RFC 3411
An Architecture for Describing Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Management Frameworks
Pages: 64
Internet Standard: 62
STD 62 is also: 3412 3413 3414 3415 3416 3417 3418
Obsoletes: 2571
Updated by: 5343 5590
Internet Standard: 62
STD 62 is also: 3412 3413 3414 3415 3416 3417 3418
Obsoletes: 2571
Updated by: 5343 5590
Part 3 of 3 – Pages 40 to 64
5. Managed Object Definitions for SNMP Management Frameworks
SNMP-FRAMEWORK-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN IMPORTS MODULE-IDENTITY, OBJECT-TYPE, OBJECT-IDENTITY, snmpModules FROM SNMPv2-SMI TEXTUAL-CONVENTION FROM SNMPv2-TC MODULE-COMPLIANCE, OBJECT-GROUP FROM SNMPv2-CONF; snmpFrameworkMIB MODULE-IDENTITY LAST-UPDATED "200210140000Z" ORGANIZATION "SNMPv3 Working Group" CONTACT-INFO "WG-EMail: snmpv3@lists.tislabs.com Subscribe: snmpv3-request@lists.tislabs.com Co-Chair: Russ Mundy Network Associates Laboratories postal: 15204 Omega Drive, Suite 300 Rockville, MD 20850-4601 USA EMail: mundy@tislabs.com phone: +1 301-947-7107 Co-Chair & Co-editor: David Harrington Enterasys Networks postal: 35 Industrial Way P. O. Box 5005 Rochester, New Hampshire 03866-5005 USA EMail: dbh@enterasys.com phone: +1 603-337-2614 Co-editor: Randy Presuhn BMC Software, Inc. postal: 2141 North First Street San Jose, California 95131 USA EMail: randy_presuhn@bmc.com phone: +1 408-546-1006 Co-editor: Bert Wijnen Lucent Technologies postal: Schagen 33 3461 GL Linschoten Netherlands
EMail: bwijnen@lucent.com
phone: +31 348-680-485
"
DESCRIPTION "The SNMP Management Architecture MIB
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). This
version of this MIB module is part of RFC 3411;
see the RFC itself for full legal notices.
"
REVISION "200210140000Z" -- 14 October 2002
DESCRIPTION "Changes in this revision:
- Updated various administrative information.
- Corrected some typos.
- Corrected typo in description of SnmpEngineID
that led to range overlap for 127.
- Changed '255a' to '255t' in definition of
SnmpAdminString to align with current SMI.
- Reworded 'reserved' for value zero in
DESCRIPTION of SnmpSecurityModel.
- The algorithm for allocating security models
should give 256 per enterprise block, rather
than 255.
- The example engine ID of 'abcd' is not
legal. Replaced with '800002b804616263'H based
on example enterprise 696, string 'abc'.
- Added clarification that engineID should
persist across re-initializations.
This revision published as RFC 3411.
"
REVISION "199901190000Z" -- 19 January 1999
DESCRIPTION "Updated editors' addresses, fixed typos.
Published as RFC 2571.
"
REVISION "199711200000Z" -- 20 November 1997
DESCRIPTION "The initial version, published in RFC 2271.
"
::= { snmpModules 10 }
-- Textual Conventions used in the SNMP Management Architecture ***
SnmpEngineID ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION "An SNMP engine's administratively-unique identifier.
Objects of this type are for identification, not for
addressing, even though it is possible that an
address may have been used in the generation of
a specific value.
The value for this object may not be all zeros or
all 'ff'H or the empty (zero length) string.
The initial value for this object may be configured
via an operator console entry or via an algorithmic
function. In the latter case, the following
example algorithm is recommended.
In cases where there are multiple engines on the
same system, the use of this algorithm is NOT
appropriate, as it would result in all of those
engines ending up with the same ID value.
1) The very first bit is used to indicate how the
rest of the data is composed.
0 - as defined by enterprise using former methods
that existed before SNMPv3. See item 2 below.
1 - as defined by this architecture, see item 3
below.
Note that this allows existing uses of the
engineID (also known as AgentID [RFC1910]) to
co-exist with any new uses.
2) The snmpEngineID has a length of 12 octets.
The first four octets are set to the binary
equivalent of the agent's SNMP management
private enterprise number as assigned by the
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).
For example, if Acme Networks has been assigned
{ enterprises 696 }, the first four octets would
be assigned '000002b8'H.
The remaining eight octets are determined via
one or more enterprise-specific methods. Such
methods must be designed so as to maximize the
possibility that the value of this object will
be unique in the agent's administrative domain.
For example, it may be the IP address of the SNMP
entity, or the MAC address of one of the
interfaces, with each address suitably padded
with random octets. If multiple methods are
defined, then it is recommended that the first
octet indicate the method being used and the
remaining octets be a function of the method.
3) The length of the octet string varies.
The first four octets are set to the binary
equivalent of the agent's SNMP management
private enterprise number as assigned by the
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).
For example, if Acme Networks has been assigned
{ enterprises 696 }, the first four octets would
be assigned '000002b8'H.
The very first bit is set to 1. For example, the
above value for Acme Networks now changes to be
'800002b8'H.
The fifth octet indicates how the rest (6th and
following octets) are formatted. The values for
the fifth octet are:
0 - reserved, unused.
1 - IPv4 address (4 octets)
lowest non-special IP address
2 - IPv6 address (16 octets)
lowest non-special IP address
3 - MAC address (6 octets)
lowest IEEE MAC address, canonical
order
4 - Text, administratively assigned
Maximum remaining length 27
5 - Octets, administratively assigned
Maximum remaining length 27
6-127 - reserved, unused
128-255 - as defined by the enterprise
Maximum remaining length 27
"
SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE(5..32))
SnmpSecurityModel ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION "An identifier that uniquely identifies a
Security Model of the Security Subsystem within
this SNMP Management Architecture.
The values for securityModel are allocated as
follows:
- The zero value does not identify any particular
security model.
- Values between 1 and 255, inclusive, are reserved
for standards-track Security Models and are
managed by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
(IANA).
- Values greater than 255 are allocated to
enterprise-specific Security Models. An
enterprise-specific securityModel value is defined
to be:
enterpriseID * 256 + security model within
enterprise
For example, the fourth Security Model defined by
the enterprise whose enterpriseID is 1 would be
259.
This scheme for allocation of securityModel
values allows for a maximum of 255 standards-
based Security Models, and for a maximum of
256 Security Models per enterprise.
It is believed that the assignment of new
securityModel values will be rare in practice
because the larger the number of simultaneously
utilized Security Models, the larger the
chance that interoperability will suffer.
Consequently, it is believed that such a range
will be sufficient. In the unlikely event that
the standards committee finds this number to be
insufficient over time, an enterprise number
can be allocated to obtain an additional 256
possible values.
Note that the most significant bit must be zero;
hence, there are 23 bits allocated for various
organizations to design and define non-standard
securityModels. This limits the ability to
define new proprietary implementations of Security
Models to the first 8,388,608 enterprises.
It is worthwhile to note that, in its encoded
form, the securityModel value will normally
require only a single byte since, in practice,
the leftmost bits will be zero for most messages
and sign extension is suppressed by the encoding
rules.
As of this writing, there are several values
of securityModel defined for use with SNMP or
reserved for use with supporting MIB objects.
They are as follows:
0 reserved for 'any'
1 reserved for SNMPv1
2 reserved for SNMPv2c
3 User-Based Security Model (USM)
"
SYNTAX INTEGER(0 .. 2147483647)
SnmpMessageProcessingModel ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION "An identifier that uniquely identifies a Message
Processing Model of the Message Processing
Subsystem within this SNMP Management Architecture.
The values for messageProcessingModel are
allocated as follows:
- Values between 0 and 255, inclusive, are
reserved for standards-track Message Processing
Models and are managed by the Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority (IANA).
- Values greater than 255 are allocated to
enterprise-specific Message Processing Models.
An enterprise messageProcessingModel value is
defined to be:
enterpriseID * 256 +
messageProcessingModel within enterprise
For example, the fourth Message Processing Model
defined by the enterprise whose enterpriseID
is 1 would be 259.
This scheme for allocating messageProcessingModel
values allows for a maximum of 255 standards-
based Message Processing Models, and for a
maximum of 256 Message Processing Models per
enterprise.
It is believed that the assignment of new
messageProcessingModel values will be rare
in practice because the larger the number of
simultaneously utilized Message Processing Models,
the larger the chance that interoperability
will suffer. It is believed that such a range
will be sufficient. In the unlikely event that
the standards committee finds this number to be
insufficient over time, an enterprise number
can be allocated to obtain an additional 256
possible values.
Note that the most significant bit must be zero;
hence, there are 23 bits allocated for various
organizations to design and define non-standard
messageProcessingModels. This limits the ability
to define new proprietary implementations of
Message Processing Models to the first 8,388,608
enterprises.
It is worthwhile to note that, in its encoded
form, the messageProcessingModel value will
normally require only a single byte since, in
practice, the leftmost bits will be zero for
most messages and sign extension is suppressed
by the encoding rules.
As of this writing, there are several values of
messageProcessingModel defined for use with SNMP.
They are as follows:
0 reserved for SNMPv1
1 reserved for SNMPv2c
2 reserved for SNMPv2u and SNMPv2*
3 reserved for SNMPv3
"
SYNTAX INTEGER(0 .. 2147483647)
SnmpSecurityLevel ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION "A Level of Security at which SNMP messages can be
sent or with which operations are being processed;
in particular, one of:
noAuthNoPriv - without authentication and
without privacy,
authNoPriv - with authentication but
without privacy,
authPriv - with authentication and
with privacy.
These three values are ordered such that
noAuthNoPriv is less than authNoPriv and
authNoPriv is less than authPriv.
"
SYNTAX INTEGER { noAuthNoPriv(1),
authNoPriv(2),
authPriv(3)
}
SnmpAdminString ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
DISPLAY-HINT "255t"
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION "An octet string containing administrative
information, preferably in human-readable form.
To facilitate internationalization, this
information is represented using the ISO/IEC
IS 10646-1 character set, encoded as an octet
string using the UTF-8 transformation format
described in [RFC2279].
Since additional code points are added by
amendments to the 10646 standard from time
to time, implementations must be prepared to
encounter any code point from 0x00000000 to
0x7fffffff. Byte sequences that do not
correspond to the valid UTF-8 encoding of a
code point or are outside this range are
prohibited.
The use of control codes should be avoided.
When it is necessary to represent a newline,
the control code sequence CR LF should be used.
The use of leading or trailing white space should
be avoided.
For code points not directly supported by user
interface hardware or software, an alternative
means of entry and display, such as hexadecimal,
may be provided.
For information encoded in 7-bit US-ASCII,
the UTF-8 encoding is identical to the
US-ASCII encoding.
UTF-8 may require multiple bytes to represent a
single character / code point; thus the length
of this object in octets may be different from
the number of characters encoded. Similarly,
size constraints refer to the number of encoded
octets, not the number of characters represented
by an encoding.
Note that when this TC is used for an object that
is used or envisioned to be used as an index, then
a SIZE restriction MUST be specified so that the
number of sub-identifiers for any object instance
does not exceed the limit of 128, as defined by
[RFC3416].
Note that the size of an SnmpAdminString object is
measured in octets, not characters.
"
SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..255))
-- Administrative assignments ***************************************
snmpFrameworkAdmin
OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { snmpFrameworkMIB 1 }
snmpFrameworkMIBObjects
OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { snmpFrameworkMIB 2 }
snmpFrameworkMIBConformance
OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { snmpFrameworkMIB 3 }
-- the snmpEngine Group ********************************************
snmpEngine OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { snmpFrameworkMIBObjects 1 }
snmpEngineID OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX SnmpEngineID
MAX-ACCESS read-only
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION "An SNMP engine's administratively-unique identifier.
This information SHOULD be stored in non-volatile
storage so that it remains constant across
re-initializations of the SNMP engine.
"
::= { snmpEngine 1 }
snmpEngineBoots OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX INTEGER (1..2147483647)
MAX-ACCESS read-only
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION "The number of times that the SNMP engine has
(re-)initialized itself since snmpEngineID
was last configured.
"
::= { snmpEngine 2 }
snmpEngineTime OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX INTEGER (0..2147483647)
UNITS "seconds"
MAX-ACCESS read-only
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION "The number of seconds since the value of
the snmpEngineBoots object last changed.
When incrementing this object's value would
cause it to exceed its maximum,
snmpEngineBoots is incremented as if a
re-initialization had occurred, and this
object's value consequently reverts to zero.
"
::= { snmpEngine 3 }
snmpEngineMaxMessageSize OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX INTEGER (484..2147483647)
MAX-ACCESS read-only
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION "The maximum length in octets of an SNMP message
which this SNMP engine can send or receive and
process, determined as the minimum of the maximum
message size values supported among all of the
transports available to and supported by the engine.
"
::= { snmpEngine 4 }
-- Registration Points for Authentication and Privacy Protocols **
snmpAuthProtocols OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION "Registration point for standards-track
authentication protocols used in SNMP Management
Frameworks.
"
::= { snmpFrameworkAdmin 1 }
snmpPrivProtocols OBJECT-IDENTITY
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION "Registration point for standards-track privacy
protocols used in SNMP Management Frameworks.
"
::= { snmpFrameworkAdmin 2 }
-- Conformance information ******************************************
snmpFrameworkMIBCompliances
OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {snmpFrameworkMIBConformance 1}
snmpFrameworkMIBGroups
OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {snmpFrameworkMIBConformance 2}
-- compliance statements
snmpFrameworkMIBCompliance MODULE-COMPLIANCE
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION "The compliance statement for SNMP engines which
implement the SNMP Management Framework MIB.
"
MODULE -- this module
MANDATORY-GROUPS { snmpEngineGroup }
::= { snmpFrameworkMIBCompliances 1 }
-- units of conformance
snmpEngineGroup OBJECT-GROUP
OBJECTS {
snmpEngineID,
snmpEngineBoots,
snmpEngineTime,
snmpEngineMaxMessageSize
}
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION "A collection of objects for identifying and
determining the configuration and current timeliness
values of an SNMP engine.
"
::= { snmpFrameworkMIBGroups 1 }
END
6. IANA Considerations
This document defines three number spaces administered by IANA, one
for security models, another for message processing models, and a
third for SnmpEngineID formats.
6.1. Security Models
The SnmpSecurityModel TEXTUAL-CONVENTION values managed by IANA are
in the range from 0 to 255 inclusive, and are reserved for
standards-track Security Models. If this range should in the future
prove insufficient, an enterprise number can be allocated to obtain
an additional 256 possible values.
As of this writing, there are several values of securityModel defined
for use with SNMP or reserved for use with supporting MIB objects.
They are as follows:
0 reserved for 'any'
1 reserved for SNMPv1
2 reserved for SNMPv2c
3 User-Based Security Model (USM)
6.2. Message Processing Models
The SnmpMessageProcessingModel TEXTUAL-CONVENTION values managed by
IANA are in the range 0 to 255, inclusive. Each value uniquely
identifies a standards-track Message Processing Model of the Message
Processing Subsystem within the SNMP Management Architecture.
Should this range prove insufficient in the future, an enterprise
number may be obtained for the standards committee to get an
additional 256 possible values.
As of this writing, there are several values of
messageProcessingModel defined for use with SNMP. They are as
follows:
0 reserved for SNMPv1
1 reserved for SNMPv2c
2 reserved for SNMPv2u and SNMPv2*
3 reserved for SNMPv3
6.3. SnmpEngineID Formats
The SnmpEngineID TEXTUAL-CONVENTION's fifth octet contains a format identifier. The values managed by IANA are in the range 6 to 127, inclusive. Each value uniquely identifies a standards-track SnmpEngineID format.7. Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-related documentation can be found in RFC 2028. Copies of claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive Director.8. Acknowledgements
This document is the result of the efforts of the SNMPv3 Working Group. Some special thanks are in order to the following SNMPv3 WG members: Harald Tveit Alvestrand (Maxware) Dave Battle (SNMP Research, Inc.) Alan Beard (Disney Worldwide Services) Paul Berrevoets (SWI Systemware/Halcyon Inc.) Martin Bjorklund (Ericsson) Uri Blumenthal (IBM T.J. Watson Research Center) Jeff Case (SNMP Research, Inc.) John Curran (BBN) Mike Daniele (Compaq Computer Corporation) T. Max Devlin (Eltrax Systems) John Flick (Hewlett Packard) Rob Frye (MCI) Wes Hardaker (U.C.Davis, Information Technology - D.C.A.S.)
David Harrington (Cabletron Systems Inc.)
Lauren Heintz (BMC Software, Inc.)
N.C. Hien (IBM T.J. Watson Research Center)
Michael Kirkham (InterWorking Labs, Inc.)
Dave Levi (SNMP Research, Inc.)
Louis A Mamakos (UUNET Technologies Inc.)
Joe Marzot (Nortel Networks)
Paul Meyer (Secure Computing Corporation)
Keith McCloghrie (Cisco Systems)
Bob Moore (IBM)
Russ Mundy (TIS Labs at Network Associates)
Bob Natale (ACE*COMM Corporation)
Mike O'Dell (UUNET Technologies Inc.)
Dave Perkins (DeskTalk)
Peter Polkinghorne (Brunel University)
Randy Presuhn (BMC Software, Inc.)
David Reeder (TIS Labs at Network Associates)
David Reid (SNMP Research, Inc.)
Aleksey Romanov (Quality Quorum)
Shawn Routhier (Epilogue)
Juergen Schoenwaelder (TU Braunschweig)
Bob Stewart (Cisco Systems)
Mike Thatcher (Independent Consultant)
Bert Wijnen (IBM T.J. Watson Research Center)
The document is based on recommendations of the IETF Security and
Administrative Framework Evolution for SNMP Advisory Team. Members
of that Advisory Team were:
David Harrington (Cabletron Systems Inc.)
Jeff Johnson (Cisco Systems)
David Levi (SNMP Research Inc.)
John Linn (Openvision)
Russ Mundy (Trusted Information Systems) chair
Shawn Routhier (Epilogue)
Glenn Waters (Nortel)
Bert Wijnen (IBM T. J. Watson Research Center)
As recommended by the Advisory Team and the SNMPv3 Working Group
Charter, the design incorporates as much as practical from previous
RFCs and drafts. As a result, special thanks are due to the authors
of previous designs known as SNMPv2u and SNMPv2*:
Jeff Case (SNMP Research, Inc.)
David Harrington (Cabletron Systems Inc.)
David Levi (SNMP Research, Inc.)
Keith McCloghrie (Cisco Systems)
Brian O'Keefe (Hewlett Packard)
Marshall T. Rose (Dover Beach Consulting)
Jon Saperia (BGS Systems Inc.)
Steve Waldbusser (International Network Services)
Glenn W. Waters (Bell-Northern Research Ltd.)
9. Security Considerations
This document describes how an implementation can include a Security
Model to protect management messages and an Access Control Model to
control access to management information.
The level of security provided is determined by the specific Security
Model implementation(s) and the specific Access Control Model
implementation(s) used.
Applications have access to data which is not secured. Applications
SHOULD take reasonable steps to protect the data from disclosure.
It is the responsibility of the purchaser of an implementation to
ensure that:
1) an implementation complies with the rules defined by this
architecture,
2) the Security and Access Control Models utilized satisfy the
security and access control needs of the organization,
3) the implementations of the Models and Applications comply with
the model and application specifications,
4) and the implementation protects configuration secrets from
inadvertent disclosure.
This document also contains a MIB definition module. None of the
objects defined is writable, and the information they represent is
not deemed to be particularly sensitive. However, if they are deemed
sensitive in a particular environment, access to them should be
restricted through the use of appropriately configured Security and
Access Control models.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2279] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646", RFC 2279, January 1998. [RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578, April 1999. [RFC2579] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Textual Conventions for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2579, April 1999. [RFC2580] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Conformance Statements for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580, April 1999. [RFC3412] Case, J., Harrington, D., Presuhn, R. and B. Wijnen, "Message Processing and Dispatching for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 62, RFC 3412, December 2002. [RFC3413] Levi, D., Meyer, P. and B. Stewart, "Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Applications", STD 62, RFC 3413, December 2002. [RFC3414] Blumenthal, U. and B. Wijnen, "User-Based Security Model (USM) for Version 3 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv3)", STD 62, RFC 3414, December 2002. [RFC3415] Wijnen, B., Presuhn, R. and K. McCloghrie, "View-based Access Control Model (VACM) for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 62, RFC 3415, December 2002. [RFC3416] Presuhn, R., Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Protocol Operations for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 62, RFC 3416, December 2002. [RFC3417] 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. [RFC3418] Presuhn, R., Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Management Information Base (MIB) for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 62, RFC 3418, December 2002.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC1155] Rose, M. and K. McCloghrie, "Structure and Identification of Management Information for TCP/IP-based internets", STD 16, RFC 1155, May 1990. [RFC1157] Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M. and J. Davin, "The Simple Network Management Protocol", STD 15, RFC 1157, May 1990. [RFC1212] Rose, M. and K. McCloghrie, "Concise MIB Definitions", STD 16, RFC 1212, March 1991. [RFC1901] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Introduction to Community-based SNMPv2", RFC 1901, January 1996. [RFC1909] McCloghrie, K., Editor, "An Administrative Infrastructure for SNMPv2", RFC 1909, February 1996. [RFC1910] Waters, G., Editor, "User-based Security Model for SNMPv2", RFC 1910, February 1996. [RFC2028] Hovey, R. and S. Bradner, "The Organizations Involved in the IETF Standards Process", BCP 11, RFC 2028, October 1996. [RFC2576] Frye, R., Levi, D., Routhier, S. and B. Wijnen, "Coexistence between Version 1, Version 2, and Version 3 of the Internet-Standard Network Management Framework", RFC 2576, March 2000. [RFC2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group MIB", RFC 2863, June 2000. [RFC3410] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D. and B. Stewart, "Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet- Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410, December 2002.
Appendix A
A. Guidelines for Model Designers
This appendix describes guidelines for designers of models which are expected to fit into the architecture defined in this document. SNMPv1 and SNMPv2c are two SNMP frameworks which use communities to provide trivial authentication and access control. SNMPv1 and SNMPv2c Frameworks can coexist with Frameworks designed according to this architecture, and modified versions of SNMPv1 and SNMPv2c Frameworks could be designed to meet the requirements of this architecture, but this document does not provide guidelines for that coexistence. Within any subsystem model, there should be no reference to any specific model of another subsystem, or to data defined by a specific model of another subsystem. Transfer of data between the subsystems is deliberately described as a fixed set of abstract data elements and primitive functions which can be overloaded to satisfy the needs of multiple model definitions. Documents which define models to be used within this architecture SHOULD use the standard primitives between subsystems, possibly defining specific mechanisms for converting the abstract data elements into model-usable formats. This constraint exists to allow subsystem and model documents to be written recognizing common borders of the subsystem and model. Vendors are not constrained to recognize these borders in their implementations. The architecture defines certain standard services to be provided between subsystems, and the architecture defines abstract service interfaces to request these services. Each model definition for a subsystem SHOULD support the standard service interfaces, but whether, or how, or how well, it performs the service is dependent on the model definition.A.1. Security Model Design Requirements
A.1.1. Threats
A document describing a Security Model MUST describe how the model protects against the threats described under "Security Requirements of this Architecture", section 1.4.
A.1.2. Security Processing
Received messages MUST be validated by a Model of the Security Subsystem. Validation includes authentication and privacy processing if needed, but it is explicitly allowed to send messages which do not require authentication or privacy. A received message contains a specified securityLevel to be used during processing. All messages requiring privacy MUST also require authentication. A Security Model specifies rules by which authentication and privacy are to be done. A model may define mechanisms to provide additional security features, but the model definition is constrained to using (possibly a subset of) the abstract data elements defined in this document for transferring data between subsystems. Each Security Model may allow multiple security protocols to be used concurrently within an implementation of the model. Each Security Model defines how to determine which protocol to use, given the securityLevel and the security parameters relevant to the message. Each Security Model, with its associated protocol(s) defines how the sending/receiving entities are identified, and how secrets are configured. Authentication and Privacy protocols supported by Security Models are uniquely identified using Object Identifiers. IETF standard protocols for authentication or privacy should have an identifier defined within the snmpAuthProtocols or the snmpPrivProtocols subtrees. Enterprise specific protocol identifiers should be defined within the enterprise subtree. For privacy, the Security Model defines what portion of the message is encrypted. The persistent data used for security should be SNMP-manageable, but the Security Model defines whether an instantiation of the MIB is a conformance requirement. Security Models are replaceable within the Security Subsystem. Multiple Security Model implementations may exist concurrently within an SNMP engine. The number of Security Models defined by the SNMP community should remain small to promote interoperability.
A.1.3. Validate the security-stamp in a received message
A Message Processing Model requests that a Security Model: - verifies that the message has not been altered, - authenticates the identification of the principal for whom the message was generated. - decrypts the message if it was encrypted. Additional requirements may be defined by the model, and additional services may be provided by the model, but the model is constrained to use the following primitives for transferring data between subsystems. Implementations are not so constrained. A Message Processing Model uses the processIncomingMsg primitive as described in section 4.4.2.A.1.4. Security MIBs
Each Security Model defines the MIB module(s) required for security processing, including any MIB module(s) required for the security protocol(s) supported. The MIB module(s) SHOULD be defined concurrently with the procedures which use the MIB module(s). The MIB module(s) are subject to normal access control rules. The mapping between the model-dependent security ID and the securityName MUST be able to be determined using SNMP, if the model- dependent MIB is instantiated and if access control policy allows access.A.1.5. Cached Security Data
For each message received, the Security Model caches the state information such that a Response message can be generated using the same security information, even if the Local Configuration Datastore is altered between the time of the incoming request and the outgoing response. A Message Processing Model has the responsibility for explicitly releasing the cached data if such data is no longer needed. To enable this, an abstract securityStateReference data element is passed from the Security Model to the Message Processing Model. The cached security data may be implicitly released via the generation of a response, or explicitly released by using the stateRelease primitive, as described in section 4.5.1.
A.2. Message Processing Model Design Requirements
An SNMP engine contains a Message Processing Subsystem which may contain multiple Message Processing Models. The Message Processing Model MUST always (conceptually) pass the complete PDU, i.e., it never forwards less than the complete list of varBinds.A.2.1. Receiving an SNMP Message from the Network
Upon receipt of a message from the network, the Dispatcher in the SNMP engine determines the version of the SNMP message and interacts with the corresponding Message Processing Model to determine the abstract data elements. A Message Processing Model specifies the SNMP Message format it supports and describes how to determine the values of the abstract data elements (like msgID, msgMaxSize, msgFlags, msgSecurityParameters, securityModel, securityLevel etc). A Message Processing Model interacts with a Security Model to provide security processing for the message using the processIncomingMsg primitive, as described in section 4.4.2.A.2.2. Sending an SNMP Message to the Network
The Dispatcher in the SNMP engine interacts with a Message Processing Model to prepare an outgoing message. For that it uses the following primitives: - for requests and notifications: prepareOutgoingMessage, as described in section 4.2.1. - for response messages: prepareResponseMessage, as described in section 4.2.2. A Message Processing Model, when preparing an Outgoing SNMP Message, interacts with a Security Model to secure the message. For that it uses the following primitives: - for requests and notifications: generateRequestMsg, as described in section 4.4.1. - for response messages: generateResponseMsg as described in section 4.4.3.
Once the SNMP message is prepared by a Message Processing Model, the Dispatcher sends the message to the desired address using the appropriate transport.A.3. Application Design Requirements
Within an application, there may be an explicit binding to a specific SNMP message version, i.e., a specific Message Processing Model, and to a specific Access Control Model, but there should be no reference to any data defined by a specific Message Processing Model or Access Control Model. Within an application, there should be no reference to any specific Security Model, or any data defined by a specific Security Model. An application determines whether explicit or implicit access control should be applied to the operation, and, if access control is needed, which Access Control Model should be used. An application has the responsibility to define any MIB module(s) used to provide application-specific services. Applications interact with the SNMP engine to initiate messages, receive responses, receive asynchronous messages, and send responses.A.3.1. Applications that Initiate Messages
Applications may request that the SNMP engine send messages containing SNMP commands or notifications using the sendPdu primitive as described in section 4.1.1. If it is desired that a message be sent to multiple targets, it is the responsibility of the application to provide the iteration. The SNMP engine assumes necessary access control has been applied to the PDU, and provides no access control services. The SNMP engine looks at the "expectResponse" parameter, and if a response is expected, then the appropriate information is cached such that a later response can be associated to this message, and can then be returned to the application. A sendPduHandle is returned to the application so it can later correspond the response with this message as well.
A.3.2. Applications that Receive Responses
The SNMP engine matches the incoming response messages to outstanding messages sent by this SNMP engine, and forwards the response to the associated application using the processResponsePdu primitive, as described in section 4.1.4.A.3.3. Applications that Receive Asynchronous Messages
When an SNMP engine receives a message that is not the response to a request from this SNMP engine, it must determine to which application the message should be given. An Application that wishes to receive asynchronous messages registers itself with the engine using the primitive registerContextEngineID as described in section 4.1.5. An Application that wishes to stop receiving asynchronous messages should unregister itself with the SNMP engine using the primitive unregisterContextEngineID as described in section 4.1.5. Only one registration per combination of PDU type and contextEngineID is permitted at the same time. Duplicate registrations are ignored. An errorIndication will be returned to the application that attempts to duplicate a registration. All asynchronously received messages containing a registered combination of PDU type and contextEngineID are sent to the application which registered to support that combination. The engine forwards the PDU to the registered application, using the processPdu primitive, as described in section 4.1.2.A.3.4. Applications that Send Responses
Request operations require responses. An application sends a response via the returnResponsePdu primitive, as described in section 4.1.3. The contextEngineID, contextName, securityModel, securityName, securityLevel, and stateReference parameters are from the initial processPdu primitive. The PDU and statusInformation are the results of processing.
A.4. Access Control Model Design Requirements
An Access Control Model determines whether the specified securityName is allowed to perform the requested operation on a specified managed object. The Access Control Model specifies the rules by which access control is determined. The persistent data used for access control should be manageable using SNMP, but the Access Control Model defines whether an instantiation of the MIB is a conformance requirement. The Access Control Model must provide the primitive isAccessAllowed.Editors' Addresses
Bert Wijnen Lucent Technologies Schagen 33 3461 GL Linschoten Netherlands Phone: +31 348-680-485 EMail: bwijnen@lucent.com David Harrington Enterasys Networks Post Office Box 5005 35 Industrial Way Rochester, New Hampshire 03866-5005 USA Phone: +1 603-337-2614 EMail: dbh@enterasys.com Randy Presuhn BMC Software, Inc. 2141 North First Street San Jose, California 95131 USA Phone: +1 408-546-1006 Fax: +1 408-965-0359 EMail: randy_presuhn@bmc.com
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.