Subject: ForCES MIB: new revision draft-haas-forces-mib-01.txt

From: Robert Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 11:43:02 +0100

Hi All,
I have just finished updating the MIB draft based on the discussions of 
our last ietf meeting and comments received on the list. Please send 
your comments & suggestions, and I suggest we make it a wg draft.

Highlights of -01 revision:
- The actual MIB definition is there and has been checked with smilint.
- The MIB essentially contains a table of associations. Hence the same 
MIB can be used either per CE or per NE (see Section 2).
- The MIB does not duplicate information available from the FE Protocol 
LFB. For instance, heartbeat settings are not present.
- The MIB contains a few new counters that should be helpful to diagnose 
configuration and other problems, for instance, counting how many times 
an association is flapping to UP state (as suggested by Avri), etc.
- The MIB defines the DOWN/ESTABLISHING/UP association states from the 
CE's point of view. Associations in the DOWN state may stay in the MIB, 
it is up to the implementer to decide how long to keep such associations.
- The MIB is primarily read-only. We can extend it in the future if 
necessary (for instance, to perform some of the FEM/CEM operations)

Open points of -01 revision:
- Should the MIB indicate whether some associations have been rejected 
by the CE (see note in Section 3) ?
- The root point for this MIB must be allocated by IANA, if possible 
under prefix: iso.org.dod.internet.mgmt.mib-2 (1.3.6.1.2.1)
- The table of associations is indexed by (CEID, FEID). Is this acceptable ?

Regards,
-Robert

Khosravi, Hormuzd M wrote:

>I believe this is what the MIB is doing...I just looked at the MIB draft.
>It looks like a good design to me though there are lots of editorial problems with the draft itself.
>
>Good work Robert!
>
>Regards
>Hormuzd
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Forwarding and Control Element Separation [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
>Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 5:31 PM
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [FORCES] ForCES MIB: 1st draft
>
>I would hope we don't try to duplicate all the ForCES information into the MIB.
>While one could imagine trying to use SNMP to remotely control a CE, so as 
>to control the FE, I had thought that was not the goal.
>
>Hence, the ForCES MIB is about control the protocol, not the model 
>objects.  It would report, as seen by the CE, what the protocol is 
>doing.  (I would expect it to include some of the statistics Robert refers 
>to in his Note.)
>If we want to allow "set"s at all, I suppose we could allow setting the 
>heartbeat interval.
>We might want to make visible a view FE attributes like the FE 
>understanding of the protocol version.
>
>But I hope we are not going to try to get the LFB support information, LFB 
>topology, etc into the MIB.
>
>
>Yours,
>Joel
>
>At 06:51 AM 10/25/2005, Tom Petch wrote:
>  
>
>>I would have thought there was a need for an NE MIB which has a table giving
>>details of the CE and FE, their ids, capabilities and so on, rather than
>>inferring that from a list of associations
>>
>>Tom Petch
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Robert Haas" <[email-masked]>
>>To: <[email-masked]>
>>Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 4:51 PM
>>Subject: Re: ForCES MIB: 1st draft
>>
>>
>>Hi All,
>>The -00 version of the ForCES MIB draft is in the repository:
>>
>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-haas-forces-mib-00.txt
>>
>>Comments and contributions welcome.
>>
>>Regards,
>>-Robert
>>
>>--
>>Dr. Robert R. Haas
>>IBM Zurich Research Laboratory
>>Säumerstrasse 4
>>CH-8803 Rüschlikon/Switzerland
>>phone +41-44-724-8698  fax +41-44-724-8578  http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~rha
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>

-- 
Dr. Robert R. Haas
IBM Zurich Research Laboratory
Säumerstrasse 4
CH-8803 Rüschlikon/Switzerland
phone +41-44-724-8698  fax +41-44-724-8578  http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~rha

                              ForCES MIB           December 1st, 2005 

   ForCES                                                               
   Internet Draft                                               R. Haas 
   Document: draft-haas-forces-mib-01.txt                           IBM 
   Expires: June 1st, 2006                                December 2005 

                                ForCES MIB 

Status of this Memo 
    
   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 
 
   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that 
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 
   Drafts. 
 
   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of 6 months 
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 
 
   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 
 
   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 
 
   This Internet-Draft will expire on June 1st, 2006. 
 
Copyright Notice 
 
   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). 
 
   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 
   retain all their rights.  
    
   This document and the information contained herein are provided on 
   an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE 

Haas                   Expires – June 1st, 2006              [Page 1] 
                              ForCES MIB           December 1st, 2005 

   REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE 
   INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR 
   IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF 
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 
    
Abstract 
   
  This memo defines a Management Information Base (MIB) for use with 
  network management protocols in the Internet community. In 
  particular, it defines a MIB for the Forwarding and Control Element 
  Separation (ForCES) Network Element (NE). The ForCES working group 
  is defining a protocol to allow a Control Element (CE) to control the 
  behavior of a Forwarding Element (FE). 
    
Conventions used in this document 
    
   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",  "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119]. 
    
Table of Contents 
    
   1. Introduction........................................... 2 
   2. Design of ForCES MIB................................... 4 
   3. Association State...................................... 4 
   4. MIB Definition......................................... 4 
   Security Considerations................................... 8 
   References................................................ 9 
   Acknowledgments........................................... 9 
   Author's Addresses........................................ 9 

1. 
  Introduction 

   The ForCES MIB is a primarily read-only MIB that captures information 
   related to the ForCES protocol. This includes state information about 
   the associations between CE(s) and FE(s) in the NE.  
    
   The ForCES MIB does not include information that is specified in 
   other MIBs, such as packet counters for interfaces, etc.  
    
   More specifically , the information in the ForCES MIB relative to 
   associations includes:  

Haas                   Expires – June 1st, 2006              [Page 2] 
                              ForCES MIB           December 1st, 2005 

   - identifiers of the elements in the association  
   - state of the association  
   - configuration parameters of the association  
   - statistics of the association  
    
   The relevant references from the ForCES requirements and architecture 
   documents are repeated below:  
    
   From the ForCES requirements RFC [RFC 3654], Section 4, point 4:  
    
     “A NE MUST support the appearance of a single functional device. 
     For example, in a router, the TTL of the packet should be 
     decremented only once as it traverses the NE regardless of how many 
     FEs through which it passes.  However, external entities (e.g., FE 
     managers and CE managers) MAY have direct access to individual 
     ForCES protocol elements for providing information to transition 
     them from the pre-association to post-association phase.”  
      
   And [RFC 3654], Section 4, point 14: 
       
     “1. The ability for a management tool (e.g., SNMP) to be used to 
     read(but not change) the state of FE SHOULD NOT be precluded.  
     2. It MUST NOT be possible for management tools (e.g., SNMP, etc) 
     to change the state of a FE in a manner that affects overall NE 
     behavior without the CE being notified.” 
      
   According to the ForCES architecture RFC [RFC 3746], Section 3.3:  
      
     “CE managers may be physically and logically separate entities that 
     configure the CE with FE information via such mechanisms as COPS-PR 
     [7] or SNMP [5].” 
      
   and [RFC 3746], Section 5.7:   
      
     “RFC 1812 [2] also dictates that "Routers MUST be manageable by 
     SNMP". In general, for the post-association phase, most external 
     management tasks (including SNMP) should be done through 
     interaction with the CE in order to support the appearance of a 
     single functional device. Therefore, it is recommended that an SNMP 
     agent be implemented by CEs and that the SNMP messages received by 
     FEs be redirected to their CEs. AgentX framework defined in RFC 
     2741 ([6]) may be applied here such that CEs act in the role of 
     master agent to process SNMP protocol messages while FEs act in the 
     role of subagent to provide access to the MIB objects residing on 
     FEs.  AgentX protocol messages between the master agent (CE) and 
     the subagent (FE) are encapsulated and transported via ForCES, just 
     like data packets from any other application layer protocols.” 

 
Haas                   Expires – June 1st, 2006              [Page 3] 
                              ForCES MIB           December 1st, 2005 

2. 
  Design of ForCES MIB 
    
   In an NE composed of one or more FEs and a single CE, the CE is 
   clearly aware of all associations and hence can provide this 
   information in a single ForCES MIB. In contrast, in an NE composed of 
   more than one CE, such association information is distributed and 
   hence more than one ForCES MIB may be necessary, unless this 
   information is aggregated into a single ForCES MIB by some means 
   beyond the scope of this document. Nevertheless, the ForCES MIB 
   design is compatible with both the single-CE and the multiple-CE 
   case. 

3. 
  Association State  
    
   Association state as shown in the MIB is considered from the CE’s 
   point of view: 
   - An association is in the DOWN state if the CE has not received any 
     message (heartbeat or other protocol message) from the FE within a 
     given time period or if an Association Teardown message has been 
     sent by the CE. 
   - An association is in the ESTABLISHING state as long as no message 
     has been received from the FE after the CE has sent a positive 
     Association Setup Response message. 
   - An association is in the UP state in all other cases. 
    
   Note that it is left to the implementers to choose how long entries 
   of associations in the DOWN state remain in the MIB until they are 
   removed, if at all. 
 
   The ForCES protocol may be used by the CE to query the FE Protocol 
   LFB about some of the configuration parameters. However, such queries 
   may obviously be issued only when the association is in the UP state. 
   Hence any MIB value that corresponds to such a parameter can only be 
   considered valid as long as the association is in the UP state. 
   [Note: there is no such parameter in the MIB at this time]  
    
   [Note: Should the MIB indicate whether associations have been 
   rejected ? Can this be a weakness exploited by DDoS if the MIB lists 
   all such rejected associations ?] 
    
4. 
  ForCES MIB Definition 
    
   For each association identified by the pair CE ID and FE ID, the 
   following information is provided by the MIB:  

   - Current state of the association:  

Haas                   Expires – June 1st, 2006              [Page 4] 
                              ForCES MIB           December 1st, 2005 

     DOWN: the CE(s) indicated by the CE ID and FE(s) indicated by the 
   FE ID are not associated. 
    
    ESTABLISHING: transient state until the association has been 
   established. See Section 3 above for details. 
    
    UP: the CE(s) indicated by the CE ID and FE(s) indicated by the FE 
   ID are associated. 
    
   Association statistics: 
    
   - Time when the association attained the UP state. 
    
   - Time when the association appeared in the MIB. 
    
   - Number of transitions to ESTABLISHING state since the association 
   appeared in the MIB. 
    
   - Number of transitions to UP state since the association appeared in 
   the MIB. 
    
   - Number of ForCES messages sent/received since the association 
   attained the UP state. 

    
      FORCES-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN 
    
      IMPORTS 
          OBJECT-TYPE, MODULE-IDENTITY, 
            Integer32, Counter32, Unsigned32 
            FROM SNMPv2-SMI 
    
          TEXTUAL-CONVENTION, RowStatus, TimeInterval, TimeStamp 
            FROM SNMPv2-TC; 
    
      forcesMIB MODULE-IDENTITY 
          LAST-UPDATED "200512011200Z"  -- Dec 1, 2005 
          ORGANIZATION "Forwarding and Control Element Separation 
   (ForCES) 
                        Working Group" 
          CONTACT-INFO 
              "Robert Haas ([email-masked]), IBM" 
          DESCRIPTION 
              "This MIB contains managed object definitions for the 
              ForCES Protocol, as defined in draft-ietf-forces-protocol-
   05.txt." 
          ::= { mib-2 33 } -- XXX this MUST be changed 

Haas                   Expires – June 1st, 2006              [Page 5] 
                              ForCES MIB           December 1st, 2005 

   --**************************************************************** 
      ForcesID ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 
          STATUS      current 
          DESCRIPTION 
              "The ForCES identifier is a four octet quantity." 
          SYNTAX      OCTET STRING (SIZE (4)) 
    
      ForcesAssociationState ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION 
          STATUS      current 
          DESCRIPTION 
                 "The value down(1) indicates that the current state of  
                  the association is down. establishing(2) indicates 
                  that the association is in the process of being set  
                  up. up(3) indicates that the association is up." 
          SYNTAX  INTEGER { 
                down(1), 
                establishing(2), 
                up(3) 
           } 

      forcesAssociations    OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { forcesMIB 1 } 
    
      forcesAssociationTable OBJECT-TYPE 
          SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF ForcesAssociationEntry 
          MAX-ACCESS not-accessible 
          STATUS current 
          DESCRIPTION 
                 "The (conceptual) table of associations." 
    
          ::= { forcesAssociations 1 } 
    
      forcesAssociationEntry OBJECT-TYPE 
          SYNTAX ForcesAssociationEntry 
          MAX-ACCESS not-accessible 
          STATUS current 
          DESCRIPTION 
                 "A (conceptual) entry for one association." 
          INDEX { forcesAssociationCEID, forcesAssociationFEID } 
          ::= { forcesAssociationTable 1 } 
    
      ForcesAssociationEntry ::= SEQUENCE { 
              forcesAssociationCEID             ForcesID, 
              forcesAssociationFEID             ForcesID, 
              forcesAssociationState            ForcesAssociationState, 
              forcesAssociationUptime           TimeStamp, 
              forcesAssociationCreated          TimeStamp, 
              forcesAssociationTransitionsEstablishing Counter32, 

Haas                   Expires – June 1st, 2006              [Page 6] 
                              ForCES MIB           December 1st, 2005 

              forcesAssociationTransitionsUp    Counter32, 
              forcesAssociationMsgSent          Counter32, 
              forcesAssociationMsgReceived      Counter32 
          } 
    
      forcesAssociationCEID OBJECT-TYPE 
          SYNTAX ForcesID 
          MAX-ACCESS read-only 
          STATUS current 
          DESCRIPTION 
                 "The ForCES ID of the CE." 
          ::= { forcesAssociationEntry 1 } 
    
      forcesAssociationFEID OBJECT-TYPE 
          SYNTAX ForcesID 
          MAX-ACCESS read-only 
          STATUS current 
          DESCRIPTION 
                 "The ForCES ID of the FE." 
          ::= { forcesAssociationEntry 2 } 
    
      forcesAssociationState OBJECT-TYPE 
           SYNTAX  ForcesAssociationState 
           MAX-ACCESS  read-only 
           STATUS  current 
           DESCRIPTION 
                 "The current operational state of the association 
                  described by this row of the table." 
           ::= { forcesAssociationEntry 3 } 
    
      forcesAssociationUptime OBJECT-TYPE 
          SYNTAX TimeStamp 
          MAX-ACCESS read-only 
          STATUS current 
          DESCRIPTION 
                 "The time when this association came up." 
          ::= { forcesAssociationEntry 4 } 
    
      forcesAssociationCreated OBJECT-TYPE 
          SYNTAX TimeStamp 
          MAX-ACCESS read-only 
          STATUS current 
          DESCRIPTION 
                 "The time when this entry in the table was 
                  created for this association." 
          ::= { forcesAssociationEntry 5 } 
    
      forcesAssociationTransitionsEstablishing OBJECT-TYPE 
          SYNTAX Counter32 

Haas                   Expires – June 1st, 2006              [Page 7] 
                              ForCES MIB           December 1st, 2005 

          MAX-ACCESS read-only 
          STATUS current 
          DESCRIPTION 
                 "A counter of how many times this association 
                  state changed from down to establishing." 
          ::= { forcesAssociationEntry 6} 
    
      forcesAssociationTransitionsUp OBJECT-TYPE 
          SYNTAX Counter32 
          MAX-ACCESS read-only 
          STATUS current 
          DESCRIPTION 
                 "A counter of how many times this association 
                  state changed from establishing to up." 
          ::= { forcesAssociationEntry 7} 
    
      forcesAssociationMsgSent OBJECT-TYPE 
          SYNTAX Counter32 
          MAX-ACCESS read-only 
          STATUS current 
          DESCRIPTION 
                 "A counter of how many messages have been sent on 
                  this association since it is up." 
          ::= { forcesAssociationEntry 8} 
    
      forcesAssociationMsgReceived OBJECT-TYPE 
          SYNTAX Counter32 
          MAX-ACCESS read-only 
          STATUS current 
          DESCRIPTION 
                 "A counter of how many messages have been received on 
                  this association since it is up." 
          ::= { forcesAssociationEntry 9} 

      END 
    
Security Considerations 
    
   Some of the readable objects in this MIB module may be considered 
   sensitive or vulnerable in some network environment. 
 
   SNMP versions prior to SNMPv3 did not include adequate security. 
   Even if the network itself is secure (for example by using IPSec), 
   even then, there is no control as to who on the secure network is 
   allowed to access and GET/SET (read/change/create/delete) the objects 
   in this MIB module. 
    
   It is RECOMMENDED that implementers consider the security features as 

Haas                   Expires – June 1st, 2006              [Page 8] 
                              ForCES MIB           December 1st, 2005 

   provided by the SNMPv3 framework (see [RFC3410], section 8), 
   including full support for the SNMPv3 cryptographic mechanisms (for 
   authentication and privacy). 
    
   Further, deployment of SNMP versions prior to SNMPv3 is NOT 
   RECOMMENDED.  Instead, it is RECOMMENDED to deploy SNMPv3 and to 
   enable cryptographic security.  It is then a customer/operator 
   responsibility to ensure that the SNMP entity giving access to an 
   instance of this MIB module is properly configured to give access to 
   the objects only to those principals (users) that have legitimate 
   rights to indeed GET or SET (change/create/delete) them. 

References 
    
   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 
   Requirements Levels”, BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 
    
   [RFC3654] Khosravi, H,, and Anderson, T., “Requirements for 
   Separation of IP Control and Forwarding”, RFC 3654, November 2003. 
    
   [RFC3746] Yang, L., Dantu, R., Anderson, T., Gopal, R., “Forwarding 
   and Control Element Separation (ForCES) Framework”, RFC 3746, April 
   2004. 
    
   [RFC3410]  Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart, 
   "Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet- Standard 
   Management Framework", RFC 3410, December 2002. 
    
Acknowledgments 
    
   The author wants to acknowledge the comments of the members of the 
   ForCES working group. 
    
Author's Addresses 
    
   Robert Haas 
   IBM Research 
   Zurich Research Lab 
   Saeumerstrasse 4 
   8803 Rueschlikon 
   Switzerland 
   Email: [email-masked] 

 
Haas                   Expires – June 1st, 2006              [Page 9]

---

From: Robert Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 17:14:33 +0100

Hi All,
I have updated the MIB definition according to comments by C.M. Heard 
(see attached meesage).
The newest draft is attached.

Regards,
-Robert

                              ForCES MIB              December 7, 2005 

   ForCES                                                               
   Internet Draft                                               R. Haas 
   Document: draft-haas-forces-mib-01.txt                           IBM 
   Expires: June 7, 2006                                  December 2005 

                                ForCES MIB 

Status of this Memo 

 

 
   This Internet-Draft will expire on June 7, 2006. 
 
Copyright Notice 

    

Haas                     Expires June 7, 2006                 [Page 1] 
                              ForCES MIB              December 7, 2005 

Abstract 

    
    
Table of Contents 
    
   1. Introduction...................................................2 
   2. Design of ForCES MIB...........................................4 
   3. Association State..............................................4 
   4. MIB Definition.................................................4 
   Security Considerations...........................................8 
   References........................................................9 
   Acknowledgments...................................................9 
   Author's Addresses................................................9 

1. Introduction 

    

Haas                     Expires June 7, 2006                 [Page 2] 
                              ForCES MIB              December 7, 2005 

    
    
     A NE MUST support the appearance of a single functional device. For 
     example, in a router, the TTL of the packet should be decremented 
     only once as it traverses the NE regardless of how many FEs through 
     which it passes.  However, external entities (e.g., FE managers and 
     CE managers) MAY have direct access to individual ForCES protocol 
     elements for providing information to transition them from the pre-
     association to post-association phase. 

     1. The ability for a management tool (e.g., SNMP) to be used to 
     read(but not change) the state of FE SHOULD NOT be precluded.  
     2. It MUST NOT be possible for management tools (e.g., SNMP, etc) 
     to change the state of a FE in a manner that affects overall NE 
     behavior without the CE being notified. 

     CE managers may be physically and logically separate entities that 
     configure the CE with FE information via such mechanisms as COPS-PR 
     [7] or SNMP [5]. 

     RFC 1812 [2] also dictates that "Routers MUST be manageable by 
     like data packets from any other application layer protocols. 

 
Haas                     Expires June 7, 2006                 [Page 3] 
                              ForCES MIB              December 7, 2005 

2. Design of ForCES MIB 

3. Association State  
    
   Association state as shown in the MIB is considered from the CE's 
   point of view: 

    
    
4. ForCES MIB Definition 

 
Haas                     Expires June 7, 2006                 [Page 4] 
                              ForCES MIB              December 7, 2005 

    
    
   Association statistics: 

    

    

      IMPORTS 

      forcesMIB MODULE-IDENTITY 
          LAST-UPDATED "200512071200Z"  -- Dec 7, 2005 
          ORGANIZATION "Forwarding and Control Element Separation  
                        (ForCES) Working Group" 
          CONTACT-INFO 
              "Robert Haas ([email-masked]), IBM" 
          DESCRIPTION 
              "Initial version, published as RFC yyyy. This MIB     
              contains managed object definitions for the ForCES         
              Protocol." 
   -- RFC Ed.: replace yyyy with actual RFC number & remove this note 

Haas                     Expires June 7, 2006                 [Page 5] 
                              ForCES MIB              December 7, 2005 

          ::= { mib-2 XXX } 
   -- RFC Ed.: replace XXX with IANA-assigned number & remove this note 

    

    

Haas                     Expires June 7, 2006                 [Page 6] 
                              ForCES MIB              December 7, 2005 

    

    

Haas                     Expires June 7, 2006                 [Page 7] 
                              ForCES MIB              December 7, 2005 

    

      END 
    
Security Considerations 

Haas                     Expires June 7, 2006                 [Page 8] 
                              ForCES MIB              December 7, 2005 

    

References 
    
   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 
   Requirements Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 
    
   [RFC3654] Khosravi, H,, and Anderson, T., "Requirements for 
   Separation of IP Control and Forwarding", RFC 3654, November 2003. 
    
   [RFC3746] Yang, L., Dantu, R., Anderson, T., Gopal, R., "Forwarding 
   and Control Element Separation (ForCES) Framework", RFC 3746, April 
   2004. 

Acknowledgments 

Author's Addresses 
    
   Robert Haas 
   IBM Research 
   Zurich Research Lab 
   Saeumerstrasse 4 
   8803 Rueschlikon 
   Switzerland 

 
Haas                     Expires June 7, 2006                 [Page 9] 


Subject: draft-haas-forces-mib-01.txt
From: "C. M. Heard" <[email-masked]>
To: Robert Haas <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Mreview (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 06:47:16 -0800 (PST)

HI,

You should not be doing this:

      forcesMIB MODULE-IDENTITY
          LAST-UPDATED "200512011200Z"  -- Dec 1, 2005
          ORGANIZATION "Forwarding and Control Element Separation (ForCES)
                        Working Group"
          CONTACT-INFO
              "Robert Haas ([email-masked]), IBM"
          DESCRIPTION
              "This MIB contains managed object definitions for the
              ForCES Protocol, as defined in draft-ietf-forces-protocol-05.txt."
          ::= { mib-2 33 } -- XXX this MUST be changed
----------------------^^

See RFC 4181 Sections 3.5.3 and 4.5.  The final paragraphs of those sections
contain the following admonitions:

   Note well:  prior to official assignment by the IANA, a draft
   document MUST use placeholders (such as "XXX" above) rather than
   actual numbers.  See Section 4.5 for an example of how this is done
   in a draft MIB module.

and

   Note well:  prior to official assignment by the IANA, a draft
   document MUST use a placeholder (such as "XXX" above) rather than an
   actual number.  If trial implementations are desired during the
   development process, then an assignment under the 'experimental'
   subtree may be obtained from the IANA (cf. Section 4.3).

We really did mean it!

FWIW, { mib-2 33} is assign to the UPS MIB (RFC 1628).

Thanks,

//cmh