File: rfc1189.txt

package info (click to toggle)
doc-rfc 20181229-2
  • links: PTS, VCS
  • area: non-free
  • in suites: buster
  • size: 570,944 kB
  • sloc: xml: 285,646; sh: 107; python: 90; perl: 42; makefile: 14
file content (843 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 32,086 bytes parent folder | download | duplicates (5)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843






Network Working Working Group                                 U. Warrier
Request for Comments: 1189                                       Netlabs
Obsoletes:  RFC 1095                                            L. Besaw
                                                         Hewlett-Packard
                                                              L. LaBarre
                                                   The Mitre Corporation
                                                          B. Handspicker
                                           Digital Equipment Corporation
                                                            October 1990


              The Common Management Information Services
                     and Protocols for the Internet
                            (CMOT and CMIP)

Status of this Memo

   This memo defines a network management architecture that uses the
   International Organization for Standardization's (ISO) Common
   Management Information Services/Common Management Information
   Protocol (CMIS/CMIP) in the Internet.  This RFC specifies an IAB
   standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests
   discussion and suggestions for improvements.  Please refer to the
   current edition of the "IAB Official Protocol Standards" for the
   standardization state and status of this protocol.

   Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Table of Contents

   1. Overview ...................................................    2
   2. Introduction ...............................................    3
   3. Protocol Overview ..........................................    4
   3.1. The CMOT Protocol Suite ..................................    5
   3.2. The CMIP Protocol Suite ..................................    6
   3.3. Conformance Requirements .................................    6
   4. Common Management Information Service Element ..............    7
   4.1. Association Policies .....................................    7
   4.2. CMIS Services ............................................    9
   4.2.1 General Agreements on Users of CMIS .....................    9
   4.2.2 Specific Agreements on Users of CMIS ....................   10
   4.3. CMIP Agreements ..........................................   10
   5. Services Required by CMIP ..................................   10
   6. Acknowledgements ...........................................   11
   7. References .................................................   11
   8. Security Considerations.....................................   14
   9. Authors' Addresses..........................................   14




Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker                           [Page 1]

RFC 1189                     CMOT and CMIP                  October 1990


1.  Overview

   This memo is a revision of RFC 1095 - "The Common Management
   Information Services and Protocol over TCP/IP" [27].  It defines a
   network management architecture that uses the International
   Organization for Standardization's (ISO) Common Management
   Information Services/Common Management Information Protocol
   (CMIS/CMIP) in the Internet.  This architecture provides a means by
   which control and monitoring information can be exchanged between a
   manager and a remote network element.  In particular, this memo
   defines the means for implementing the International Standard (IS)
   version of CMIS/CMIP on top of both IP-based and OSI-based Internet
   transport protocols for the purpose of carrying management
   information defined in the Internet-standard management information
   base.  Together with the relevant ISO standards and the companion
   RFCs that describe the initial structure of management information
   and management information base, these documents provide the basis
   for a comprehensive architecture and system for managing both IP-
   based and OSI-based internets, and in particular the Internet.

   In creating this revision of RFC 1095, the following technical and
   editorial changes were made:

      1) The tutorial section on OSI Management included in RFC 1095
         has been removed from this document.  After some revisions,
         the tutorial material may be published as another RFC.

      2) The sections in RFC 1095 which discussed the semantics of how
         to interpret requests in the context of Internet MIBs has been
         removed from this protocol document.  This topic is now
         discussed in the OIM-MIB-II draft document.  This protocol
         should be useable with MIB-I or MIB-II.  But, it will also be
         able to exploit the new features of the OIM-MIB-II.

      3) This document is based on the final International Standards
         for CMIS/CMIP (ISO 9595/9596) rather than the Draft
         International Standards.

      4) Many of the original agreements defined in RFC 1095 have been
         accepted and included in the OIW NMSIG implementers agreements.
         Rather than duplicating these agreements, they have been removed
         from this memo.  This document should be read in conjunction
         with ISO 9595/9596 (CMIS/CMIP) and the OIW Stable Agreements
         document.

      5) The Association Negotiation describe in RFC 1095 has been
         changed to align with current international and national
         agreements.  But, it has retained backwards compatibility with



Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker                           [Page 2]

RFC 1189                     CMOT and CMIP                  October 1990


         the assignment of an Application Context Name which is identical
         to the Application Context Name specified in RFC 1095.

2.  Introduction

   This memo is the output of the OSI Internet Management Working Group
   of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).  As directed by the
   Internet Activites Board (IAB) in RFC 1052, it addresses the need for
   a long-term network management system based on ISO CMIS/CMIP.  This
   memo contains a set of protocol agreements for implementing a network
   management system based on these ISO Management standards.  Now that
   CMIS/CMIP has been voted an International Standard (IS), it has
   become a stable basis for product development.  This profile
   specifies how to apply CMIP to management of both IP-based and OSI-
   based Internet networks.  Network management using ISO CMIP to manage
   IP-based networks will be refered to as "CMIP Over TCP/IP" (CMOT).
   Network management using ISO CMIP to manage OSI-based networks will
   be refered to as "CMIP".  This memo specifies the protocol agreements
   necessary to implement CMIP and accompanying ISO protocols over OSI,
   TCP and UDP transport protocols.

   This memo must be read in conjunction with ISO and Internet documents
   defining specific protocol standards.  Documents defining the
   following ISO standards are required for the implementor: Abstract
   Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) [5, 6], Association Control (ACSE) [7,
   8], Remote Operations (ROSE) [9, 10], Common Management Information
   Services (CMIS) [11] and Common Management Information Protocol
   (CMIP) [12] with their addenda [32-35].  The specification of a
   lightweight presentation layer protocol is required for use with the
   CMOT section of this profile (see RFC 1085 [13]).  The SMI (see RFC
   1065 [2]), the MIB-I (see RFC 1066 [3]), the MIB-II (see RFC 1156
   [28]), and the OIM-MIB-II (see [29]) are used with this management
   system.

   This memo is divided into sections for each of the protocols for
   which implementors' agreements are needed: CMISE, ACSE, ROSE, and,
   for CMOT, the lightweight presentation protocol.  The protocol
   profile defined in this memo draws on the technical work of the OSI
   Network Management Forum [14] and the Network Management Special
   Interest Group (NMSIG) of the National Institute of Standards and
   Technology (NIST) (formerly the National Bureau of Standards) [30].
   Wherever possible, an attempt has been made to either directly
   reference or remain consistent with the protocol agreements reached
   by these groups.







Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker                           [Page 3]

RFC 1189                     CMOT and CMIP                  October 1990


3.  Protocol Overview

   This part of the document is a specification of the protocols of the
   OIM architecture.  Contained herein are the agreements required to
   implement interoperable network management systems using these
   protocols.  The protocol suite defined by these implementors'
   agreements will facilitate communication between equipment of
   different vendors, suppliers, and networks.  This will allow the
   emergence of powerful multivendor network management based on ISO
   models and protocols.

   The choice of a set of protocol standards together with further
   agreements needed to implement those standards is commonly referred
   to as a "profile."  The selection policy for this profile is to use
   existing standards from the international standards community (ISO
   and CCITT) and the Internet community.  Existing ISO standards and
   draft standards in the area of OSI network management form the basis
   of this profile.  Other ISO application layer standards (ROSE and
   ACSE) are used to support the ISO management protocol (CMIP).  To
   ensure interoperability, certain choices and restrictions are made
   here concerning various options and parameters provided by these
   standards.   Internet standards are used to provide the underlying
   network transport.  These agreements provide a precise statement of
   the implementation choices made for implementing ISO network
   management standards in IP-based and OSI-based internets.

   In addition to the OIM working group, there are at least two other
   bodies actively engaged in defining profiles for interoperable OSI
   network management: the OSI Implementors Workshop (OIW) and the OSI
   Network Management Forum.  Both of these groups are similar to the
   OIM working group in that they are each defining profiles for using
   ISO standards for network management.  Both differ in that they are
   specifying the use only of underlying ISO protocols, while the OIM
   working group is concerned with using OSI management in both OSI and
   TCP/IP networks.  In the interest of greater future compatibility,
   the OIM working group has attempted to make this profile conform as
   closely as possible to the ongoing work of these two bodies.

   This section will describe the CMOT Protocol Suite, the CMIP Protocol
   Suite and Conformance Requirements common to both CMOT and CMIP.
   Later sections will specify the implementers agreements for specific
   layer protocols that comprise the CMOT and CMIP Protocol Suites.









Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker                           [Page 4]

RFC 1189                     CMOT and CMIP                  October 1990


3.1.  The CMOT Protocol Suite

   The following seven protocols compose the CMOT protocol suite: ISO
   ACSE, ISO DIS ROSE, ISO CMIP, the lightweight presentation protocol
   (LPP), UDP, TCP, and IP.  The relation of these protocols to each
   other is briefly summarized in Figure 2.

                 +----------------------------------------------+
                         Management Application Processes
                 +----------------------------------------------+

                             +-------------------+
                                     CMISE
                                 ISO 9595/9596
                             +-------------------+

                 +------------------+       +--------------------+
                          ACSE                       ROSE
                   ISO IS 8649/8650           ISO DIS 9072-1/2
                 +------------------+       +--------------------+

                 +-----------------------------------------------+
                       Lightweight Presentation Protocol (LPP)
                                     RFC 1085
                 +-----------------------------------------------+

                 +------------------+       +--------------------+
                         TCP                         UDP
                       RFC 793                     RFC 768
                 +------------------+       +--------------------+

                 +-----------------------------------------------+
                                       IP
                                     RFC 791
                 +-----------------------------------------------+

                      Figure 2.  The CMOT Protocol Suite














Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker                           [Page 5]

RFC 1189                     CMOT and CMIP                  October 1990


3.2.  The CMIP Protocol Suite

   The following six protocols compose the CMIP protocol suite: ISO
   ACSE, ISO DIS ROSE, ISO CMIP, ISO Presentation, ISO  Session and ISO
   Transport.  The relation of these protocols to each other is briefly
   summarized in Figure 3.

                 +----------------------------------------------+
                         Management Application Processes
                 +----------------------------------------------+

                             +-------------------+
                                     CMISE
                                 ISO 9595/9596
                             +-------------------+

                 +------------------+       +--------------------+
                          ACSE                       ROSE
                     ISO 8649/8650            ISO DIS 9072-1/2
                 +------------------+       +--------------------+

                 +-----------------------------------------------+
                                ISO Presentation
                                    ISO
                 +-----------------------------------------------+

                 +-----------------------------------------------+
                                ISO Session
                                    ISO
                 +-----------------------------------------------+

                 +-----------------------------------------------+
                                ISO Transport
                                    ISO
                 +-----------------------------------------------+

                      Figure 3.  The CMIP Protocol Suite

3.3.  Conformance Requirements

   A CMOT-conformant system must implement the following protocols:
   ACSE, ROSE, CMIP, LPP, and IP.  A CMOT-conformant system must support
   the use of the LPP over either UDP or TCP.  The use of the LPP over
   both UDP and TCP on the same system may be supported.

   A CMIP-conformant system must implement the following protocols:
   ACSE, ROSE, CMIP, ISO Presentation, ISO Session and ISO Transport.




Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker                           [Page 6]

RFC 1189                     CMOT and CMIP                  October 1990


4.  Common Management Information Service Element

   The Common Management Information Service Element (CMISE) is
   specified in two ISO documents.  The service definition for the
   Common Management Information Service (CMIS) is given in ISO 9595
   [11].  The protocol specification for the Common Management
   Information Protocol (CMIP) is found in ISO 9596 [12].  In addition,
   the addenda for add/remove support in M-SET [32, 34] must be
   supported for both CMOT and CMIP.  The addenda for M-CANCEL-GET [33,
   35] may be supported by an implementation, but it's use is negotiated
   as part of association negotiation.

4.1.  Association Policies

   The following ACSE services are required by CMISE: A-ASSOCIATE, A-
   RELEASE, A-ABORT, and A-P-ABORT.  The rest of the CMIP protocol uses
   the RO-INVOKE, RO-RESULT, RO-ERROR, and RO-REJECT services of ROSE.

   There are four types of association that may be negotiated between
   managing and managed systems.  These types are:

      Event               M-EVENT-REPORTs may be sent by the
                          managed system; no other CMIP PDUs
                          are allowed

      Event/Monitor       same as Event type except that, in
                          addition, the managing system may
                          also issue M-GET requests and
                          receive M-GET responses over the
                          association

      Monitor/Control     managing system may issue M-GET,
                          M-SET, M-CREATE, M-DELETE and
                          M-ACTION requests over the
                          association; no event reporting is
                          allowed

      Full Mgr/Agent      all functions must be supported

   A conformant system  must support at least one of these Association
   types.  Note that a system may play both managing and managed system
   roles, but not on the same association.

   The negotiation process uses the A-ASSOCIATE and A-RELEASE services.
   Application Context Name is used to determine the requestor's "role"
   in an association (as managing or managed system) and to determine
   the type of the association.




Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker                           [Page 7]

RFC 1189                     CMOT and CMIP                  October 1990


   The following values for Application Context Name are registered for
   for CMOT and CMIP:

      {iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6)
           internet(1) mgmt(2) mib(1) oim(9) acn(1)
           cmot1095(1)}
           (for backwards compatible negotiation with RFC 1095 CMOT
           implementations)

      {iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6)
           internet(1) mgmt(2) mib(1) oim(9) acn(1)
           manager-event-association(2)}

      {iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6)
           internet(1) mgmt(2) mib(1) oim(9) acn(1)
           manager-event-monitor-association(3)}

      {iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6)
           internet(1) mgmt(2) mib(1) oim(9) acn(1)
           manager-monitor-control-association(4)}

      {iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6)
           internet(1) mgmt(2) mib(1) oim(9) acn(1)
           manager-full-association(5)}

      {iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6)
           internet(1) mgmt(2) mib(1) oim(9) acn(1)
           agent-event-association(6)}

   The following negotiation rules are to be used:

      1.   A managed system may only request an Event
           association and, in fact, must create an Event
           association if it has an event to report and no
           suitable association already exists.

      2.   Managing systems may request any association type.

      3.   An association is created by the requesting system
           issuing an A-ASSOCIATE request with the
           requestor's AE-TITLE and the desired application
           context.  The responding system then returns
           either 1) an A-ASSOCIATE response with the
           requestor's AE-TITLE and the application context
           which it wishes to accept or 2) an A-ASSOCIATE
           response rejecting the association.





Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker                           [Page 8]

RFC 1189                     CMOT and CMIP                  October 1990


      4.   Managed systems may negotiate "downward" from
           Full to Monitor/Control, Event/Monitor or Event by
           returning the new application context in the
           A-ASSOCIATE response to the managing system during
           the association creation process.  In the same
           fashion, managed systems may negotiate from
           Event/Monitor to Event.

      5.   When a managing system receives an application
           context in an A-ASSOCIATE response that differs
           from the context sent in an A-ASSOCIATE request it
           may either proceed with the new context or refuse
           the new context by issuing an A-RELEASE request.

   A-RELEASE is used when the requestor does not agree with the new
   context.  A-ABORT is used for invalid negotiation.  If A-ABORT were
   to be used to terminate an association, there exists the potential
   for loss of information, such as pending events or confirmations.
   A-ABORT must be used, however, when a protocol violation occurs or
   where an association is not yet established.

4.2.  CMIS Services

4.2.1  General Agreements on Users of CMIS

   The general agreements on users of CMIS shall be as specified in the
   OIW Stable Agreements [30] section 18.6.2.

   The following additional agreements are specified.

      o A system need only implement the services and service
        primitives required for the association types (section 4.1)
        that it supports.

      o Current/Event times shall be fields shall use 1 millisecond
        granularity.  If the system generating the PDU does not have
        the current time, yet does have the time since last boot, then
        GeneralizedTime can be used to encode this information.  The
        time since last boot will be added to the base time "0001
        Jan 1 00:00:00.00" using the Gregorian calendar algorithm.
        (In the Gregorian calendar, all years have 365 days except
        those divisible by 4 and not by 400, which have 366.)  The use
        of the year 1 as the base year will prevent any confusion
        with current time.

        If no meaningful time is available, then the year 0 shall be
        used in GeneralizedTime to indicate this fact.




Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker                           [Page 9]

RFC 1189                     CMOT and CMIP                  October 1990


4.2.2  Specific Agreements on Users of CMIS

   The specific agreements on users of CMIS shall be as specified in the
   OIW Stable Agreements [30] section 18.6.3.

   The following additional agreements are specified:

      o Event time shall be mandatory for all events.

      o  Both the "managed Object Class" and "managed Object
         Instance" parameters must be present in the following CMIS
         Service Response/Confirmation primitives: the
         M-EVENT-REPORT Confirmed, the M-GET, the M-SET, the
         M-ACTION, the M-CREATE, and the M-DELETE.

4.3.  CMIP Agreements

   The CMIS and CMIP implementers agreements documented in the OIW
   Stable Implementers Agreements [30] plus those mandated by the CMIP
   standard will be used for both CMOT and CMIP.  In addition to these
   implementers agreements, the following specific agreements must be
   observed:

      o An implementation is required to support all filter items
        except subsetOf, supersetOf, nonNullSetIntersection, and
        substrings.

      o The "managedObjectInstance" field must be present in the
        ProcessingFailure Error PDU.  The "managedObjectClass"
        field must be present in the NoSuchArgument Error PDU.


   [Temporary Note:  The CMIS/P implementers agreements have reach a
   fairly stable status in the OIW working agreements document.  It is
   expected that the CMIS/P agreements (18.6.2 and 18.6.3) will be
   recommended to be moved into the stable agreements document during
   either the June 1990 meetings.  Reference [30] points to the presumed
   June 1990 updated version of the stable agreements document.]

5.  Services Required by CMIP

   The services required by CMIP shall be as specified in the OIW Stable
   Implementors Agreements [30] section 18.6.5.

   The following additional agreements are specified:

      o ASCE Requirements:  Application contexts shall be as defined
        in section 4.1 of these agreements.  The values and defaults



Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker                          [Page 10]

RFC 1189                     CMOT and CMIP                  October 1990


        of parameters to the ACSE parameters given to the presentation
        service are specified in RFC 1085 [13] for CMOT and in the NIST
        Stable Implementers Agreements [30] for CMIP.

      o Presentation Requirements:  CMOT implementations shall be
        supported by the Lightweight Presentation Protocol (LPP)
        [13].  The LPP may use either TCP or UDP.  When UDP is used,
        an implementation need not accept LPP PDUs whose length
        exceeds 484 octets.

      o Session Requirements:  CMOT implementations will not
        require the session protocol.

6.  Acknowledgements

   This RFC is the result of the work of many people.  The following
   members of the IETF OSI Internet Management and preceding Netman
   working groups made important contributions:

             Amatzia Ben-Artzi, Synoptics
             Asheem Chandna, AT&T Bell Laboratories
             Ken Chapman, Digital Equipment Corporation
             Anthony Chung, Sytek
             George Cohn, Ungermann-Bass
             Gabriele Cressman, Sun Microsystems
             Tom Halcin, Hewlett-Packard
             Pranati Kapadia, Hewlett-Packard
             Lee LaBarre, The MITRE Corporation (co-chair)
             Dave Mackie, 3Com
             Keith McCloghrie, Hughes/InterLan
             Jim Robertson, 3Com
             Milt Roselinsky, CMC
             Marshall Rose, PSI
             John Scott, Data General
             Lou Steinberg, IBM

7.  References

   [1] Cerf, V., "IAB Recommendations for the Development of Internet
       Network Management Standards", RFC 1052, IAB, April 1988.

   [2] Rose, M., and K. McCloghrie, "Structure and Identification of
       Management Information for TCP/IP-based internets", RFC 1065,
       TWG, August 1988.

   [3] McCloghrie, K., and M. Rose, "Management Information Base for
       Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets", RFC 1066, TWG,
       August 1988.



Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker                          [Page 11]

RFC 1189                     CMOT and CMIP                  October 1990


   [4] Case, J., M. Fedor, M. Schoffstall, and J. Davin, "A Simple
       Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 1098, (Obsoletes RFC
       1067), University of Tennessee at Knoxville, NYSERNet, Inc.,
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, MIT Laboratory for Computer
       Science, April 1989.

   [5] ISO 8824: "Information Processing Systems - Open Systems
       Interconnection, Specification of Abstract Syntax Notation One
       (ASN.1)", Geneva, March 1988.

   [6] ISO 8825: "Information Processing Systems - Open Systems
       Interconnection, Specification of Basic Encoding Rules for
       Abstract Notation One (ASN.1)", Geneva, March 1988.

   [7] ISO 8649: "Information Processing Systems - Open Systems
       Interconnection, Service Definition for Association Control
       Service Element".

   [8] ISO 8650: "Information Processing Systems - Open Systems
       Interconnection, Protocol Specification for Association Control
       Service Element".

   [9] CCITT Recommendation X.219, Working Document for ISO 9072-1:
       "Information processing systems - Text Communication, Remote
       Operations: Model, Notation and Service Definition", Gloucester,
       November 1987.

  [10] CCITT Recommendation X.229, Working Document for ISO 9072-2:
       "Information processing systems - Text Communication, Remote
       Operations: Protocol Specification", Gloucester, November 1987.

  [11] ISO 9595: "Information Processing Systems - Open Systems
       Interconnection, Management Information Service Definition - Part
       2: Common Management Information Service", 22 December 1988.

  [12] ISO 9596: "Information Processing Systems - Open Systems
       Interconnection, Management Information Protocol Specification -
       Part 2: Common Management Information Protocol", 22 December
       1988.

  [13] Rose, M., "ISO Presentation Services on top of TCP/IP-based
       internets", RFC 1085, TWG, December 1988.

  [14] OSI Network Management Forum, "Forum Interoperable Interface
       Protocols", September 1988.

  [15] ISO DIS 7498-4: "Information Processing Systems - Open Systems
       Interconnection, Basic Reference Model - Part 4: OSI Management



Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker                          [Page 12]

RFC 1189                     CMOT and CMIP                  October 1990


       Framework".

  [16] ISO/IEC JTC1/SC21/WG4 N571: "Information Processing Systems -
       Open Systems Interconnection, Systems Management: Overview",
       London, July 1988.

  [17] Klerer, S. Mark, "The OSI Management Architecture: An Overview",
       IEEE Network Magazine, March 1988.

  [18] Ben-Artzi, A., "Network Management for TCP/IP Networks: An
       Overview", Internet Engineering Task Force working note, April
       1988.

  [19] ISO/IEC JTC1/SC21/WG4 N3324: "Information Processing Pystems -
       Open Systems Interconnection, Management Information Services -
       Structure of Management Information - Part I: Management
       Information Model", Sydney, December 1988.

  [20] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", RFC 768, USC/Information
       Sciences Institute, August 1980.

  [21] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", RFC 793,
       USC/Information Sciences Institute, September 1981.

  [22] ISO DP 9534: "Information processing systems - Open Systems
       Interconnection, Application Layer Structure", 10 March 1987.

  [23] Rose, M., and D. Cass, "ISO Transport Services on top of the TCP,
       Version: 3", RFC 1006, Northrop Research and Technology Center,
       May 1987.

  [24] ISO 8822: "Information Processing Systems - Open Systems
       Interconnection, Connection Oriented Presentation Service
       Definition", June 1987.

  [25] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", RFC 791, USC/Information
       Sciences Institute, September 1981.

  [26] CCITT Draft Recommendation X.500, ISO 9594/1-8: "The Directory",
       Geneva, March 1988.

  [27] Warrier, U. and L. Besaw, "The Common Management Information
       Services and Protocol over TCP/IP (CMOT)", RFC 1095, Unisys
       Corporation, Hewlett-Packard, April 1989.

  [28] McCloghrie, K., and M. Rose, "Management Information Base for
       Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets", RFC 1156, Hughes
       LAN Systems, Performance Systems International, May 1990.



Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker                          [Page 13]

RFC 1189                     CMOT and CMIP                  October 1990


  [29]  LaBarre, L., "OIM MIB-II", working note, December 1989.

  [30] NIST NMSIG, "NIST Stable Implementers Agreements", NIST Special
       Publication 500-162, as ammended by June 1990.

  [31] NIST NMSIG, "NIST Working Implementers Agreements", December
       1989.

  [32] ISO IS 9595 1989: DAD1: "CMIS Add/Remove Addendum".

  [33] ISO IS 9595 1989: DAD2: "CMIS Cancel-Get Addendum".

  [34] ISO IS 9596 1989: DAD1: "CMIP Add/Remove Addendum".

  [35] ISO IS 9596 1989: DAD2: "CMIP Cancel-Get Addendum".

8.  Security Considerations

   Security issues are not discussed in this memo.

9.  Authors' Addresses

   Unnikrishnan S. Warrier
   NetLabs
   11693 San Vicente Blvd
   Suite 348
   Los Angeles, CA 90049

   Phone: (213) 476-4070
   Email: unni@netlabs.com


   Larry Besaw
   Hewlett-Packard
   3404 East Harmony Road
   Fort Collins, CO 80525

   Phone: (303) 229-6022
   Email: lmb%hpcndaw@hplabs.hp.com


   Lee LaBarre
   Mitre
   Burlington Road
   Bedford, MA 01730

   Phone: (617) 271-8507
   Email: cel@mbunix.mitre.org



Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker                          [Page 14]

RFC 1189                     CMOT and CMIP                  October 1990


   Brian D. Handspicker
   Digital Equipment Corporation
   550 King St.
   Littleton, Ma. 01460

   Phone: (508) 486-7894
   Email: bd@vines.enet.dec.com












































Warrier, Besaw, LaBarre & Handspicker                          [Page 15]