Tech-invite3GPPspaceIETF RFCsSIP
in Index   Prev   Next

RFC 3535

Overview of the 2002 IAB Network Management Workshop

Pages: 20

Top   ToC   RFC3535 - Page 1
Network Working Group                                   J. Schoenwaelder
Request for Comments: 3535               International University Bremen
Category: Informational                                         May 2003

          Overview of the 2002 IAB Network Management Workshop

Status of this Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
   memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.


This document provides an overview of a workshop held by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) on Network Management. The workshop was hosted by CNRI in Reston, VA, USA on June 4 thru June 6, 2002. The goal of the workshop was to continue the important dialog started between network operators and protocol developers, and to guide the IETFs focus on future work regarding network management. This report summarizes the discussions and lists the conclusions and recommendations to the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) community.
Top   ToC   RFC3535 - Page 2

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Network Management Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1 SNMP / SMI / MIBs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2 COPS-PR / SPPI / PIBs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3 CIM / MOF / UML / PCIM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.4 CLI / TELNET / SSH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.5 HTTP / HTML . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.6 XML . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3. Operator Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. SNMP Framework Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5. Consolidated Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Appendix - Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

1. Introduction

The IETF has started several activities in the operations and management area to develop technologies and standards that aim to help network operators manage their networks. The main network management technologies currently being developed within the IETF are: o The Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) [RFC3410] was created in the late 1980s. The initial version (SNMPv1) is widely deployed, while the latest version (SNMPv3), which addresses security requirements, is just beginning to gain significant deployment. o The Common Information Model (CIM) [CIM], developed by the Distributed Management Task Force (DMTF), has been extended in cooperation with the DMTF to describe high-level policies as rule sets (PCIM) [RFC3060]. Mappings of the CIM policy extensions to LDAP schemas have been defined and work continues to define specific schema extension for QoS and security policies. o The Common Open Policy Service (COPS) [RFC2748] protocol has been extended to provision configuration information on devices (COPS- PR) [RFC3084]. Work is underway to define data definitions for specific services such as Differentiated Services (DiffServ).
Top   ToC   RFC3535 - Page 3
   During 2001, several meetings have been organized at various events
   (NANOG-22 May 2001, RIPE-40 October 2001, LISA-XV December 2001,
   IETF-52 December 2001) to start a direct dialog between network
   operators and protocol developers.  During these meetings, several
   operators have expressed their opinion that the developments in the
   IETF do not really address their requirements, especially for
   configuration management.  This naturally leads to the question of
   whether the IETF should refocus resources, and which strategic future
   activities in the operations and management area should be started.

   The Internet Architecture Board (IAB), on June 4 thru June 6, 2002,
   held an invitational workshop on network management.  The goal of the
   workshop was to continue the important dialog started between network
   operators and protocol developers, and to guide the IETFs focus on
   future work regarding network management.

   The workshop started with two breakout session to (a) identify a list
   of technologies relevant for network management together with their
   strengths and weaknesses, and to (b) identify the most important
   operator needs.  The results of these discussions are documented in
   Section 2 and Section 3.  During the following discussions, many more
   specific characteristics of the current SNMP framework were
   identified.  These discussions are documented in Section 4.  Section
   5 defines a combined feature list that was developed during the
   discussions following the breakout sessions.  Section 6 gives
   concrete recommendations to the IETF.

   The following text makes no explicit distinction between different
   versions of SNMP.  For the majority of the SNMP related statements,
   the protocol version is irrelevant.  Nevertheless, some statements
   are more applicable to SNMPv1/SNMPv2c environments, while other
   statements (especially those concerned with security) are more
   applicable to SNMPv3 environments.

2. Network Management Technologies

During the breakout sessions, the protocol developers assembled a list of the various network management technologies that are available or under active development. For each technology, a list of strong (+) and weak (-) points were identified. There are also some characteristics which appear to be neutral (o). The list does not attempt to be complete. Focus was given to IETF specific technologies (SNMP, COPS-PR, PCIM) and widely used proprietary technologies (CLI, HTTP/HTML, XML). The existence of other generic management technologies (such as TL1, CORBA, CMIP/GDMO,
Top   ToC   RFC3535 - Page 4
   TMN) or specific management technologies for specific problem domains
   (such as RADIUS, DHCP, BGP, OSPF) were acknowledged, but were not the
   focus of discussion.

2.1 SNMP / SMI / MIBs

The SNMP management technology was created in the late 1980s and has since been widely implemented and deployed in the Internet. There is lots of implementational and operational experience, and the characteristics of the technology are thus well understood. + SNMP works reasonably well for device monitoring. The stateless nature of SNMP is useful for statistical and status polling. + SNMP is widely deployed for basic monitoring. Some core MIB modules, such as the IF-MIB [RFC2863], are implemented on most networking devices. + There are many well defined proprietary MIB modules developed by network device vendors to support their management products. + SNMP is an important data source for systems that do event correlation, alarm detection, and root cause analysis. o SNMP requires applications to be useful. SNMP was, from its early days, designed as a programmatic interface between management applications and devices. As such, using SNMP without management applications or smart tools appears to be more complicated. o Standardized MIB modules often lack writable MIB objects which can be used for configuration, and this leads to a situation where the interesting writable objects exist in proprietary MIB modules. - There are scaling problems with regard to the number of objects in a device. While SNMP provides reasonable performance for the retrieval of a small amount of data from many devices, it becomes rather slow when retrieving large amounts of data (such as routing tables) from a few devices. - There is too little deployment of writable MIB modules. While there are some notable exceptions in areas, such as cable modems where writable MIB modules are essential, it appears that router equipment is usually not fully configurable via SNMP. - The SNMP transactional model and the protocol constraints make it more complex to implement MIBs, as compared to the implementation of commands of a command line interface interpreter. A logical operation on a MIB can turn into a sequence of SNMP interactions
Top   ToC   RFC3535 - Page 5
      where the implementation has to maintain state until the operation
      is complete, or until a failure has been determined.  In case of a
      failure, a robust implementation must be smart enough to roll the
      device back into a consistent state.

   -  SNMP does not support easy retrieval and playback of
      configurations.  One part of the problem is that it is not easy to
      identify configuration objects.  Another part of the problem is
      that the naming system is very specific and physical device
      reconfigurations can thus break the capability to play back a
      previous configuration.

   -  There is often a semantic mismatch between the task-oriented view
      of the world usually preferred by operators and the data-centric
      view of the world provided by SNMP.  Mapping from a task-oriented
      view to the data-centric view often requires some non-trivial code
      on the management application side.

   -  Several standardized MIB modules lack a description of high-level
      procedures.  It is often not obvious from reading the MIB modules
      how certain high-level tasks are accomplished, which leads to
      several different ways to achieve the same goal, which increases
      costs and hinders interoperability.

   A more detailed discussion about the SNMP management technology can
   be found in Section 4.


The COPS protocol [RFC2748] was defined in the late 1990s to support policy control over QoS signaling protocols. The COPS-PR extension allows provision policy information on devises. + COPS-PR allows high-level transactions for single devices, including deleting one configuration and replacing it with another. + COPS-PRs non-overlapping instance namespace normally ensures that no other manager can corrupt a specific configuration. All transactions for a given instance namespace are required to be executed in-order. + Both manager and device states are completely synchronized with one another at all times. If there is a failure in communication, the state is resynchronized when the network is operating properly again and the device's network configuration is valid.
Top   ToC   RFC3535 - Page 6
   +  The atomicity of transactions is well-defined.  If there is any
      failure in a transaction, that specific failure is reported to the
      manager, and the local configuration is supposed to be
      automatically rolled-back to the state of the last "good"

   +  Capability reporting is part of the framework PIB which must be
      supported by COPS-PR implementations.  This allows management
      applications to adapt to the capabilities present on a device.

   +  The focus of COPS-PR is configuration, and the protocol has been
      optimized for this purpose (by using for example TCP as a
      transport mechanism).

   o  Only a single manager is allowed to have control, at any point in
      time, for a given subject category on a device.  (The subject
      category maps to a COPS Client-Type.)  This single manager
      assumption simplifies the protocol as it makes it easier to
      maintain shared state.

   o  Similar to SNMP, COPS-PR requires applications to be useful since
      it is also designed as a programmatic interface between management
      applications and devices.

   -  As of the time of the meeting, there are no standardized PIB

   -  Compared to SNMP, there is not yet enough experience to understand
      the strong and weak aspects of the protocol in operational

   -  COPS-PR does not support easy retrieval and playback of
      configurations.  The reasons are similar as for SNMP.

   -  The COPS-PR view of the world is data-centric, similar to SNMP's
      view of the world.  A mapping from the data-centric view to a
      task-oriented view and vice versa, has similar complexities as
      with SNMP.

2.3 CIM / MOF / UML / PCIM

The development of the Common Information Model (CIM) [CIM] started in the DMTF in the mid 1990s. The development follows a top-down approach where core classes are defined first and later extended to model specific services. The DMTF and the IETF jointly developed policy extensions of the CIM, known as PCIM [RFC3060].
Top   ToC   RFC3535 - Page 7
   +  The CIM technology generally follows principles of object-
      orientation with full support of methods on data objects, which is
      not available in SNMP or COPS-PR.

   +  The MOF format allows representation of instances in a common
      format.  No such common format exists for SNMP or COPS-PR.  It is
      of course possible to store instances in the form of BER encoded
      ASN.1 sequences, but this is generally not suitable for human

   +  There is support for a query facility which allows the locating of
      CIM objects.  However, the query language itself is not yet
      specified as part of the CIM standards.  Implementations currently
      use proprietary query languages, such as the Windows Management
      Instrumentation Query Language (WQL).

   +  The information modeling work in CIM is done by using Unified
      Modeling Language (UML) as a graphical notation.  This attracts
      people with a computer science background who have learned to use
      UML as part of their education.

   o  The main practical use of CIM schemas today seems to be the
      definition of data structures used internally by management

   -  The CIM schemas have rather complex interrelationships that must
      be understood before one can reasonably extend the set of existing

   -  Interoperability between CIM implementations seems to be
      problematic compared to the number of interoperable SNMP
      implementations available today.

   -  So far, CIM schemas have seen limited implementation and usage as
      an interface between management systems and network devices.


Most devices have a builtin command line interface (CLI) for configuration and troubleshooting purposes. Network access to the CLI has traditionally been through the TELNET protocol, while the SSH protocol is gaining momentum to address security issues associated with TELNET. In the following, only CLIs that actually parse and execute commands are considered. (Menu-oriented interfaces are difficult for automation and thus not relevant here.) + Command line interfaces are generally task-oriented, which make them easier to use for human operators.
Top   ToC   RFC3535 - Page 8
   +  A saved sequence of textual commands can easily be replayed.
      Simple substitutions can be made with arbitrary text processing

   +  It is usually necessary to learn at least parts of the command
      line interface of new devices in order to create the initial
      configuration.  Once people have learned (parts of) the command
      line interface, it is natural for them to use the same interface
      and abstractions for automating configuration changes.

   +  A command line interface does not require any special purpose
      applications (telnet and ssh are readily available on most systems

   +  Most command line interfaces provide context sensitive help that
      reduces the learning curve.

   -  Some command line interfaces lack a common data model.  It is very
      well possible that the same command on different devices, even
      from the same vendor, behaves differently.

   -  The command line interface is primarily targeted to humans which
      can adapt to minor syntax and format changes easily.  Using
      command line interfaces as a programmatic interface is troublesome
      because of parsing complexities.

   -  Command line interfaces often lack proper version control for the
      syntax and the semantics.  It is therefore time consuming and
      error prone to maintain programs or scripts that interface with
      different versions of a command line interface.

   -  Since command line interfaces are proprietary, they can not be
      used efficiently to automate processes in an environment with a
      heterogenous set of devices.

   -  The access control facilities, if present at all, are often ad-hoc
      and sometimes insufficient.


Many devices have an embedded web server which can be used to configure the device and to obtain status information. The commonly used protocol is HTTP, and information is rendered in HTML. Some devices also expect that clients have facilities such as Java or Java Script. + Embedded web servers for configuration are end-user friendly and solution oriented.
Top   ToC   RFC3535 - Page 9
   +  Embedded web servers are suitable for configuring consumer devices
      by inexperienced users.

   +  Web server configuration is widely deployed, especially in boxes
      targeted to the consumer market.

   +  There is no need for specialized applications to use embedded web
      servers since web browsers are commonly available today.

   -  Embedded web servers are management application hostile.  Parsing
      HTML pages to extract useful information is extremely painful.

   -  Replay of configuration is often problematic, either because the
      web pages rely on some active content or because different
      versions of the same device use different ways to interact with
      the user.

   -  The access control facilities, if present at all, are often ad-hoc
      and sometimes insufficient.

2.6 XML

In the late 1990's, some vendors started to use the Extensible Markup Language (XML) [XML] for describing device configurations and for protocols that can be used to retrieve and manipulate XML formatted configurations. + XML is a machine readable format which is easy to process and there are many good off the shelf tools available. + XML allows the description of structured data of almost arbitrary complexity. + The basic syntax rules behind XML are relatively easy to learn. + XML provides a document-oriented view of configuration data (similar to many proprietary configuration file formats). + XML has a robust schema language XSD [XSD] for which many good off the shelf tools exist. o XML alone is just syntax. XML schemas must be carefully designed to make XML truly useful as a data exchange format.
Top   ToC   RFC3535 - Page 10
   -  XML is rather verbose.  This either increases the bandwidth
      required to move management information around (which is an issue
      in e.g., wireless or asymmetric cable networks) or it requires
      that the systems involved have the processing power to do on the
      fly compression/decompression.

   -  There is a lack of commonly accepted standardized management
      specific XML schemas.

3. Operator Requirements

During the breakout session, the operators were asked to identify needs that have not been sufficiently addressed. The results produced during the breakout session were later discussed and resulted in the following list of operator requirements. 1. Ease of use is a key requirement for any network management technology from the operators point of view. 2. It is necessary to make a clear distinction between configuration data, data that describes operational state and statistics. Some devices make it very hard to determine which parameters were administratively configured and which were obtained via other mechanisms such as routing protocols. 3. It is required to be able to fetch separately configuration data, operational state data, and statistics from devices, and to be able to compare these between devices. 4. It is necessary to enable operators to concentrate on the configuration of the network as a whole rather than individual devices. 5. Support for configuration transactions across a number of devices would significantly simplify network configuration management. 6. Given configuration A and configuration B, it should be possible to generate the operations necessary to get from A to B with minimal state changes and effects on network and systems. It is important to minimize the impact caused by configuration changes. 7. A mechanism to dump and restore configurations is a primitive operation needed by operators. Standards for pulling and pushing configurations from/to devices are desirable.
Top   ToC   RFC3535 - Page 11
   8.  It must be easy to do consistency checks of configurations over
       time and between the ends of a link in order to determine the
       changes between two configurations and whether those
       configurations are consistent.

   9.  Network wide configurations are typically stored in central
       master databases and transformed into formats that can be pushed
       to devices, either by generating sequences of CLI commands or
       complete configuration files that are pushed to devices.  There
       is no common database schema for network configuration, although
       the models used by various operators are probably very similar.
       It is desirable to extract, document, and standardize the common
       parts of these network wide configuration database schemas.

   10. It is highly desirable that text processing tools such as diff,
       and version management tools such as RCS or CVS, can be used to
       process configurations, which implies that devices should not
       arbitrarily reorder data such as access control lists.

   11. The granularity of access control needed on management interfaces
       needs to match operational needs.  Typical requirements are a
       role-based access control model and the principle of least
       privilege, where a user can be given only the minimum access
       necessary to perform a required task.

   12. It must be possible to do consistency checks of access control
       lists across devices.

   13. It is important to distinguish between the distribution of
       configurations and the activation of a certain configuration.
       Devices should be able to hold multiple configurations.

   14. SNMP access control is data-oriented, while CLI access control is
       usually command (task) oriented.  Depending on the management
       function, sometimes data-oriented or task-oriented access control
       makes more sense.  As such, it is a requirement to support both
       data-oriented and task-oriented access control.

   So far, there is no published document that clearly defines the
   requirements of the operators.
Top   ToC   RFC3535 - Page 12

4. SNMP Framework Discussions

During the discussions, many properties of the SNMP framework were identified. 1. It is usually not possible to retrieve complete device configurations via SNMP so that they can be compared with previous configurations or checked for consistency across devices. There is usually only incomplete coverage of device features via the SNMP interface, and there is a lack of differentiation between configuration data and operational state data for many features. 2. The quality of SNMP instrumentations is sometimes disappointing. SNMP access sometimes crashes systems or returns wrong data. 3. MIB modules and their implementations are not available in a timely manner (sometimes MIB modules lag years behind) which forces users to use the CLI. 4. Operators view current SNMP programming/scripting interfaces as being too low-level and thus too time consuming and inconvenient for practical use. 5. Lexicographic ordering is sometimes artificial with regard to internal data structures and causes either significant runtime overhead, or increases implementation costs or implementation delay or both. 6. Poor performance for bulk data transfers. The typical examples are routing tables. 7. Poor performance on query operations that were not anticipated during the MIB design. A typical example is the following query: Which outgoing interface is being used for a specific destination address? 8. The SNMP credentials and key management are considered complex, especially since they do not integrate well with other existing credential and key management systems. 9. The SMI language is hard to deal with and not very practical. 10. MIB modules are often over-engineered in the sense that they contain lots of variables that operators do not look at.
Top   ToC   RFC3535 - Page 13
   11. SNMP traps are used to track state changes but often syslog
       messages are considered more useful since they usually contain
       more information to describe the problem.  SNMP traps usually
       require subsequent get operations to figure out what the trap
       really means.

   12. Device manufacturers find SNMP instrumentations inherently
       difficult to implement, especially with complex table indexing
       schemes and table interrelationships.

   13. MIB modules often lack a description of how the various objects
       can be used to achieve certain management functions.  (MIB
       modules can often be characterized as a list of ingredients
       without a recipe.)

   14. The lack of structured types and various RPC interactions
       (methods) make MIB modules much more complex to design and

   15. The lack of query and aggregation capabilities (reduction of
       data) causes efficiency and scalability problems.

   16. The SNMP protocol was simplified in terms of the number of
       protocol operations and resource requirements on managed devices.
       It was not simplified in terms of usability by network operators
       or instrumentation implementors.

   17. There is a semantic mismatch between the low-level data-oriented
       abstraction level of MIB modules and the task-oriented
       abstraction level desired by network operators.  Bridging the gap
       with tools is in principle possible, but in general it is
       expensive as it requires some serious development and programming

   18. SNMP seems to work reasonably well for small devices which have a
       limited number of managed objects and where end-user management
       applications are shipped by the vendor.  For more complex
       devices, SNMP becomes too expensive and too hard to use.

   19. There is a disincentive for vendors to implement SNMP equivalent
       MIB modules for all their CLI commands because they do not see a
       valued proposition.  This undermines the value of third party
       standard SNMP solutions.

   20. Rapid feature development is in general not compatible with the
       standardization of the configuration interface.
Top   ToC   RFC3535 - Page 14

5. Consolidated Observations

1. Programmatic interfaces have to provide full coverage otherwise they will not be used by network operators since they have to revert to CLIs anyway. 2. Operators perceive that equipment vendors do not implement MIB modules in a timely manner. Neither read-only nor read-write MIB modules are available on time today. 3. The attendees perceive that right now it is too hard to implement useful MIB modules within network equipment. 4. Because of the previous items, SNMP is not widely used today for network device configuration, although there are notable exceptions. 5. It is necessary to clearly distinguish between configuration data and operational data. 6. It would be nice to have a single data definition language for all programmatic interfaces (in case there happen to be multiple programmatic interfaces). 7. In general, there is a lack of input from the enterprise network space. Those enterprises who provided input tend to operate their networks like network operators. 8. It is required to be able to dump and reload a device configuration in a textual format in a standard manner across multiple vendors and device types. 9. It is desirable to have a mechanism to distribute configurations to devices under transactional constraints. 10. Eliminating SNMP altogether is not an option. 11. Robust access control is needed. In addition, it is desirable to be able to enable/disable individual MIB modules actually implemented on a device. 12. Textual configuration files should be able to contain international characters. Human-readable strings should utilize the least-bad internationalized character set and encoding, which this year almost certainly means UTF-8. Protocol elements should be in case insensitive ASCII.
Top   ToC   RFC3535 - Page 15
   13. The deployed tools for event/alarm correlation, root cause
       analysis and logging are not sufficient.

   14. There is a need to support a human interface and a programmatic

   15. The internal method routines for both interfaces should be the
       same to ensure that data exchanged between these two interfaces
       is always consistent.

   16. The implementation costs have to be low on devices.

   17. The implementation costs have to be low on managers.

   18. The specification costs for data models have to be low.

   19. Standardization costs for data models have to be low.

   20. There should be a single data modeling language with a human
       friendly syntax.

   21. The data modeling language must support compound data types.

   22. There is a need for data aggregation capabilities on the devices.

   23. There should be a common data interchange format for instance
       data that allows easy post-processing and analysis.

   24. There is a need for a common data exchange format with single and
       multi-system transactions (which implies rollback across devices
       in error situations).

   25. There is a need to reduce the semantic mismatch between current
       data models and the primitives used by operators.

   26. It should be possible to perform operations on selected subsets
       of management data.

   27. It is necessary to discover the capabilities of devices.

   28. There is a need for a secure transport, authentication, identity,
       and access control which integrates well with existing key and
       credential management infrastructure.

   29. It must be possible to define task oriented views and access
       control rules.
Top   ToC   RFC3535 - Page 16
   30. The complete configuration of a device should be doable with a
       single protocol.

   31. A configuration protocol must be efficient and reliable and it
       must scale in the number of transactions and devices.

   32. Devices must be able to support minimally interruptive
       configuration deltas.

   33. A solution must support function call semantics (methods) to
       implement functions, such as a longest prefix match on a routing

6. Recommendations

1. The workshop recommends that the IETF stop forcing working groups to provide writable MIB modules. It should be the decision of the working group whether they want to provide writable objects or not. 2. The workshop recommends that a group be formed to investigate why current MIB modules do not contain all the objects needed by operators to monitor their networks. 3. The workshop recommends that a group be formed to investigate why the current SNMP protocol does not satisfy all the monitoring requirements of operators. 4. The workshop recommends, with strong consensus from both protocol developers and operators, that the IETF focus resources on the standardization of configuration management mechanisms. 5. The workshop recommends, with strong consensus from the operators and rough consensus from the protocol developers, that the IETF/IRTF should spend resources on the development and standardization of XML-based device configuration and management technologies (such as common XML configuration schemas, exchange protocols and so on). 6. The workshop recommends, with strong consensus from the operators and rough consensus from the protocol developers, that the IETF/IRTF should not spend resources on developing HTML-based or HTTP-based methods for configuration management.
Top   ToC   RFC3535 - Page 17
   7.  The workshop recommends, with rough consensus from the operators
       and strong consensus from the protocol developers, that the IETF
       should continue to spend resources on the evolution of the
       SMI/SPPI data definition languages as being done in the SMIng
       working group.

   8.  The workshop recommends, with split consensus from the operators
       and rough consensus from the protocol developers, that the IETF
       should spend resources on fixing the MIB development and
       standardization process.

   The workshop also discussed the following items and achieved rough
   consensus, but did not make a recommendation.

   1.  The workshop had split consensus from the operators and rough
       consensus from the protocol developers, that the IETF should not
       focus resources on CIM extensions.

   2.  The workshop had rough consensus from the protocol developers
       that the IETF should not spend resources on COPS-PR development.
       So far, the operators have only very limited experience with
       COPS-PR.  In general, however, they felt that further development
       of COPS-PR might be a waste of resources as they assume that
       COPS-PR does not really address their requirements.

   3.  The workshop had rough consensus from the protocol developers
       that the IETF should not spend resources on SPPI PIB definitions.
       The operators had rough consensus that they do not care about
       SPPI PIBs.

7. Security Considerations

This document is a report of an IAB Network Management workshop. As such, it does not have any direct security implications for the Internet.

8. Acknowledgments

The editor would like to thank Dave Durham, Simon Leinen and John Schnizlein for taking detailed minutes during the workshop.
Top   ToC   RFC3535 - Page 18

Normative References

[RFC3410] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D. and B. Stewart, "Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet- Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410, December 2002. [CIM] Distributed Management Task Force, "Common Information Model (CIM) Specification Version 2.2", DSP 0004, June 1999. [RFC3060] Moore, B., Ellesson, E., Strassner, J. and A. Westerinen, "Policy Core Information Model -- Version 1 Specification", RFC 3060, February 2001. [RFC2748] Durham, D., Boyle, J., Cohen, R., Herzog, S., Rajan, R. and A. Sastry, "The COPS (Common Open Policy Service) Protocol", RFC 2748, January 2000. [RFC3084] Chan, K., Seligson, J., Durham, D., Gai, S., McCloghrie, K., Herzog, S., Reichmeyer, F., Yavatkar, R. and A. Smith, "COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning (COPS-PR)", RFC 3084, March 2001. [XML] Bray, T., Paoli, J. and C. Sperberg-McQueen, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0", W3C Recommendation, February 1998.

Informative References

[RFC2863] McCloghrie, K. and F. Kastenholz, "The Interfaces Group MIB", RFC 2863, June 2000. [XSD] David, D., "XML Schema Part 0: Primer", W3C Recommendation, May 2001.
Top   ToC   RFC3535 - Page 19

Appendix - Participants

Ran Atkinson Extreme Networks Rob Austein InterNetShare Andy Bierman Cisco Systems Steve Bellovin AT&T Randy Bush AT&T Leslie Daigle VeriSign David Durham Intel Vijay Gill Wes Hardaker Network Associates Laboratories Ed Kern Simon Leinen Switch Ken Lindahl University of California Berkeley David Partain Ericsson Andrew Partan UUnet/Verio/MFN Vern Paxson ICIR Aiko Pras Univeristy of Twente Randy Presuhn BMC Software Juergen Schoenwaelder University of Osnabrueck John Schnizlein Cisco Systems Mike St. Johns Ruediger Volk Deutsche Telekom Steve Waldbusser Margaret Wassermann Windriver Glen Waters Nortel Networks Bert Wijnen Lucent

Author's Address

Comments should be submitted to the <> mailing list. Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen P.O. Box 750 561 28725 Bremen Germany Phone: +49 421 200 3587 EMail:
Top   ToC   RFC3535 - Page 20
Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.

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

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

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an


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