Mail Monitoring MIB
RFC 2249
| Document | Type |
RFC - Proposed Standard
(January 1998; No errata)
Obsoleted by RFC 2789
Obsoletes RFC 1566
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Last updated | 2013-03-02 | ||
| Stream | IETF | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | No shepherd assigned | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 2249 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) | ||
Network Working Group N. Freed
Request for Comments: 2249 Innosoft
Obsoletes: 1566 S. Kille
Category: Standards Track ISODE Consortium
January 1998
Mail Monitoring MIB
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved.
1. Introduction
This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB)
for use with network management protocols in the Internet community.
Specifically, this memo extends the basic Network Services Monitoring
MIB [8] to allow monitoring of Message Transfer Agents (MTAs). It may
also be used to monitor MTA components within gateways.
2. Table of Contents
1 Introduction ............................................. 1
2 Table of Contents ........................................ 1
3 The SNMPv2 Network Management Framework .................. 2
3.1 Object Definitions ..................................... 2
4 Message Flow Model ....................................... 2
5 MTA Objects .............................................. 3
6 Definitions .............................................. 4
7 Changes made since RFC 1566 .............................. 25
8 Acknowledgements ......................................... 26
9 References ............................................... 26
10 Security Considerations ................................. 27
11 Author and Chair Addresses .............................. 27
12 Full Copyright Statement ................................ 28
Freed & Kille Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 2249 Mail Monitoring MIB January 1998
3. The SNMPv2 Network Management Framework
The SNMPv2 Network Management Framework consists of seven major
components. They are:
o RFC 1902 [1] which defines the SMI, the mechanisms used for
describing and naming objects for the purpose of management.
o RFC 1903 [2] defines textual conventions for SNMPv2.
o RFC 1904 [3] defines conformance statements for SNMPv2.
o RFC 1905 [4] defines transport mappings for SNMPv2.
o RFC 1906 [5] defines the protocol operations used for network
access to managed objects.
o RFC 1907 [6] defines the Management Information Base for SNMPv2.
o RFC 1908 [7] specifies coexistance between SNMP and SNMPv2.
The Framework permits new objects to be defined for the purpose of
experimentation and evaluation.
3.1. Object Definitions
Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed
the Management Information Base or MIB. Objects in the MIB are
defined using the subset of Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1)
defined in the SMI. In particular, each object type is named by an
OBJECT IDENTIFIER, an administratively assigned name. The object type
together with an object instance serves to uniquely identify a
specific instantiation of the object. For human convenience, we
often use a textual string, termed the descriptor, to refer to the
object type.
4. Message Flow Model
A general model of message flow inside an MTA has to be presented
before a MIB can be described. Generally speaking, message flow is
modelled as occuring in four steps:
(1) Messages are received by the MTA from User Agents, Message
Stores, other MTAs, and gateways.
(2) The "next hop" for the each message is determined. This is
simply the destination the message is to be transmitted to; it
may or may not be the final destination of the message.
Freed & Kille Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 2249 Mail Monitoring MIB January 1998
Multiple "next hops" may exist for a single message (as a
result of either having multiple recipients or distribution
list expansion); this may make it necessary to duplicate
messages.
(3) If necessary messages are converted into the format that's
appropriate for the next hop. Conversion operations may be
successful or unsuccessful.
(4) Messages are transmitted to the appropriate destination, which
may be a User Agent, Message Store, another MTA, or gateway.
Storage of messages in the MTA occurs at some point during this
Show full document text