summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc/rfc/rfc5131.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc5131.txt')
-rw-r--r--doc/rfc/rfc5131.txt339
1 files changed, 339 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc5131.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc5131.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8a71362
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc5131.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,339 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group D. McWalter, Ed.
+Request for Comments: 5131 Data Connection Ltd
+Category: Standards Track December 2007
+
+
+ A MIB Textual Convention for Language Tags
+
+Status of This Memo
+
+ This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
+ Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
+ improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
+ Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
+ and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
+
+Abstract
+
+ This MIB module defines a textual convention to represent BCP 47
+ language tags. The intent is that this textual convention will be
+ imported and used in MIB modules that would otherwise define their
+ own representation.
+
+Table of Contents
+
+ 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
+ 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
+ 3. The Internet-Standard Management Framework . . . . . . . . . . 2
+ 4. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
+ 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
+ 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
+ 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
+ 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
+ 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
+ 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+McWalter Standards Track [Page 1]
+
+RFC 5131 LANGTAG TC MIB December 2007
+
+
+1. Introduction
+
+ This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)
+ for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.
+ It defines a textual convention to represent BCP 47 [RFC4646]
+ language tags.
+
+ The LangTag TEXTUAL-CONVENTION defined by this RFC replaces the
+ similar LanguageTag TEXTUAL-CONVENTION defined by RFC 2932 [RFC2932].
+
+ The old LanguageTag TEXTUAL-CONVENTION is used by some existing MIB
+ modules. New MIB modules should use the LangTag TEXTUAL-CONVENTION,
+ which has been created (and is to be preferred) for the following
+ reasons:
+
+ o Its syntax description is current, and is more comprehensive.
+
+ o It is short enough to use as an index object without subtyping,
+ yet is of adequate length to represent any language tag in
+ practice.
+
+ o It is provided in a dedicated MIB module to simplify module
+ dependencies.
+
+ It is not possible to apply changes in syntax and length to an
+ existing textual convention. This is why the creation of a new
+ textual convention with a new name was necessary.
+
+2. Terminology
+
+ 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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
+
+3. The Internet-Standard Management Framework
+
+ For a detailed overview of the documents that describe the current
+ Internet-Standard Management Framework, please refer to section 7 of
+ RFC 3410 [RFC3410].
+
+ Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed
+ the Management Information Base or MIB. MIB objects are generally
+ accessed through the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP).
+ Objects in the MIB are defined using the mechanisms defined in the
+ Structure of Management Information (SMI). This memo specifies a MIB
+ module that is compliant to the SMIv2, which is described in STD 58,
+ RFC 2578 [RFC2578], STD 58, RFC 2579 [RFC2579] and STD 58, RFC 2580
+ [RFC2580].
+
+
+
+McWalter Standards Track [Page 2]
+
+RFC 5131 LANGTAG TC MIB December 2007
+
+
+4. Definitions
+
+LANGTAG-TC-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
+
+IMPORTS
+ MODULE-IDENTITY, mib-2 FROM SNMPv2-SMI -- [RFC2578]
+ TEXTUAL-CONVENTION FROM SNMPv2-TC; -- [RFC2579]
+
+langTagTcMIB MODULE-IDENTITY
+ LAST-UPDATED "200711090000Z" -- 9 November 2007
+ ORGANIZATION "IETF Operations and Management (OPS) Area"
+ CONTACT-INFO "EMail: ops-area@ietf.org
+ Home page: http://www.ops.ietf.org/"
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "This MIB module defines a textual convention for
+ representing BCP 47 language tags."
+ REVISION "200711090000Z" -- 9 November 2007
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "Initial revision, published as RFC 5131.
+
+ Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). This version of this
+ MIB module is part of RFC 5131; see the RFC itself for full
+ legal notices."
+ ::= { mib-2 165 }
+
+LangTag ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
+ DISPLAY-HINT "1a"
+ STATUS current
+ DESCRIPTION
+ "A language tag, constructed in accordance with BCP 47.
+
+ Only lowercase characters are allowed. The purpose of this
+ restriction is to provide unique language tags for use as
+ indexes. BCP 47 recommends case conventions for user
+ interfaces, but objects using this TEXTUAL-CONVENTION MUST
+ use only lowercase.
+
+ Values MUST be well-formed language tags, in conformance
+ with the definition of well-formed tags in BCP 47. An
+ implementation MAY further limit the values it accepts to
+ those permitted by a 'validating' processor, as defined in
+ BCP 47.
+
+ In theory, BCP 47 language tags are of unlimited length.
+ The language tag described in this TEXTUAL-CONVENTION is of
+ limited length. The analysis of language tag lengths in BCP
+ 47 confirms that this limit will not pose a problem in
+ practice. In particular, this length is greater than the
+
+
+
+McWalter Standards Track [Page 3]
+
+RFC 5131 LANGTAG TC MIB December 2007
+
+
+ minimum requirements set out in Section 4.3.1.
+
+ A zero-length language tag is not a valid language tag.
+ This can be used to express 'language tag absent' where
+ required, for example, when used as an index field."
+ REFERENCE "RFC 4646 BCP 47"
+ SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (0 | 2..63))
+
+END
+
+5. Security Considerations
+
+ This MIB module does not define any management objects. Instead, it
+ defines a textual convention that may be imported by other MIB
+ modules and used for object definitions.
+
+ Meaningful security considerations can only be written in the MIB
+ modules that define management objects. This document therefore has
+ no impact on the security of the Internet.
+
+6. IANA Considerations
+
+ LANGTAG-TC-MIB is rooted under the mib-2 subtree. IANA has assigned
+ { mib-2 165 } to the LANGTAG-TC-MIB module specified in this
+ document.
+
+7. Acknowledgements
+
+ This MIB module is a reworking of existing material from RFC 2932.
+
+ This module was generated by editing together contributions from
+ Randy Presuhn, Dan Romascanu, Bill Fenner, Juergen Schoenwaelder,
+ Bert Wijnen, Doug Ewell, and Ira McDonald.
+
+8. References
+
+8.1. Normative References
+
+ [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+ Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+ [RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J.
+ Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Structure of Management Information
+ Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578, April 1999.
+
+ [RFC2579] McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J.
+ Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Textual Conventions for SMIv2",
+ STD 58, RFC 2579, April 1999.
+
+
+
+McWalter Standards Track [Page 4]
+
+RFC 5131 LANGTAG TC MIB December 2007
+
+
+ [RFC2580] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., and J. Schoenwaelder,
+ "Conformance Statements for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580,
+ April 1999.
+
+ [RFC4646] Phillips, A. and M. Davis, "Tags for Identifying
+ Languages", BCP 47, RFC 4646, September 2006.
+
+8.2. Informative References
+
+ [RFC2932] McCloghrie, K., Farinacci, D., and D. Thaler, "IPv4
+ Multicast Routing MIB", RFC 2932, October 2000.
+
+ [RFC3410] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart,
+ "Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet-
+ Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410, December 2002.
+
+Author's Address
+
+ David McWalter (editor)
+ Data Connection Ltd
+ 100 Church Street
+ Enfield EN2 6BQ
+ United Kingdom
+
+ EMail: dmcw@dataconnection.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+McWalter Standards Track [Page 5]
+
+RFC 5131 LANGTAG TC MIB December 2007
+
+
+Full Copyright Statement
+
+ Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
+
+ This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
+ contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
+ retain all their rights.
+
+ This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
+ "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
+ OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
+ THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.
+
+Intellectual Property
+
+ The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
+ Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
+ pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
+ this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
+ might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
+ made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
+ on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
+ found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
+
+ Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
+ assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
+ attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
+ such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
+ specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
+ http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
+
+ The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
+ copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
+ rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
+ this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
+ ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+McWalter Standards Track [Page 6]
+