INTERNET-DRAFT Expires November 1996 INTERNET-DRAFT Draft A Clarification of STATUS May 8, 1996 A Clarification of the STATUS Clause in SNMP MIB Modules May 8, 1996 David T. Perkins dperkins@scruznet.com 1. Status of this Memo This document is an Internet Draft. 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 six months. Internet Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is not appropriate to use Internet Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as a "working draft" or "work in progress." To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the internet-drafts Shadow Directories on: ftp.is.co.za (Africa) nic.nordu.net (Europe) ds.internic.net (US East Coast) ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast) munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim) Expires 11/8/96 [Page 1] Draft A Clarification of STATUS May 8, 1996 2. Introduction This memo is informational to clarify the meaning and use of the STATUS clause in Management Information Base (MIB) modules for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP). Many of the MIB language constructs such as OBJECT-IDENTITY, OBJECT-TYPE, and NOTIFICATION-TYPE contain the STATUS clause. However, the RFCs[1][2][3][4] that define these MIB language constructs do not provide a complete definition of the STATUS clause. Also, the RFCs do not provide guidance to agent and application developers, or users of SNMP-managed systems on the interpretation and action they should take based on the value or change of value of a STATUS clause. This memo specifies an interpretation of the meaning of the STATUS clause, and provides guidance to MIB designers and users. Interpretations are given for both version 1 and version 2 of the SNMP MIB module language. This memo does not specify a standard for the Internet community. 3. Background The STATUS clause was first defined in "Structure and Identification of Management Information for TCP/IP-based internets," RFC 1065[5]. This document lists the possible values as "mandatory," "optional," and "obsolete," but does contain an interpretation of them. The document does provide the following, from section 5, which is the prime directive for MIB design: New versions [of MIB modules] may: (1) declare old object types obsolete (if necessary), but not delete their names; [note: name here means OID value that identifies an object type.] (2) augment the definition of an object type corresponding to a list by appending non-aggregate object types to the object types in the list; or, [This means that new columnar objects can be added to a table.] (3) define entirely new object types. New versions may not: (1) change the semantics of any previously defined object without changing the name of that object. [This means that if the semantics of an object need to be changed, then the definition of the existing object can not be changed. Instead, a new object with a different (and new OID value that identifies it) must be created.] Expires 11/8/96 [Page 2] Draft A Clarification of STATUS May 8, 1996 This original definition was replaced by "Structure and Identification of Management Information for TCP/IP-based Internets," RFC 1155[6]. However, no changes were made to the definition of the STATUS clause or the prime directive for MIB design. The document, "Concise MIB Definitions," RFC 1212[1], was written after RFC 1155 to allow MIB designers to write MIB modules in a concise format. The format combined the two formats specified in RFC 1155 for writing definitions of managed objects. Also, RFC 1212 extended the STATUS clause with the addition of the value "deprecated," and kept the existing values of "mandatory,", "optional," and "obsolete." Note that this document did not define the meaning of the new value "deprecated." The only definition of the STATUS clause found in RFC 1212 is the following: 4.1.3. Mapping of the STATUS clause The STATUS clause, which must be present, defines the implementation support required for that object type. Note that the collection of documents defining the MIB module language is typically called "The SMI." Surprisingly, a definition of the value "deprecated" is specified in "Management Information Base for Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets: MIB-II," RFC 1213[7], which uses the concise format for defining the IETF core objects. It is surprising since the document that describes the language used to write MIB modules does not define use of the STATUS clause and the document that contains an example of a MIB module defines use of the STATUS clause. The text from RFC 1213 is shown below: 3.1. Deprecated Objects In order to better prepare implementors for future changes in the MIB, a new term "deprecated" may be used when describing an object. A deprecated object in the MIB is one which must be supported, but one which will most likely be removed from the next version of the MIB (e.g., MIB-III). MIB-II marks one object as being deprecated: atTable As a result of deprecating the atTable object, the entire Address Translation group is deprecated. Note that no functionality is lost with the deprecation of these objects: new objects providing equivalent or superior functionality are defined in MIB-II. Expires 11/8/96 [Page 3] Draft A Clarification of STATUS May 8, 1996 RFC 1213 contains additional text to define the concept of conformance, which is not previously defined in RFCs 1155 and 1212. The text from RFC 1213, section 5 follows: MIB-II, like its predecessor, the Internet-standard MIB, contains only essential elements. There is no need to allow individual objects to be optional. Rather, the objects are arranged into the following groups: - System - Interfaces - Address Translation (deprecated) - IP - ICMP - TCP - UDP - EGP - Transmission - SNMP These groups are the basic unit of conformance. This method is as follows: if the semantics of a group is applicable to an implementation, then it must implement all objects in that group. For example, an implementation must implement the EGP group if and only if it implements the EGP. There are two reasons for defining these groups: to provide a means of assigning object identifiers; and, to provide a method for implementations of managed agents to know which objects they must implement. What may not be obvious from this history, is that the STATUS clause is used for two different purposes. The first use is to specify the status of a definition - is a definition valid or invalid. This is needed since the prime directive for MIB design does not allow a definition to be semantically changed or "removed." A definition may only be "retired" and, if a new definition is created, the new one must use a new identity. The second use of the STATUS clause is to specify conformance requirements. To eliminate the confusion caused by the two uses of one clause, the second version of the SMI for SNMP changed the STATUS clause so that it specifies only the validity of a definition. The document, "Structure of Management Information for version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)," RFC 1442[8], and its replacement, RFC 1902[2], define values for the STATUS clause as "current", "deprecated," and "obsolete." Other MIB module language constructs were added to specify conformance requirements[4][10]. The STATUS clause is used in all but one of the SNMPv2 SMI MIB module language constructs, which are OBJECT-IDENTITY, OBJECT-TYPE, NOTIFICATION-TYPE, TEXTUAL-CONVENTION, OBJECT-GROUP, NOTIFICATION-GROUP, Expires 11/8/96 [Page 4] Draft A Clarification of STATUS May 8, 1996 MODULE-COMPLIANCE, and AGENT-CAPABILITIES. The lone exception is MODULE- IDENTITY. For all constructs (except AGENT-CAPABILITIES), the text describing the STATUS clause is the following: The STATUS clause, which must be present, indicates whether this definition is current or historic. The values "current", and "obsolete" are self-explanatory. The "deprecated" value indicates that the definition is obsolete, but that an implementor may wish to support it to foster interoperability with older implementations. The text for the STATUS clause for AGENT-CAPABILITIES is the following: The STATUS clause, which must be present, indicates whether this definition is current ("current") or historic ("obsolete"). In both cases, it is clear that the STATUS clause in SNMPv2 SMI is used only to describe the status of the definition and not the implementation requirements. However, the definition leaves much interpretation to MIB designers and users. Unfortunately, the interpretations by different MIB designers and between designers and users has been quite different. The next section describes the meaning of the values for the STATUS clause with a high degree of precision. It also presents a table of actions for agent and management application developers for each value. 4. The STATUS Clause Defined The STATUS clause is used to specify the validity of a definition. A valid definition has the following properties: 1. It is well conceived. The definition is precise, unambiguous, and complete. 2. It is relevant. It is useful and has (or soon will be used) for implementation. On the other hand, an invalid definition has the following properties: 1. It is flawed. This can be due to technical inaccuracies, or to a limited scope of applicability. 2. It is no longer relevant. The definition was redundant with another, never implemented, or its implementation provided little or no benefit. Expires 11/8/96 [Page 5] Draft A Clarification of STATUS May 8, 1996 Invalid definitions can be further divided. The small, but important class of definitions that are called "deprecated" have the following properties: 1. The definition is limited in applicability. Another definition may have been created with a wider scope of applicability. 2. The definition has limited implementation, possibly due to cost of implementation. Another definition may have been created with a lower implementation cost to increase the probability of implementation. Thus, the values for the STATUS clause and their meanings are the following: current - the definition is valid. deprecated - the definition is valid in limited circumstances, and has been replaced by another. The new definition typically encompasses a wider scope, or has been changed to ease implementation. Obsolete - the definition is not valid. It was found to be flawed; could not be implemented; was redundant or not useful; or was no longer relevant. The definition may, but need not be, replaced with another. Expires 11/8/96 [Page 6] Draft A Clarification of STATUS May 8, 1996 5. MIB Module Life Cycle MIB modules are designed, reviewed, published, implemented, and maintained. The prime directive for MIB design requires that once a definition has been published that its semantics can not be changed and that it can not be "removed." For the IETF, published means posted as an RFC. Posting a work-in-progress in the internet-drafts directory does not qualify as being published. The IETF standards process requires that standard track documents be reviewed at each level before advancement. At each review, definitions are checked to determine if they have been implemented and are useful. If not, then a new and better definition is created, or the definition is retired. The following diagram shows the life cycle of definitions: definition created | V ---------------------- | STATUS is current |<---- ---------------------- |no change | |in status definition | is reviewed ^ | / \ | / \ definition is ---------> < result > ---> usable, but \ / needs update \ / | V |---> STATUS changed to | | deprecated on | | existing definition | | and DESCRIPTION | | clause updated. V | definition: |---> new definition 1) could not be created (with STATUS implemented; of current). 2) is redundant; 3) is not useful; or 4) is not relevant. | |--- > STATUS changed to obsolete | on existing definition and | DESCRIPTION clause updated. | optionally | |--- > new definition created (with STATUS of current) Expires 11/8/96 [Page 7] Draft A Clarification of STATUS May 8, 1996 MIB designers try to accomplish conflicting goals in creating definitions for a MIB module. The definitions must describe the current implementation of a technology, but must also try to anticipate future implementations and changes in the technology. If definitions map too tightly to current implementations, then any additions or changes will most likely break the mapping, resulting in the definitions becoming useless. However, if the definitions are too abstract or too broad in scope, they may not be understood or used correctly. Also, extensive definitions will be more costly to implement and test. Development and use of products containing implementations of definitions from MIB modules happens over time. Usually, managed systems containing agents that support the definitions are fielded three to nine months (or more) before sophisticated management applications are fielded. Management capabilities must be used to learn which parts are useful. Experience has shown that MIB designers can not always get all definitions right at the time the MIB is first published. Also, different sets of agent and management application developers use the definitions in a MIB module at different points in the life cycle of a MIB module. For example, "bleeding edge" developers may be the designers of the original MIB module. Developers of mass market products may not develop implementations until after the MIB module has reached "Full Standard" status. 6. Actions for Users of Definitions of Objects The following lists the actions for agent and management developers for each value of STATUS for an object defined with the OBJECT-TYPE construct: 6.1. STATUS is mandatory or current Agent developers should implement the object if the resource modeled by the definition is present on the system. Management application developers can use the object, if needed, by the application. Expires 11/8/96 [Page 8] Draft A Clarification of STATUS May 8, 1996 6.2. STATUS is optional Note that this value is not allowed in standard track MIBs. Agent developers should treat the object as if the definition had a STATUS of current. Whether the object should be implemented depends on the requirements. Management application developers should not use the object, since it probably is not well conceived and probably not widely implemented. 6.3.1. STATUS is deprecated Agent developers should treat the object as if the definition had a STATUS of current. Whether the object should be implemented depends on the requirements for compatibility with existing management applications. The replacement object should also be implemented if the deprecated object is implemented. Management application developers should treat the object as if the definition had a status of current. The object should not be used as the primary access to the management information. Instead, the replacement object should be used. However, if compatibility is required with existing agents, then the application should first try to access the replacement object, and only if it is not implemented, should the application try to access the object whose definition has a STATUS of deprecated. 6.3.2 STATUS changed to deprecated Agent developers should implement the replacement object for the next released version of the agent. Whether the object whose STATUS is deprecated should be removed depends on the resources needed to support it and the requirement for compatibility with existing management applications. Management application developers should implement the replacement object for the next released version of the application. The primary access to the management information should be change to use the replacement object. However, if compatibility is required with existing agents, then the application should first try to access the replacement object, and only if it is not implemented, should the application try to access the object whose definition had its STATUS changed to deprecated. Expires 11/8/96 [Page 9] Draft A Clarification of STATUS May 8, 1996 6.4.1. STATUS is obsolete Agent developers should not implement the object. If a replacement object has been defined, it should be implemented if applicable. Management application developers should not use the object. 6.4.2. STATUS changed to obsolete Agent developers may remove the object. If a replacement object has been defined, it should be implemented if applicable. Management application developers should remove use of the object in applications and review their application for proper design. 7. An Invalid Implementation Approach for Agent Developers The developer of an agent implementation may not have access to the value of a "mandatory" object. In this case, GET requests of the object should return "noSuchName" errors for SNMPv1 and "noSuchObject" exception values for SNMPv2. SET requests of the object should return "noSuchName" errors in SNMPv1 and "noAccess" errors in SNMPv2. GETNEXT (and GETBULK in SNMPv2) requests should simply return the next lexicographically ordered object. Unimplemented objects in a mandatory group for a compliance specification result in the agent being labeled as "non-compliant" to that specification. However, such an agent is still compliant to the SNMP protocol. On the otherhand, an agent that returns "benign" values for readable objects or does not change writable objects is also labeled as "non-compliant" to the conformance specification and is also non-compliant to the SNMP protocol specification. 8. Don't Remove Obsolete Items The "obsolete" value is meant to document the existence of an retired definition. However, it can be observed (and even in IETF standard track MIB modules) that these definitions have been removed in updated versions of the containing document. This is bad, and also is counter to the prime directive for MIB design. No definitions may ever be removed from published MIB modules! (Of course, it is possible to create a new MIB module to contain obsolete definitions.) At any point in time, the set of published MIB modules should be consistent and their union should contain every item that has ever been defined. 9. Acknowledgments Thanks go to Evan McGinnis for his review. Expires 11/8/96 [Page 10] Draft A Clarification of STATUS May 8, 1996 10. References [1] K. McCloghrie, M. Rose, "Concise MIB Definitions", RFC 1212, 03/26/1991. [2] J. Case, K. McCloghrie, M. Rose, S. Waldbusser, "Structure of Management Information for Version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1902, 01/22/1996. [3] J. Case, K. McCloghrie, M. Rose, S. Waldbusser, "Textual Conventions for Version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1903, 01/22/1996. [4] J. Case, K. McCloghrie, M. Rose, S. Waldbusser, "Conformance Statements for Version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1904, 01/22/1996. [5] K. McCloghrie, M. Rose, "Structure and identification of management information for TCP/IP-based internets", RFC 1065, 08/01/1988 [6] K. McCloghrie, M. Rose, "Structure and Identification of Managemen Information for TCP/IP-based Internets", RFC 1155, 05/10/1990. [7] K. McCloghrie, M. Rose, "Management Information Base for Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets: MIB-II", RFC1213, 03/26/1991. [8] J. Case, K. McCloghrie, M. Rose, S. Waldbusser, "Structure of Management Information for version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1442, 05/03/1993. [9] J. Case, K. McCloghrie, M. Rose, S. Waldbusser, "Textual Conventions for version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1443, 05/03/1993. [10] J. Case, K. McCloghrie, M. Rose, S. Waldbusser, "Conformance Statements for version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1444, 05/03/1993. Expires 11/8/96 [Page 11] INTERNET-DRAFT Expires November 1996 INTERNET-DRAFT