|Title||Overview of the 2002 IAB Network Management Workshop
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 (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)
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
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
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
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).
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,
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
+ 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
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
- 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.
2.2 COPS-PR / SPPI / PIBs
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
+ 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
+ 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.
+ 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
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
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].
+ 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.
2.4 CLI / TELNET / SSH
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.
+ 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.
2.5 HTTP / HTML
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
+ Embedded web servers for configuration are end-user friendly and
+ 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 access control facilities, if present at all, are often ad-hoc
and sometimes insufficient.
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
+ 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
+ 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.
- 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
- 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
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.
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.
4. SNMP Framework Discussions
During the discussions, many properties of the SNMP framework were
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
30. The complete configuration of a device should be doable with a
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
33. A solution must support function call semantics (methods) to
implement functions, such as a longest prefix match on a routing
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
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.
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
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
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
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
The editor would like to thank Dave Durham, Simon Leinen and John
Schnizlein for taking detailed minutes during the workshop.
[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
[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,
[XML] Bray, T., Paoli, J. and C. Sperberg-McQueen, "Extensible
Markup Language (XML) 1.0", W3C Recommendation, February
[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.
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
Wes Hardaker Network Associates Laboratories
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
Margaret Wassermann Windriver
Glen Waters Nortel Networks
Bert Wijnen Lucent
Comments should be submitted to the <email@example.com> mailing
International University Bremen
P.O. Box 750 561
Phone: +49 421 200 3587
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
"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.
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the