Network Working Group M. O'Dell
Request for Comments: 2438 UUNET Technologies
BCP: 27 H. Alvestrand
Category: Best Current Practice Maxware
B. Wijnen
IBM T. J. Watson Research
S. Bradner
Harvard University
October 1998
Network Working Group M. O'Dell
Request for Comments: 2438 UUNET Technologies
BCP: 27 H. Alvestrand
Category: Best Current Practice Maxware
B. Wijnen
IBM T. J. Watson Research
S. Bradner
Harvard University
October 1998
Advancement of MIB specifications on the IETF Standards Track
IETF标准轨道上MIB规范的进展
Status of this Memo
本备忘录的状况
This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
本文件规定了互联网社区的最佳现行做法，并要求进行讨论和提出改进建议。本备忘录的分发不受限制。
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（1998年）。版权所有。
The Internet Standards Process [1] requires that all IETF Standards Track specifications must have "multiple, independent, and interoperable implementations" before they can be advanced beyond Proposed Standard status. This document specifies the process which the IESG will use to determine if a MIB specification document meets these requirements. It also discusses the rationale for this process.
互联网标准过程[1]要求所有IETF标准跟踪规范必须具有“多个、独立和可互操作的实现”，然后才能超越拟定的标准状态。本文件规定了IESG用于确定MIB规范文件是否满足这些要求的过程。它还讨论了这一过程的基本原理。
The Internet Standards Process [1] requires that for an IETF specification to advance beyond the Proposed Standard level, at least two genetically unrelated implementations must be shown to interoperate correctly with all features and options. There are two distinct reasons for this requirement.
互联网标准过程[1]要求，为了使IETF规范超越提议的标准水平，必须至少显示两个基因无关的实现与所有功能和选项正确互操作。这一要求有两个明显的原因。
The first reason is to verify that the text of the specification is adequately clear and accurate. This is demonstrated by showing that multiple implementation efforts have used the specification to achieved interoperable implementations.
第一个原因是验证规范的文本是否足够清晰和准确。这可以通过显示多个实现工作已经使用该规范来实现可互操作的实现来证明。
The second reason is to discourage excessive options and "feature creep". This is accomplished by requiring interoperable implementation of all features, including options. If an option is not included in at least two different interoperable implementations, it is safe to assume that it has not been deemed useful and must be removed before the specification can advance.
第二个原因是不鼓励过度选择和“特性蠕变”。这是通过要求所有特性（包括选项）的可互操作实现来实现的。如果一个选项没有包含在至少两个不同的可互操作实现中，那么可以安全地假设它没有被认为是有用的，并且必须在规范发展之前删除它。
In the case of a protocol specification which specifies the "bits on the wire" exchanged by executing state machines, the notion of "interoperability" is reasonably intuitive - the implementations must successfully "talk to each other", exchanging "bits on the wire", while exercising all features and options.
在协议规范中指定了通过执行状态机交换的“线路上的位”的情况下，“互操作性”的概念相当直观——实现必须成功地“相互对话”，交换“线路上的位”，同时执行所有功能和选项。
In the case of an SNMP Management Information Base (MIB) specification, exactly what constitutes "interoperation" is less obvious. This document specifies how the IESG has decided to judge "MIB specification interoperability" in the context of the IETF Standards Process.
在SNMP管理信息库（MIB）规范的情况下，构成“互操作”的确切内容不太明显。本文件规定了IESG决定如何在IETF标准过程中判断“MIB规范互操作性”。
There are a number of plausible interpretations of MIB specification interoperability, many of which have merit but which have very different costs and difficulties in realization.
MIB规范互操作性有许多合理的解释，其中许多都有优点，但在实现上有非常不同的成本和困难。
The aim is to ensure that the dual goals of specification clarity and feature evaluation have been met using an interpretation of the concept of MIB specification interoperability that strikes a balance between testing complexity and practicality.
其目的是通过对MIB规范互操作性概念的解释，在测试复杂性和实用性之间取得平衡，确保满足规范清晰性和特性评估的双重目标。
Compared to "state machine" protocols which focus on procedural specifications, a MIB specification is much more data oriented. To over-generalize, in a typical MIB specification the collection of data type and instance specifications outnumbers inter-object procedural or causal semantics by a significant amount.
与侧重于过程规范的“状态机”协议相比，MIB规范更面向数据。一般来说，在典型的MIB规范中，数据类型和实例规范的集合数量远远超过对象间过程语义或因果语义。
A central issue is that a MIB specification does not stand alone; it forms the access interface to the instrumentation underneath it. Without the instrumentation, a MIB has form but no values. Coupled with the large number of objects even in a simple MIB specification, a MIB specification tends to have more of the look and feel of an API or a dictionary than a state machine protocol.
一个核心问题是MIB规范不是孤立的；它形成了它下面的仪器的访问接口。如果没有检测，MIB具有表单但没有值。再加上即使在一个简单的MIB规范中也有大量的对象，MIB规范往往比状态机协议更具有API或字典的外观。
It is important to distinguish between assessing the interoperability of applications which may use or interact with MIBs, and the MIBs themselves. It is fairly obvious that "black-box testing" can be
重要的是要区分评估可能使用MIB或与MIB交互的应用程序的互操作性和MIB本身。很明显，“黑盒测试”是可以实现的
applied to such applications and that the approach enjoys a certain maturity in the software engineering arts. A MIB specification, on the other hand is not readily amenable to black box test plans.
适用于此类应用，并且该方法在软件工程领域具有一定的成熟度。另一方面，MIB规范不容易符合黑盒测试计划。
In order to meet their obligations under the IETF Standards Process, the Operations and Management Area Directors and the IESG must be convinced that each MIB specification advanced to Draft Standard or Internet Standard status is clearly written, that there are the required multiple interoperable implementations, and that all options have been implemented. There are multiple ways to achieve this goal. Appendix A lists some testing approaches that could be used when attempting to document multiple implementations.
为了履行其在IETF标准流程下的义务，运营和管理区域总监和IESG必须确信，每个提前到标准草案或互联网标准状态的MIB规范都写得很清楚，存在所需的多个可互操作实施，所有的选择都已经实施。实现这一目标有多种方法。附录A列出了在尝试记录多个实现时可以使用的一些测试方法。
The Full Coverage or Stimulus-Response approaches are very through, and would increase confidence that the requirement has been met, if applied. However, experience in real-world software engineering makes it clear that such confidence comes at an extremely high price; even with the most exhaustive testing, it is often not clear what precisely has been demonstrated by such testing. We believe that both of those standards of evidence are materially beyond what can be reasonably accomplished in an operational sense, and achieving the requisite semantic specifications are even more unlikely.
全面覆盖或刺激响应方法非常彻底，如果适用，将增加满足要求的信心。然而，现实世界软件工程的经验表明，这种信心是要付出极高的代价的；即使是最详尽的测试，通常也不清楚这些测试到底证明了什么。我们认为，这两种证据标准在实质上都超出了在操作意义上可以合理完成的范围，实现必要的语义规范的可能性更大。
Therefore, the Operations and Management Area and the IESG have adopted a more pragmatic approach to determining the suitability of a MIB specification for advancement on the standards track beyond Proposed Standard status. Each MIB specification suggested for advancement must have one or more advocates who can make a convincing argument that the MIB specification meets the multiple implementation and feature support requirements of the IETF Standards Process. The specific way to make the argument is left to the advocate, but will normally include reports that basic object comparison testing has been done.
因此，运营和管理部门以及IESG采用了更务实的方法，以确定MIB规范是否适合在标准轨道上超越拟议的标准状态。建议推进的每个MIB规范必须有一个或多个拥护者，他们能够提出令人信服的论据，证明MIB规范满足IETF标准过程的多种实现和功能支持要求。提出论点的具体方式由倡导者决定，但通常包括已完成基本对象比较测试的报告。
Thus any recommendation for the advancement of a MIB specification must be accompanied by an implementation report, as is the case with all requests for the advancement of IETF specifications. The implementation report must include the reasons why the IESG should believe that there are multiple implementations of the MIB specification in question and that the all of the MIB objects in the specification to be advanced are supported in more than one implementation. But note that the prime concern of the IESG will be that the underlying reasons for the interoperable implementations are met, i.e., that the text of the specification is clear and unambiguous, and that features of the specification which have not garnered support have been removed.
因此，任何关于MIB规范改进的建议都必须附有实施报告，正如所有关于IETF规范改进的请求一样。实施报告必须包括IESG认为有多个MIB规范实施存在问题的原因，以及在多个实施中支持待推进规范中的所有MIB对象的原因。但请注意，IESG的主要关注点是满足可互操作实现的根本原因，即规范的文本是明确的，没有获得支持的规范特性已经被删除。
The implementation report will be placed on the IETF web page along with the other pre-advancement implementation reports and will be specifically referred to in the IETF Last-Call. As with all such implementation reports, the determination of adequacy is made by the Area Director(s) of the relevant IETF Area. This determination of adequacy can be challenged during the Last-Call period.
实施报告将与其他推进前实施报告一起放在IETF网页上，并将在IETF最后一次呼叫中特别提及。与所有此类实施报告一样，适当性的确定由相关IETF区域的区域主管进行。在最后一次通话期间，可对充分性的确定提出质疑。
Some may view this policy as possibly leading to a reduction in the level of confidence people can have in MIB specifications but the O&M Area Directors and the IESG feel that it will adequately ensure a reasonable evaluation of the level of clarity of MIB specifications and to ensure that unused options can be identified and removed before the advancement of a specification.
一些人可能认为这一政策可能导致人们对MIB规范的信任程度降低，但运维区域总监和IESG认为，这将充分确保对MIB规范的清晰程度进行合理评估，并确保在发布之前识别和删除未使用的选项规范的改进。
Good, clearly written MIB specifications can be of great assistance in the management of the Internet and other networks and thus assist in the reduction of some types of security threats.
良好、清晰的MIB规范可以极大地帮助管理Internet和其他网络，从而有助于减少某些类型的安全威胁。
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2026]Bradner，S.，“互联网标准过程——第3版”，BCP 9，RFC 2026，1996年10月。
Michael D. O'Dell UUNET Technologies, Inc. 3060 Williams Drive Fairfax, VA 22031
Michael D.O'Dell UUNET Technologies，Inc.弗吉尼亚州费尔法克斯威廉姆斯大道3060号，邮编22031
Phone: +1-703-206-5890
EMail: mo@uu.net
Phone: +1-703-206-5890
EMail: mo@uu.net
Harald T. Alvestrand Maxware Pirsenteret N-7005 Trondheim, Norway
挪威特隆赫姆Harald T.Alvestrand Maxware Pirsenteret N-7005
Phone: +47-73-54-57-94
EMail: Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no
Phone: +47-73-54-57-94
EMail: Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no
Bert Wijnen IBM T. J. Watson Research Schagen 33 3461 GL Linschoten Netherlands
Bert Wijnen IBM T.J.Watson Research Schagen 33 3461德国林肖顿荷兰
Phone: +31-348-432-794
EMail: wijnen@vnet.ibm.com
Phone: +31-348-432-794
EMail: wijnen@vnet.ibm.com
Scott Bradner Harvard University 1350 Mass. Ave. Cambridge MA 02138
斯科特·布拉德纳哈佛大学1350弥撒。马萨诸塞州剑桥大道02138号
Phone: +1-617-495-3864
EMail: sob@harvard.edu
Phone: +1-617-495-3864
EMail: sob@harvard.edu
A. Some Testing Alternatives
A.一些测试替代方案
The IESG debated a number of interoperability and testing models in formulating this specification. The following list is not an exhaustive enumeration of the alternatives, but it does capture the major plausible models which were examined in the course of the discussion.
IESG在制定本规范时讨论了许多互操作性和测试模型。下面的列表并不是对备选方案的详尽列举，但它确实捕获了在讨论过程中检查过的主要合理模型。
Assume the requisite two genetically unrelated implementations of the MIB in an SNMP agent and an SNMP management station which can do a "MIB Dump" (extract the complete set of MIB object types and values from the agent implementation). Extract a MIB Dump from each implementation and compare the two dumps to verify that both provide the complete set of mandatory and optional objects and that the individual objects are of the correct types.
假设SNMP代理和SNMP管理站中MIB的两个必需的、在基因上不相关的实现，它们可以执行“MIB转储”（从代理实现中提取MIB对象类型和值的完整集合）。从每个实现中提取一个MIB转储，并比较这两个转储，以验证两者是否都提供了完整的强制和可选对象集，以及各个对象的类型是否正确。
Proceed as in A.1, but in addition, comprehensively exercise the two (network) elements containing the agent implementations to verify that all the MIB objects reflect plausible values in operational conditions. An even stricter interpretation would require that the MIB objects in the two network elements track identically given the identical stimulus. While this would test "read-only" or "monitoring" information obtained from the underlying instrumentation, it is important to observe that such instrumentation is actually an *application* which uses the MIB and is not part of the MIB itself.
按照A.1中的步骤进行操作，但除此之外，还应全面练习包含代理实现的两个（网络）元素，以验证所有MIB对象在操作条件下是否反映合理的值。更严格的解释将要求两个网络元素中的MIB对象在给定相同刺激时跟踪相同。虽然这将测试从底层检测中获得的“只读”或“监控”信息，但重要的是要注意，此类检测实际上是一个使用MIB的*应用程序*，而不是MIB本身的一部分。
This model extends the notion of Stimulus/Response Testing to its logical extreme. The MIB is viewed as an API and the software engineering notion of full coverage testing is applied to a MIB. This involves exercising all paths through the causal semantics and verifying that all objects change state correctly in all cases. Again, note that much more than the MIB definition is being exercised and evaluated.
该模型将刺激/反应测试的概念扩展到其逻辑极限。MIB被视为API，全覆盖测试的软件工程概念应用于MIB。这涉及通过因果语义执行所有路径，并验证所有对象在所有情况下都正确更改状态。再次注意，正在执行和评估的不仅仅是MIB定义。
Full Copyright Statement
完整版权声明
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（1998年）。版权所有。
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English.
本文件及其译本可复制并提供给他人，对其进行评论或解释或协助其实施的衍生作品可全部或部分编制、复制、出版和分发，不受任何限制，前提是上述版权声明和本段包含在所有此类副本和衍生作品中。但是，不得以任何方式修改本文件本身，例如删除版权通知或对互联网协会或其他互联网组织的引用，除非出于制定互联网标准的需要，在这种情况下，必须遵循互联网标准过程中定义的版权程序，或根据需要将其翻译成英语以外的其他语言。
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
上述授予的有限许可是永久性的，互联网协会或其继承人或受让人不会撤销。
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
本文件和其中包含的信息是按“原样”提供的，互联网协会和互联网工程任务组否认所有明示或暗示的保证，包括但不限于任何保证，即使用本文中的信息不会侵犯任何权利，或对适销性或特定用途适用性的任何默示保证。