path: root/doc/rfc/rfc3410.txt

Network Working Group                                            J. Case
Request for Comments: 3410                           SNMP Research, Inc.
Obsoletes: 2570                                                 R. Mundy
Category: Informational                  Network Associates Laboratories
                                                              D. Partain
                                                                Ericsson
                                                              B. Stewart
                                                                 Retired
                                                           December 2002


             Introduction and Applicability Statements for
                 Internet Standard Management Framework

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 (2002).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   The purpose of this document is to provide an overview of the third
   version of the Internet-Standard Management Framework, termed the
   SNMP version 3 Framework (SNMPv3).  This Framework is derived from
   and builds upon both the original Internet-Standard Management
   Framework (SNMPv1) and the second Internet-Standard Management
   Framework (SNMPv2).

   The architecture is designed to be modular to allow the evolution of
   the Framework over time.

   The document explains why using SNMPv3 instead of SNMPv1 or SNMPv2 is
   strongly recommended.  The document also recommends that RFCs 1157,
   1441, 1901, 1909 and 1910 be retired by moving them to Historic
   status.  This document obsoletes RFC 2570.











Case, et. al.                Informational                      [Page 1]
^L
RFC 3410           Applicability Statements for SNMP       December 2002


Table of Contents

   1 Introduction .................................................    2
   2 The Internet Standard Management Framework ...................    3
   2.1 Basic Structure and Components .............................    4
   2.2 Architecture of the Internet Standard Management Framework .    4
   3 The SNMPv1 Management Framework ..............................    5
   3.1 The SNMPv1 Data Definition Language ........................    6
   3.2 Management Information .....................................    6
   3.3 Protocol Operations ........................................    7
   3.4 SNMPv1 Security and Administration .........................    7
   4 The SNMPv2 Management Framework ..............................    8
   5 The SNMPv3 Working Group .....................................    8
   6 SNMPv3 Framework Module Specifications .......................   10
   6.1 Data Definition Language ...................................   11
   6.2 MIB Modules ................................................   12
   6.3 Protocol Operations and Transport Mappings .................   13
   6.4 SNMPv3 Security and Administration .........................   13
   7 Document Summaries ...........................................   14
   7.1 Structure of Management Information ........................   14
   7.1.1 Base SMI Specification ...................................   15
   7.1.2 Textual Conventions ......................................   15
   7.1.3 Conformance Statements ...................................   16
   7.2 Protocol Operations ........................................   16
   7.3 Transport Mappings .........................................   16
   7.4 Protocol Instrumentation ...................................   17
   7.5 Architecture / Security and Administration .................   17
   7.6 Message Processing and Dispatch (MPD) ......................   17
   7.7 SNMP Applications ..........................................   18
   7.8 User-based Security Model (USM) ............................   18
   7.9 View-based Access Control (VACM) ...........................   19
   7.10 SNMPv3 Coexistence and Transition .........................   19
   8 Standardization Status .......................................   20
   8.1 SMIv1 Status ...............................................   20
   8.2 SNMPv1 and SNMPv2 Standardization Status ...................   21
   8.3 Working Group Recommendation ...............................   22
   9 Security Considerations ......................................   22
   10 References ..................................................   22
   11 Editor's Addresses ..........................................   26
   12 Full Copyright Statement ....................................   27

1.  Introduction

   This document is an introduction to the third version of the
   Internet-Standard Management Framework, termed the SNMP version 3
   Management Framework (SNMPv3) and has multiple purposes.





Case, et. al.                Informational                      [Page 2]
^L
RFC 3410           Applicability Statements for SNMP       December 2002


   First, it describes the relationship between the SNMP version 3
   (SNMPv3) specifications and the specifications of the SNMP version 1
   (SNMPv1) Management Framework, the SNMP version 2 (SNMPv2) Management
   Framework, and the Community-based Administrative Framework for
   SNMPv2.

   Second, it provides a roadmap to the multiple documents which contain
   the relevant specifications.

   Third, this document provides a brief easy-to-read summary of the
   contents of each of the relevant specification documents.

   This document is intentionally tutorial in nature and, as such, may
   occasionally be "guilty" of oversimplification.  In the event of a
   conflict or contradiction between this document and the more detailed
   documents for which this document is a roadmap, the specifications in
   the more detailed documents shall prevail.

   Further, the detailed documents attempt to maintain separation
   between the various component modules in order to specify well-
   defined interfaces between them.  This roadmap document, however,
   takes a different approach and attempts to provide an integrated view
   of the various component modules in the interest of readability.

   This document is a work product of the SNMPv3 Working Group of the
   Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).

   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 BCP 14, RFC 2119 [1].

2.  The Internet Standard Management Framework

   The third version of the Internet Standard Management Framework (the
   SNMPv3 Framework) is derived from and builds upon both the original
   Internet-Standard Management Framework (SNMPv1) and the second
   Internet-Standard Management Framework (SNMPv2).

   All versions (SNMPv1, SNMPv2, and SNMPv3) of the Internet Standard
   Management SNMP Framework share the same basic structure and
   components.  Furthermore, all versions of the specifications of the
   Internet Standard Management Framework follow the same architecture.









Case, et. al.                Informational                      [Page 3]
^L
RFC 3410           Applicability Statements for SNMP       December 2002


2.1.  Basic Structure and Components

   An enterprise deploying the Internet Standard Management Framework
   contains four basic components:

   *  several (typically many) managed nodes, each with an SNMP entity
      which provides remote access to management instrumentation
      (traditionally called an agent);

   *  at least one SNMP entity with management applications (typically
      called a manager),

   *  a management protocol used to convey management information
      between the SNMP entities, and

   *  management information.

   The management protocol is used to convey management information
   between SNMP entities such as managers and agents.

   This basic structure is common to all versions of the Internet
   Standard Management Framework; i.e., SNMPv1, SNMPv2, and SNMPv3.

2.2.  Architecture of the Internet Standard Management Framework

   The specifications of the Internet Standard Management Framework are
   based on a modular architecture.  This framework is more than just a
   protocol for moving data.  It consists of:

   *  a data definition language,

   *  definitions of management information (the Management Information
      Base, or MIB),

   *  a protocol definition, and

   *  security and administration.

   Over time, as the Framework has evolved from SNMPv1, through SNMPv2,
   to SNMPv3, the definitions of each of these architectural components
   have become richer and more clearly defined, but the fundamental
   architecture has remained consistent.

   One prime motivator for this modularity was to enable the ongoing
   evolution of the Framework, as is documented in RFC 1052 [2].  When
   originally envisioned, this capability was to be used to ease the
   transition from SNMP-based management of internets to management
   based on OSI protocols.  To this end, the framework was architected



Case, et. al.                Informational                      [Page 4]
^L
RFC 3410           Applicability Statements for SNMP       December 2002


   with a protocol-independent data definition language and Management
   Information Base along with a MIB-independent protocol.  This
   separation was designed to allow the SNMP-based protocol to be
   replaced without requiring the management information to be redefined
   or reinstrumented.  History has shown that the selection of this
   architecture was the right decision for the wrong reason -- it turned
   out that this architecture has eased the transition from SNMPv1 to
   SNMPv2 and from SNMPv2 to SNMPv3 rather than easing the transition
   away from management based on the Simple Network Management Protocol.

   The SNMPv3 Framework builds and extends these architectural
   principles by:

   *  building on these four basic architectural components, in some
      cases incorporating them from the SNMPv2 Framework by reference,
      and

   *  by using these same layering principles in the definition of new
      capabilities in the security and administration portion of the
      architecture.

   Those who are familiar with the architecture of the SNMPv1 Management
   Framework and the SNMPv2 Management Framework will find many familiar
   concepts in the architecture of the SNMPv3 Management Framework.
   However, in some cases, the terminology may be somewhat different.

3.  The SNMPv1 Management Framework

   The original Internet-Standard Network Management Framework (SNMPv1)
   is defined in the following documents:

   *  STD 16, RFC 1155 [3] which defines the Structure of Management
      Information (SMI), the mechanisms used for describing and naming
      objects for the purpose of management.

   *  STD 16, RFC 1212 [4] which defines a more concise description
      mechanism for describing and naming management information
      objects, but which is wholly consistent with the SMI.

   *  STD 15, RFC 1157 [5] which defines the Simple Network Management
      Protocol (SNMP), the protocol used for network access to managed
      objects and event notification.  Note this document also defines
      an initial set of event notifications.








Case, et. al.                Informational                      [Page 5]
^L
RFC 3410           Applicability Statements for SNMP       December 2002


   Additionally, two documents are generally considered companions to
   these three:

   *  STD 17, RFC 1213 [6] which contains definitions for the base set
      of management information

   *  RFC 1215 [7] defines a concise description mechanism for defining
      event notifications, which are called traps in the SNMPv1
      protocol.  It also specifies the generic traps from RFC 1157 in
      the concise notation.

   These documents describe the four parts of the first version of the
   SNMP Framework.

3.1.  The SNMPv1 Data Definition Language

   The first two and the last document, i.e., RFCs 1155, 1212, and 1215,
   describe the SNMPv1 data definition language and are often
   collectively referred to as "SMIv1".  Note that due to the initial
   requirement that the SMI be protocol-independent, the first two SMI
   documents do not provide a means for defining event notifications
   (traps).  Instead, the SNMP protocol document defines a few
   standardized event notifications (generic traps) and provides a means
   for additional event notifications to be defined.  The last document
   specifies a straight-forward approach towards defining event
   notifications used with the SNMPv1 protocol.  At the time that it was
   written, use of traps in the Internet-Standard network management
   framework was controversial.  As such, RFC 1215 was put forward with
   the status of "Informational", which was never updated because it was
   believed that the second version of the SNMP Framework would replace
   the first version.

3.2.  Management Information

   The data definition language described in the first two documents was
   first used to define the now-historic MIB-I as specified in RFC 1066
   [8], and was subsequently used to define MIB-II as specified in RFC
   1213 [6].

   Later, after the publication of MIB-II, a different approach to the
   management information definition was taken from the earlier approach
   of having a single committee staffed by generalists work on a single
   document to define the Internet-Standard MIB.  Rather, many mini-MIB
   documents were produced in a parallel and distributed fashion by
   groups chartered to produce a specification for a focused portion of
   the Internet-Standard MIB and staffed by personnel with expertise in
   those particular areas ranging from various aspects of network
   management, to system management, and application management.



Case, et. al.                Informational                      [Page 6]
^L
RFC 3410           Applicability Statements for SNMP       December 2002


3.3.  Protocol Operations

   The third document, STD 15 [5], describes the SNMPv1 protocol
   operations performed by protocol data units (PDUs) on lists of
   variable bindings and describes the format of SNMPv1 messages.  The
   operators defined by SNMPv1 are:  get, get-next, get-response, set-
   request, and trap.  Typical layering of SNMP on a connectionless
   transport service is also defined.

3.4.  SNMPv1 Security and Administration

   STD 15 [5] also describes an approach to security and administration.
   Many of these concepts are carried forward and some, particularly
   security, are extended by the SNMPv3 Framework.

   The SNMPv1 Framework describes the encapsulation of SNMPv1 PDUs in
   SNMP messages between SNMP entities and distinguishes between
   application entities and protocol entities.  In SNMPv3, these are
   renamed applications and engines, respectively.

   The SNMPv1 Framework also introduces the concept of an authentication
   service supporting one or more authentication schemes.  In addition
   to authentication, SNMPv3 defines the additional security capability
   referred to as privacy.  (Note: some literature from the security
   community would describe SNMPv3 security capabilities as providing
   data integrity, source authenticity, and confidentiality.)  The
   modular nature of the SNMPv3 Framework permits both changes and
   additions to the security capabilities.

   Finally, the SNMPv1 Framework introduces access control based on a
   concept called an SNMP MIB view.  The SNMPv3 Framework specifies a
   fundamentally similar concept called view-based access control.  With
   this capability, SNMPv3 provides the means for controlling access to
   information on managed devices.

   However, while the SNMPv1 Framework anticipated the definition of
   multiple authentication schemes, it did not define any such schemes
   other than a trivial authentication scheme based on community
   strings.  This was a known fundamental weakness in the SNMPv1
   Framework but it was thought at that time that the definition of
   commercial grade security might be contentious in its design and
   difficult to get approved because "security" means many different
   things to different people.  To that end, and because some users do
   not require strong authentication, the SNMPv1 architected an
   authentication service as a separate block to be defined "later" and
   the SNMPv3 Framework provides an architecture for use within that
   block as well as a definition for its subsystems.




Case, et. al.                Informational                      [Page 7]
^L
RFC 3410           Applicability Statements for SNMP       December 2002


4.  The SNMPv2 Management Framework

   The SNMPv2 Management Framework is described in [8-13] and
   coexistence and transition issues relating to SNMPv1 and SNMPv2 are
   discussed in [15].

   SNMPv2 provides several advantages over SNMPv1, including:

   *  expanded data types (e.g., 64 bit counter)

   *  improved efficiency and performance (get-bulk operator)

   *  confirmed event notification (inform operator)

   *  richer error handling (errors and exceptions)

   *  improved sets, especially row creation and deletion

   *  fine tuning of the data definition language

   However, the SNMPv2 Framework, as described in these documents, is
   incomplete in that it does not meet the original design goals of the
   SNMPv2 project.  The unmet goals included provision of security and
   administration delivering so-called "commercial grade" security with:

   *  authentication:  origin identification, message integrity, and
      some aspects of replay protection;

   *  privacy:  confidentiality;

   *  authorization and access control; and

   *  suitable remote configuration and administration capabilities for
      these features.

   The SNMPv3 Management Framework, as described in this document and
   the companion documents, addresses these significant deficiencies.

5.  The SNMPv3 Working Group

   This document, and its companion documents, were produced by the
   SNMPv3 Working Group of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).
   The SNMPv3 Working Group was chartered to prepare recommendations for
   the next generation of SNMP.  The goal of the Working Group was to
   produce the necessary set of documents that provide a single standard
   for the next generation of core SNMP functions.  The single, most
   critical need in the next generation is a definition of security and
   administration that makes SNMP-based management transactions secure



Case, et. al.                Informational                      [Page 8]
^L
RFC 3410           Applicability Statements for SNMP       December 2002


   in a way which is useful for users who wish to use SNMPv3 to manage
   networks, the systems that make up those networks, and the
   applications which reside on those systems, including manager-to-
   agent, agent-to-manager, and manager-to-manager transactions.

   In the several years prior to the chartering of the Working Group,
   there were a number of activities aimed at incorporating security and
   other improvements to SNMP.  These efforts included:

   *  "SNMP Security" circa 1991-1992 (RFC 1351 - RFC 1353),

   *  "SMP" circa 1992-1993, and

   *  "The Party-based SNMPv2" (sometimes called "SNMPv2p") circa
      1993-1995 (RFC 1441 - RFC 1452).

   Each of these efforts incorporated commercial grade, industrial
   strength security including authentication, privacy, authorization,
   view-based access control, and administration, including remote
   configuration.

   These efforts fed the development of the SNMPv2 Management Framework
   as described in RFCs 1902 - 1908.  However, the Framework described
   in those RFCs had no standards-based security and administrative
   framework of its own; rather, it was associated with multiple
   security and administrative frameworks, including:

   *  "The Community-based SNMPv2" (SNMPv2c) as described in RFC 1901
      [16],

   *  "SNMPv2u" as described in RFCs 1909 and 1910, and

   *  "SNMPv2*."

   SNMPv2c had the most support within the IETF but had no security and
   administration whereas both SNMPv2u and SNMPv2* had security but
   lacked a consensus of support within the IETF.

   The SNMPv3 Working Group was chartered to produce a single set of
   specifications for the next generation of SNMP, based upon a
   convergence of the concepts and technical elements of SNMPv2u and
   SNMPv2*, as was suggested by an advisory team which was formed to
   provide a single recommended approach for SNMP evolution.








Case, et. al.                Informational                      [Page 9]
^L
RFC 3410           Applicability Statements for SNMP       December 2002


   In so doing, the Working Group charter defined the following
   objectives:

   *  accommodate the wide range of operational environments with
      differing management demands;

   *  facilitate the need to transition from previous, multiple
      protocols to SNMPv3;

   *  facilitate the ease of setup and maintenance activities.

   In the initial work of the SNMPv3 Working Group, the group focused on
   security and administration, including:

   *  authentication and privacy,

   *  authorization and view-based access control, and

   *  standards-based remote configuration of the above.

   The SNMPv3 Working Group did not "reinvent the wheel", but reused the
   SNMPv2 Draft Standard documents, i.e., RFCs 1902 through 1908 for
   those portions of the design that were outside the focused scope.

   Rather, the primary contributors to the SNMPv3 Working Group, and the
   Working Group in general, devoted their considerable efforts to
   addressing the missing link -- security and administration -- and in
   the process made invaluable contributions to the state-of-the-art of
   management.

   They produced a design based on a modular architecture with
   evolutionary capabilities with emphasis on layering.  As a result,
   SNMPv3 can be thought of as SNMPv2 with additional security and
   administration capabilities.

   In doing so, the Working Group achieved the goal of producing a
   single specification which has not only the endorsement of the IETF
   but also has security and administration.

6.  SNMPv3 Framework Module Specifications

   The specification of the SNMPv3 Management Framework is partitioned
   in a modular fashion among several documents.  It is the intention of
   the SNMPv3 Working Group that, with proper care, any or all of the
   individual documents can be revised, upgraded, or replaced as
   requirements change, new understandings are obtained, and new
   technologies become available.




Case, et. al.                Informational                     [Page 10]
^L
RFC 3410           Applicability Statements for SNMP       December 2002


   Whenever feasible, the initial document set which defines the SNMPv3
   Management Framework leverages prior investments defining and
   implementing the SNMPv2 Management Framework by incorporating by
   reference each of the specifications of the SNMPv2 Management
   Framework.

   The SNMPv3 Framework augments those specifications with
   specifications for security and administration for SNMPv3.

   The documents which specify the SNMPv3 Management Framework follow
   the same architecture as those of the prior versions and can be
   organized for expository purposes into four main categories as
   follows:

   *  the data definition language,

   *  Management Information Base (MIB) modules,

   *  protocol operations, and

   *  security and administration.

   The first three sets of documents are incorporated from SNMPv2.  The
   documents in the fourth set are new to SNMPv3, but, as described
   previously, build on significant prior related works.

6.1.  Data Definition Language

   The specifications of the data definition language include STD 58,
   RFC 2578, "Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)"
   [17], and related specifications.  These documents are updates of
   RFCs 1902 - 1904 [9-11] which have evolved independently from the
   other parts of the framework and were republished with minor
   editorial changes as STD 58, RFCs 2578 - 2580 [17-19] when promoted
   from Draft Standard to full Standard.

   The Structure of Management Information (SMIv2) defines fundamental
   data types, an object model, and the rules for writing and revising
   MIB modules.  Related specifications include STD 58, RFCs 2579, 2580.

   STD 58, RFC 2579, "Textual Conventions for SMIv2" [18], defines an
   initial set of shorthand abbreviations which are available for use
   within all MIB modules for the convenience of human readers and
   writers.







Case, et. al.                Informational                     [Page 11]
^L
RFC 3410           Applicability Statements for SNMP       December 2002


   STD 58, RFC 2580, "Conformance Statements for SMIv2" [19], defines
   the format for compliance statements which are used for describing
   requirements for agent implementations and capability statements
   which can be used to document the characteristics of particular
   implementations.

   The term "SMIv2" is somewhat ambiguous because users of the term
   intend it to have at least two different meanings.  Sometimes the
   term is used to refer the entire data definition language of STD 58,
   defined collectively in RFCs 2578 - 2580 whereas at other times it is
   used to refer to only the portion of the data definition language
   defined in RFC 2578.  This ambiguity is unfortunate but is rarely a
   significant problem in practice.

6.2.  MIB Modules

   MIB modules usually contain object definitions, may contain
   definitions of event notifications, and sometimes include compliance
   statements specified in terms of appropriate object and event
   notification groups.  As such, MIB modules define the management
   information maintained by the instrumentation in managed nodes, made
   remotely accessible by management agents, conveyed by the management
   protocol, and manipulated by management applications.

   MIB modules are defined according to the rules defined in the
   documents which specify the data definition language, principally the
   SMI as supplemented by the related specifications.

   There is a large and growing number of standards-track MIB modules,
   as defined in the periodically updated "Internet Official Protocol
   Standards" list [20].  As of this writing, there are more than 100
   standards-track MIB modules with a total number of defined objects
   exceeding 10,000.  In addition, there is an even larger and growing
   number of enterprise-specific MIB modules defined unilaterally by
   various vendors, research groups, consortia, and the like resulting
   in an unknown and virtually uncountable number of defined objects.

   In general, management information defined in any MIB module,
   regardless of the version of the data definition language used, can
   be used with any version of the protocol.  For example, MIB modules
   defined in terms of the SNMPv1 SMI (SMIv1) are compatible with the
   SNMPv3 Management Framework and can be conveyed by the protocols
   specified therein.  Furthermore, MIB modules defined in terms of the
   SNMPv2 SMI (SMIv2) are compatible with SNMPv1 protocol operations and
   can be conveyed by it.  However, there is one noteworthy exception:
   the Counter64 datatype which can be defined in a MIB module defined





Case, et. al.                Informational                     [Page 12]
^L
RFC 3410           Applicability Statements for SNMP       December 2002


   in SMIv2 format but which cannot be conveyed by an SNMPv1 protocol
   engine.  It can be conveyed by an SNMPv2 or an SNMPv3 engine, but
   cannot be conveyed by an engine which exclusively supports SNMPv1.

6.3.  Protocol Operations and Transport Mappings

   The specifications for the protocol operations and transport mappings
   of the SNMPv3 Framework are incorporated by reference to the two
   SNMPv2 Framework documents which have subsequently been updated.

   The specification for protocol operations is found in STD 62, RFC
   3416, "Version 2 of the Protocol Operations for the Simple Network
   Management Protocol (SNMP)" [21].

   The SNMPv3 Framework is designed to allow various portions of the
   architecture to evolve independently.  For example, it might be
   possible for a new specification of protocol operations to be defined
   within the Framework to allow for additional protocol operations.

   The specification of transport mappings is found in STD 62, RFC 3417,
   "Transport Mappings for the Simple Network Management Protocol
   (SNMP)" [22].

6.4.  SNMPv3 Security and Administration

   The document series pertaining to SNMPv3 Security and Administration
   defined by the SNMPv3 Working Group consists of seven documents at
   this time:

      RFC 3410, "Introduction and Applicability Statements for the
      Internet-Standard Management Framework", which is this document.

      STD 62, RFC 3411, "An Architecture for Describing Simple Network
      Management Protocol (SNMP) Management Frameworks" [23], describes
      the overall architecture with special emphasis on the architecture
      for security and administration.

      STD 62, RFC 3412, "Message Processing and Dispatching for the
      Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)" [24], describes the
      possibility of multiple message processing models and the
      dispatcher portion that can be a part of an SNMP protocol engine.

      STD 62, RFC 3413, "Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)
      Applications" [25], describes the five initial types of
      applications that can be associated with an SNMPv3 engine and
      their elements of procedure.





Case, et. al.                Informational                     [Page 13]
^L
RFC 3410           Applicability Statements for SNMP       December 2002


      STD 62, RFC 3414, "User-Based Security Model (USM) for Version 3
      of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv3)" [26],
      describes the threats against which protection is provided, as
      well as the mechanisms, protocols, and supporting data used to
      provide SNMP message-level security with the user-based security
      model.

      STD 62, RFC 3415, "View-based Access Control Model (VCAM) for the
      Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)" [27], describes how
      view-based access control can be applied within command responder
      and notification originator applications.

      RFC 2576, "SNMPv3 Coexistence and Transition" [28], describes
      coexistence between the SNMPv3 Management Framework, the SNMPv2
      Management Framework, and the original SNMPv1 Management
      Framework, and is in the process of being updated by a Work in
      Progress.

7.  Document Summaries

   The following sections provide brief summaries of each document with
   slightly more detail than is provided in the overviews above.

7.1.  Structure of Management Information

   Management information is viewed as a collection of managed objects,
   residing in a virtual information store, termed the Management
   Information Base (MIB).  Collections of related objects are defined
   in MIB modules.  These modules are written in the SNMP data
   definition language, which evolved from an adapted subset of OSI's
   Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) [29] language.  STD 58, RFCs
   2578, 2579, 2580, collectively define the data definition language,
   specify the base data types for objects, specify a core set of
   short-hand specifications for data types called textual conventions,
   and specify a few administrative assignments of object identifier
   (OID) values.

   The SMI is divided into three parts:  module definitions, object
   definitions, and notification definitions.

   (1) Module definitions are used when describing information modules.
       An ASN.1 macro, MODULE-IDENTITY, is used to convey concisely the
       semantics of an information module.

   (2) Object definitions are used when describing managed objects.  An
       ASN.1 macro, OBJECT-TYPE, is used to convey concisely the syntax
       and semantics of a managed object.




Case, et. al.                Informational                     [Page 14]
^L
RFC 3410           Applicability Statements for SNMP       December 2002


   (3) Notification definitions are used when describing unsolicited
       transmissions of management information.  An ASN.1 macro,
       NOTIFICATION-TYPE, is used to convey concisely the syntax and
       semantics of a notification.

   As noted earlier, the term "SMIv2" is somewhat ambiguous because
   users of the term intend it to have at least two different meanings.
   Sometimes the term is used to refer to the entire data definition
   language of STD 58, defined collectively in RFCs 2578 - 2580 whereas
   at other times it is used to refer to only the portion of the data
   definition language defined in RFC 2578.  This ambiguity is
   unfortunate but is rarely a significant problem in practice.

7.1.1.  Base SMI Specification

   STD 58, RFC 2578 specifies the base data types for the data
   definition language, which include: Integer32, enumerated integers,
   Unsigned32, Gauge32, Counter32, Counter64, TimeTicks, INTEGER, OCTET
   STRING, OBJECT IDENTIFIER, IpAddress, Opaque, and BITS.  It also
   assigns values to several object identifiers.  STD 58, RFC 2578
   further defines the following constructs of the data definition
   language:

   *  IMPORTS to allow the specification of items that are used in a MIB
      module, but defined in another MIB module.

   *  MODULE-IDENTITY to specify for a MIB module a description and
      administrative information such as contact and revision history.

   *  OBJECT-IDENTITY and OID value assignments to specify an OID value.

   *  OBJECT-TYPE to specify the data type, status, and the semantics of
      managed objects.

   *  SEQUENCE type assignment to list the columnar objects in a table.

   *  NOTIFICATION-TYPE construct to specify an event notification.

7.1.2.  Textual Conventions

   When designing a MIB module, it is often useful to specify, in a
   short-hand way, the semantics for a set of objects with similar
   behavior.  This is done by defining a new data type using a base data
   type specified in the SMI.  Each new type has a different name, and
   specifies a base type with more restrictive semantics.  These newly
   defined types are termed textual conventions, and are used for the
   convenience of humans reading a MIB module and potentially by
   "intelligent" management applications.  It is the purpose of STD 58,



Case, et. al.                Informational                     [Page 15]
^L
RFC 3410           Applicability Statements for SNMP       December 2002


   RFC 2579, Textual Conventions for SMIv2 [18], to define the
   construct, TEXTUAL-CONVENTION, of the data definition language used
   to define such new types and to specify an initial set of textual
   conventions available to all MIB modules.

7.1.3.  Conformance Statements

   It may be useful to define the acceptable lower-bounds of
   implementation, along with the actual level of implementation
   achieved.  It is the purpose of STD 58, RFC 2580, Conformance
   Statements for SMIv2 [19], to define the constructs of the data
   definition language used for these purposes.  There are two kinds of
   constructs:

   (1) Compliance statements are used when describing requirements for
       agents with respect to object and event notification definitions.
       The MODULE-COMPLIANCE construct is used to convey concisely such
       requirements.

   (2) Capability statements are used when describing capabilities of
       agents with respect to object and event notification definitions.
       The AGENT-CAPABILITIES construct is used to convey concisely such
       capabilities.

   Finally, collections of related objects and collections of related
   event notifications are grouped together to form a unit of
   conformance.  The OBJECT-GROUP construct is used to convey concisely
   the objects in and the semantics of an object group.  The
   NOTIFICATION-GROUP construct is used to convey concisely the event
   notifications in and the semantics of an event notification group.

7.2.  Protocol Operations

   The management protocol provides for the exchange of messages which
   convey management information between the agents and the management
   stations.  The form of these messages is a message "wrapper" which
   encapsulates a Protocol Data Unit (PDU).

   It is the purpose of STD 62, RFC 3416, "Version 2 of the Protocol
   Operations for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)" [21],
   to define the operations of the protocol with respect to the sending
   and receiving of the PDUs.

7.3.  Transport Mappings

   SNMP messages may be used over a variety of protocol suites.  It is
   the purpose of STD 62, RFC 3417, "Transport Mappings for the Simple
   Network Management Protocol (SNMP)" [22], to define how SNMP messages



Case, et. al.                Informational                     [Page 16]
^L
RFC 3410           Applicability Statements for SNMP       December 2002


   map onto an initial set of transport domains.  Other mappings may be
   defined in the future.

   Although several mappings are defined, the mapping onto UDP is the
   preferred mapping.  As such, to provide for the greatest level of
   interoperability, systems which choose to deploy other mappings
   should also provide for proxy service to the UDP mapping.

7.4.  Protocol Instrumentation

   It is the purpose of STD 62, RFC 3418, "Management Information Base
   (MIB) for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)" [30], to
   define managed objects which describe the behavior of portions of an
   SNMP entity.

7.5.  Architecture / Security and Administration

   It is the purpose of STD 62, RFC 3411, "An Architecture for
   Describing Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Management
   Frameworks" [23], to define an architecture for specifying Management
   Frameworks.  While addressing general architectural issues, it
   focuses on aspects related to security and administration.  It
   defines a number of terms used throughout the SNMPv3 Management
   Framework and, in so doing, clarifies and extends the naming of:

   *  engines and applications,

   *  entities (service providers such as the engines in agents and
      managers),

   *  identities (service users), and

   *  management information, including support for multiple logical
      contexts.

   The document contains a small MIB module which is implemented by all
   authoritative SNMPv3 protocol engines.

7.6.  Message Processing and Dispatch (MPD)

   STD 62, RFC 3412, "Message Processing and Dispatching for the Simple
   Network Management Protocol (SNMP)" [24], describes the Message
   Processing and Dispatching for SNMP messages within the SNMP
   architecture.  It defines the procedures for dispatching potentially
   multiple versions of SNMP messages to the proper SNMP Message
   Processing Models, and for dispatching PDUs to SNMP applications.
   This document also describes one Message Processing Model - the
   SNMPv3 Message Processing Model.



Case, et. al.                Informational                     [Page 17]
^L
RFC 3410           Applicability Statements for SNMP       December 2002


   An SNMPv3 protocol engine MUST support at least one Message
   Processing Model.  An SNMPv3 protocol engine MAY support more than
   one, for example in a multi-lingual system which provides
   simultaneous support of SNMPv3 and SNMPv1 and/or SNMPv2c.  For
   example, such a tri-lingual system which provides simultaneous
   support for SNMPv1, SNMPv2c, and SNMPv3 supports three message
   processing models.

7.7.  SNMP Applications

   It is the purpose of STD 62, RFC 3413, "Simple Network Management
   Protocol (SNMP) Applications" [25] to describe the five types of
   applications which can be associated with an SNMP engine.  They are:
   Command Generators, Command Responders, Notification Originators,
   Notification Receivers, and Proxy Forwarders.

   The document also defines MIB modules for specifying targets of
   management operations (including notifications), for notification
   filtering, and for proxy forwarding.

7.8.  User-based Security Model (USM)

   STD 62, RFC 3414, the "User-based Security Model (USM) for version 3
   of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv3)" [26] describes
   the User-based Security Model for SNMPv3.  It defines the Elements of
   Procedure for providing SNMP message-level security.

   The document describes the two primary and two secondary threats
   which are defended against by the User-based Security Model.  They
   are:  modification of information, masquerade, message stream
   modification, and disclosure.

   The USM utilizes MD5 [31] and the Secure Hash Algorithm [32] as keyed
   hashing algorithms [33] for digest computation to provide data
   integrity:

   *  to directly protect against data modification attacks,

   *  to indirectly provide data origin authentication, and

   *  to defend against masquerade attacks.

   The USM uses loosely synchronized monotonically increasing time
   indicators to defend against certain message stream modification
   attacks.  Automatic clock synchronization mechanisms based on the
   protocol are specified without dependence on third-party time sources
   and concomitant security considerations.




Case, et. al.                Informational                     [Page 18]
^L
RFC 3410           Applicability Statements for SNMP       December 2002


   The USM uses the Data Encryption Standard (DES) [34] in the cipher
   block chaining mode (CBC) if disclosure protection is desired.
   Support for DES in the USM is optional, primarily because export and
   usage restrictions in many countries make it difficult to export and
   use products which include cryptographic technology.

   The document also includes a MIB suitable for remotely monitoring and
   managing the configuration parameters for the USM, including key
   distribution and key management.

   An entity may provide simultaneous support for multiple security
   models as well as multiple authentication and privacy protocols.  All
   of the protocols used by the USM are based on pre-placed keys, i.e.,
   private key mechanisms.  The SNMPv3 architecture permits the use of
   symmetric and asymmetric mechanisms and protocols (asymmetric
   mechanisms are commonly called public key cryptography) but, as of
   this writing, there are no SNMPv3 security models on the IETF
   standards track that use public key cryptography.

   Work is underway to specify how AES is to be used within the User-
   based Security Model (USM).  This will be a separate document.

7.9.  View-based Access Control (VACM)

   The purpose of STD 62, RFC 3415, the "View-based Access Control Model
   (VACM) for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)" [27], is to
   describe the View-based Access Control Model for use in the SNMP
   architecture.  The VACM can simultaneously be associated in a single
   engine implementation with multiple Message Processing Models and
   multiple Security Models.

   It is architecturally possible to have multiple, different, Access
   Control Models active and present simultaneously in a single engine
   implementation, but this is expected to be *_very_* rare in practice
   and *_far_* less common than simultaneous support for multiple
   Message Processing Models and/or multiple Security Models.

7.10.  SNMPv3 Coexistence and Transition

   The purpose of RFC 2576, "Coexistence between Version 1, Version 2,
   and Version 3 of the Internet-Standard Network Management Framework"
   [28], is to describe coexistence between the SNMPv3 Management
   Framework, the SNMPv2 Management Framework, and the original SNMPv1
   Management Framework.  In particular, this document describes four
   aspects of coexistence:

   *  Conversion of MIB documents from SMIv1 to SMIv2 format




Case, et. al.                Informational                     [Page 19]
^L
RFC 3410           Applicability Statements for SNMP       December 2002


   *  Mapping of notification parameters

   *  Approaches to coexistence between entities which support the
      various versions of SNMP in a multi-lingual network, in particular
      the processing of protocol operations in multi-lingual
      implementations, as well as behavior of proxy implementations

   *  The SNMPv1 Message Processing Model and Community-Based Security
      Model, which provides mechanisms for adapting SNMPv1 and SNMPv2c
      into the View-Based Access Control Model (VACM) [27]

8.  Standardization Status

   Readers should consult the latest version of the "Internet Official
   Protocol Standards" list [20] to determine the standardization status
   of any document.

   However, the SNMPv3 Working Group explicitly requested that text be
   included in this document to amplify on the status of SMIv1, SNMPv1,
   and SNMPv2c.

8.1.  SMIv1 Status

   SMIv1, as described in STD 16, RFCs 1155 and 1212, was promoted to
   full Standard status in 1990 and has remained a Standard even after
   SMIv2 reached full Standard (see RFC 2026 [35] for more information
   about the Internet Standards Process).  In many cases, a Standard is
   declared "Historic" when its replacement reaches full Standard.  For
   example, MIB-1 [8] was declared "Historic" when MIB-2 [6] reached
   full Standard.  Similarly, when SMIv2 reached full Standard, it might
   have been reasonable at that time to retire SMIv1 and declare it to
   be "Historic" but as the result of a conscious decision, STD 16, RFCs
   1155 and 1212 continue to have the standardization status of full
   "Standard" but are not recommended.  These documents were not
   declared "Historic" and remain on the standards track because they
   provide normative references for other documents on the standards
   track and cannot be declared "Historic" without rendering the
   documents which rely on them to also become "Historic".
   Consequently, STD 16 retains its standardization status but is not
   recommended because it has been superseded by the newer SMIv2
   specifications which are identified somewhat later in this document.

   On a pragmatic level, since about 1993 it has been wise for users of
   the data definition language to use SMIv2 for all new work because
   the realities of the marketplace have occasionally required the
   support of data definitions in both the SMIv1 and SMIv2 formats.
   While there are tools widely available at low cost or no cost to
   translate SMIv2 definitions to SMIv1 definitions, it is impractical



Case, et. al.                Informational                     [Page 20]
^L
RFC 3410           Applicability Statements for SNMP       December 2002


   to build automatic tools that automatically translate SMIv1
   definitions to SMIv2 definitions.  Consequently, if one works in
   primarily SMIv2, the cost of providing data definitions in both SMIv1
   and SMIv2 formats is trivial.  In contrast, if one works primarily in
   SMIv1 format, providing data definitions in both SMIv1 and SMIv2 is
   significantly more expensive.  The market requirements today for
   providing data definitions in SMIv1 format are greatly diminished
   when compared to those of 1993, and SMIv2 continues to be the
   strongly preferred format even though SMIv1 has not been declared
   "Historic".  Indeed, the IETF currently requires that new MIB modules
   be written using SMIv2.

8.2.  SNMPv1 and SNMPv2 Standardization Status

   Protocol operations via SNMPv1 and SNMPv2c message wrappers support
   only trivial authentication based on plain-text community strings
   and, as a result, are fundamentally insecure.  When the SNMPv3
   specifications for security and administration, which include strong
   security, reached full Standard status, the full Standard SNMPv1,
   formerly STD 15 [5], and the experimental SNMPv2c specifications
   described in RFC 1901 [16] were declared Historic due to their
   weaknesses with respect to security and to send a clear message that
   the third version of the Internet Standard Management Framework is
   the framework of choice.  The Party-based SNMPv2 (SNMPv2p), SNMPv2u,
   and SNMPv2* were either declared Historic circa 1995 or were never on
   the standards track.

   On a pragmatic level, it is expected that a number of vendors will
   continue to produce and users will continue to deploy and use multi-
   lingual implementations that support SNMPv1 and/or SNMPv2c as well as
   SNMPv3.  It should be noted that the IETF standards process does not
   control actions of vendors or users who may choose to promote or
   deploy historic protocols, such as SNMPv1 and SNMPv2c, in spite of
   known short-comings.  However, it is not expected that vendors will
   produce nor that users will deploy multi-lingual implementations that
   support the Party-based SNMPv2p (SNMPv2p), SNMPv2u, or SNMPv2*.

   Indeed, as described above, one of the SNMPv3 specifications for
   security and administration, RFC 2576, Coexistence between Version 1,
   Version 2, and Version 3 of the Internet-Standard Management
   Framework [28], addresses these issues.

   Of course, it is important that users deploying multi-lingual systems
   with insecure protocols exercise sufficient due diligence to insure
   that configurations limit access via SNMPv1 and SNMPv2c
   appropriately, in keeping with the organization's security policy,
   just as they should carefully limit access granted via SNMPv3 with a
   security level of no authentication and no privacy which is roughly



Case, et. al.                Informational                     [Page 21]
^L
RFC 3410           Applicability Statements for SNMP       December 2002


   equivalent from a security point of view.  For example, it is
   probably unwise to allow SNMPv1 or SNMPv2c a greater level of access
   than is provided to unauthenticated SNMPv3 users, e.g., it does not
   make sense to guard the front door with armed guards, trained attack
   dogs, moats and drawbridges while providing unfettered access through
   an open back door.

   The SNMPv1 framework, SNMPv2 framework, and SNMPv2c had limited
   capabilities for administering the SNMPv1 and SNMPv2c protocols.  For
   example, there are no objects defined to view and configure
   communities or destinations for notifications (traps and informs).
   The result has been vendor defined mechanisms for administration that
   range from proprietary format configuration files that cannot be
   viewed or configured via SNMP to enterprise specific object
   definitions.  The SNMPv3 framework provides a rich standards-based
   approach to administration which, by design, can be used for the
   SNMPv1 and SNMPv2c protocols.  Thus, to foster interoperability of
   administration of SNMPv1 and SNMPv2c protocols in multi-lingual
   systems, the mechanisms and objects specified in [25], [27], and [28]
   should be used to supplement or replace the equivalent proprietary
   mechanisms.

8.3.  Working Group Recommendation

   Based on the explanations above, the SNMPv3 Working Group recommends
   that RFCs 1157, 1441, 1901, 1909 and 1910 be reclassified as
   Historical documents.

9.  Security Considerations

   As this document is primarily a roadmap document, it introduces no
   new security considerations.  The reader is referred to the relevant
   sections of each of the referenced documents for information about
   security considerations.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [1]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
   Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March, 1997.

10.2.  Informative References

   [2]  Cerf, V., "IAB Recommendations for the Development of Internet
        Network Management Standards", RFC 1052, April 1988.





Case, et. al.                Informational                     [Page 22]
^L
RFC 3410           Applicability Statements for SNMP       December 2002


   [3]  Rose, M. and K. McCloghrie, "Structure and Identification of
        Management Information for TCP/IP-based internets", STD 16, RFC
        1155, May 1990.

   [4]  Rose, M. and K. McCloghrie, "Concise MIB Definitions", STD 16,
        RFC 1212, March 1991.

   [5]  Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M. and Davin, J., "Simple
        Network Management Protocol", STD 15, RFC 1157, May 1990.

   [6]  McCloghrie, K. and M. Rose, "Management Information Base for
        Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets: MIB-II", STD 17,
        RFC 1213, March 1991.

   [7]  Rose, M., "A Convention for Defining Traps for use with the
        SNMP", RFC 1215, March 1991.

   [8]  McCloghrie, K. and M. Rose, "Management Information Base for
        Network Management of TCP/IP-based Internets", RFC 1156, March
        1990.

   [9]  Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Structure
        of Management Information for Version 2 of the Simple Network
        Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1902, January 1996.

   [10] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Textual
        Conventions for Version 2 of the Simple Network Management
        Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1903, January 1996.

   [11] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser,
        "Conformance Statements for Version 2 of the Simple Network
        Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1904, January 1996.

   [12] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Protocol
        Operations for Version 2 of the Simple Network Management
        Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1905, January 1996.

   [13] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Transport
        Mappings for Version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol
        (SNMPv2)", RFC 1906, January 1996.

   [14] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser,
        "Management Information Base for Version 2 of the Simple Network
        Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1907, January 1996.

   [15] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser,
        "Coexistence between Version 1 and Version 2 of the Internet-
        Standard Network Management Framework", RFC 2576, January 1996.



Case, et. al.                Informational                     [Page 23]
^L
RFC 3410           Applicability Statements for SNMP       December 2002


   [16] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser,
        "Introduction to Community-based SNMPv2", RFC 1901, January
        1996.

   [17] 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.

   [18] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose,
        M. and S. Waldbusser, "Textual Conventions for SMIv2", STD 58,
        RFC 2579, April 1999.

   [19] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose,
        M. and S. Waldbusser, "Conformance Statements for SMIv2", STD
        58, RFC 2580, April 1999.

   [20] "Official Internet Protocol Standards", http://www.rfc-
        editor.org/rfcxx00.html also STD0001.

   [21] Presuhn, R., Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and S.
        Waldbusser, "Version 2 of the Protocol Operations for the Simple
        Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 62, RFC 3416, December
        2002.

   [22] Presuhn, R., Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and S.
        Waldbusser, "Transport Mappings for the Simple Network
        Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 62, RFC 3417, December 2002.

   [23] Harrington, D., Presuhn, R. and B. Wijnen, "An Architecture for
        Describing Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Management
        Frameworks", STD 62, RFC 3411, December 2002.

   [24] Case, J., Harrington, D., Presuhn, R. and B. Wijnen, "Message
        Processing and Dispatching for the Simple Network Management
        Protocol (SNMP)", STD 62, RFC 3412, December 2002.

   [25] Levi, D., Meyer, P. and B. Stewart, "Simple Network Management
        Protocol (SNMP) Applications", STD 62, RFC 3413, December 2002.

   [26] Blumenthal, U. and B. Wijnen, "User-Based Security Model (USM)
        for Version 3 of the Simple Network Management Protocol
        (SNMPv3)", STD 62, RFC 3414, December 2002.

   [27] Wijnen, B., Presuhn, R. and K. McCloghrie, "View-based Access
        Control Model (VACM) for the Simple Network Management Protocol
        (SNMP)", STD 62, RFC 3415, December 2002.





Case, et. al.                Informational                     [Page 24]
^L
RFC 3410           Applicability Statements for SNMP       December 2002


   [28] Frye, R., Levi, D., Routhier, S. and B. Wijnen, "Coexistence
        between Version 1, Version 2, and Version 3 of the Internet-
        Standard Network Management Framework", RFC 2576, March 2000.

   [29] Information processing systems - Open Systems Interconnection -
        Specification of Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1),
        International Organization for Standardization.  International
        Standard 8824, (December, 1987).

   [30] Presuhn, R., Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and S.
        Waldbusser, "Management Information Base (MIB) for the Simple
        Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 62, RFC 3418, December
        2002.

   [31] Rivest, R., "Message Digest Algorithm MD5", RFC 1321, April
        1992.

   [32] Secure Hash Algorithm. NIST FIPS 180-1, (April, 1995)
        http://csrc.nist.gov/fips/fip180-1.txt (ASCII)
        http://csrc.nist.gov/fips/fip180-1.ps  (Postscript)

   [33] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M. and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-Hashing
        for Message Authentication", RFC 2104, February 1997.

   [34] Data Encryption Standard, National Institute of Standards and
        Technology.  Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS)
        Publication 46-1.  Supersedes FIPS Publication 46, (January,
        1977; reaffirmed January, 1988).

   [35] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP
        9, RFC 2026, October, 1996.




















Case, et. al.                Informational                     [Page 25]
^L
RFC 3410           Applicability Statements for SNMP       December 2002


11.  Editors' Addresses

   Jeffrey Case
   SNMP Research, Inc.
   3001 Kimberlin Heights Road
   Knoxville, TN 37920-9716
   USA

   Phone: +1 865 573 1434
   EMail: case@snmp.com


   Russ Mundy
   Network Associates Laboratories
   15204 Omega Drive, Suite 300
   Rockville, MD 20850-4601
   USA

   Phone: +1 301 947 7107
   EMail: mundy@tislabs.com


   David Partain
   Ericsson
   P.O. Box 1248
   SE-581 12 Linkoping
   Sweden

   Phone: +46 13 28 41 44
   EMail: David.Partain@ericsson.com


   Bob Stewart
   Retired

















Case, et. al.                Informational                     [Page 26]
^L
RFC 3410           Applicability Statements for SNMP       December 2002


12.  Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.



















Case, et. al.                Informational                     [Page 27]
^L