draft-ietf-snmpv2-tc-02.txt   rfc1443.txt 
Draft Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 Oct 92 Network Working Group J. Case
Request for Comments: 1443 SNMP Research, Inc.
K. McCloghrie
Hughes LAN Systems
M. Rose
Dover Beach Consulting, Inc.
S. Waldbusser
Carnegie Mellon University
April 1993
Textual Conventions Textual Conventions
for version 2 of the for version 2 of the
Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2) Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)
Thu Nov 12 08:51:15 1992 | Status of this Memo
Jeffrey D. Case
SNMP Research, Inc.
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
case@cs.utk.edu
Keith McCloghrie
Hughes LAN Systems
kzm@hls.com
Marshall T. Rose
Dover Beach Consulting, Inc.
mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us
Steven L. Waldbusser
Carnegie Mellon University
waldbusser@andrew.cmu.edu
1. Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet Draft. Internet Drafts are This RFC specifes an IAB standards track protocol for the
working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions
(IETF), its Areas, and its Working Groups. Note that other for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet "IAB Official Protocol Standards" for the standardization
Drafts. state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo
is unlimited.
Internet Drafts are valid for a maximum of six months and may Table of Contents
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 a "work in progress".
Draft Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 Oct 92 1 Introduction .......................................... 2
1.1 A Note on Terminology ............................... 3
2 Definitions ........................................... 4
3 Mapping of the TEXTUAL-CONVENTION macro ............... 22
3.1 Mapping of the DISPLAY-HINT clause .................. 22
3.2 Mapping of the STATUS clause ........................ 24
3.3 Mapping of the DESCRIPTION clause ................... 24
3.4 Mapping of the REFERENCE clause ..................... 24
3.5 Mapping of the SYNTAX clause ........................ 24
4 Acknowledgements ...................................... 26
5 References ............................................ 30
6 Security Considerations ............................... 31
7 Authors' Addresses .................................... 31
RFC 1443 Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 April 1993
2. Introduction 1. Introduction
A network management system contains: several (potentially A network management system contains: several (potentially
many) nodes, each with management instrumentation termed an many) nodes, each with a processing entity, termed an agent,
agent; at least one management station; and, a management which has access to management instrumentation; at least one
protocol, which is used to convey management information management station; and, a management protocol, used to convey
between the agents and management stations. Operations of the management information between the agents and management
management protocol are carried out under an administrative stations. Operations of the protocol are carried out under an
framework which defines both authentication and authorization administrative framework which defines both authentication and
policies. authorization policies.
Network management stations execute management applications Network management stations execute management applications
which monitor and control network elements. Network elements which monitor and control network elements. Network elements
are devices such as hosts, routers, terminal servers, etc., are devices such as hosts, routers, terminal servers, etc.,
which are monitored and controlled through access to their which are monitored and controlled through access to their
management information. management information.
Management information is viewed as a collection of managed Management information is viewed as a collection of managed
objects, residing in a virtual information store, termed the objects, residing in a virtual information store, termed the
Management Information Base (MIB). Collections of related Management Information Base (MIB). Collections of related
objects are defined in MIB modules. These modules are written objects are defined in MIB modules. These modules are written
using a subset of OSI's Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) using a subset of OSI's Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1)
[1], termed the Structure of Management Information (SMI) [2]. [1], termed the Structure of Management Information (SMI) [2].
When designing a MIB module, it is often useful to define When designing a MIB module, it is often useful to new define
types, with a different name, but the same syntax, as one of types similar to those defined in the SMI. In comparison to a
the types defined in the SMI. These are termed textual type defined in the SMI, each of these new types has a
different name, a similar syntax, but a more precise
semantics. These newly defined types are termed textual
conventions, and are used for the convenience of humans conventions, and are used for the convenience of humans
reading the MIB module. It is the purpose of this document to reading the MIB module. It is the purpose of this document to
define the initial set of textual conventions available to all define the initial set of textual conventions available to all
MIB modules. MIB modules.
Objects defined using a textual convention are always encoded Objects defined using a textual convention are always encoded
by means of the rules that define their primitive type. by means of the rules that define their primitive type.
However, textual conventions often have special semantics However, textual conventions often have special semantics
associated with them. As such, an ASN.1 macro, TEXTUAL- associated with them. As such, an ASN.1 macro, TEXTUAL-
CONVENTION, is used to concisely convey the syntax and CONVENTION, is used to concisely convey the syntax and
semantics of a textual convention. semantics of a textual convention.
For all textual conventions defined in an information module, For all textual conventions defined in an information module,
the name shall be unique and mnemonic, and shall not exceed 64 the name shall be unique and mnemonic, and shall not exceed 64
characters in length. All names used for the textual characters in length. All names used for the textual
conventions defined in all "standard" information modules conventions defined in all "standard" information modules
RFC 1443 Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 April 1993
shall be unique. shall be unique.
Draft Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 Oct 92 1.1. A Note on Terminology
2.1. A Note on Terminology For the purpose of exposition, the original Internet-standard
Network Management Framework, as described in RFCs 1155, 1157,
and 1212, is termed the SNMP version 1 framework (SNMPv1).
The current framework is termed the SNMP version 2 framework
(SNMPv2).
For the purpose of exposition, the original Internet-standard + RFC 1443 Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 April 1993
Network Management Framework, as described in RFCs 1155, 1157, +
and 1212, is termed the SNMP version 1 framework (SNMPv1). +
The current framework is termed the SNMP version 2 framework +
(SNMPv2). +
Draft Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 Oct 92
3. Definitions 2. Definitions
SNMPv2-TC DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN SNMPv2-TC DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
IMPORTS IMPORTS
ObjectSyntax, Integer32, TimeTicks ObjectSyntax, Integer32, TimeTicks
FROM SNMPv2-SMI; FROM SNMPv2-SMI;
-- definition of textual conventions -- definition of textual conventions
TEXTUAL-CONVENTION MACRO ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION MACRO ::=
BEGIN BEGIN
TYPE NOTATION ::= TYPE NOTATION ::=
DisplayPart DisplayPart
"STATUS" Status "STATUS" Status
"DESCRIPTION" value(description Text) "DESCRIPTION" Text
ReferPart ReferPart
"SYNTAX" type(Syntax)
VALUE NOTATION ::= VALUE NOTATION ::=
type(VALUE ObjectSyntax) value(VALUE Syntax)
DisplayPart ::= DisplayPart ::=
"DISPLAY-HINT" value(display Text) "DISPLAY-HINT" Text
| empty | empty
Status ::= Status ::=
"current" "current"
| "deprecated" | "deprecated"
| "obsolete" | "obsolete"
ReferPart ::= ReferPart ::=
"REFERENCE" value(reference Text) "REFERENCE" Text
| empty | empty
-- uses the NVT ASCII character set -- uses the NVT ASCII character set
Text ::= OCTET STRING Text ::= """" string """"
END END
RFC 1443 Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 April 1993
DisplayString TEXTUAL-CONVENTION DisplayString ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
DISPLAY-HINT "255a" DISPLAY-HINT "255a"
STATUS current STATUS current
DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION
"Represents textual information taken from the NVT "Represents textual information taken from the NVT
Draft Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 Oct 92
ASCII character set, as defined in pages 4, 10-11 ASCII character set, as defined in pages 4, 10-11
of RFC 854. Any object defined using this syntax of RFC 854. Any object defined using this syntax
may not exceed 255 characters in length." may not exceed 255 characters in length."
::= OCTET STRING SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (0..255))
PhysAddress TEXTUAL-CONVENTION PhysAddress ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
DISPLAY-HINT "1x:" DISPLAY-HINT "1x:"
STATUS current STATUS current
DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION
"Represents media- or physical-level addresses." "Represents media- or physical-level addresses."
::= OCTET STRING SYNTAX OCTET STRING
MacAddress TEXTUAL-CONVENTION MacAddress ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
DISPLAY-HINT "1x:" DISPLAY-HINT "1x:"
STATUS current STATUS current
DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION
"Represents an 802 MAC address represented in the "Represents an 802 MAC address represented in the
`canonical' order defined by IEEE 802.1a, i.e., as 'canonical' order defined by IEEE 802.1a, i.e., as
if it were transmitted least significant bit if it were transmitted least significant bit
first, even though 802.5 (in contrast to other first, even though 802.5 (in contrast to other
802.x protocols) requires MAC addresses to be 802.x protocols) requires MAC addresses to be
transmitted most significant bit first." transmitted most significant bit first."
::= OCTET STRING (SIZE (6)) SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (6))
TruthValue TEXTUAL-CONVENTION TruthValue ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current STATUS current
DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION
"Represents a boolean value." "Represents a boolean value."
::= INTEGER { true(1), false(2) } SYNTAX INTEGER { true(1), false(2) }
TestAndIncr TEXTUAL-CONVENTION RFC 1443 Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 April 1993
TestAndIncr ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current STATUS current
DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION
"Represents integer-valued information used for "Represents integer-valued information used for
atomic operations. When the management protocol atomic operations. When the management protocol
is used to specify that an object instance having is used to specify that an object instance having
this syntax is to be modified, the new value this syntax is to be modified, the new value
supplied via the management protocol must supplied via the management protocol must
precisely match the value presently held by the precisely match the value presently held by the
instance. If not, the management protocol set instance. If not, the management protocol set
operation fails with an error of operation fails with an error of
'inconsistentValue'. Otherwise, if the current
Draft Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 Oct 92
`inconsistentValue'. Otherwise, if the current
value is the maximum value of 2^31-1 (2147483647 value is the maximum value of 2^31-1 (2147483647
decimal), then the value held by the instance is decimal), then the value held by the instance is
wrapped to zero; otherwise, the value held by the wrapped to zero; otherwise, the value held by the
instance is incremented by one. (Note that instance is incremented by one. (Note that
regardless of whether the management protocol set regardless of whether the management protocol set
operation succeeds, the variable-binding in the operation succeeds, the variable-binding in the
request and response PDUs are identical.) request and response PDUs are identical.)
The value of the ACCESS clause for objects having The value of the ACCESS clause for objects having
this syntax is either `read-write' or `read- this syntax is either 'read-write' or 'read-
create'. When an instance of a columnar object create'. When an instance of a columnar object
having this syntax is created, any value may be having this syntax is created, any value may be
supplied via the management protocol." supplied via the management protocol."
::= INTEGER (0..2147483647) SYNTAX INTEGER (0..2147483647)
AutonomousType TEXTUAL-CONVENTION RFC 1443 Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 April 1993
AutonomousType ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current STATUS current
DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION
"Represents an independently extensible type "Represents an independently extensible type
identification value. It may, for example, identification value. It may, for example,
indicate a particular sub-tree with further MIB indicate a particular sub-tree with further MIB
definitions, or define a particular type of definitions, or define a particular type of
protocol or hardware." protocol or hardware."
::= OBJECT IDENTIFIER SYNTAX OBJECT IDENTIFIER
InstancePointer TEXTUAL-CONVENTION InstancePointer ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current STATUS current
DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION
"A pointer to a specific instance of a conceptual "A pointer to a specific instance of a conceptual
row of a MIB table in the managed device. By row of a MIB table in the managed device. By
convention, it is the name of the particular convention, it is the name of the particular
instance of the first columnar object in the instance of the first columnar object in the
conceptual row." conceptual row."
::= OBJECT IDENTIFIER SYNTAX OBJECT IDENTIFIER
RowStatus TEXTUAL-CONVENTION RFC 1443 Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 April 1993
RowStatus ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current STATUS current
DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION
"The syntax used for the status column for a "The RowStatus textual convention is used to
conceptual row. If present, the value of the manage the creation and deletion of conceptual
DEFVAL clause for an object having this syntax is rows, and is used as the value of the SYNTAX
clause for the status column of a conceptual row
(as described in Section 7.7.1 of [2].)
Draft Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 Oct 92 The status column has six defined values:
either `underModification(4)' or `active(1)'. - 'active', which indicates that the
conceptual row is available for use by the
managed device;
To create new object instances for a conceptual - 'notInService', which indicates that the
row, a management protocol set operation is issued conceptual row exists in the agent, but is
which sets the new instance of the status column unavailable for use by the managed device
to `underConstruction(2)'. If the instance (see NOTE below);
already exists, then the management protocol set
operation fails with an error of
`inconsistentValue'. Otherwise, the instance is
created. If the management protocol set operation
created sufficient instances so that this
conceptual row may be used by the correspondent
SNMPv2 entity, and the value of the DEFVAL clause
for the status column is `active(1)', then the
SNMPv2 entity acting in an agent role immediately
sets the value of this instance to `active(1)'.
Otherwise, the SNMPv2 entity acting in an agent
role immediately sets the value of this instance
to `underModification(4)'.
This suggests that the algorithm to create a new - 'notReady', which indicates that the
conceptual row is as follows: conceptual row exists in the agent, but is
missing information necessary in order to be
available for use by the managed device;
First, the management station ascertains the - 'createAndGo', which is supplied by a
identity of an unused slot in the conceptual management station wishing to create a new
table of interest. instance of a conceptual row and to have it
available for use by the managed device;
Second, the management station issues a - 'createAndWait', which is supplied by a
management protocol set operation to create management station wishing to create a new
the status column for the desired conceptual instance of a conceptual row but not to have
row. it available for use by the managed device;
and,
Third, the management station issues a - 'destroy', which is supplied by a
management protocol get operation to examine management station wishing to delete all of
all columns in that conceptual row. For each the instances associated with an existing
column, if the get operation returns a value conceptual row.
for that column, then the management station
may issue an additional management protocol
set operation to change that value; if the
`noSuchInstance' exception is returned, then
the management station must issue an
additional management protocol set operation
to create that instance prior to changing the
status column to `active'; and, if the
`noSuchObject' exception is returned, then
Draft Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 Oct 92 Whereas five of the six values (all except
'notReady') may be specified in a management
protocol set operation, only three values will be
returned in response to a management protocol
the management station learns that it must RFC 1443 Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 April 1993
not issue a management protocol set operation
to create an instance of this column.
When an instance of the status column has the retrieval operation: 'notReady', 'notInService' or
value `underModification(4)' or `active(1)', then 'active'. That is, when queried, an existing
management operations may be issued to manipulate conceptual row has only three states: it is either
the columns in the conceptual row. However, only available for use by the managed device (the
when the value of an instance of the status column status column has value 'active'); it is not
is `active(1)', will the information in the available for use by the managed device, though
conceptual row be available outside of the the agent has sufficient information to make it so
management subsystem, i.e., whilst the information (the status column has value 'notInService'); or,
is available to authorized SNMPv2 entities acting it is not available for use by the managed device,
in a manager role, the information is independent because the agent lacks sufficient information
of the operational state of the managed device. (the status column has value 'notReady').
As such, note that while the status is
`underModification(4)', it is possible for a NOTE WELL
managed device to create (or otherwise manipulate)
its own instances which effectively supersede This textual convention may be used for a MIB
those held by the SNMPv2 entity acting in an agent table, irrespective of whether the values of
role. If the management station doesn't finish that table's conceptual rows are able to be
this algorithm (due to a management station or modified while it is active, or whether its
network failure, for example) conceptual rows may conceptual rows must be taken out of service
be left in the `underModification(4)' state, in order to be modified. That is, it is the
consuming resources indefinitely. The SNMPv2 responsibility of the DESCRIPTION clause of
entity acting in an agent role may detect the status column to specify whether the
conceptual rows that have been in the status column must be 'notInService' in order
`underModification(4) state for an abnormally long for the value of some other column of the
period of time and remove them from the table. same conceptual row to be modified.
RFC 1443 Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 April 1993
To summarize the effect of having a conceptual row
with a status column having a SYNTAX clause value
of RowStatus, consider the following state
diagram:
STATE
+--------------+-----------+-------------+-------------
| A | B | C | D
| |status col.|status column|
|status column | is | is |status column
ACTION |does not exist| notReady | notInService| is active
--------------+--------------+-----------+-------------+-------------
set status |noError ->D|inconsist- |inconsistent-|inconsistent-
column to | or | entValue| Value| Value
createAndGo |inconsistent- | | |
| Value| | |
--------------+--------------+-----------+-------------+-------------
set status |noError see 1|inconsist- |inconsistent-|inconsistent-
column to | or | entValue| Value| Value
createAndWait |wrongValue | | |
--------------+--------------+-----------+-------------+-------------
set status |inconsistent- |inconsist- |noError |noError
column to | Value| entValue| |
active | | | |
| | or | |
| | | |
| |see 2 ->D| ->D| ->D
--------------+--------------+-----------+-------------+-------------
set status |inconsistent- |inconsist- |noError |noError ->C
column to | Value| entValue| |
notInService | | | |
| | or | | or
| | | |
| |see 3 ->C| ->C|wrongValue
--------------+--------------+-----------+-------------+-------------
set status |noError |noError |noError |noError
column to | | | |
destroy | ->A| ->A| ->A| ->A
--------------+--------------+-----------+-------------+-------------
set any other |see 4 |noError |noError |noError
column to some| | | |
value | ->A| see 1| ->C| ->D
--------------+--------------+-----------+-------------+-------------
RFC 1443 Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 April 1993
(1) goto B or C, depending on information
available to the agent.
(2) if other variable bindings included in the
same PDU, provide values for all columns which are
missing but required, then return noError and goto
D.
(3) if other variable bindings included in the
same PDU, provide values for all columns which are
missing but required, then return noError and goto
C.
(4) at the discretion of the agent, either noError
or inconsistentValue may be returned.
NOTE: Other processing of the set request may
result in a response other than noError being
returned, e.g., wrongValue, noCreation, etc.
Conceptual Row Creation
There are four potential interactions when
creating a conceptual row: selecting an instance-
identifier which is not in use; creating the
conceptual row; initializing any objects for which
the agent does not supply a default; and, making
the conceptual row available for use by the
managed device.
Interaction 1: Selecting an Instance-Identifier
The algorithm used to select an instance-
identifier varies for each conceptual row. In
some cases, the instance-identifier is
semantically significant, e.g., the destination
address of a route, and a management station
selects the instance-identifier according to the
semantics.
In other cases, the instance-identifier is used
solely to distinguish conceptual rows, and a
management station without specific knowledge of
the conceptual row might examine the instances
RFC 1443 Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 April 1993
present in order to determine an unused instance-
identifier. (This approach may be used, but it is
often highly sub-optimal; however, it is also a
questionable practice for a naive management
station to attempt conceptual row creation.)
Alternately, the MIB module which defines the
conceptual row might provide one or more objects
which provide assistance in determining an unused
instance-identifier. For example, if the
conceptual row is indexed by an integer-value,
then an object having an integer-valued SYNTAX
clause might be defined for such a purpose,
allowing a management station to issue a
management protocol retrieval operation. In order
to avoid unnecessary collisions between competing
management stations, 'adjacent' retrievals of this
object should be different.
Finally, the management station could select a
pseudo-random number to use as the index. In the
event that this index was already in use and an
inconsistentValue was returned in response to the
management protocol set operation, the management
station should simply select a new pseudo-random
number and retry the operation.
A MIB designer should choose between the two
latter algorithms based on the size of the table
(and therefore the efficiency of each algorithm).
For tables in which a large number of entries are
expected, it is recommended that a MIB object be
defined that returns an acceptable index for
creation. For tables with small numbers of
entries, it is recommended that the latter
pseudo-random index mechanism be used.
Interaction 2: Creating the Conceptual Row
Once an unused instance-identifier has been
selected, the management station determines if it
wishes to create and activate the conceptual row
in one transaction or in a negotiated set of
interactions.
RFC 1443 Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 April 1993
Interaction 2a: Creating and Activating the
Conceptual Row
The management station must first determine the
column requirements, i.e., it must determine those
columns for which it must or must not provide
values. Depending on the complexity of the table
and the management station's knowledge of the
agent's capabilities, this determination can be
made locally by the management station.
Alternately, the management station issues a
management protocol get operation to examine all
columns in the conceptual row that it wishes to
create. In response, for each column, there are
three possible outcomes:
- a value is returned, indicating that some
other management station has already created
this conceptual row. We return to
interaction 1.
- the exception 'noSuchInstance' is returned,
indicating that the agent implements the
object-type associated with this column, and
that this column in at least one conceptual
row would be accessible in the MIB view used
by the retrieval were it to exist. For those
columns to which the agent provides read-
create access, the 'noSuchInstance' exception
tells the management station that it should
supply a value for this column when the
conceptual row is to be created.
- the exception 'noSuchObject' is returned,
indicating that the agent does not implement
the object-type associated with this column
or that there is no conceptual row for which
this column would be accessible in the MIB
view used by the retrieval. As such, the
management station can not issue any
management protocol set operations to create
an instance of this column.
Once the column requirements have been determined,
a management protocol set operation is accordingly
RFC 1443 Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 April 1993
issued. This operation also sets the new instance
of the status column to 'createAndGo'.
When the agent processes the set operation, it
verifies that it has sufficient information to
make the conceptual row available for use by the
managed device. The information available to the
agent is provided by two sources: the management
protocol set operation which creates the
conceptual row, and, implementation-specific
defaults supplied by the agent (note that an agent
must provide implementation-specific defaults for
at least those objects which it implements as
read-only). If there is sufficient information
available, then the conceptual row is created, a
'noError' response is returned, the status column
is set to 'active', and no further interactions
are necessary (i.e., interactions 3 and 4 are
skipped). If there is insufficient information,
then the conceptual row is not created, and the
set operation fails with an error of
'inconsistentValue'. On this error, the
management station can issue a management protocol
retrieval operation to determine if this was
because it failed to specify a value for a
required column, or, because the selected instance
of the status column already existed. In the
latter case, we return to interaction 1. In the
former case, the management station can re-issue
the set operation with the additional information,
or begin interaction 2 again using 'createAndWait'
in order to negotiate creation of the conceptual
row.
RFC 1443 Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 April 1993
NOTE WELL
Regardless of the method used to determine
the column requirements, it is possible that
the management station might deem a column
necessary when, in fact, the agent will not
allow that particular columnar instance to be
created or written. In this case, the
management protocol set operation will fail
with an error such as 'noCreation' or
'notWritable'. In this case, the management
station decides whether it needs to be able
to set a value for that particular columnar
instance. If not, the management station
re-issues the management protocol set
operation, but without setting a value for
that particular columnar instance; otherwise,
the management station aborts the row
creation algorithm.
Interaction 2b: Negotiating the Creation of the
Conceptual Row
The management station issues a management
protocol set operation which sets the desired
instance of the status column to 'createAndWait'.
If the agent is unwilling to process a request of
this sort, the set operation fails with an error
of 'wrongValue'. (As a consequence, such an agent
must be prepared to accept a single management
protocol set operation, i.e., interaction 2a
above, containing all of the columns indicated by
its column requirements.) Otherwise, the
conceptual row is created, a 'noError' response is
returned, and the status column is immediately set
to either 'notInService' or 'notReady', depending
on whether it has sufficient information to make
the conceptual row available for use by the
managed device. If there is sufficient
information available, then the status column is
set to 'notInService'; otherwise, if there is
insufficient information, then the status column
is set to 'notReady'. Regardless, we proceed to
interaction 3.
RFC 1443 Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 April 1993
Interaction 3: Initializing non-defaulted Objects
The management station must now determine the
column requirements. It issues a management
protocol get operation to examine all columns in
the created conceptual row. In the response, for
each column, there are three possible outcomes:
- a value is returned, indicating that the
agent implements the object-type associated
with this column and had sufficient
information to provide a value. For those
columns to which the agent provides read-
create access, a value return tells the
management station that it may issue
additional management protocol set
operations, if it desires, in order to change
the value associated with this column.
- the exception 'noSuchInstance' is returned,
indicating that the agent implements the
object-type associated with this column, and
that this column in at least one conceptual
row would be accessible in the MIB view used
by the retrieval were it to exist. However,
the agent does not have sufficient
information to provide a value, and until a
value is provided, the conceptual row may not
be made available for use by the managed
device. For those columns to which the agent
provides read-create access, the
'noSuchInstance' exception tells the
management station that it must issue
additional management protocol set
operations, in order to provide a value
associated with this column.
- the exception 'noSuchObject' is returned,
indicating that the agent does not implement
the object-type associated with this column
or that there is no conceptual row for which
this column would be accessible in the MIB
view used by the retrieval. As such, the
management station can not issue any
management protocol set operations to create
RFC 1443 Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 April 1993
an instance of this column.
If the value associated with the status column is
'notReady', then the management station must first
deal with all 'noSuchInstance' columns, if any.
Having done so, the value of the status column
becomes 'notInService', and we proceed to
interaction 4.
Interaction 4: Making the Conceptual Row Available
Once the management station is satisfied with the
values associated with the columns of the
conceptual row, it issues a management protocol
set operation to set the status column to
'active'. If the agent has sufficient information
to make the conceptual row available for use by
the managed device, the management protocol set
operation succeeds (a 'noError' response is
returned). Otherwise, the management protocol set
operation fails with an error of
'inconsistentValue'.
NOTE WELL
A conceptual row having a status column with
value 'notInService' or 'notReady' is
unavailable to the managed device. As such,
it is possible for the managed device to
create its own instances during the time
between the management protocol set operation
which sets the status column to
'createAndWait' and the management protocol
set operation which sets the status column to
'active'. In this case, when the management
protocol set operation is issued to set the
status column to 'active', the values held in
the agent supersede those used by the managed
device.
If the management station is prevented from
setting the status column to 'active' (e.g., due
to management station or network failure) the
conceptual row will be left in the 'notInService'
or 'notReady' state, consuming resources
RFC 1443 Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 April 1993
indefinitely. The agent must detect conceptual
rows that have been in either state for an
abnormally long period of time and remove them.
This period of time should be long enough to allow This period of time should be long enough to allow
for human response time (including `think time') for human response time (including 'think time')
between the creation of the conceptual row and the between the creation of the conceptual row and the
setting of the status to `active(1)'. It is setting of the status to 'active'. It is
suggested that this period be approximately 5 suggested that this period be approximately 5
minutes in length. minutes in length.
Conceptual Row Suspension
When a conceptual row is 'active', the management
station may issue a management protocol set
operation which sets the instance of the status
column to 'notInService'. If the agent is
unwilling to do so, the set operation fails with
an error of 'wrongValue'. Otherwise, the
conceptual row is taken out of service, and a
'noError' response is returned. It is the
responsibility of the the DESCRIPTION clause of
the status column to indicate under what
circumstances the status column should be taken
out of service (e.g., in order for the value of
some other column of the same conceptual row to be
modified).
Conceptual Row Deletion
For deletion of conceptual rows, a management For deletion of conceptual rows, a management
protocol set operation is issued which sets the protocol set operation is issued which sets the
instance of the status column to instance of the status column to 'destroy'. This
`underDestruction(3)'. If the operation succeeds, request may be made regardless of the current
then the entire conceptual row is immediately value of the status column (e.g., it is possible
removed from the table." to delete conceptual rows which are either
::= INTEGER { 'notReady', 'notInService' or 'active'.) If the
active(1) operation succeeds, then all instances associated
underConstruction(2), with the conceptual row are immediately removed."
Draft Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 Oct 92 RFC 1443 Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 April 1993
underDestruction(3), SYNTAX INTEGER {
underModification(4), -- the following two values are states:
} -- these values may be read or written
active(1),
notInService(2),
TimeStamp TEXTUAL-CONVENTION -- the following value is a state:
-- this value may be read, but not written
notReady(3),
-- the following three values are
-- actions: these values may be written,
-- but are never read
createAndGo(4),
createAndWait(5),
destroy(6)
}
RFC 1443 Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 April 1993
TimeStamp ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current STATUS current
DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION
"The value of MIB-II's sysUpTime object at which a "The value of MIB-II's sysUpTime object at which a
specific occurrence happened. The specific specific occurrence happened. The specific
occurrence must be defined in the description of occurrence must be defined in the description of
any object defined using this type." any object defined using this type."
::= TimeTicks SYNTAX TimeTicks
TimeInterval TEXTUAL-CONVENTION TimeInterval ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
STATUS current STATUS current
DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION
"A period of time, measured in units of 0.01 "A period of time, measured in units of 0.01
seconds." seconds."
::= INTEGER (0..2147483647) SYNTAX INTEGER (0..2147483647)
DateAndTime TEXTUAL-CONVENTION RFC 1443 Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 April 1993
DateAndTime ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
DISPLAY-HINT "2d-1d-1d,1d:1d:1d.1d,1a1d:1d" DISPLAY-HINT "2d-1d-1d,1d:1d:1d.1d,1a1d:1d"
STATUS current STATUS current
DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION
"A date-time specification. "A date-time specification.
field octets contents range field octets contents range
----- ------ -------- ----- ----- ------ -------- -----
1 1-2 year 0..65536 1 1-2 year 0..65536
2 3 month 1..12 2 3 month 1..12
3 4 day 1..31 3 4 day 1..31
4 5 hour 0..23 4 5 hour 0..23
5 6 minutes 0..59 5 6 minutes 0..59
6 7 seconds 0..60 6 7 seconds 0..60
(use 60 for leap-second) (use 60 for leap-second)
7 8 deci-seconds 0..9 7 8 deci-seconds 0..9
8 9 direction from UTC '+' / '-' | 8 9 direction from UTC '+' / '-'
9 10 hours from UTC 0..11 | 9 10 hours from UTC 0..11
10 11 minutes from UTC 0..59 | 10 11 minutes from UTC 0..59
For example, Tuesday May 26, 1992 at 1:30:15 PM For example, Tuesday May 26, 1992 at 1:30:15 PM
EDT would be displayed as: EDT would be displayed as:
1992-5-26,13:30:15.0,-4:0 1992-5-26,13:30:15.0,-4:0
Draft Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 Oct 92
Note that if only local time is known, then Note that if only local time is known, then
timezone information (fields 8-10) is not present. timezone information (fields 8-10) is not
" present."
::= OCTET STRING (SIZE (8 | 11)) SYNTAX OCTET STRING (SIZE (8 | 11))
END END
Draft Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 Oct 92 RFC 1443 Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 April 1993
4. Mapping of the TEXTUAL-CONVENTION macro 3. Mapping of the TEXTUAL-CONVENTION macro
The TEXTUAL-CONVENTION macro is used to convey the syntax and The TEXTUAL-CONVENTION macro is used to convey the syntax and
semantics associated with a textual convention. It should be semantics associated with a textual convention. It should be
noted that the expansion of the TEXTUAL-CONVENTION macro is noted that the expansion of the TEXTUAL-CONVENTION macro is
something which conceptually happens during implementation and something which conceptually happens during implementation and
not during run-time. not during run-time.
4.1. Mapping of the DISPLAY-HINT clause For all descriptors appearing in an information module, the
descriptor shall be unique and mnemonic, and shall not exceed
64 characters in length. Further, the hyphen is not allowed
as a character in the name of any textual convention.
3.1. Mapping of the DISPLAY-HINT clause
The DISPLAY-HINT clause, which need not be present, gives a The DISPLAY-HINT clause, which need not be present, gives a
hint as to how the value of an instance of an object with the hint as to how the value of an instance of an object with the
syntax defined using this textual convention might be syntax defined using this textual convention might be
displayed. The DISPLAY-HINT clause may only be present when displayed. The DISPLAY-HINT clause may only be present when
the syntax has an underlying primitive type of INTEGER or the syntax has an underlying primitive type of INTEGER or
OCTET STRING. OCTET STRING.
When the syntax has an underlying primitive type of INTEGER, When the syntax has an underlying primitive type of INTEGER,
the hint consists of a single character suggesting a display the hint consists of a single character suggesting a display
format, either: `x' for hexadecimal, `d' for decimal, or `o' format, either: 'x' for hexadecimal, 'd' for decimal, or 'o'
for octal, or `b' for binary. for octal, or 'b' for binary.
When the syntax has an underlying primitive type of OCTET When the syntax has an underlying primitive type of OCTET
STRING, the hint consists of one or more octet-format STRING, the hint consists of one or more octet-format
specifications. Each specification consists of five parts, specifications. Each specification consists of five parts,
with each part using and removing zero or more of the next with each part using and removing zero or more of the next
octets from the value and producing the next zero or more octets from the value and producing the next zero or more
characters to be displayed. The octets within the value are characters to be displayed. The octets within the value are
processed in order of significance, most significant first. processed in order of significance, most significant first.
The five parts of a octet-format specification are: The five parts of a octet-format specification are:
(1) the (optional) repeat indicator; if present, this part is (1) the (optional) repeat indicator; if present, this part is
a `*', and indicates that the current octet of the value a '*', and indicates that the current octet of the value
is to be used as the repeat count. The repeat count is is to be used as the repeat count. The repeat count is
an unsigned integer (which may be zero) which specifies an unsigned integer (which may be zero) which specifies
how many times the remainder of this octet-format how many times the remainder of this octet-format
specification should be successively applied. If the specification should be successively applied. If the
repeat indicator is not present, the repeat count is one. repeat indicator is not present, the repeat count is one.
RFC 1443 Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 April 1993
(2) the octet length: one or more decimal digits specifying (2) the octet length: one or more decimal digits specifying
the number of octets of the value to be used and the number of octets of the value to be used and
formatted by this octet-specification. Note that the formatted by this octet-specification. Note that the
octet length can be zero. If less than this number of octet length can be zero. If less than this number of
Draft Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 Oct 92
octets remain in the value, then the lesser number of octets remain in the value, then the lesser number of
octets are used. octets are used.
(3) the display format, either: `x' for hexadecimal, `d' for (3) the display format, either: 'x' for hexadecimal, 'd' for
decimal, `o' for octal, or `a' for ascii. If the octet decimal, 'o' for octal, or 'a' for ascii. If the octet
length part is greater than one, and the display format length part is greater than one, and the display format
part refers to a numeric format, then network-byte part refers to a numeric format, then network-byte
ordering (big-endian encoding) is used interpreting the ordering (big-endian encoding) is used interpreting the
octets in the value. octets in the value.
(4) the (optional) display separator character; if present, (4) the (optional) display separator character; if present,
this part is a single character which is produced for this part is a single character which is produced for
display after each application of this octet- display after each application of this octet-
specification; however, this character is not produced specification; however, this character is not produced
for display if it would be immediately followed by the for display if it would be immediately followed by the
display of the repeat terminator character for this display of the repeat terminator character for this
octet-specification. This character can be any character octet-specification. This character can be any character
other than a decimal digit and a `*'. other than a decimal digit and a '*'.
(5) the (optional) repeat terminator character, which can be (5) the (optional) repeat terminator character, which can be
present only if the display separator character is present only if the display separator character is
present and this octet-specification begins with a repeat present and this octet-specification begins with a repeat
indicator; if present, this part is a single character indicator; if present, this part is a single character
which is produced after all the zero or more repeated which is produced after all the zero or more repeated
applications (as given by the repeat count) of this applications (as given by the repeat count) of this
octet-specification. This character can be any character octet-specification. This character can be any character
other than a decimal digit and a `*'. other than a decimal digit and a '*'.
Output of a display separator character or a repeat terminator Output of a display separator character or a repeat terminator
character is suppressed if it would occur as the last character is suppressed if it would occur as the last
character of the display. character of the display.
If the octets of the value are exhausted before all the If the octets of the value are exhausted before all the
octet-format specification have been used, then the excess octet-format specification have been used, then the excess
specifications are ignored. If additional octets remain in specifications are ignored. If additional octets remain in
the value after interpreting all the octet-format the value after interpreting all the octet-format
specifications, then the last octet-format specification is specifications, then the last octet-format specification is
re-interpreted to process the additional octets, until no re-interpreted to process the additional octets, until no
octets remain in the value. octets remain in the value.
4.2. Mapping of the STATUS clause RFC 1443 Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 April 1993
3.2. Mapping of the STATUS clause
The STATUS clause, which must be present, indicates whether The STATUS clause, which must be present, indicates whether
this definition is current or historic. this definition is current or historic.
Draft Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 Oct 92
The values "current", and "obsolete" are self-explanatory. The values "current", and "obsolete" are self-explanatory.
The "deprecated" value indicates that that object is obsolete, The "deprecated" value indicates that the textual convention
but that an implementor may wish to support that object to is obsolete, but that an implementor may wish to support that
foster interoperability with older implementations. object to foster interoperability with older implementations.
4.3. Mapping of the DESCRIPTION clause 3.3. Mapping of the DESCRIPTION clause
The DESCRIPTION clause, which must be present, contains a The DESCRIPTION clause, which must be present, contains a
textual definition of the textual convention, which provides textual definition of the textual convention, which provides
all semantic definitions necessary for implementation, and all semantic definitions necessary for implementation, and
should embody any information which would otherwise be should embody any information which would otherwise be
communicated in any ASN.1 commentary annotations associated communicated in any ASN.1 commentary annotations associated
with the object. with the object.
Note that, in order to conform to the ASN.1 syntax, the entire Note that, in order to conform to the ASN.1 syntax, the entire
value of this clause must be enclosed in double quotation value of this clause must be enclosed in double quotation
marks, and therefore cannot itself contain double quotation marks, and therefore cannot itself contain double quotation
marks, although the value may be multi-line. marks, although the value may be multi-line.
4.4. Mapping of the REFERENCE clause 3.4. Mapping of the REFERENCE clause
The REFERENCE clause, which need not be present, contains a The REFERENCE clause, which need not be present, contains a
textual cross-reference to a related item defined in some textual cross-reference to a related item defined in some
other published work. other published work.
4.5. Mapping of the TEXTUAL-CONVENTION value 3.5. Mapping of the SYNTAX clause
The value of an invocation of the TEXTUAL-CONVENTION macro The SYNTAX clause, which must be present, defines abstract
defines the abstract data structure corresponding to the data structure corresponding to the textual convention. The
textual convention. The data structure must be one of the data structure must be one of the alternatives defined in the
alternatives defined in the ObjectSyntax CHOICE from [2], a ObjectSyntax CHOICE [2].
refinement of one of the alternatives, or the value of a
previously defined TEXTUAL-CONVENTION. Consult Section 11 of
[2] for more information on refined syntax.
Draft Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 Oct 92 Full ASN.1 sub-typing is allowed, as appropriate to the
underingly ASN.1 type, primarily as an aid to implementors in
understanding the meaning of the textual convention. Of
course, sub-typing is not allowed for textual conventions
derived from either the Counter32 or Counter64 types, but is
RFC 1443 Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 April 1993
5. Acknowledgements allowed for textual conventions derived from the Gauge32 type.
RFC 1443 Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 April 1993
4. Acknowledgements
PhysAddress (and textual conventions) originated in RFC 1213. PhysAddress (and textual conventions) originated in RFC 1213.
MacAddress originated in RFCs 1230 and 1231. MacAddress originated in RFCs 1230 and 1231.
TruthValue originated in RFC 1253. TruthValue originated in RFC 1253.
AutonomousType and InstancePointer originated in RFC 1316. AutonomousType and InstancePointer originated in RFC 1316.
RowStatus originated in RFC 1271. RowStatus originated in RFC 1271.
Finally, the comments of the SNMP Version 2 working group are A special thanks to Bancroft Scott of Open Systems Solutions,
Inc., for helping in the definition of the TEXTUAL-CONVENTIONS
macro.
Finally, the comments of the SNMP version 2 working group are
gratefully acknowledged: gratefully acknowledged:
Steve Alexander, Interactive Systems Beth Adams, Network Management Forum
Uri Blumenthal, International Business Machines Steve Alexander, INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation
Jeffrey D. Case, SNMP Research, Inc. David Arneson, Cabletron Systems
Toshiya Asaba
Fred Baker, ACC
Jim Barnes, Xylogics, Inc.
Brian Bataille
Andy Bierman, SynOptics Communications, Inc.
Uri Blumenthal, IBM Corporation
Fred Bohle, Interlink
Jack Brown
Theodore Brunner, Bellcore
Stephen F. Bush, GE Information Services
Jeffrey D. Case, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
John Chang, IBM Corporation
Szusin Chen, Sun Microsystems
Robert Ching
Chris Chiotasso, Ungermann-Bass
Bobby A. Clay, NASA/Boeing
John Cooke, Chipcom
Tracy Cox, Bellcore Tracy Cox, Bellcore
Juan Cruz, Datability, Inc.
David Cullerot, Cabletron Systems
Cathy Cunningham, Microcom
James R. (Chuck) Davin, Bellcore James R. (Chuck) Davin, Bellcore
Michael Davis, Clearpoint
RFC 1443 Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 April 1993
Mike Davison, FiberCom Mike Davison, FiberCom
Cynthia DellaTorre, MITRE
Taso N. Devetzis, Bellcore Taso N. Devetzis, Bellcore
Manual Diaz, DAVID Systems, Inc.
Jon Dreyer, Sun Microsystems
David Engel, Optical Data Systems
Mike Erlinger, Lexcel
Roger Fajman, NIH
Daniel Fauvarque, Sun Microsystems
Karen Frisa, CMU
Shari Galitzer, MITRE
Shawn Gallagher, Digital Equipment Corporation
Richard Graveman, Bellcore
Maria Greene, Xyplex, Inc.
Michel Guittet, Apple
Robert Gutierrez, NASA
Bill Hagerty, Cabletron Systems
Gary W. Haney, Martin Marietta Energy Systems Gary W. Haney, Martin Marietta Energy Systems
Patrick Hanil, Nokia Telecommunications
Matt Hecht, SNMP Research, Inc. Matt Hecht, SNMP Research, Inc.
Edward A. Heiner, Jr., Synernetics Inc.
Susan E. Hicks, Martin Marietta Energy Systems Susan E. Hicks, Martin Marietta Energy Systems
Satish Joshi, SynOptics Geral Holzhauer, Apple
John Hopprich, DAVID Systems, Inc.
Jeff Hughes, Hewlett-Packard
Robin Iddon, Axon Networks, Inc.
David Itusak
Kevin M. Jackson, Concord Communications, Inc.
Ole J. Jacobsen, Interop Company
Ronald Jacoby, Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Satish Joshi, SynOptics Communications, Inc.
Frank Kastenholz, FTP Software
Mark Kepke, Hewlett-Packard Mark Kepke, Hewlett-Packard
Ken Key, SNMP Research, Inc. Ken Key, SNMP Research, Inc.
Michael Kornegay, Visisoft Zbiginew Kielczewski, Eicon
Deidre C. Kostick, Bellcore Jongyeoi Kim
Andrew Knutsen, The Santa Cruz Operation
Michael L. Kornegay, VisiSoft
Deirdre C. Kostik, Bellcore
Cheryl Krupczak, Georgia Tech Cheryl Krupczak, Georgia Tech
Robert C. Lushbaugh, Martin Marietta Energy Systems Mark S. Lewis, Telebit
David Lin
David Lindemulder, AT&T/NCR
Ben Lisowski, Sprint
David Liu, Bell-Northern Research
RFC 1443 Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 April 1993
John Lunny, The Wollongong Group
Robert C. Lushbaugh Martin, Marietta Energy Systems
Michael Luufer, BBN
Carl Madison, Star-Tek, Inc.
Keith McCloghrie, Hughes LAN Systems Keith McCloghrie, Hughes LAN Systems
Evan McGinnis, 3Com Corporation
Bill McKenzie, IBM Corporation
Donna McMaster, SynOptics Communications, Inc.
John Medicke, IBM Corporation
Doug Miller, Telebit
Dave Minnich, FiberCom Dave Minnich, FiberCom
Dave Perkins, SynOptics Mohammad Mirhakkak, MITRE
Rohit Mital, Protools
George Mouradian, AT&T Bell Labs
Patrick Mullaney, Cabletron Systems
Dan Myers, 3Com Corporation
Rina Nathaniel, Rad Network Devices Ltd.
Hien V. Nguyen, Sprint
Mo Nikain
Tom Nisbet
William B. Norton, MERIT
Steve Onishi, Wellfleet Communications, Inc.
David T. Perkins, SynOptics Communications, Inc.
Carl Powell, BBN
Ilan Raab, SynOptics Communications, Inc.
Richard Ramons, AT&T
Venkat D. Rangan, Metric Network Systems, Inc.
Louise Reingold, Sprint
Sam Roberts, Farallon Computing, Inc.
Kary Robertson, Concord Communications, Inc.
Dan Romascanu, Lannet Data Communications Ltd.
Marshall T. Rose, Dover Beach Consulting, Inc. Marshall T. Rose, Dover Beach Consulting, Inc.
Shawn A. Routhier, Epilogue Technology Shawn A. Routhier, Epilogue Technology Corporation
Chris Rozman
Asaf Rubissa, Fibronics
Jon Saperia, Digital Equipment Corporation Jon Saperia, Digital Equipment Corporation
Bob Stewart, Xyplex (chair) Michael Sapich
Robert Synder, Cisco Systems Mike Scanlon, Interlan
Maurice Turcotte, Racal Datacom Sam Schaen, MITRE
Steven L. Waldbusser, Carnegie Mellon University John Seligson, Ultra Network Technologies
Bert Wijnen, International Business Machines Paul A. Serice, Corporation for Open Systems
Peter Wilson, 3Com Chris Shaw, Banyan Systems
Steven Wong, Digital Equipment Corporation Timon Sloane
Robert Snyder, Cisco Systems
Joo Young Song
Draft Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 Oct 92 RFC 1443 Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 April 1993
Roy Spitier, Sprint
Einar Stefferud, Network Management Associates
John Stephens, Cayman Systems, Inc.
Robert L. Stewart, Xyplex, Inc. (chair)
Kaj Tesink, Bellcore
Dean Throop, Data General
Ahmet Tuncay, France Telecom-CNET
Maurice Turcotte, Racal Datacom
Warren Vik, INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation
Yannis Viniotis
Steven L. Waldbusser, Carnegie Mellon Universitty
Timothy M. Walden, ACC
Alice Wang, Sun Microsystems
James Watt, Newbridge
Luanne Waul, Timeplex
Donald E. Westlake III, Digital Equipment Corporation
Gerry White
Bert Wijnen, IBM Corporation
Peter Wilson, 3Com Corporation
Steven Wong, Digital Equipment Corporation
Randy Worzella, IBM Corporation
Daniel Woycke, MITRE
Honda Wu
Jeff Yarnell, Protools
Chris Young, Cabletron Chris Young, Cabletron
Kiho Yum, 3Com Kiho Yum, 3Com Corporation
Draft Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 Oct 92 RFC 1443 Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 April 1993
6. References 5. References
[1] Information processing systems - Open Systems [1] Information processing systems - Open Systems
Interconnection - Specification of Abstract Syntax Interconnection - Specification of Abstract Syntax
Notation One (ASN.1), International Organization for Notation One (ASN.1), International Organization for
Standardization. International Standard 8824, (December, Standardization. International Standard 8824, (December,
1987). 1987).
[2] J.D. Case, K. McCloghrie, M.T. Rose, S.L. Waldbusser, [2] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and Waldbusser, S.,
Structure of Management Information for version 2 of the "Structure of Management Information for version 2 of the
Simple Network Management Protocol, Internet-Draft, Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1442,
(October 7, 1992). SNMP Research, Inc., Hughes LAN Systems, Dover Beach
Consulting, Inc., Carnegie Mellon University, April 1993.
Draft Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 Oct 92 RFC 1443 Textual Conventions for SNMPv2 April 1993
Table of Contents 6. Security Considerations
1 Status of this Memo ................................... 1 Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
2 Introduction .......................................... 2
2.1 A Note on Terminology ............................... 3 7. Authors' Addresses
3 Definitions ........................................... 4
4 Mapping of the TEXTUAL-CONVENTION macro ............... 11 Jeffrey D. Case
4.1 Mapping of the DISPLAY-HINT clause .................. 11 SNMP Research, Inc.
4.2 Mapping of the STATUS clause ........................ 12 3001 Kimberlin Heights Rd.
4.3 Mapping of the DESCRIPTION clause ................... 13 Knoxville, TN 37920-9716
4.4 Mapping of the REFERENCE clause ..................... 13 US
4.5 Mapping of the TEXTUAL-CONVENTION value ............. 13
5 Acknowledgements ...................................... 14 Phone: +1 615 573 1434
6 References ............................................ 16 Email: case@snmp.com
Keith McCloghrie
Hughes LAN Systems
1225 Charleston Road
Mountain View, CA 94043
US
Phone: +1 415 966 7934
Email: kzm@hls.com
Marshall T. Rose
Dover Beach Consulting, Inc.
420 Whisman Court
Mountain View, CA 94043-2186
US
Phone: +1 415 968 1052
Email: mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us
Steven Waldbusser
Carnegie Mellon University
4910 Forbes Ave
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
US
Phone: +1 412 268 6628
Email: waldbusser@cmu.edu
 End of changes. 107 change blocks. 
237 lines changed or deleted 767 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/