summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc/rfc/rfc1189.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc1189.txt')
-rw-r--r--doc/rfc/rfc1189.txt843
1 files changed, 843 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc1189.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc1189.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ea8be00
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc1189.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,843 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Working Group U. Warrier
+Request for Comments: 1189 Netlabs
+Obsoletes: RFC 1095 L. Besaw
+ Hewlett-Packard
+ L. LaBarre
+ The Mitre Corporation
+ B. Handspicker
+ Digital Equipment Corporation
+ October 1990
+
+
+ The Common Management Information Services
+ and Protocols for the Internet
+ (CMOT and CMIP)
+
+Status of this Memo
+
+ This memo defines a network management architecture that uses the
+ International Organization for Standardization's (ISO) Common
+ Management Information Services/Common Management Information
+ Protocol (CMIS/CMIP) in the Internet. This RFC specifies an IAB
+ standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests
+ discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the
+ current edition of the "IAB Official Protocol Standards" for the
+ standardization state and status of this protocol.
+
+ Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
+
+Table of Contents
+
+ 1. Overview ................................................... 2
+ 2. Introduction ............................................... 3
+ 3. Protocol Overview .......................................... 4
+ 3.1. The CMOT Protocol Suite .................................. 5
+ 3.2. The CMIP Protocol Suite .................................. 6
+ 3.3. Conformance Requirements ................................. 6
+ 4. Common Management Information Service Element .............. 7
+ 4.1. Association Policies ..................................... 7
+ 4.2. CMIS Services ............................................ 9
+ 4.2.1 General Agreements on Users of CMIS ..................... 9
+ 4.2.2 Specific Agreements on Users of CMIS .................... 10
+ 4.3. CMIP Agreements .......................................... 10
+ 5. Services Required by CMIP .................................. 10
+ 6. Acknowledgements ........................................... 11
+ 7. References ................................................. 11
+ 8. Security Considerations..................................... 14
+ 9. Authors' Addresses.......................................... 14
+
+
+
+
+Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker [Page 1]
+
+RFC 1189 CMOT and CMIP October 1990
+
+
+1. Overview
+
+ This memo is a revision of RFC 1095 - "The Common Management
+ Information Services and Protocol over TCP/IP" [27]. It defines a
+ network management architecture that uses the International
+ Organization for Standardization's (ISO) Common Management
+ Information Services/Common Management Information Protocol
+ (CMIS/CMIP) in the Internet. This architecture provides a means by
+ which control and monitoring information can be exchanged between a
+ manager and a remote network element. In particular, this memo
+ defines the means for implementing the International Standard (IS)
+ version of CMIS/CMIP on top of both IP-based and OSI-based Internet
+ transport protocols for the purpose of carrying management
+ information defined in the Internet-standard management information
+ base. Together with the relevant ISO standards and the companion
+ RFCs that describe the initial structure of management information
+ and management information base, these documents provide the basis
+ for a comprehensive architecture and system for managing both IP-
+ based and OSI-based internets, and in particular the Internet.
+
+ In creating this revision of RFC 1095, the following technical and
+ editorial changes were made:
+
+ 1) The tutorial section on OSI Management included in RFC 1095
+ has been removed from this document. After some revisions,
+ the tutorial material may be published as another RFC.
+
+ 2) The sections in RFC 1095 which discussed the semantics of how
+ to interpret requests in the context of Internet MIBs has been
+ removed from this protocol document. This topic is now
+ discussed in the OIM-MIB-II draft document. This protocol
+ should be useable with MIB-I or MIB-II. But, it will also be
+ able to exploit the new features of the OIM-MIB-II.
+
+ 3) This document is based on the final International Standards
+ for CMIS/CMIP (ISO 9595/9596) rather than the Draft
+ International Standards.
+
+ 4) Many of the original agreements defined in RFC 1095 have been
+ accepted and included in the OIW NMSIG implementers agreements.
+ Rather than duplicating these agreements, they have been removed
+ from this memo. This document should be read in conjunction
+ with ISO 9595/9596 (CMIS/CMIP) and the OIW Stable Agreements
+ document.
+
+ 5) The Association Negotiation describe in RFC 1095 has been
+ changed to align with current international and national
+ agreements. But, it has retained backwards compatibility with
+
+
+
+Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker [Page 2]
+
+RFC 1189 CMOT and CMIP October 1990
+
+
+ the assignment of an Application Context Name which is identical
+ to the Application Context Name specified in RFC 1095.
+
+2. Introduction
+
+ This memo is the output of the OSI Internet Management Working Group
+ of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). As directed by the
+ Internet Activites Board (IAB) in RFC 1052, it addresses the need for
+ a long-term network management system based on ISO CMIS/CMIP. This
+ memo contains a set of protocol agreements for implementing a network
+ management system based on these ISO Management standards. Now that
+ CMIS/CMIP has been voted an International Standard (IS), it has
+ become a stable basis for product development. This profile
+ specifies how to apply CMIP to management of both IP-based and OSI-
+ based Internet networks. Network management using ISO CMIP to manage
+ IP-based networks will be refered to as "CMIP Over TCP/IP" (CMOT).
+ Network management using ISO CMIP to manage OSI-based networks will
+ be refered to as "CMIP". This memo specifies the protocol agreements
+ necessary to implement CMIP and accompanying ISO protocols over OSI,
+ TCP and UDP transport protocols.
+
+ This memo must be read in conjunction with ISO and Internet documents
+ defining specific protocol standards. Documents defining the
+ following ISO standards are required for the implementor: Abstract
+ Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) [5, 6], Association Control (ACSE) [7,
+ 8], Remote Operations (ROSE) [9, 10], Common Management Information
+ Services (CMIS) [11] and Common Management Information Protocol
+ (CMIP) [12] with their addenda [32-35]. The specification of a
+ lightweight presentation layer protocol is required for use with the
+ CMOT section of this profile (see RFC 1085 [13]). The SMI (see RFC
+ 1065 [2]), the MIB-I (see RFC 1066 [3]), the MIB-II (see RFC 1156
+ [28]), and the OIM-MIB-II (see [29]) are used with this management
+ system.
+
+ This memo is divided into sections for each of the protocols for
+ which implementors' agreements are needed: CMISE, ACSE, ROSE, and,
+ for CMOT, the lightweight presentation protocol. The protocol
+ profile defined in this memo draws on the technical work of the OSI
+ Network Management Forum [14] and the Network Management Special
+ Interest Group (NMSIG) of the National Institute of Standards and
+ Technology (NIST) (formerly the National Bureau of Standards) [30].
+ Wherever possible, an attempt has been made to either directly
+ reference or remain consistent with the protocol agreements reached
+ by these groups.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker [Page 3]
+
+RFC 1189 CMOT and CMIP October 1990
+
+
+3. Protocol Overview
+
+ This part of the document is a specification of the protocols of the
+ OIM architecture. Contained herein are the agreements required to
+ implement interoperable network management systems using these
+ protocols. The protocol suite defined by these implementors'
+ agreements will facilitate communication between equipment of
+ different vendors, suppliers, and networks. This will allow the
+ emergence of powerful multivendor network management based on ISO
+ models and protocols.
+
+ The choice of a set of protocol standards together with further
+ agreements needed to implement those standards is commonly referred
+ to as a "profile." The selection policy for this profile is to use
+ existing standards from the international standards community (ISO
+ and CCITT) and the Internet community. Existing ISO standards and
+ draft standards in the area of OSI network management form the basis
+ of this profile. Other ISO application layer standards (ROSE and
+ ACSE) are used to support the ISO management protocol (CMIP). To
+ ensure interoperability, certain choices and restrictions are made
+ here concerning various options and parameters provided by these
+ standards. Internet standards are used to provide the underlying
+ network transport. These agreements provide a precise statement of
+ the implementation choices made for implementing ISO network
+ management standards in IP-based and OSI-based internets.
+
+ In addition to the OIM working group, there are at least two other
+ bodies actively engaged in defining profiles for interoperable OSI
+ network management: the OSI Implementors Workshop (OIW) and the OSI
+ Network Management Forum. Both of these groups are similar to the
+ OIM working group in that they are each defining profiles for using
+ ISO standards for network management. Both differ in that they are
+ specifying the use only of underlying ISO protocols, while the OIM
+ working group is concerned with using OSI management in both OSI and
+ TCP/IP networks. In the interest of greater future compatibility,
+ the OIM working group has attempted to make this profile conform as
+ closely as possible to the ongoing work of these two bodies.
+
+ This section will describe the CMOT Protocol Suite, the CMIP Protocol
+ Suite and Conformance Requirements common to both CMOT and CMIP.
+ Later sections will specify the implementers agreements for specific
+ layer protocols that comprise the CMOT and CMIP Protocol Suites.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker [Page 4]
+
+RFC 1189 CMOT and CMIP October 1990
+
+
+3.1. The CMOT Protocol Suite
+
+ The following seven protocols compose the CMOT protocol suite: ISO
+ ACSE, ISO DIS ROSE, ISO CMIP, the lightweight presentation protocol
+ (LPP), UDP, TCP, and IP. The relation of these protocols to each
+ other is briefly summarized in Figure 2.
+
+ +----------------------------------------------+
+ Management Application Processes
+ +----------------------------------------------+
+
+ +-------------------+
+ CMISE
+ ISO 9595/9596
+ +-------------------+
+
+ +------------------+ +--------------------+
+ ACSE ROSE
+ ISO IS 8649/8650 ISO DIS 9072-1/2
+ +------------------+ +--------------------+
+
+ +-----------------------------------------------+
+ Lightweight Presentation Protocol (LPP)
+ RFC 1085
+ +-----------------------------------------------+
+
+ +------------------+ +--------------------+
+ TCP UDP
+ RFC 793 RFC 768
+ +------------------+ +--------------------+
+
+ +-----------------------------------------------+
+ IP
+ RFC 791
+ +-----------------------------------------------+
+
+ Figure 2. The CMOT Protocol Suite
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker [Page 5]
+
+RFC 1189 CMOT and CMIP October 1990
+
+
+3.2. The CMIP Protocol Suite
+
+ The following six protocols compose the CMIP protocol suite: ISO
+ ACSE, ISO DIS ROSE, ISO CMIP, ISO Presentation, ISO Session and ISO
+ Transport. The relation of these protocols to each other is briefly
+ summarized in Figure 3.
+
+ +----------------------------------------------+
+ Management Application Processes
+ +----------------------------------------------+
+
+ +-------------------+
+ CMISE
+ ISO 9595/9596
+ +-------------------+
+
+ +------------------+ +--------------------+
+ ACSE ROSE
+ ISO 8649/8650 ISO DIS 9072-1/2
+ +------------------+ +--------------------+
+
+ +-----------------------------------------------+
+ ISO Presentation
+ ISO
+ +-----------------------------------------------+
+
+ +-----------------------------------------------+
+ ISO Session
+ ISO
+ +-----------------------------------------------+
+
+ +-----------------------------------------------+
+ ISO Transport
+ ISO
+ +-----------------------------------------------+
+
+ Figure 3. The CMIP Protocol Suite
+
+3.3. Conformance Requirements
+
+ A CMOT-conformant system must implement the following protocols:
+ ACSE, ROSE, CMIP, LPP, and IP. A CMOT-conformant system must support
+ the use of the LPP over either UDP or TCP. The use of the LPP over
+ both UDP and TCP on the same system may be supported.
+
+ A CMIP-conformant system must implement the following protocols:
+ ACSE, ROSE, CMIP, ISO Presentation, ISO Session and ISO Transport.
+
+
+
+
+Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker [Page 6]
+
+RFC 1189 CMOT and CMIP October 1990
+
+
+4. Common Management Information Service Element
+
+ The Common Management Information Service Element (CMISE) is
+ specified in two ISO documents. The service definition for the
+ Common Management Information Service (CMIS) is given in ISO 9595
+ [11]. The protocol specification for the Common Management
+ Information Protocol (CMIP) is found in ISO 9596 [12]. In addition,
+ the addenda for add/remove support in M-SET [32, 34] must be
+ supported for both CMOT and CMIP. The addenda for M-CANCEL-GET [33,
+ 35] may be supported by an implementation, but it's use is negotiated
+ as part of association negotiation.
+
+4.1. Association Policies
+
+ The following ACSE services are required by CMISE: A-ASSOCIATE, A-
+ RELEASE, A-ABORT, and A-P-ABORT. The rest of the CMIP protocol uses
+ the RO-INVOKE, RO-RESULT, RO-ERROR, and RO-REJECT services of ROSE.
+
+ There are four types of association that may be negotiated between
+ managing and managed systems. These types are:
+
+ Event M-EVENT-REPORTs may be sent by the
+ managed system; no other CMIP PDUs
+ are allowed
+
+ Event/Monitor same as Event type except that, in
+ addition, the managing system may
+ also issue M-GET requests and
+ receive M-GET responses over the
+ association
+
+ Monitor/Control managing system may issue M-GET,
+ M-SET, M-CREATE, M-DELETE and
+ M-ACTION requests over the
+ association; no event reporting is
+ allowed
+
+ Full Mgr/Agent all functions must be supported
+
+ A conformant system must support at least one of these Association
+ types. Note that a system may play both managing and managed system
+ roles, but not on the same association.
+
+ The negotiation process uses the A-ASSOCIATE and A-RELEASE services.
+ Application Context Name is used to determine the requestor's "role"
+ in an association (as managing or managed system) and to determine
+ the type of the association.
+
+
+
+
+Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker [Page 7]
+
+RFC 1189 CMOT and CMIP October 1990
+
+
+ The following values for Application Context Name are registered for
+ for CMOT and CMIP:
+
+ {iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6)
+ internet(1) mgmt(2) mib(1) oim(9) acn(1)
+ cmot1095(1)}
+ (for backwards compatible negotiation with RFC 1095 CMOT
+ implementations)
+
+ {iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6)
+ internet(1) mgmt(2) mib(1) oim(9) acn(1)
+ manager-event-association(2)}
+
+ {iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6)
+ internet(1) mgmt(2) mib(1) oim(9) acn(1)
+ manager-event-monitor-association(3)}
+
+ {iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6)
+ internet(1) mgmt(2) mib(1) oim(9) acn(1)
+ manager-monitor-control-association(4)}
+
+ {iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6)
+ internet(1) mgmt(2) mib(1) oim(9) acn(1)
+ manager-full-association(5)}
+
+ {iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6)
+ internet(1) mgmt(2) mib(1) oim(9) acn(1)
+ agent-event-association(6)}
+
+ The following negotiation rules are to be used:
+
+ 1. A managed system may only request an Event
+ association and, in fact, must create an Event
+ association if it has an event to report and no
+ suitable association already exists.
+
+ 2. Managing systems may request any association type.
+
+ 3. An association is created by the requesting system
+ issuing an A-ASSOCIATE request with the
+ requestor's AE-TITLE and the desired application
+ context. The responding system then returns
+ either 1) an A-ASSOCIATE response with the
+ requestor's AE-TITLE and the application context
+ which it wishes to accept or 2) an A-ASSOCIATE
+ response rejecting the association.
+
+
+
+
+
+Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker [Page 8]
+
+RFC 1189 CMOT and CMIP October 1990
+
+
+ 4. Managed systems may negotiate "downward" from
+ Full to Monitor/Control, Event/Monitor or Event by
+ returning the new application context in the
+ A-ASSOCIATE response to the managing system during
+ the association creation process. In the same
+ fashion, managed systems may negotiate from
+ Event/Monitor to Event.
+
+ 5. When a managing system receives an application
+ context in an A-ASSOCIATE response that differs
+ from the context sent in an A-ASSOCIATE request it
+ may either proceed with the new context or refuse
+ the new context by issuing an A-RELEASE request.
+
+ A-RELEASE is used when the requestor does not agree with the new
+ context. A-ABORT is used for invalid negotiation. If A-ABORT were
+ to be used to terminate an association, there exists the potential
+ for loss of information, such as pending events or confirmations.
+ A-ABORT must be used, however, when a protocol violation occurs or
+ where an association is not yet established.
+
+4.2. CMIS Services
+
+4.2.1 General Agreements on Users of CMIS
+
+ The general agreements on users of CMIS shall be as specified in the
+ OIW Stable Agreements [30] section 18.6.2.
+
+ The following additional agreements are specified.
+
+ o A system need only implement the services and service
+ primitives required for the association types (section 4.1)
+ that it supports.
+
+ o Current/Event times shall be fields shall use 1 millisecond
+ granularity. If the system generating the PDU does not have
+ the current time, yet does have the time since last boot, then
+ GeneralizedTime can be used to encode this information. The
+ time since last boot will be added to the base time "0001
+ Jan 1 00:00:00.00" using the Gregorian calendar algorithm.
+ (In the Gregorian calendar, all years have 365 days except
+ those divisible by 4 and not by 400, which have 366.) The use
+ of the year 1 as the base year will prevent any confusion
+ with current time.
+
+ If no meaningful time is available, then the year 0 shall be
+ used in GeneralizedTime to indicate this fact.
+
+
+
+
+Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker [Page 9]
+
+RFC 1189 CMOT and CMIP October 1990
+
+
+4.2.2 Specific Agreements on Users of CMIS
+
+ The specific agreements on users of CMIS shall be as specified in the
+ OIW Stable Agreements [30] section 18.6.3.
+
+ The following additional agreements are specified:
+
+ o Event time shall be mandatory for all events.
+
+ o Both the "managed Object Class" and "managed Object
+ Instance" parameters must be present in the following CMIS
+ Service Response/Confirmation primitives: the
+ M-EVENT-REPORT Confirmed, the M-GET, the M-SET, the
+ M-ACTION, the M-CREATE, and the M-DELETE.
+
+4.3. CMIP Agreements
+
+ The CMIS and CMIP implementers agreements documented in the OIW
+ Stable Implementers Agreements [30] plus those mandated by the CMIP
+ standard will be used for both CMOT and CMIP. In addition to these
+ implementers agreements, the following specific agreements must be
+ observed:
+
+ o An implementation is required to support all filter items
+ except subsetOf, supersetOf, nonNullSetIntersection, and
+ substrings.
+
+ o The "managedObjectInstance" field must be present in the
+ ProcessingFailure Error PDU. The "managedObjectClass"
+ field must be present in the NoSuchArgument Error PDU.
+
+
+ [Temporary Note: The CMIS/P implementers agreements have reach a
+ fairly stable status in the OIW working agreements document. It is
+ expected that the CMIS/P agreements (18.6.2 and 18.6.3) will be
+ recommended to be moved into the stable agreements document during
+ either the June 1990 meetings. Reference [30] points to the presumed
+ June 1990 updated version of the stable agreements document.]
+
+5. Services Required by CMIP
+
+ The services required by CMIP shall be as specified in the OIW Stable
+ Implementors Agreements [30] section 18.6.5.
+
+ The following additional agreements are specified:
+
+ o ASCE Requirements: Application contexts shall be as defined
+ in section 4.1 of these agreements. The values and defaults
+
+
+
+Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker [Page 10]
+
+RFC 1189 CMOT and CMIP October 1990
+
+
+ of parameters to the ACSE parameters given to the presentation
+ service are specified in RFC 1085 [13] for CMOT and in the NIST
+ Stable Implementers Agreements [30] for CMIP.
+
+ o Presentation Requirements: CMOT implementations shall be
+ supported by the Lightweight Presentation Protocol (LPP)
+ [13]. The LPP may use either TCP or UDP. When UDP is used,
+ an implementation need not accept LPP PDUs whose length
+ exceeds 484 octets.
+
+ o Session Requirements: CMOT implementations will not
+ require the session protocol.
+
+6. Acknowledgements
+
+ This RFC is the result of the work of many people. The following
+ members of the IETF OSI Internet Management and preceding Netman
+ working groups made important contributions:
+
+ Amatzia Ben-Artzi, Synoptics
+ Asheem Chandna, AT&T Bell Laboratories
+ Ken Chapman, Digital Equipment Corporation
+ Anthony Chung, Sytek
+ George Cohn, Ungermann-Bass
+ Gabriele Cressman, Sun Microsystems
+ Tom Halcin, Hewlett-Packard
+ Pranati Kapadia, Hewlett-Packard
+ Lee LaBarre, The MITRE Corporation (co-chair)
+ Dave Mackie, 3Com
+ Keith McCloghrie, Hughes/InterLan
+ Jim Robertson, 3Com
+ Milt Roselinsky, CMC
+ Marshall Rose, PSI
+ John Scott, Data General
+ Lou Steinberg, IBM
+
+7. References
+
+ [1] Cerf, V., "IAB Recommendations for the Development of Internet
+ Network Management Standards", RFC 1052, IAB, April 1988.
+
+ [2] Rose, M., and K. McCloghrie, "Structure and Identification of
+ Management Information for TCP/IP-based internets", RFC 1065,
+ TWG, August 1988.
+
+ [3] McCloghrie, K., and M. Rose, "Management Information Base for
+ Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets", RFC 1066, TWG,
+ August 1988.
+
+
+
+Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker [Page 11]
+
+RFC 1189 CMOT and CMIP October 1990
+
+
+ [4] Case, J., M. Fedor, M. Schoffstall, and J. Davin, "A Simple
+ Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 1098, (Obsoletes RFC
+ 1067), University of Tennessee at Knoxville, NYSERNet, Inc.,
+ Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, MIT Laboratory for Computer
+ Science, April 1989.
+
+ [5] ISO 8824: "Information Processing Systems - Open Systems
+ Interconnection, Specification of Abstract Syntax Notation One
+ (ASN.1)", Geneva, March 1988.
+
+ [6] ISO 8825: "Information Processing Systems - Open Systems
+ Interconnection, Specification of Basic Encoding Rules for
+ Abstract Notation One (ASN.1)", Geneva, March 1988.
+
+ [7] ISO 8649: "Information Processing Systems - Open Systems
+ Interconnection, Service Definition for Association Control
+ Service Element".
+
+ [8] ISO 8650: "Information Processing Systems - Open Systems
+ Interconnection, Protocol Specification for Association Control
+ Service Element".
+
+ [9] CCITT Recommendation X.219, Working Document for ISO 9072-1:
+ "Information processing systems - Text Communication, Remote
+ Operations: Model, Notation and Service Definition", Gloucester,
+ November 1987.
+
+ [10] CCITT Recommendation X.229, Working Document for ISO 9072-2:
+ "Information processing systems - Text Communication, Remote
+ Operations: Protocol Specification", Gloucester, November 1987.
+
+ [11] ISO 9595: "Information Processing Systems - Open Systems
+ Interconnection, Management Information Service Definition - Part
+ 2: Common Management Information Service", 22 December 1988.
+
+ [12] ISO 9596: "Information Processing Systems - Open Systems
+ Interconnection, Management Information Protocol Specification -
+ Part 2: Common Management Information Protocol", 22 December
+ 1988.
+
+ [13] Rose, M., "ISO Presentation Services on top of TCP/IP-based
+ internets", RFC 1085, TWG, December 1988.
+
+ [14] OSI Network Management Forum, "Forum Interoperable Interface
+ Protocols", September 1988.
+
+ [15] ISO DIS 7498-4: "Information Processing Systems - Open Systems
+ Interconnection, Basic Reference Model - Part 4: OSI Management
+
+
+
+Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker [Page 12]
+
+RFC 1189 CMOT and CMIP October 1990
+
+
+ Framework".
+
+ [16] ISO/IEC JTC1/SC21/WG4 N571: "Information Processing Systems -
+ Open Systems Interconnection, Systems Management: Overview",
+ London, July 1988.
+
+ [17] Klerer, S. Mark, "The OSI Management Architecture: An Overview",
+ IEEE Network Magazine, March 1988.
+
+ [18] Ben-Artzi, A., "Network Management for TCP/IP Networks: An
+ Overview", Internet Engineering Task Force working note, April
+ 1988.
+
+ [19] ISO/IEC JTC1/SC21/WG4 N3324: "Information Processing Pystems -
+ Open Systems Interconnection, Management Information Services -
+ Structure of Management Information - Part I: Management
+ Information Model", Sydney, December 1988.
+
+ [20] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", RFC 768, USC/Information
+ Sciences Institute, August 1980.
+
+ [21] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", RFC 793,
+ USC/Information Sciences Institute, September 1981.
+
+ [22] ISO DP 9534: "Information processing systems - Open Systems
+ Interconnection, Application Layer Structure", 10 March 1987.
+
+ [23] Rose, M., and D. Cass, "ISO Transport Services on top of the TCP,
+ Version: 3", RFC 1006, Northrop Research and Technology Center,
+ May 1987.
+
+ [24] ISO 8822: "Information Processing Systems - Open Systems
+ Interconnection, Connection Oriented Presentation Service
+ Definition", June 1987.
+
+ [25] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", RFC 791, USC/Information
+ Sciences Institute, September 1981.
+
+ [26] CCITT Draft Recommendation X.500, ISO 9594/1-8: "The Directory",
+ Geneva, March 1988.
+
+ [27] Warrier, U. and L. Besaw, "The Common Management Information
+ Services and Protocol over TCP/IP (CMOT)", RFC 1095, Unisys
+ Corporation, Hewlett-Packard, April 1989.
+
+ [28] McCloghrie, K., and M. Rose, "Management Information Base for
+ Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets", RFC 1156, Hughes
+ LAN Systems, Performance Systems International, May 1990.
+
+
+
+Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker [Page 13]
+
+RFC 1189 CMOT and CMIP October 1990
+
+
+ [29] LaBarre, L., "OIM MIB-II", working note, December 1989.
+
+ [30] NIST NMSIG, "NIST Stable Implementers Agreements", NIST Special
+ Publication 500-162, as ammended by June 1990.
+
+ [31] NIST NMSIG, "NIST Working Implementers Agreements", December
+ 1989.
+
+ [32] ISO IS 9595 1989: DAD1: "CMIS Add/Remove Addendum".
+
+ [33] ISO IS 9595 1989: DAD2: "CMIS Cancel-Get Addendum".
+
+ [34] ISO IS 9596 1989: DAD1: "CMIP Add/Remove Addendum".
+
+ [35] ISO IS 9596 1989: DAD2: "CMIP Cancel-Get Addendum".
+
+8. Security Considerations
+
+ Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
+
+9. Authors' Addresses
+
+ Unnikrishnan S. Warrier
+ NetLabs
+ 11693 San Vicente Blvd
+ Suite 348
+ Los Angeles, CA 90049
+
+ Phone: (213) 476-4070
+ Email: unni@netlabs.com
+
+
+ Larry Besaw
+ Hewlett-Packard
+ 3404 East Harmony Road
+ Fort Collins, CO 80525
+
+ Phone: (303) 229-6022
+ Email: lmb%hpcndaw@hplabs.hp.com
+
+
+ Lee LaBarre
+ Mitre
+ Burlington Road
+ Bedford, MA 01730
+
+ Phone: (617) 271-8507
+ Email: cel@mbunix.mitre.org
+
+
+
+Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker [Page 14]
+
+RFC 1189 CMOT and CMIP October 1990
+
+
+ Brian D. Handspicker
+ Digital Equipment Corporation
+ 550 King St.
+ Littleton, Ma. 01460
+
+ Phone: (508) 486-7894
+ Email: bd@vines.enet.dec.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker [Page 15]
+ \ No newline at end of file