If SNMP is the wrong solution, then any SNMP-accessed MIB would be the
wrong solution, including the JAM MIB.
I will try and address the concerns outlined below, with matching
1) Scopes of interest are still supported by OID subtree
specifications; it's the intended notification recipients that are
identified and matched by the UTF-8 tag.
2) Registration lifetimes would be a good idea. It's quite possible
for an IPP MIB to augment the notification table with objects that
represent registration lifetimes. No need to throw the baby out with the
bath water on this one. Since it is an explicit augmentation, the
indices would be the same.
3) Indices that appear as SnmpAdminString types are labeled as
NOT-ACCESSIBLE, so they should not appear in the response packet of a
GET, or GET-BULK.
4) I'm not sure if a brute force search would be required or not
(yet). It appears from reading the RFC that this might be the case and I
understand how this conclusion could be made. However, I'm not sure that
duplicate registrations could be identified solely on the basis of
"transport" and "transport-address" matching. This particular scenario
would require more study.
5) This rationale does not exist for SNMPv3. This held true only
for V2 (and derivatives). All the text about "dual-role entities" from
V2 has been removed from the V3 doc set. The V3 specs now generically
identify "notification senders" and "notification recipients". The idea
of specific functionality being reserved for a "mid-level" manager
entity no longer exists. Implementors are free to instrument whatever
feature they need, depending upon the type of management (or managed)
entity is being constructed.
6) Again, this idea is a V2 idea, the restrictions on "how" a
feature is used has been removed from the V3 specifications. See #5
above. Also, I have it on good authority from Jeff Case at SNMP
Research, that the effort required to take the V1 trap code base and
move it to V3 trap/inform is no great task. A lot of code reuse is
possible. Also, V3 informs are as reliable as any other notification
7) Again, I have it on first hand communication from Bob
Stewart(Cisco), Jeff Case and David Levi(SNMP Research) that their
"intent" was never to disallow the type of functionality I have
proposed. Rather, it seems like a prudent reuse of all vendors' existing
agent code base.
This reuse of technology (both in design and existing code) is what I am
trying to take advantage of. Given the speed at which SNMPv3 is being
adopted, I feel like a lot of vendors are going to want to implement V3
agents anyway. Also, after looking at Ira's proposal for the JAM MIB,
there are some ideas present in the JAM MIB that were not included in
the standard notification/target MIBs specified in RFC 2273. I think we
should include these ideas in whatever we come up with. I don't think we
should completely reinvent the wheel here, rather, I think we should
come up with a suitable set of additional (non-overlapping) notification
features and AUGMENT the standard set. This is because, for a lot of
reasons, I think vendors will eventually have to support them anyway to
be "V3 compliant" at some point in the future.
By the way, I have no SNMP religious affiliation, just a desire to reuse
technology. If we find out that our requirements exceed the boundaries
of what SNMPv3 and related technology can deliver, then I would be just
as happy to pursue another path. But I think we need to study this stuff
a little more before taking any radical direction change.
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 1998 4:35 PM
To: Joe_Filion@mc.xerox.com; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: IPP> SNMPv3 unsuited for IPP/JMP Notifications
Copies To: email@example.com
Hi folks, Sunday (15
Extracted below (with line numbers) is summary information from
SNMPv3 documents (RFC 2271 to RFC 2275, January 1998).
As Randy Turner has argued, it IS possible to use a small subset
and Notification MIBs in RFC 2273) of the SNMPv3 MIB modules
a total of 7 SNMPv3 MIB modules) to achieve a simple
SNMP trap registration mechanism (see the
declaration at line 2773 of RFC 2273).
But, the functionality provided is INFERIOR in important ways to
provided by the JAM (Job Async Monitor) MIB that Joe Filion and
on Wednesday (4 March 1998) or to my informal understanding of
method presented by Harry Lewis during last week's PWG monthly
in Austin, TX.
1) The JAM MIB and Historic SNMP Party MIB (RFC 1447) support
(traps of 'interest') specified as object identifier
The SNMPv3 Target/Notification MIBs support scope only by
character) UTF-8 tags, which are NOT standardized by SNMPv3
to their length) are NOT amenable to standardization.
2) The JAM MIB supports automatic trap deregistration specified
The SNMPv3 Target/Notification MIBs do NOT support automatic
deregistration at all!
3) The JAM MIB supports simple integer indices for all
object groups (written by a remote client).
The SNMPv3 Target/Notification MIBs support indices ONLY as
character) UTF-8 'SnmpAdminString' values, seriously
number of SNMP objects which can be transferred in a single
Since SNMP runs over UDP (in the Internet suite) and there
'chunking' for SNMP requests, this limitation is
4) The JAM MIB supports a 'read-only' lookup table (maintained
SNMP agent on the device) which provides direct lookup from
transport domain and transport address to a client (target)
registration entry (to avoid duplicate registrations).
But, the SNMPv3 Target/Notification MIBs support only brute
(ie, read the entire Target table) for this important
5) The JAM MIB scales well to a very large number of (end-user)
client (target) registrations.
But, the SNMPv3 Target/Notification MIBs do not scale well.
are intended ONLY for use by network management stations!
6) Randy has suggested that SNMPv2/SNMPv3 'Inform'
could be used for (questionably) 'reliable' event
But, 'Inform' is intended by the SNMPv3 developers to be
for reporting up a hierarchy of network management stations!
Also, 'Inform' is not defined in SNMPv1, so the huge
of SNMP agents which (almost exclusively) speak SNMPv1
7) Lastly, as SNMP agent toolkits become available from
vendors, any 'local' use of SNMPv3 Target/Notification MIBs
printer industry vendors will inevitably conflict with the
different intent of the SNMPv3 developers. Recall why the
MIB is a PWG standard and NOT an IETF standard!
As I hope most of you know, I'm dedicated to the use of
available and applicable. But the SNMPv3 MIBs were never
intended to be
used by many clients. They simply aren't appropriate to the
trap registration for PWG Job Mon MIB and IETF/PWG Printer MIB
- Ira McDonald (High North, outside consultant at Xerox)
**** SNMPv3 Documents ****
rfc2271.txt: Architecture for Describing SNMP Management
This document describes an architecture for describing SNMP
Management Frameworks. The architecture is designed to be
allow the evolution of the SNMP protocol standards over time.
major portions of the architecture are an SNMP engine
Message Processing Subsystem, a Security Subsystem and an
Control Subsystem, and possibly multiple SNMP applications
provide specific functional processing of management data.
SNMP-FRAMEWORK-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
rfc2272.txt: Message Processing and Dispatching for SNMP
This document describes the Message Processing and Dispatching
SNMP messages within the SNMP architecture [RFC2271]. It
procedures for dispatching potentially multiple versions of
messages to the proper SNMP Message Processing Models, and for
dispatching PDUs to SNMP applications. This document also
one Message Processing Model - the SNMPv3 Message Processing
SNMP-MPD-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
SNMPv3MessageSyntax DEFINITIONS IMPLICIT TAGS ::= BEGIN
rfc2273.txt: SNMPv3 Applications
This memo describes five types of SNMP applications which make
an SNMP engine as described in [RFC2271]. The types of
described are Command Generators, Command Responders,
Originators, Notification Receivers, and Proxy Forwarders.
This memo also defines MIB modules for specifying targets of
management operations, for notification filtering, and for
SNMP-TARGET-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
SNMP-NOTIFICATION-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
SNMP-PROXY-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
rfc2274.txt: User-based Security Model (USM) for SNMPv3
This document describes the User-based Security Model (USM)
version 3 for use in the SNMP architecture [RFC2271]. It
Elements of Procedure for providing SNMP message level
This document also includes a MIB for remotely
the configuration parameters for this Security Model.
USMSecurityParametersSyntax DEFINITIONS IMPLICIT TAGS ::=
SNMP-USER-BASED-SM-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
rfc2275.txt: View-based Access Control Model (VACM) for SNMPv3
This document describes the View-based Access Control Model
in the SNMP architecture [RFC2271]. It defines the Elements
Procedure for controlling access to management information.
document also includes a MIB for remotely managing the
parameters for the View-based Access Control Model.
SNMP-VIEW-BASED-ACM-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN