Development of an IETF Standard

Methodology for Converting SNMP MIBs

to XML Documents via XSD
Existing and future SNMP MIBs represent a tremendous source
of network management value, both as data models and when
realized via SNMP agents -- as instrumented management
capabilities.
XML-based management applications need XML-based access
to SNMP MIBs as data models and as enablers of the
management instrumentation supported by SNMP agents.
Multiple independent approaches to representing MIBs in XML
have been devised each with appreciable value and success.
However, a standard methodology is necessary to ensure
interoperability and accuracy and the IETF is the right group to
undertake this effort.

Bob Natale (rnatale@mitre.org) - IETF 70 Vancouver December 3,

2007

Agenda

Problem/Opportunity Description
Expected Beneficiaries & Benefits
Background (Prague, Chicago, Vancouver)
Illustration of Technical Approach
Planned Deliverables
Datatypes Requirements and Mappings
Problem/Opportunity Recap
Next Steps
Q&A

3-December-2007

Nata

Problem /Opportunity Description

Emerging generation of XML-based management solutions

face some major near-term limitations:

Lack of standardized resource models, esp. for node and

network management.
Little desire among those solution providers to incorporate SNMP
directly into their products.
Strong desire among network operators (and service
consumers) for a unified management solution, emanating from
the service management perspective.

The existing (and future) body of SNMP MIBs is an

unequalled set of proven data models for node, network,
and application management.
Managed object instrumentation supported by those SNMP
MIBs can be made more readily accessible to XML-based
management solutions at relatively little cost and with
substantial benefit to all stakeholders.
A fair amount of related work in mapping SNMP MIBs to XML
has already been done by IETF contributors, and several
related efforts are already underway in the IETF O&M Area.

3-December-2007

Nata

Expected Beneficiaries & Benefits

Network Operators:

Network Users:

More appealing products to offer

No need to reinvent the wheel with respect to SNMP MIB data
models or instrumentation

SNMP Managed Equipment Providers:

Improved service performance at (possibly) lower cost due to

benefits realized by Network Operators.

XML-based Management Solution Providers:

More unified management solutions from the service layer

Fewer distinct management tools to purchase, integrate, operate,
and maintain
Fewer distinct data sources to correlate and validate
Result = More timely, complete, accurate network information
enables improved service delivery at reduced cost

Broader market for existing products w/o code changes

SNMP Management Solution Providers:

Supply MIB to XML conversion/validation tools

Supply XML/SNMP proxy solution
Eventually supply XML-based instrumentation in existing SNMPmanaged equipment

3-December-2007

Nata

Background:
From MIB2RMDL to XSDMI

IETF-68/Prague - MIB2RMDL (Natale):

Addressed the full conversion problem:

IETF-69/Chicago XSDMI (Harrington/Li):

MIB to XML via XSD

XML to Resource Model (e.g., SML, RMD, etc.)
Gateway to SNMP-based instrumentation

Focused on MIB to XML via XSD

Leveraged pre-existing IETF work
MIB2RMDL effort aligned with XSDMI

IETF-70/Vancouver (combined team):

draft-li-natale-smi-datatypes-in-xsd-00.txt
XML-oriented consumer groups asking for alignment in
the March 2008 time frame

3-December-2007

Nata

Illustration of the Problem Space for

MIB2RMDL
Simplified
Generic
View

Mgmt Protocol Messages

Manager
Data
Model

Managed
Entity

Info
Model

Simplified SNMP View

SNMP
Manager

Proposed
IETF O&M
work

Simplified SOA/WS View

SNMP

SNMP
Agent

Mgmt
Service

SOA/WS Mgmt Protocol

MIB

???

SMI

???

3-December-2007

Standardized Conversion Methodology

Nata

Mgmt
Endpoint

Decisions
about
supported
artifacts
needed
here.

Illustration of the Problem Space for XSDMI

Simplified SNMP View
SNMP
Manager

Simplified XML Mgmt View

SNMP

SNMP
Agent

Mgmt
Service

XML-based Mgmt Protocol

MIB

SMI

Proposed
IETF O&M
work

XML

XSD

Simple XML solution

This is the
target XSDMI
solution.

IETF Standard Conversion Methodology

Simplified SNMP View
SNMP
Manager

Mgmt
Endpoint

Simplified SOA/WS View

SNMP

SNMP
Agent

Mgmt
Service

SOA/WS Mgmt Protocol

MIB

Mgmt
Endpoint

???
XML

Proposed
IETF O&M
work

SMI

3-December-2007

???

IETF
Standard
Conversion
Methodology

XSD

Nata

Non-IETF
Conversion
Methodology

Artifacts
supported
here will
drive the
non-IETF
conversion.

MIB to XML via XSD Deliverables

Documents:

SNMP SMI Datatypes in XSD

SNMP Textual Conventions in XSD

RFC 2579 and select (TBD) other IETF TCs

Optional: Follow-on additional document(s) to cover
select (TBD) non-core TCs

SNMP MIB Structure in XSD

RFC 2578 and RFC 1155

Working from libsmi as a starting point

Tools

Downloadable/online MIB to XML conversion utilities

(Optional):

Similar to XML2RFC

Reference implementations

MIB to XML
XML to SNMP Gateway

3-December-2007

Nata

Requirements for SMI to XSD Mapping

Objectives: Fidelity and Parsimony

R1. All SMI datatypes MUST have a corresponding XSD datatype.

R2. In case of conflicting requirements between SMIv1 and
SMIv2, SMIv2 MUST take precedence.
R3. The XSD datatype specified for a given SMI datatype MUST be
able to represent all valid values for that SMI datatype.
R4. The XSD datatype specified for a given SMI datatype MUST
represent any special encoding rules associated with that SMI
datatype.
R5. The XSD datatype specified for a given SMI datatype MUST
include any restrictions on values associated with the SMI
datatype.
R6. The XSD datatype specified for a given SMI datatype MUST be
the most direct XSD datatype, with the most parsimonious
restrictions, which matches the foregoing requirements.
R7. The XML output produced as a result of meeting the foregoing
requirements SHOULD be the most direct from the perspective of
readability by humans.
Sec. 3 (re-ordered) of
draft-li-natale-smi-datatypes-in-xsd-00.txt

3-December-2007

Nata

Proposed SMI Datatypes to XSD Mapping

Numerical SMI Datatypes
<xs:simpleType name="INTEGER">
<xs:restriction base="xs:int"/>
</xs:simpleType>

<xs:simpleType name="TimeTicks">
<xs:restriction base="xs:unsignedInt"/>
</xs:simpleType>

<xs:simpleType name="Integer32">
<xs:restriction base="xs:int"/>
</xs:simpleType>

<xs:simpleType name="Counter64">
<xs:restriction base="xs:unsignedLong"/>
</xs:simpleType>

<xs:annotation>
<xs:simpleType name="Unsigned32">
<xs:documentation>
<xs:restriction base="xs:unsignedInt"/>
Mapping of "additional" SMIv1 datatypes from RFC
1155.
</xs:simpleType>

<xs:simpleType name="Counter32">
<xs:restriction base="xs:unsignedInt"/>
</xs:simpleType>
<xs:simpleType name="Gauge32">
<xs:restriction base="xs:unsignedInt"/>
</xs:simpleType>

</xs:documentation>
</xs:annotation>

<xs:simpleType name="Counter">
<xs:restriction base="xs:unsignedInt"/>
</xs:simpleType>
<xs:simpleType name="Gauge">
<xs:restriction base="xs:unsignedInt"/>
</xs:simpleType>

From Sec. 4 of draft-li-natale-smi-datatypes-in-xsd-00.txt

(ditto next slide)

3-December-2007

Nata

10

Proposed SMI Datatypes to XSD Mapping

Non-Numerical SMI Datatypes

<xs:simpleType name="OctetString">
<xs:restriction base="xs:hexBinary">
<xs:maxLength value="65535"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
<xs:simpleType name="Opaque">
<xs:restriction base="xs:hexBinary"/>
</xs:simpleType>

Recommendations for simpler

patterns for IpAddress and
ObjectIdentifier which are
consistent with the mapping
requirements will be
enthusiastically welcomed.

<xs:simpleType name="IpAddress">
<xs:restriction base="xs:string">
<xs:pattern value=
"((0|1[0-9]{0,2}|2([0-4][0-9]?|5[0-5]?|[6-9])?|[3-9][0-9]?)\.){3}
(0|1[0-9]{0,2}|2([0-4][0-9]?|5[0-5]?|[6-9])?|[3-9][0-9]?)"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
<xs:simpleType name="ObjectIdentifier">
<xs:restriction base="xs:string">
<xs:pattern value=
"[0-2](\.[1-3]?[0-9])(\.(0|([1-9]\d*))){0,126}"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>

3-December-2007

Nata

Note that the

SMIv2 BITS construct
remains to be mapped.

11

Recap:
Illustration of the Target Environment
XML-based
Manager

Res
Model

MIB
2
RMDL

RMDL
- SNMP
Proxy

SNMP
Manager

MIB

Mgmt
Endpoint

- When XML/XSD is the Resource Model

used by the XML-based Manager, the RMDL
to SNMP Proxy is direct.
- When a different Resource Model is used
by the XML-based Manager, an additional
conversion step (specified outside the IETF)
is required (in each direction).

SNMP
Agent

Blue indicates XML-based mgmt components

Green indicates SNMP mgmt components
Red indicates intermediary mgmt components
Solid lines indicate the native mgmt protocol paths
Dashed lines indicate proxied mgmt protocol paths
Quirky lines indicate once-only conversion paths

3-December-2007

Nata

SNMP Manager component not required

Multiple instances of all components possible

12

Recap: Problem/Opportunity Description

Repetition is the key to learning Jeff Case

The XML-based management solutions provider

community lacks a critical mass of standardized
data models in appropriate formats to deliver
acceptable solutions to the (waiting) operator and
user communities.
The existing body of IETF SNMP MIBs can fill a
major portion of that gap very quickly if they are
converted to appropriate XML-based resource
model artifacts.
The IETF should take the lead in standardizing
the methodology for converting SNMP MIBs to
XML-based resource model artifacts.
The IETF might also consider making reference
implementation tools freely available (in a
manner similar to xml2rfc).

3-December-2007

Nata

13

Next Steps

Achieve consensus on SMI datatypes to XSD

mapping draft:

Identify core set of TCs and publish Core TC to

XSD mapping draft:

draft-li-natale-smi-datatypes-in-xsd-00.txt
-01 update to be posted following Vancouver

draft-romascanu-netconf-datatypes-02.txt
is a primary source

Define IETF-standard MIB to XML structure and

publish mapping draft:

libsmi/smidump XML output tool is a primary source:

draft-li-mib-convert-00.txt
Output from XML option of
http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/projects/libsmi/smidump.html

Refine and publish all drafts as Proposed

Standard RFCs

3-December-2007

Nata

14

Thanks for your time, attention, and feedback!

Questions, Comments?
E-mail Discussion:
mib2rmdl@ietf.org
ops-area@ietf.org
Credits to:
David Harrington
Yan Li
Dan Romascanu
Andy Bierman
Juergen Schoenwaelder
Mark Ellison
Randy Preshun
Don Ebright
Mark Weitzel
Steve Jerman
And to many others who have contributed (knowingly or not :)
to this effort thus far (any omissions are purely unintentional).

3-December-2007

Nata

15