere) that
+   provide the policy objects from which usage information is collected.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Rawlins, et al.              Informational                      [Page 1]
+
+RFC 3571                 Framework Feedback PIB              August 2003
+
+
+Table of Contents
+
+   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
+   2.  General Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
+       2.1.  Selection, Usage and Linkage Policies. . . . . . . . . .  3
+       2.2.  Normal Operations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
+             2.2.1.  Connection Establishment and Initial
+                     Configuration Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
+             2.2.2.  Unsolicited Reports - Periodic Reporting . . . .  5
+             2.2.3.  Unsolicited Reports - Reporting Conditions . . .  5
+             2.2.4.  Solicited Reports. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
+             2.2.5.  Resuming and Suspending Periodic Feedback
+                     Reporting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
+             2.2.6.  Failover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
+       2.3.  Usage Policy and Under-specified Selection Criteria. . .  7
+   3.  Summary of the Feedback Framework Policy Information Base. . .  8
+       3.1.  SPPI ACCESS Clause Report-Only . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
+       3.2.  Usage32 and Usage64 Textual Conventions. . . . . . . . .  8
+       3.3.  Feedback Groups and PRCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
+             3.3.1.  Feedback Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
+             3.3.2.  Feedback Action List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
+             3.3.3.  Feedback Linkage Capability. . . . . . . . . . . 10
+             3.3.4.  Feedback Linkage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
+             3.3.5.  Feedback Traffic Statistics Threshold. . . . . . 10
+             3.3.6.  Feedback Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
+             3.3.7.  Feedback Interface Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . 11
+             3.3.8.  Feedback RoleCombo Filter Selection. . . . . . . 11
+   4.  The Feedback Framework PIB Module. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
+   5.  Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
+   6.  IANA Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
+   7.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
+   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
+       8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
+       8.2.  Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
+   9.  Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
+   10. Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
+
+1.  Introduction
+
+   The Framework of Common Open Policy Service with Policy Provisioning
+   (COPS-PR) Usage Feedback describes the overall approach to policy
+   usage monitoring and reporting.  This document defines the specific
+   Policy Information Base (PIB) framework for policy usage feedback.
+   The policy classes for monitoring and reporting policy usage
+   feedback, as well as policy classes for controlling reporting
+   intervals, suspension, resumption and solicitation are defined.
+
+
+
+
+
+Rawlins, et al.              Informational                      [Page 2]
+
+RFC 3571                 Framework Feedback PIB              August 2003
+
+
+Conventions Used in this Document
+
+   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
+   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY" and "OPTIONAL" in this
+   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
+
+2.  General Concepts
+
+2.1.  Selection, Usage and Linkage Policies
+
+   There are three basic types of policies used to define what the PEP
+   is to monitor, record and report.  These are the selection criteria
+   policy, the usage policy and the feedback report linkage policy.
+
+   The selection criteria policy is installed by the PDP.  It defines
+   the conditions used by the PEP to monitor and record a usage policy.
+   The selection criteria policy may only be used for defining usage
+   feedback selection criteria.  However, a more general case is a
+   policy that already exists for policy enforcement that may also be
+   used for specifying feedback usage selection criteria.  An example of
+   this is the frwkRoleCombo instance, which may be used in defining QoS
+   enforcement policies, but may also be used to specify conditions on
+   which to base usage - i.e. count the number of packets meeting the
+   criterion of an interface capability set name and role combination.
+
+   The usage policy defines what attributes are recorded by the PEP.
+   These policies have an ACCESS clause of 'report-only'.  Generally,
+   the usage policies specify counts related to a specific action such
+   as a packet being dropped.  The feedback framework PIB defines two
+   usage policy classes, frwkFeedbackTraffic and frwkFeedbackIfTraffic.
+   Usage PRCs may be generic, collecting basic statistics, or they may
+   be specific to a particular usage.  The PDP decides which PRC(s) best
+   suit(s) its requirements.  The PEP may support only one usage
+   feedback PRC, in which case all statistics are gathered using
+   instances of that PRC.  Alternatively, the PEP may support multiple
+   usage feedback PRCs.  The PDP then decides which PRC to associate
+   with a particular selection criterion.
+
+   A usage feedback policy and selection policy are tightly associated
+   with one another.  A third policy, the frwkFeedbackLinkTable, is used
+   to associate, or provide a linkage for the selection and usage
+   policies.  The frwkFeedbackLinkTable also specifies when to report
+   the usage feedback.  The frwkFeedbackLinkTable entry permits the same
+   selection criteria instance to be re-used for various usage feedback
+   policies.  The frwkFeedbackLinkTable contains the value of the
+   selection criteria instance as well as the value of the usage
+   feedback PRC.
+
+
+
+
+Rawlins, et al.              Informational                      [Page 3]
+
+RFC 3571                 Framework Feedback PIB              August 2003
+
+
+    -----------------     ------------------      -----------------
+   |                 |   |                  |    |                 |
+   | Select Criteria |   |Linkage Instance  |    |Usage Instance   |
+   |                 |   |-instance ID      |    |- instance ID    |
+   | -instance ID    |<--|-PRID of selection|--->|- PRID of Linkage|
+   | -conditions...  |   |-PRC of usage     |    |- counts...      |
+   |                 |   |                  |    |                 |
+    -----------------     ------------------      -----------------
+
+                            Figure 1
+
+   Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between the selection criteria,
+   linkage and usage policies.
+
+   The PDP is not aware of the instance identifier of the usage feedback
+   policy when installing the selection criteria and feedback linkage
+   policies.  The usage feedback policy is instantiated on the PEP by
+   the installation of a feedback report linkage and the PEP designates
+   the instance identifier.  The usage feedback policy class always
+   contains an attribute of type ReferenceId that contains the instance
+   value of the associated frwkFeedbackLinkTable instance installed by
+   the PDP.  An example of this is the attribute
+   frwkFeedbackTrafficLinkRef.
+
+2.2.  Normal Operations
+
+2.2.1.  Connection Establishment and Initial Configuration Request
+
+   The Accounting Timer object in the COPS Connection Accept message
+   contains the minimum number of seconds between reporting intervals as
+   described in [COPS] and [FEEDBACKFWK].  This is used as the basic
+   unit of measurement in defining intervals for specific usage policies
+   with the frwkFeedbackLinkInterval attribute.
+
+   The PEP notifies the PDP of the selection criteria policy classes and
+   usage policy classes it supports during the initial request for
+   configuration data using frwkPRCSupport instances [FR-PIB].  The PEP
+   also indicates whether it supports the frwkFeedbackLinkTable as well.
+
+   The PDP responds to the initial request for configuration with a
+   DECISION that installs policies.  The PDP may also specify maximum
+   reporting intervals associated with each of the usage policies.  This
+   is done with the frwkFeedbackLinkInterval attribute in the
+   frwkFeedbackLink class.  It may also specify reporting thresholds by
+   including an instance of a threshold class (e.g.
+   frwkFeedbackTrafficThreshold) in the decision.  The PEP monitors and
+   records the usage per the conditions defined by its associated
+   selection criteria policy.  Periodically the PEP reports the usage
+
+
+
+Rawlins, et al.              Informational                      [Page 4]
+
+RFC 3571                 Framework Feedback PIB              August 2003
+
+
+   with a REPORT message or provides a REPORT when solicited by the PDP.
+   The PDP solicits usage feedback with the frwkFeedbackActionIndicator
+   attribute of the frwkFeedbackAction class.
+
+2.2.2.  Unsolicited Reports - Periodic Reporting
+
+   Reporting may be periodic in nature and unsolicited.  The intervals
+   at which the unsolicited reports are provided by the PEP are defined
+   in the specific Linkage policies.  The defined intervals are based on
+   the number of seconds specified by the PDP in the ACCT Timer value.
+   The PDP may specify that the associated usage instance be included in
+   a periodic unsolicited report only if the threshold is reached and/or
+   if the usage value has changed from the previous reporting interval.
+
+   There are cases when the PEP must supply unsolicited feedback reports
+   that may not fall on an interval boundary.  The PEP MUST provide an
+   unsolicited REPORT containing all defined usage instances just prior
+   to the PEP issuing a Delete Request State and just prior to the PEP
+   de-activating a PIB instance context.
+
+2.2.3.  Unsolicited Reports - Reporting Conditions
+
+   Periodic unsolicited reports for individual usage feedback instances
+   can be suppressed by specifying additional conditions in the
+   frwkFeedbackLink instances.  Supported conditions are:
+
+   ChangeOnly
+      If this flag is set in the frwkFeedbackLinkFlags attribute, the
+      associated usage instance is only included in a periodic
+      unsolicited report if its value changed since the last unsolicited
+      report.
+
+   Threshold
+      If this flag is set in the frwkFeedbackLinkFlags attribute, the
+      associated usage instance is only included in a periodic
+      unsolicited report if the threshold condition referenced in the
+      frwkLinkThreshold field evaluates successfully for the associated
+      usage instance.
+
+   Both conditions can be combined in one frwkFeedbackLinkUsage object.
+   In this case, both conditions need to succeed for the usage instance
+   to be reported.
+
+   Unsolicited reports triggered by a Delete Request State or the
+   deactivation of a PIB instance are not subject to these conditions -
+   all usage objects must be included in these cases.
+
+
+
+
+
+Rawlins, et al.              Informational                      [Page 5]
+
+RFC 3571                 Framework Feedback PIB              August 2003
+
+
+2.2.4.  Solicited Reports
+
+   The PDP may solicit policy usage feedback by issuing an unsolicited
+   Decision containing the frwkFeedbackActionIndicator set to
+   `solicitReport'.  The PEP is to provide a solicited REPORT feedback
+   containing usage feedback.  The PEP shall continue to provide
+   periodic feedback at the specified intervals established at client
+   connection acceptance.
+
+   The reporting conditions (ChangeOnly and Threshold) do not affect
+   solicited reports - all requested usage instances must be included.
+
+2.2.5.  Resuming and Suspending Periodic Feedback Reporting
+
+   The PDP may suspend usage monitoring and tracking at the PEP with the
+   frwkFeedbackActionIndicator set to 'suspendMonitoringAndReports'.
+   The PEP must stop tracking usage information and must not issue any
+   feedback reports.  The PDP may only suspend feedback reporting by
+   setting the ActionIndicator to 'suspendReports'.  The PEP must cease
+   sending unsolicited reports but is to continue monitoring and
+   tracking usage.  The PDP may resume the sending of feedback reports
+   and may resume usage monitoring by setting the ActionIndicator to
+   'resume'.
+
+   The PDP may suspend or resume all usage instances or the PDP may
+   specify one or more instances that are to be suspended or resumed.
+   The frwkFeedbackActionList attribute contains a tag identifier that
+   references a list of one or more frwkFeedbackActionList instances.
+
+   The PDP may halt usage monitoring, tracking and reporting of usage
+   policies by removing the associated Linkage entry.
+
+2.2.6.  Failover
+
+   In the event that the connection is lost between the PEP and PDP, the
+   PEP continues to track usage information as long as it continues to
+   operate with the installed policy.  When the locally installed policy
+   at the PEP expires, the usage policy data also expires.
+
+   Upon successful reconnection where the PEP is still caching policy,
+   the PDP indicates to the PEP that the PEP may resume sending of the
+   COPS accounting type report messages.  The PDP does this by issuing
+   an unsolicited decision containing the frwkFeedbackResumeIndicator
+   set to 'resume'.  The PEP should resume reporting at the next
+   appropriate feedback interval established upon the acceptance of the
+   re-connection.  The PDP is aware of the request state Handle(s) and
+
+
+
+
+
+Rawlins, et al.              Informational                      [Page 6]
+
+RFC 3571                 Framework Feedback PIB              August 2003
+
+
+   the supported PRCs either through the state synchronization mechanism
+   or because the PDP considers itself synchronized with the PEP upon
+   reconnection.
+
+2.3.  Usage Policy and Under-specified Selection Criteria
+
+   Some of the usage policy objects created in the PEP with COPS-PR can
+   be used by the PEP multiple times - they effectively act as templates
+   for the objects created by the PEP.  COPS-PR only has the identity
+   (OID) of the object that is shared between all the assignments the
+   PEP created.  However it is desirable to collect usage information
+   for each of the derived objects individually.
+
+   This capability is achieved in the feedback framework PIB by
+   distributing additional information to qualify a specific assignment
+   of an object between the selection criteria PRC and the feedback
+   usage PRC.
+
+   A selection criteria PRC that refers to a shared object, but contains
+   no qualifying information, selects all of the object's assignments.
+   Such a selection criteria PRC SHOULD be combined with a feedback
+   usage PRC that includes all the necessary information to identify a
+   specific assignment - a single selection criteria policy can then
+   result in the generation of many feedback usage objects, one for each
+   derived object.
+
+   If the selection criteria PRC contains all the required qualifying
+   attributes for a specific assignment, it is combined with a feedback
+   usage PRC that only contains the desired metrics but no additional
+   attributes.
+
+   Example:
+
+      A frwkRoleCombo instance may be used as a selection criteria,
+      identifying a set of interfaces through their role combination and
+      capability set.  If it is desired to get per-interface traffic
+      statistics, the usage PRC has to include an additional attribute
+      to qualify the specific interface.
+
+      This could be achieved by linking the frwkFeedbackIfTraffic class
+      with a frwkRoleCombo instance in a frwkFeedbackLink instance.
+      Multiple frwkFeedbackIfTraffic instances will be created by the
+      PEP, one for each interface selected by the frwkRoleCombo
+      instance.  The frwkFeedbackIfTraffic class contains the
+      frwkFeedbackIfTrafficIfIndex attribute that allows the PDP to
+      identify each interface's individual counters when the PEP reports
+      the frwkFeedbackIfTraffic instances.
+
+
+
+
+Rawlins, et al.              Informational                      [Page 7]
+
+RFC 3571                 Framework Feedback PIB              August 2003
+
+
+      If traffic usage collection is only desired for an individual
+      interface, a selection criteria should be used that qualifies the
+      interface completely, for example a frwkIfRoleCombo instance.  In
+      this case, it can be linked to the usage class that has no
+      additional qualifying attributes, frwkFeedbackTraffic.
+
+3.  Summary of the Feedback Framework Policy Information Base
+
+3.1.  SPPI ACCESS Clause Report-Only
+
+   The selection criteria and linkage policy classes follow the
+   definitions specified by [SPPI].  This structure specifies well-
+   defined policy classes and their instances residing in a common,
+   virtual repository [FR-PIB].  The additional PIB-ACCESS clause
+   attribute of "report-only" denotes the usage policy class reported by
+   the PEP.
+
+3.2.  Usage32 and Usage64 Textual Conventions
+
+   The SPPI does not support the Counter32/64 textual conventions (TC)
+   of SNMP - for feedback collection two similar textual conventions
+   have been defined in this PIB: Usage32 and Usage64.
+
+   In addition to the differential functionality of 'Counter', where
+   only the difference between two samples generally carries
+   information, a single value of a 'Usage' attribute usually provides
+   absolute information, since
+
+   -  its initial value is known (0)
+   -  no wrap-around events should occur
+   -  the time or event when the initial value was set should be
+      available directly or indirectly from other objects.
+
+   When 'Usage' attributes are defined in a PRC, events that could cause
+   a reset of the attribute to its initial value should be defined in
+   the description as well as the mechanism that allows the PDP to
+   detect the time of the last reset.
+
+   No usual COPS activity however should cause the reset of a Usage
+   attribute.  In the case of a suspension of monitoring activity
+   (frwkFeedbackActionIndicator set to 'suspendMonitoringAndReports'),
+    'Usage' attributes should keep their values and continue counting
+   after monitoring is resumed.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Rawlins, et al.              Informational                      [Page 8]
+
+RFC 3571                 Framework Feedback PIB              August 2003
+
+
+3.3.  Feedback Groups and PRCs
+
+   These policy classes defined in this PIB are common to account type
+   reporting for various technologies and apply to ALL SUBJECT-
+   CATEGORIES.  The policy classes are divided into three new groups,
+   namely, The Feedback Report Group, The Feedback Usage Group and The
+   Feedback Selection Group.
+
+   The policy classes in the Feedback Report Group are:
+
+   -  Feedback Action
+   -  Feedback Action List
+   -  Feedback Selection Usage Combination Capability
+   -  Feedback Linkage
+   -  Feedback Traffic Statistics Threshold
+
+   The policy classes in the Feedback Usage Group are:
+
+   -  Feedback Traffic
+   -  Feedback Interface Traffic
+
+   The policy class in the Feedback Selection Group is:
+
+   -  Feedback RoleCombo Filter Selection
+
+3.3.1.  Feedback Action
+
+   The Feedback Action class contains the attributes that specify action
+   that the PEP is to take regarding policy usage, monitoring and
+   tracking.  The PDP may suspend usage monitoring and periodic
+   reporting, suspend periodic reporting only, resume usage and periodic
+   reporting or solicit immediate reporting.  The action may affect all
+   feedback policies or be associated with one or more frwkFeedbackLink
+   instances.
+
+   The frwkFeedbackActionIndicator attribute defines the action.  The
+   frwkFeedbackActionPri attribute indicates whether the action applies
+   to all of the usage policies or to a list.  The
+   frwkFeedbackActionList attribute is the identifier of the list of
+   Linkage policy instances to which the action is to be applied.
+
+   The PDP can solicit the PEP for immediate usage feedback.  The PEP
+   shall respond with a solicited report containing the usage feedback.
+
+   The PDP can direct the resumption of usage monitoring and reporting
+   per the defined intervals.  For example, the PEP may have re-
+   connected to a PDP and has cached usage policies.  The PDP indicates
+   to the PEP to resume usage tracking and monitoring and to send all
+
+
+
+Rawlins, et al.              Informational                      [Page 9]
+
+RFC 3571                 Framework Feedback PIB              August 2003
+
+
+   the cached usage policy.  The PEP shall respond at the next
+   appropriate interval with an unsolicited report containing the usage
+   feedback.
+
+   The PDP can suspend the monitoring of usage policy.  The PEP
+   maintains the current usage that has been monitored, but discontinues
+   any further monitoring until the PDP directs the PEP to resume
+   monitoring in a subsequent Decision.
+
+   The PDP can also suspend just the reporting of usage, but not
+   interrupt the monitoring and tracking of usage.  The PEP shall
+   discontinue sending Report messages with usage feedback until the PDP
+   directs the PEP to resume.  The PEP then begins reporting the usage
+   feedback at the next interval.
+
+3.3.2.  Feedback Action List
+
+   This class defines sets of linkage instances that can be referred to
+   from the frwkFeedbackActionList attribute.
+
+3.3.3.  Feedback Linkage Capability
+
+   This class defines the valid selection criteria PRC, usage PRC and
+   threshold PRC combinations supported by the PEP.
+
+3.3.4.  Feedback Linkage
+
+   This class links the selection criteria instance with the usage
+   class.  This table permits the reuse of a selection criteria instance
+   for multiple usage policies.
+
+   The linkage table also permits the definition of a maximum reporting
+   interval to use when issuing the COPS accounting type reports for the
+   usage instance.  A value of 0 in this attribute indicates that the
+   usage policy must be solicited.
+
+3.3.5.  Feedback Traffic Statistics Threshold
+
+   This class is used to provide threshold values for the attributes
+   described in the traffic usage classes below.
+
+3.3.6.  Feedback Traffic
+
+   This class includes the packet counts, byte counts and a reference to
+   the associated Linkage instance.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Rawlins, et al.              Informational                     [Page 10]
+
+RFC 3571                 Framework Feedback PIB              August 2003
+
+
+3.3.7.  Feedback Interface Traffic
+
+   This class is similar to the previous Feedback Traffic class, except
+   that it includes an additional reference to an interface index.  This
+   class should be used with a selection criteria instance that matches
+   an element that is assigned to multiple interfaces.  The interface
+   field can be used to associate the instances of this table with the
+   specific element's assignment.
+
+3.3.8.  Feedback RoleCombo Filter Selection
+
+   This class is used as selection criteria based on role combination,
+   capability set and a filter instance.
+
+4.  The Feedback Framework PIB Module
+
+   FRAMEWORK-FEEDBACK-PIB PIB-DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
+
+      IMPORTS
+          pib, Unsigned32, Unsigned64, Integer32,
+          MODULE-IDENTITY, OBJECT-TYPE, MODULE-COMPLIANCE, OBJECT-GROUP
+                  FROM COPS-PR-SPPI
+          TruthValue, TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
+                  FROM SNMPv2-TC
+          InstanceId, ReferenceId, Prid,
+          TagId, TagReferenceId
+                  FROM COPS-PR-SPPI-TC
+          PrcIdentifierOid, PrcIdentifierOidOrZero
+                  FROM FRAMEWORK-TC-PIB
+          frwkRoleComboEntry
+                  FROM FRAMEWORK-PIB
+          InterfaceIndex
+                  FROM IF-MIB;
+
+      frwkFeedbackPib  MODULE-IDENTITY
+          SUBJECT-CATEGORIES  { all }
+          LAST-UPDATED "200307140000Z"  -- 14 July 2003
+          ORGANIZATION "IETF RAP WG"
+          CONTACT-INFO "IETF RAP WG
+                        Email: rap@ops.ietf.org
+
+                        Diana Rawlins
+                        MCI
+                        400 International Parkway
+                        Richardson, Texas 75081
+                        Phone: 972-729-4071
+                        Email: Diana.Rawlins@mci.com
+
+
+
+
+Rawlins, et al.              Informational                     [Page 11]
+
+RFC 3571                 Framework Feedback PIB              August 2003
+
+
+                        Amol Kulkarni
+                        JF3-206
+                        2111 NE 25th Ave
+                        Hillsboro, Oregon 97124
+                        Phone: 503-712-1168
+                        Email: amol.kulkarni@intel.com
+
+                        Kwok Ho Chan
+                        Nortel Networks
+                        600 Technology Park Drive
+                        Billerica, MA 01821 USA
+                        Phone: 978-288-8175
+                        Email: khchan@nortelnetworks.com
+
+                        Martin Bokaemper
+                        Juniper Networks
+                        700 Silver Seven Road
+                        Kanata, ON, K2V 1C3, Canada
+                        Phone: 613-591-2735
+                        Email: mbokaemper@juniper.net
+
+                        Dinesh G Dutt
+                        Cisco Systems, Inc.
+                        170 Tasman Dr.
+                        San Jose, CA 95134-1706
+                        Phone: 408-527-0955
+                        Email: ddutt@cisco.com"
+
+      DESCRIPTION
+              "The PIB module containing the base set of policy rule
+              classes that are required for support of all policy
+              usage monitoring, tracking and reporting policies.
+
+              Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). This version
+              of this PIB module is part of RFC 3571; see the RFC
+              itself for full legal notices."
+      REVISION     "200307140000Z"
+      DESCRIPTION
+               "Initial version, published in RFC 3571."
+
+            ::= { pib 5 }
+
+   --
+   -- Textual Conventions
+   --
+
+   Usage32 ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
+        STATUS    current
+
+
+
+Rawlins, et al.              Informational                     [Page 12]
+
+RFC 3571                 Framework Feedback PIB              August 2003
+
+
+        DESCRIPTION
+                "The Usage32 type represents a non-negative integer
+                which monotonically increases.
+                Usage32 initial value is 0 and the object-type using
+                Usage32 needs to specify when it is initialized.
+
+                The Usage32 type is intended to reflect the absolute
+                number of counted events, so that even a new PDP
+                after a COPS reconnect can use the value directly.
+
+                If there is the possibility that the maximum Usage32
+                value of 2^32-1 is exceeded during the lifetime
+                of the Usage32 object, the larger Usage64 type
+                should be used.
+
+                If conditions other than the reset of the COPS
+                subsystem exist that disrupt the monotonic
+                characteristics of Usage32, these conditions and a
+                method how to detect their presence should be
+                specified in the description of the object-type using
+                Usage32 or its enclosing object-types (e.g. the
+                Entry or Table object-type of the Usage32
+                object-type).
+
+                Whenever the monotonic increase of Usage32 is violated,
+                it should be reset to 0 and the fact that this occurred
+                should be indicated through an appropriate mechanism,
+                for example a corresponding object of type TimeStamp
+                or TimeAndDate."
+        SYNTAX Unsigned32
+
+   Usage64 ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
+        STATUS    current
+        DESCRIPTION
+                "The Usage64 type represents a non-negative integer
+                which monotonically increases.
+                Usage64 initial value is 0 and the object-type using
+                Usage64 needs to specify when it is initialized.
+
+                The Usage64 type is intended to reflect the absolute
+                number of counted events, so that even a new PDP
+                after a COPS reconnect can use the value directly.
+
+                The lifetime of the Usage64 object should be defined
+                in a way that ensures the maximum Usage64 value of
+                2^64-1 is never exceeded.
+
+                If conditions other than the reset of the COPS
+
+
+
+Rawlins, et al.              Informational                     [Page 13]
+
+RFC 3571                 Framework Feedback PIB              August 2003
+
+
+                subsystem exist that disrupt the monotonic
+                characteristics of Usage64, these conditions and a
+                method how to detect their presence should be
+                specified in the description of the object-type using
+                Usage64 or its enclosing object-types (e.g. the
+                Entry or Table object-type of the Usage64
+                object-type).
+
+                Whenever the monotonic increase of Usage64 is violated,
+                it should be reset to 0 and the fact that this occurred
+                should be indicated through an appropriate mechanism,
+                for example a corresponding object of type TimeStamp
+                or TimeAndDate."
+        SYNTAX Unsigned64
+
+   --
+   -- The feedback report group
+   --
+
+   frwkFeedbackGroupClasses
+                  OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { frwkFeedbackPib  1 }
+
+   --
+   --  Feedback Action Table
+   --
+
+   frwkFeedbackActionTable OBJECT-TYPE
+        SYNTAX          SEQUENCE OF FrwkFeedbackActionEntry
+        PIB-ACCESS      install
+        STATUS          current
+        DESCRIPTION
+                "This class represents commands that the PDP sends to
+                suspend, resume or solicit collection or reporting of
+                usage data."
+
+           ::= { frwkFeedbackGroupClasses  1}
+
+   frwkFeedbackActionEntry OBJECT-TYPE
+        SYNTAX  FrwkFeedbackActionEntry
+        STATUS  current
+        DESCRIPTION
+                "Each frwkFeedbackActionEntry represents a command from
+                the PDP. FrwkFeedbackActionIndicator specifies the
+                command itself while frwkFeedbackActionSpecificPri
+                indicates if all frwkFeedbackLink objects in the system
+                are affected by the command, or just the set that is
+                referenced by frwkFeedbackActionList."
+
+
+
+
+Rawlins, et al.              Informational                     [Page 14]
+
+RFC 3571                 Framework Feedback PIB              August 2003
+
+
+        PIB-INDEX { frwkFeedbackActionId}
+
+        ::= { frwkFeedbackActionTable 1}
+
+   FrwkFeedbackActionEntry ::= SEQUENCE {
+           frwkFeedbackActionId                 InstanceId,
+           frwkFeedbackActionIndicator          INTEGER,
+           frwkFeedbackActionSpecificPri        TruthValue,
+           frwkFeedbackActionList               TagReferenceId
+        }
+
+   frwkFeedbackActionId  OBJECT-TYPE
+        SYNTAX        InstanceId
+        STATUS        current
+        DESCRIPTION
+           "An arbitrary integer index that uniquely identifies an
+            instance of the frwkFeedbackAction class."
+
+        ::= { frwkFeedbackActionEntry 1}
+
+   frwkFeedbackActionIndicator OBJECT-TYPE
+        SYNTAX  INTEGER {
+                   suspendMonitoringAndReports(1),
+                   suspendReports(2),
+                   resume(3),
+                   solicitReport(4)
+        }
+        STATUS  current
+        DESCRIPTION
+                  "The value indicates if the PEP is to send cached
+                   usage policies via COPS accounting type report
+                   messages.
+                   The enumeration values are:
+                   (1)  suspendMonitoringAndReports
+                   (2)  suspendReports
+                   (3)  resume
+                   (4)  solicitReport "
+
+          ::= { frwkFeedbackActionEntry 2 }
+
+   frwkFeedbackActionSpecificPri OBJECT-TYPE
+           SYNTAX        TruthValue
+           STATUS        current
+           DESCRIPTION
+                    "A value of 0 indicates that the
+                    frwkFeedbackActionList attribute should be ignored,
+                    and the action applied to all policies. A value of
+                    1 indicates that the action entry has a specific
+
+
+
+Rawlins, et al.              Informational                     [Page 15]
+
+RFC 3571                 Framework Feedback PIB              August 2003
+
+
+                    list of policies to which it is to be applied."
+           ::= { frwkFeedbackActionEntry 3}
+
+   frwkFeedbackActionList OBJECT-TYPE
+           SYNTAX        TagReferenceId
+           PIB-TAG       { frwkFeedbackActionListTag }
+           STATUS        current
+           DESCRIPTION
+                    "Identifies a group of frwkFeedbackLink instances
+                    that this action should affect. The group is
+                    identified through a tag reference in the
+                    frwkFeedbackList class."
+           ::= { frwkFeedbackActionEntry 4}
+
+   --
+   --  Feedback Action List Table
+   --
+
+   frwkFeedbackActionListTable OBJECT-TYPE
+           SYNTAX          SEQUENCE OF FrwkFeedbackActionListEntry
+           PIB-ACCESS      install
+           STATUS          current
+           DESCRIPTION
+                    "This class defines groups of linkage instances.
+                    Groups can be referenced by commands sent by the
+                    PDP in a frwkFeedbackActionEntry -in this case the
+                    command affects all linkage instances that are part
+                    of the group.
+                    A group can be referred to by its tag stored in
+                    frwkFeedbackActionListTag."
+           ::= { frwkFeedbackGroupClasses  2}
+
+   frwkFeedbackActionListEntry OBJECT-TYPE
+           SYNTAX          FrwkFeedbackActionListEntry
+           STATUS          current
+           DESCRIPTION
+                    "Each instance associates a linkage instance with a
+                     specific ActionListGroup."
+
+           PIB-INDEX {frwkFeedbackActionListId }
+           UNIQUENESS { frwkFeedbackActionListTag,
+                        frwkFeedbackActionListRefID
+                      }
+           ::= { frwkFeedbackActionListTable 1}
+
+   FrwkFeedbackActionListEntry::= SEQUENCE {
+              frwkFeedbackActionListId          InstanceId,
+              frwkFeedbackActionListTag         TagId,
+
+
+
+Rawlins, et al.              Informational                     [Page 16]
+
+RFC 3571                 Framework Feedback PIB              August 2003
+
+
+              frwkFeedbackActionListRefID       ReferenceId
+        }
+
+   frwkFeedbackActionListId OBJECT-TYPE
+           SYNTAX       InstanceId
+           STATUS       current
+           DESCRIPTION
+                     "Arbitrary integer index that uniquely
+                     identifies an instance of the class."
+
+           ::= { frwkFeedbackActionListEntry 1 }
+
+   frwkFeedbackActionListTag OBJECT-TYPE
+           SYNTAX       TagId
+           STATUS       current
+           DESCRIPTION
+                     "Identifies a group of linkage instances that can
+                     be referenced from the Action class."
+
+           ::= { frwkFeedbackActionListEntry 2 }
+
+   frwkFeedbackActionListRefID   OBJECT-TYPE
+           SYNTAX       ReferenceId
+           PIB-REFERENCES { frwkFeedbackLinkEntry }
+           STATUS       current
+           DESCRIPTION
+                     "A frwkFeedbackLink instance that is referred to
+                     by this ReferenceId becomes part of the group,
+                     that is identified by the
+                     frwkFeedbackActionListTag."
+
+           ::= { frwkFeedbackActionListEntry 3 }
+
+   --
+   -- The Feedback Link Capability Table
+   --
+
+   frwkFeedbackLinkCapsTable OBJECT-TYPE
+        SYNTAX           SEQUENCE OF FrwkFeedbackLinkCapsEntry
+        PIB-ACCESS       notify
+        STATUS           current
+        DESCRIPTION
+                "Instances of the frwkFeedbackLink class reference
+                 instances of selection and threshold classes and a
+                 usage class.
+                 This class allows the PEP to communicate valid
+                 combinations of these three classes to the PDP."
+         ::= { frwkFeedbackGroupClasses 3}
+
+
+
+Rawlins, et al.              Informational                     [Page 17]
+
+RFC 3571                 Framework Feedback PIB              August 2003
+
+
+   frwkFeedbackLinkCapsEntry OBJECT-TYPE
+        SYNTAX          FrwkFeedbackLinkCapsEntry
+        STATUS          current
+        DESCRIPTION
+                 "The attributes of this class identify valid
+                  combinations of selection criteria, usage and
+                  threshold classes for feedback."
+        PIB-INDEX { frwkFeedbackLinkCapsId }
+        UNIQUENESS {
+                    frwkFeedbackLinkCapsSelection,
+                    frwkFeedbackLinkCapsUsage,
+                    frwkFeedbackLinkCapsThreshold
+                 }
+
+        ::= {frwkFeedbackLinkCapsTable 1}
+
+   FrwkFeedbackLinkCapsEntry ::= SEQUENCE {
+          frwkFeedbackLinkCapsId         InstanceId,
+          frwkFeedbackLinkCapsSelection  PrcIdentifierOid,
+          frwkFeedbackLinkCapsUsage      PrcIdentifierOid,
+          frwkFeedbackLinkCapsThreshold  PrcIdentifierOidOrZero
+   }
+
+   frwkFeedbackLinkCapsId OBJECT-TYPE
+        SYNTAX        InstanceId
+        STATUS        current
+        DESCRIPTION
+             "An arbitrary integer index that uniquely identifies an
+             instance of the frwkFeedbackLinkCaps class."
+        ::= { frwkFeedbackLinkCapsEntry 1}
+
+   frwkFeedbackLinkCapsSelection OBJECT-TYPE
+        SYNTAX        PrcIdentifierOid
+        STATUS        current
+        DESCRIPTION
+               "The identifier of a class that is supported by the
+                device for feedback selection in combination with the
+                usage and threshold classes referenced in this
+                instance."
+        ::= { frwkFeedbackLinkCapsEntry 2}
+
+   frwkFeedbackLinkCapsUsage OBJECT-TYPE
+        SYNTAX        PrcIdentifierOid
+        STATUS        current
+        DESCRIPTION
+                "The identifier of the usage class that is supported by
+                the PEP in combination with the selection and threshold
+                classes referenced in this instance."
+
+
+
+Rawlins, et al.              Informational                     [Page 18]
+
+RFC 3571                 Framework Feedback PIB              August 2003
+
+
+        ::= { frwkFeedbackLinkCapsEntry 3}
+
+
+   frwkFeedbackLinkCapsThreshold OBJECT-TYPE
+           SYNTAX        PrcIdentifierOidOrZero
+           STATUS        current
+           DESCRIPTION
+                "The identifier of the threshold class that is
+                supported by the PEP in combination with the selection
+                and usage classes referenced in this instance.
+                0.0 is used if this combination does not allow a
+                threshold."
+           ::= { frwkFeedbackLinkCapsEntry 4}
+
+   --
+   -- The Feedback Report Linkage Table
+   --
+
+   frwkFeedbackLinkTable OBJECT-TYPE
+        SYNTAX          SEQUENCE OF FrwkFeedbackLinkEntry
+        PIB-ACCESS      install
+        STATUS          current
+        DESCRIPTION
+                 "This class associates the selection criteria with the
+                  usage policy. It also permits the defining of the max
+                  interval used for reporting the usage instance."
+
+        ::= { frwkFeedbackGroupClasses  4}
+
+   frwkFeedbackLinkEntry OBJECT-TYPE
+        SYNTAX          FrwkFeedbackLinkEntry
+        STATUS          current
+        DESCRIPTION
+                 "This class associates the selection criteria with the
+                  usage policy. It also permits the defining of the max
+                  interval used for reporting the usage instance."
+        PIB-INDEX { frwkFeedbackLinkId }
+        UNIQUENESS {frwkFeedbackLinkSel,
+                    frwkFeedbackLinkUsage }
+        ::= {frwkFeedbackLinkTable 1}
+
+   FrwkFeedbackLinkEntry ::= SEQUENCE {
+          frwkFeedbackLinkId         InstanceId,
+          frwkFeedbackLinkSel        Prid,
+          frwkFeedbackLinkUsage      PrcIdentifierOid,
+          frwkFeedbackLinkInterval   Integer32,
+          frwkFeedbackLinkThreshold  Prid,
+          frwkFeedbackLinkFlags      BITS
+
+
+
+Rawlins, et al.              Informational                     [Page 19]
+
+RFC 3571                 Framework Feedback PIB              August 2003
+
+
+   }
+
+   frwkFeedbackLinkId OBJECT-TYPE
+        SYNTAX        InstanceId
+        STATUS        current
+        DESCRIPTION
+            "An arbitrary integer index that uniquely identifies an
+             instance of the frwkFeedbackLinkTable class."
+        ::= { frwkFeedbackLinkEntry 1}
+
+   frwkFeedbackLinkSel OBJECT-TYPE
+        SYNTAX       Prid
+        STATUS       current
+        DESCRIPTION
+            "The PRID of the Policy Class instance as the monitoring
+             point, or the PRID of the selection criteria instance that
+             defines the conditions for monitoring, to be use by the
+             PEP for usage reporting."
+
+        ::= { frwkFeedbackLinkEntry 2}
+
+   frwkFeedbackLinkUsage OBJECT-TYPE
+        SYNTAX      PrcIdentifierOid
+        STATUS      current
+        DESCRIPTION
+             "The identifier of the usage class that the PEP uses to
+             monitor, record and report."
+
+        ::= { frwkFeedbackLinkEntry 3}
+
+   frwkFeedbackLinkInterval  OBJECT-TYPE
+        SYNTAX   Integer32
+        STATUS   current
+        DESCRIPTION
+                "Maximum interval in units of the value of the
+                 Accounting Timer specified by the PDP in the client
+                 accept message. A frwkFeedbackLinkInterval of 1 is
+                 equal to the value of the Accounting Timer. This value
+                 must be 1 or greater. "
+
+        ::= { frwkFeedbackLinkEntry 4}
+
+   frwkFeedbackLinkThreshold  OBJECT-TYPE
+        SYNTAX   Prid
+        STATUS   current
+        DESCRIPTION
+                "The PRID of a threshold class instance. This instance
+                 specifies the threshold values for the usage policy."
+
+
+
+Rawlins, et al.              Informational                     [Page 20]
+
+RFC 3571                 Framework Feedback PIB              August 2003
+
+
+        ::= { frwkFeedbackLinkEntry 5}
+
+   frwkFeedbackLinkFlags  OBJECT-TYPE
+        SYNTAX   BITS {
+                         periodic(0),
+                         threshold(1),
+                         changeOnly(2)
+                 }
+        STATUS   current
+        DESCRIPTION
+               "This value indicates the reporting basis of the usage
+                 policy. The feed back may be generated on demand, on a
+                 periodic basis regardless of a change in value from the
+                 previous report, on a periodic basis if a change in
+                 value has occurred, or the usage is reported when an
+                 identified threshold value in the usage instance has
+                 been reached.
+                If the 'periodic' flag is set, the PEP will provide
+                 unsolicited reports at the rate specified in
+                 frwkFeedbackLinkInterval.
+                If the 'periodic' flag is not set, reports will only be
+                 generated when solicited by the PDP.
+                The 'threshold' and 'changeOnly' flags make the
+                 periodic reports conditional - these flags only make
+                 sense in combination with the 'periodic' flag."
+
+           ::= { frwkFeedbackLinkEntry 6}
+
+   --
+   -- The Threshold class that accompanies the above Usage PRCs
+   --
+
+   frwkFeedbackTrafficThresTable OBJECT-TYPE
+           SYNTAX         SEQUENCE OF FrwkFeedbackTrafficThresEntry
+           PIB-ACCESS     install
+           STATUS         current
+           DESCRIPTION
+                 "This class defines the threshold attributes
+                  corresponding to usage attributes specified in
+                  frwkFeedbackTrafficTable, frwkFeedbackIfTrafficTable
+                  and other similar usage classes.
+
+                  The usage object is considered to match the threshold
+                  condition if at least one of the packet or byte
+                  threshold conditions match.
+
+                  The byte and packet thresholds are considered to
+                  match, if the threshold is present (not ASN1 NULL)
+
+
+
+Rawlins, et al.              Informational                     [Page 21]
+
+RFC 3571                 Framework Feedback PIB              August 2003
+
+
+                  and the corresponding usage value exceeds the
+                  threshold."
+
+           ::= { frwkFeedbackGroupClasses  5}
+
+   frwkFeedbackTrafficThresEntry OBJECT-TYPE
+           SYNTAX          FrwkFeedbackTrafficThresEntry
+           STATUS          current
+           DESCRIPTION
+                    "Defines the attributes to hold threshold values."
+           PIB-INDEX {frwkFeedbackTrafficThresId}
+
+           ::= {frwkFeedbackTrafficThresTable 1}
+
+   FrwkFeedbackTrafficThresEntry ::= SEQUENCE {
+            frwkFeedbackTrafficThresId                  InstanceId,
+            frwkFeedbackTrafficThresPackets            Unsigned64,
+            frwkFeedbackTrafficThresBytes              Unsigned64
+   }
+
+   frwkFeedbackTrafficThresId   OBJECT-TYPE
+           SYNTAX       InstanceId
+           STATUS       current
+           DESCRIPTION
+                     "Arbitrary integer index that uniquely identifies
+                      an instance of the class."
+           ::= { frwkFeedbackTrafficThresEntry 1 }
+
+   frwkFeedbackTrafficThresPackets   OBJECT-TYPE
+           SYNTAX       Unsigned64
+           STATUS       current
+           DESCRIPTION
+                     "The threshold, in terms of packets, that must be
+                      matched or exceeded to trigger a report in the
+                      next reporting interval."
+           ::= { frwkFeedbackTrafficThresEntry 2 }
+
+   frwkFeedbackTrafficThresBytes   OBJECT-TYPE
+           SYNTAX       Unsigned64
+           STATUS       current
+           DESCRIPTION
+                   "The threshold, in terms of bytes, that must be
+                    exceeded to trigger a report in the next reporting
+                    interval."
+           ::= { frwkFeedbackTrafficThresEntry 3 }
+
+
+   --
+
+
+
+Rawlins, et al.              Informational                     [Page 22]
+
+RFC 3571                 Framework Feedback PIB              August 2003
+
+
+   -- All actual usage classes are in the separate
+   -- frwkFeedbackUsageClasses group
+   --
+
+   frwkFeedbackUsageClasses
+       OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { frwkFeedbackPib  2 }
+
+
+   --
+   -- The generic traffic (byte & packet count) usage class
+   --
+
+   frwkFeedbackTrafficTable OBJECT-TYPE
+        SYNTAX          SEQUENCE OF FrwkFeedbackTrafficEntry
+        PIB-ACCESS      report-only
+        STATUS          current
+        DESCRIPTION
+                 "This class defines the usage attributes that the PEP
+                  is to monitor for plain traffic handling elements
+                  like filters. All packets and the bytes contained in
+                  these packets are counted. It also contains the PRID
+                  of the linkage instance associating the selection
+                  criteria instance with the usage instance."
+
+        ::= { frwkFeedbackUsageClasses  1}
+
+   frwkFeedbackTrafficEntry OBJECT-TYPE
+        SYNTAX          FrwkFeedbackTrafficEntry
+        STATUS          current
+        DESCRIPTION
+                 "Defines the attributes the PEP is to monitor,
+                  record and report."
+        PIB-INDEX {frwkFeedbackTrafficId}
+        UNIQUENESS { frwkFeedbackTrafficLinkRefID }
+
+        ::= {frwkFeedbackTrafficTable 1}
+
+   FrwkFeedbackTrafficEntry ::= SEQUENCE {
+         frwkFeedbackTrafficId              InstanceId,
+         frwkFeedbackTrafficLinkRefID       ReferenceId,
+         frwkFeedbackTrafficPacketCount     Usage64,
+         frwkFeedbackTrafficByteCount       Usage64
+
+   }
+
+   frwkFeedbackTrafficId   OBJECT-TYPE
+        SYNTAX       InstanceId
+        STATUS       current
+
+
+
+Rawlins, et al.              Informational                     [Page 23]
+
+RFC 3571                 Framework Feedback PIB              August 2003
+
+
+        DESCRIPTION
+                  "Arbitrary integer index that uniquely identifies
+                   an instance of the class."
+        ::= { frwkFeedbackTrafficEntry 1 }
+
+   frwkFeedbackTrafficLinkRefID  OBJECT-TYPE
+        SYNTAX      ReferenceId
+        PIB-REFERENCES { frwkFeedbackLinkEntry }
+        STATUS      current
+        DESCRIPTION
+                  "The ReferenceId of the Linkage policy instance used
+                   to base this usage policy instance upon."
+
+        ::= { frwkFeedbackTrafficEntry 2 }
+
+   frwkFeedbackTrafficPacketCount OBJECT-TYPE
+        SYNTAX       Usage64
+        STATUS       current
+        DESCRIPTION
+                  "The count of packets handled by the associated
+                   element. The initial value of 0 is set when the
+                   frwkFeedbackTraffic instance is created, for example
+                   triggered through the creation of a frwkFeedbackLink
+                   instance."
+
+        ::= {frwkFeedbackTrafficEntry 3}
+
+   frwkFeedbackTrafficByteCount OBJECT-TYPE
+        SYNTAX       Usage64
+        STATUS       current
+        DESCRIPTION
+                   "The byte count of packets handled by the associated
+                    element. The initial value of 0 is set when the
+                    frwkFeedbackTraffic instance is created."
+        ::= { frwkFeedbackTrafficEntry 4}
+
+
+
+   --
+   -- The traffic usage class, qualified for an interface
+   --
+   frwkFeedbackIfTrafficTable OBJECT-TYPE
+        SYNTAX          SEQUENCE OF FrwkFeedbackIfTrafficEntry
+        PIB-ACCESS      report-only
+        STATUS          current
+        DESCRIPTION
+                "A usage class similar to the basic Traffic class that
+                also contains a reference to an interface index. This
+
+
+
+Rawlins, et al.              Informational                     [Page 24]
+
+RFC 3571                 Framework Feedback PIB              August 2003
+
+
+                class should be used with an underspecified selection
+                criteria entry from the frwkRoleComboTable that matches
+                an element that can be assigned to multiple interface
+                indices. The interface field can be used to associate
+                the instances of this class with the specific element's
+                assignment."
+        ::= { frwkFeedbackUsageClasses  2 }
+
+   frwkFeedbackIfTrafficEntry OBJECT-TYPE
+        SYNTAX          FrwkFeedbackIfTrafficEntry
+        STATUS          current
+        DESCRIPTION
+                 "Defines the attributes the PEP is to monitor,
+                  record and report."
+        PIB-INDEX {frwkFeedbackIfTrafficId}
+        UNIQUENESS { frwkFeedbackIfTrafficLinkRefID,
+                     frwkFeedbackIfTrafficIfIndex }
+
+        ::= {frwkFeedbackIfTrafficTable 1}
+
+   FrwkFeedbackIfTrafficEntry ::= SEQUENCE {
+         frwkFeedbackIfTrafficId              InstanceId,
+         frwkFeedbackIfTrafficLinkRefID       ReferenceId,
+         frwkFeedbackIfTrafficIfIndex         InterfaceIndex,
+         frwkFeedbackIfTrafficPacketCount     Usage64,
+         frwkFeedbackIfTrafficByteCount       Usage64
+
+   }
+
+   frwkFeedbackIfTrafficId   OBJECT-TYPE
+        SYNTAX       InstanceId
+        STATUS       current
+        DESCRIPTION
+                  "Arbitrary integer index that uniquely identifies
+                   an instance of the class."
+        ::= { frwkFeedbackIfTrafficEntry 1 }
+
+   frwkFeedbackIfTrafficLinkRefID  OBJECT-TYPE
+        SYNTAX      ReferenceId
+        PIB-REFERENCES { frwkFeedbackLinkEntry }
+        STATUS      current
+        DESCRIPTION
+                  "The ReferenceId of the Linkage policy instance used
+                   to base this usage policy instance upon."
+        ::= { frwkFeedbackIfTrafficEntry 2 }
+
+   frwkFeedbackIfTrafficIfIndex  OBJECT-TYPE
+          SYNTAX         InterfaceIndex
+
+
+
+Rawlins, et al.              Informational                     [Page 25]
+
+RFC 3571                 Framework Feedback PIB              August 2003
+
+
+          STATUS         current
+          DESCRIPTION
+              "The value of this attribute is the ifIndex which is
+              associated with the specified RoleCombination and
+              interface capability set name."
+
+          ::= { frwkFeedbackIfTrafficEntry 3 }
+
+   frwkFeedbackIfTrafficPacketCount OBJECT-TYPE
+        SYNTAX       Usage64
+        STATUS       current
+        DESCRIPTION
+                "The count of packets handled by the associated
+                element. The initial value of 0 is set when the
+                frwkFeedbackIfTraffic instance is created."
+        ::= { frwkFeedbackIfTrafficEntry 4 }
+
+   frwkFeedbackIfTrafficByteCount OBJECT-TYPE
+        SYNTAX       Usage64
+        STATUS       current
+        DESCRIPTION
+                  "The byte count of packets handled by the associated
+                  element. The initial value of 0 is set when the
+                  frwkFeedbackIfTraffic instance is created."
+        ::= { frwkFeedbackIfTrafficEntry 5 }
+
+
+   --
+   -- All Selection classes are in the separate
+   -- FrwkFeedbackSelectionClasses group
+   --
+
+   frwkFeedbackSelectionClasses
+       OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { frwkFeedbackPib  3 }
+
+   --
+   -- The Role Combination Filter Selection Table
+   --
+
+   frwkFeedbackRoleFilterSelTable OBJECT-TYPE
+        SYNTAX          SEQUENCE OF FrwkFeedbackRoleFilterSelEntry
+        PIB-ACCESS      install
+        STATUS          current
+        DESCRIPTION
+                "A selection class that defines selection of objects
+                for monitoring based on the role combination,
+                capability set and a filter."
+        ::= { frwkFeedbackSelectionClasses  1 }
+
+
+
+Rawlins, et al.              Informational                     [Page 26]
+
+RFC 3571                 Framework Feedback PIB              August 2003
+
+
+   frwkFeedbackRoleFilterSelEntry OBJECT-TYPE
+        SYNTAX          FrwkFeedbackRoleFilterSelEntry
+        STATUS          current
+        DESCRIPTION
+                "Each instance selects a filter on multiple interfaces
+                that share the same frwkRoleCombo instance."
+        PIB-INDEX { frwkFeedbackRoleFilterSelId}
+        UNIQUENESS { frwkFeedbackRoleFilterSelRCombo,
+                     frwkFeedbackRoleFilterSelFilter
+                    }
+
+        ::= {frwkFeedbackRoleFilterSelTable 1}
+
+   FrwkFeedbackRoleFilterSelEntry ::= SEQUENCE {
+         frwkFeedbackRoleFilterSelId          InstanceId,
+         frwkFeedbackRoleFilterSelRCombo      ReferenceId,
+         frwkFeedbackRoleFilterSelFilter      Prid
+   }
+
+   frwkFeedbackRoleFilterSelId   OBJECT-TYPE
+        SYNTAX       InstanceId
+        STATUS       current
+        DESCRIPTION
+                  "Arbitrary integer index that uniquely identifies
+                   an instance of the class."
+        ::= { frwkFeedbackRoleFilterSelEntry 1 }
+
+   frwkFeedbackRoleFilterSelRCombo  OBJECT-TYPE
+        SYNTAX      ReferenceId
+        PIB-REFERENCES { frwkRoleComboEntry }
+        STATUS      current
+        DESCRIPTION
+                  "The ReferenceId of the frwkRoleComboTable policy
+                   instance used for selection."
+        ::= { frwkFeedbackRoleFilterSelEntry 2 }
+
+   frwkFeedbackRoleFilterSelFilter     OBJECT-TYPE
+        SYNTAX      Prid
+        STATUS      current
+        DESCRIPTION
+                  "The identifier of a filter instance. Valid classes
+                   are the subclasses of frwkBaseFilter:
+                   - frwkIpFilter
+                   - frwk802Filter
+                   - frwkILabelFilter"
+        ::= { frwkFeedbackRoleFilterSelEntry 3 }
+
+
+
+
+
+Rawlins, et al.              Informational                     [Page 27]
+
+RFC 3571                 Framework Feedback PIB              August 2003
+
+
+   --
+   -- Compliance Section
+   --
+
+   frwkFeedbackPibConformance
+                OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { frwkFeedbackPib 4 }
+
+   frwkFeedbackPibCompliances
+                OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { frwkFeedbackPibConformance 1 }
+
+   frwkFeedbackPibGroups
+                OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { frwkFeedbackPibConformance 2 }
+
+
+   frwkFeedbackPibCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE
+        STATUS  current
+        DESCRIPTION
+        "Describes the requirements for conformance to the feedback
+        framework PIB"
+
+      MODULE   -- this module
+         MANDATORY-GROUPS { frwkFeedbackLinkCapsGroup,
+                            frwkFeedbackLinkGroup,
+                            frwkFeedbackActionGroup }
+
+      GROUP frwkFeedbackActionListGroup
+         DESCRIPTION
+                      "The frwkFeedbackActionListGroup is mandatory if
+                      actions on subsets linkEntries are to be
+                      supported."
+
+      GROUP frwkFeedbackTrafficGroup
+         DESCRIPTION
+                      "The frwkFeedbackTrafficGroup is mandatory if
+                      monitoring of traffic data is to be supported."
+
+      GROUP frwkFeedbackTrafficThresGroup
+         DESCRIPTION
+                      "The frwkFeedbackTrafficThresGroup is mandatory
+                      if conditional reporting of traffic usage
+                      thresholds is to be supported."
+
+      GROUP frwkFeedbackIfTrafficGroup
+         DESCRIPTION
+                      "The frwkFeedbackIfTrafficGroup is mandatory if
+                      per-interface usage collection of traffic data is
+                      to be supported."
+
+
+
+
+Rawlins, et al.              Informational                     [Page 28]
+
+RFC 3571                 Framework Feedback PIB              August 2003
+
+
+      GROUP frwkFeedbackRoleFilterSelGroup
+         DESCRIPTION
+                      "The frwkFeedbackRoleFilterSelGroup is mandatory
+                      if monitoring of filters referenced through the
+                      frwkRoleCombo class is to be supported."
+
+      ::= { frwkFeedbackPibCompliances 1 }
+
+    frwkFeedbackLinkCapsGroup OBJECT-GROUP
+        OBJECTS {
+                frwkFeedbackLinkCapsId,
+                frwkFeedbackLinkCapsSelection,
+                frwkFeedbackLinkCapsUsage,
+                frwkFeedbackLinkCapsThreshold }
+        STATUS  current
+        DESCRIPTION
+             "Objects from the frwkFeedbackLinkCapsTable."
+
+        ::= { frwkFeedbackPibGroups 1 }
+
+    frwkFeedbackLinkGroup OBJECT-GROUP
+        OBJECTS {
+                frwkFeedbackLinkId,
+                frwkFeedbackLinkSel,
+                frwkFeedbackLinkUsage,
+                frwkFeedbackLinkInterval,
+                frwkFeedbackLinkThreshold,
+                frwkFeedbackLinkFlags }
+        STATUS  current
+        DESCRIPTION
+             "Objects from the frwkFeedbackLinkTable."
+
+        ::= { frwkFeedbackPibGroups 2 }
+
+    frwkFeedbackActionGroup OBJECT-GROUP
+        OBJECTS {
+                frwkFeedbackActionId,
+                frwkFeedbackActionIndicator,
+                frwkFeedbackActionSpecificPri,
+                frwkFeedbackActionList }
+        STATUS  current
+        DESCRIPTION
+             "Objects from the frwkFeedbackActionTable."
+
+        ::= { frwkFeedbackPibGroups 3 }
+
+    frwkFeedbackActionListGroup OBJECT-GROUP
+        OBJECTS {
+
+
+
+Rawlins, et al.              Informational                     [Page 29]
+
+RFC 3571                 Framework Feedback PIB              August 2003
+
+
+                frwkFeedbackActionListId,
+                frwkFeedbackActionListTag,
+                frwkFeedbackActionListRefID }
+        STATUS  current
+        DESCRIPTION
+             "Objects from the frwkFeedbackActionListTable."
+
+        ::= { frwkFeedbackPibGroups 4 }
+
+    frwkFeedbackTrafficGroup OBJECT-GROUP
+        OBJECTS {
+                frwkFeedbackTrafficId,
+                frwkFeedbackTrafficLinkRefID,
+                frwkFeedbackTrafficPacketCount,
+                frwkFeedbackTrafficByteCount }
+        STATUS  current
+        DESCRIPTION
+             "Objects from the frwkFeedbackTrafficTable."
+
+        ::= { frwkFeedbackPibGroups 5 }
+
+    frwkFeedbackTrafficThresGroup OBJECT-GROUP
+        OBJECTS {
+                frwkFeedbackTrafficThresId,
+                frwkFeedbackTrafficThresPackets,
+                frwkFeedbackTrafficThresBytes }
+        STATUS  current
+        DESCRIPTION
+             "Objects from the frwkFeedbackTrafficThresTable."
+
+        ::= { frwkFeedbackPibGroups 6 }
+
+    frwkFeedbackIfTrafficGroup OBJECT-GROUP
+        OBJECTS {
+                frwkFeedbackIfTrafficId,
+                frwkFeedbackIfTrafficLinkRefID,
+                frwkFeedbackIfTrafficIfIndex,
+                frwkFeedbackIfTrafficPacketCount,
+                frwkFeedbackIfTrafficByteCount }
+        STATUS  current
+        DESCRIPTION
+             "Objects from the frwkFeedbackIfTrafficTable."
+
+        ::= { frwkFeedbackPibGroups 7 }
+
+    frwkFeedbackRoleFilterSelGroup OBJECT-GROUP
+        OBJECTS {
+                frwkFeedbackRoleFilterSelId,
+
+
+
+Rawlins, et al.              Informational                     [Page 30]
+
+RFC 3571                 Framework Feedback PIB              August 2003
+
+
+                frwkFeedbackRoleFilterSelRCombo,
+                frwkFeedbackRoleFilterSelFilter }
+        STATUS  current
+        DESCRIPTION
+             "Objects from the frwkFeedbackRoleFilterSelTable."
+
+        ::= { frwkFeedbackPibGroups 8 }
+
+   END
+
+5.  Security Considerations
+
+   This PIB defines structured information that may be sensitive when
+   transported by the COPS protocol [COPS-PR].
+
+   This PIB does not contain classes that directly contain security
+   relevant information like passwords or monetary amounts.  However,
+   unauthorized access or changes to information defined in this PIB
+   could compromise network operations or reveal sensitive business or
+   personal information.
+
+   Specifically for the classes:
+
+   frwkFeedbackLinkCaps
+
+      This class has the ACCESS clause 'notify'.  Access to this
+      information reveals feedback collection capabilities of the COPS
+      client and malicious changes could affect feedback operation by
+      misleading the server to generate corrupt feedback configuration.
+
+   frwkFeedbackLinkTable, frwkFeedbackAction, frwkFeedbackActionList,
+   frwkFeedbackTrafficThres, frwkFeedbackRoleFilterSel
+
+      These classes have the ACCESS clause 'install' and allow the COPS
+      server to control feedback collection and reporting on the client.
+      Access to this information exposes the client's configuration;
+      malicious changes could disrupt network or business operations and
+      raise privacy issues.
+
+   frwkFeedbackTraffic, frwkFeedbackIfTraffic
+
+      These classes have the ACCESS clause 'report-only' and contain the
+      usage information delivered from the COPS client to the server.
+      Unauthorized access to this information may reveal detailed
+      information on the network and its users.  Malicious changes may
+      affect network and business operations.
+
+
+
+
+
+Rawlins, et al.              Informational                     [Page 31]
+
+RFC 3571                 Framework Feedback PIB              August 2003
+
+
+   [COPS] and [COPS-PR] define mechanisms to secure the COPS protocol
+   communication and implementations of COPS servers or clients
+   supporting this PIB MUST follow the security guidelines specified
+   there.
+
+6.  IANA Considerations
+
+   This document describes the frwkFeedbackPib Policy Information Base
+   (PIB) module for registration under the "pib" branch registered with
+   IANA.  The IANA has assigned PIB number 5.
+
+   This PIB uses "all" in the SUBJECT-CATEGORY clause, so it applies to
+   all COPS client types.  No new COPS client type is requested for this
+   PIB.
+
+7.  Acknowledgements
+
+   The authors would like to thank Dave Durham, Ravi Sahita, and Russell
+   Fenger of Intel and John K. Gallant of WorldCom for their
+   contribution to this document.
+
+8.  References
+
+8.1.  Normative References
+
+   [COPS]          Durham, D., Boyle, J., Cohen, R., Herzog, S., Rajan,
+                   R. and A. Sastry, "The COPS (Common Open Policy
+                   Service) Protocol", RFC 2748, January 2000.
+
+   [COPS-PR]       Chan, K., Seligson, J., Durham, D., Gai, S.,
+                   McCloghrie, K., Herzog, S., Reichmeyer, F., Yavatkar,
+                   R. and A. Smith, "COPS Usage for Policy
+                   Provisioning", RFC 3084, May 2001.
+
+   [IFMIB]         McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces
+                   Group MIB", RFC 2863, June 2000.
+
+   [FR-PIB]        Sahita, R., Hahn, S., Chan, K. and K. McCloghrie,
+                   "Framework Policy Information Base", RFC 3318, March
+                   2003.
+
+   [FEEDBACKFWK]   Rawlins, D., Kulkarni, A., Bokaemper, M. and K. Chan,
+                   "Framework for Policy Usage Feedback for Common Open
+                   Policy Service with Policy Provisioning (COPS-PR)",
+                   RFC 3483, March 2003.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Rawlins, et al.              Informational                     [Page 32]
+
+RFC 3571                 Framework Feedback PIB              August 2003
+
+
+   [RFC2119]       Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+                   Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+   [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.
+
+8.2.  Informational References
+
+   [COPS-TLS],     Walker, J., Kulkarni, A.,"COPS Over TLS", Work in
+                   Progress.
+
+   [DIFFSERV-PIB]  Chan, K., Sahita, R., Hahn, S. and K. McCloghrie,
+                   "Differentiated Services Quality of Service Policy
+                   Information Base", RFC 3317, March 2003.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Rawlins, et al.              Informational                     [Page 33]
+
+RFC 3571                 Framework Feedback PIB              August 2003
+
+
+9.  Authors' Addresses
+
+   Diana Rawlins
+   MCI
+   400 International Parkway
+   Richardson, Texas 75081
+
+   Phone: 972-729-4071
+   EMail: Diana.Rawlins@mci.com
+
+   Amol Kulkarni
+   JF3-206
+   2111 NE 25th Ave
+   Hillsboro, Oregon 97124
+
+   Phone: 503-712-1168
+   EMail: amol.kulkarni@intel.com
+
+   Kwok Ho Chan
+   Nortel Networks
+   600 Technology Park Drive
+   Billerica, MA 01821 USA
+
+   Phone: 978-288-8175
+   EMail: khchan@nortelnetworks.com
+
+   Martin Bokaemper
+   Juniper Networks
+   700 Silver Seven Road
+   Kanata, ON, K2V 1C3, Canada
+
+   Phone: 613-591-2735
+   EMail: mbokaemper@juniper.net
+
+   Dinesh G Dutt
+   Cisco Systems, Inc.
+   170 Tasman Dr.
+   San Jose, CA 95134-1706
+
+   Phone: 408-527-0955
+   EMail: ddutt@cisco.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Rawlins, et al.              Informational                     [Page 34]
+
+RFC 3571                 Framework Feedback PIB              August 2003
+
+
+10.  Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  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 assignees.
+
+   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.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Rawlins, et al.              Informational                     [Page 35]
+