rfc2039.txt

著名的RFC文档,其中有一些文档是已经翻译成中文的的.

      of specific activity and the requirement for Service Model
      retrieval services.

   3) Document storage and access statistics are needed to address
      service model requirements.

   4) Additions to Application MIB are required to address server
      configuration requirements in the service model.

   5) Error and fault management attributes are required to address
      requirements for tracking specific activity of the web server.

   6) Configuration and Control are items that may be able to be defined
      in a general way within the applications MIB.  If not, a specific
      definition would be required here.

   Of the items listed above, (1) is needed on a general basis.  The
   others appear to the author as WWW server specific unless the scope
   of the work is opened to WWW clients and proxies as well as other
   services (like NNTP, FTP, GOPHER and WAIS).















Kalbfleisch                  Informational                     [Page 10]

RFC 2039                     WWW Track MIBs                November 1996


7. Usage Scenarios

   The example scenario will be a single host computer which implements
   WWW services using the "virtual domain" concept.  In this model, a
   single host performs as the WWW server for one or more addresses.
   For the purpose of example, we will specify that there are three
   domains being serviced from this host whose WWW servers are:

           -www.a.com
           -www.b.com
           -www.c.com

   Some implementations may implement these services as one set of
   processes that handle requests for each of the addresses.  Others may
   implement these services as a set of processes for each address.
   This means that the relationship defined between the Network Services
   Monitoring MIB and Application MIB components of the management
   information may vary between different implementations of the same
   configuration.

   MIB-II and Host Resources would provide the information about the
   host including the CPU, disk and network.  The Host Resource running
   table provide information on the processes in the system.

   There would be an entry in the Network Services Monitoring applTable
   for each virtual domain.  In addition, the assocTable shows which
   connections are currently active.  An extension to the association
   table would be helpful to provide information as to what is being
   transmitted.

   The sysApplMib would have entries in its installed software tables
   for the web server software and each "interesting" component.  This
   should include the server binary, CGI programs, configuration files
   and possibly the server log files.  Depending on the implementation
   of the server, the processes for each domain may show up in the same
   or different running software tables.

   Additional information as described in the previous section would
   round out the management information that would be available for the
   WWW server.

8. Conclusion

   A number of currently defined attributes are useful for management of
   a WWW server. Specifically, MIB-II and Host Resources should be
   considered for monitoring the health of the machine in terms of host
   and network configuration and capacity.  The Network Services
   Monitoring MIB and the Application MIBs provide a general framework



Kalbfleisch                  Informational                     [Page 11]

RFC 2039                     WWW Track MIBs                November 1996


   to represent the components of the WWW server from both a service and
   implementation perspective.  The Network Services Monitoring MIB
   suggests that extensions are necessary to cover specific network
   application monitoring. A set of such attributes can be well defined
   to provide status information of the WWW server.  The Application MIB
   suggests similar extensions.  Some of these attributes may be generic
   to all applications, and thus be implemented within the scope of the
   applMib. It is the opinion of this author that there will still
   remain specific instrumentation for WWW servers that can not, and
   should not, be covered in the Network Services Monitoring and
   Application MIBs.

   Since the Network Services Monitoring MIB and the Applications MIB
   represent orthogonal efforts of management, it is desirable to define
   the relationship between the two in a standard way.  This definition
   is probably more than a simple pointer from one table to another.
   Since it is outside the scope of either of those efforts, it is this
   author's opinion that that definition could and should be addressed
   within the scope of defining management of a specific application (IE
   WWW servers). This defintion although defined for a particular
   application, should be useful in a general way to describe the
   relationship between the Network Services Monitoring MIB and the
   Applications MIB.

   Additional attributes are needed in order to meet all of the
   requirements specified in this document.  An IETF standard would
   prevent independent developments of this effort in many enterprise
   MIBs.  It also allows management applications to control servers from
   multiple vendors.  It is likely that as the work in this area
   progresses, the management information will be useful for other
   Network Information Retrieval services (like FTP, GOPHER, WAIS and
   NNTP) as well.

   Finally, the Operational Model and Service Model Requirements lead to
   two main uses of the management information.  Design of the MIB
   including the usage of the existing MIBs should allow one or the
   other or both of these models to be implemented in a standard way.
   This may be desirable depending specifically on the audience of the
   data, the cost of instrumentation and the resources of the system.












Kalbfleisch                  Informational                     [Page 12]

RFC 2039                     WWW Track MIBs                November 1996


9. References

 [1] Anonymous, "Logging in the W3C httpd",
     http://www.w3.org/hypertext/WWW/Daemon/User/Config/Logging.html,
     W3C, July 1995.

 [2] McCloghrie, K., and M. Rose, Editors, "Management Information
     Base for Network Management of TCP/IP-based internets: MIB-
     II", STD 17, RFC 1213, Hughes LAN Systems, Performance
     Systems International, March 1991.

 [3] Grillo, P., and S. Waldbusser, "Host Resources MIB", RFC 1514,
     Network Innovations, Intel Corporation, Carnegie Mellon
     University, September 1993.

 [4] Kille, S., and N. Freed, "Network Services Monitoring MIB",
     RFC 1565, ISODE Consortium, Innosoft, January 1994.

 [5] Saperia, J., C. Krupczak, R. Sturm, and J. Weinstock, "Definition
     of Managed Objects for Applications", Work in Progress.

 [6] Krupczak, C. and S. Waldbusser, "Applicability of Host Resources
     MIB to Application Management", Empire Technologies, Inc.,
     International Network Services, October 1995.

 [7] Kille, S., and N. Freed, "Mail Monitoring MIB", RFC 1566, ISODE
     Consortium, Innosoft, January 1994.

 [8] Mansfield, G., and S. Kille, "X.500 Directory Monitoring MIB",
     RFC 1567, AIC Systems Laboratory, ISODE Consortium, January 1994.

 [9] Hazewinkel, H., E. van Hengstum, A. Pras, "Definitions of Managed
     Objects for HTTP", Work in Progress.

10. Acknowledgments

   This document was produced at the request of the Network Management
   Area Director following the HTTP-MIB BOF at the 35th IETF meeting to
   report on the applicability of the existing standards track MIBs to
   management of WWW servers.











Kalbfleisch                  Informational                     [Page 13]

RFC 2039                     WWW Track MIBs                November 1996


   The author gratefully acknowledges the comments of the following
   individuals:

            Ned Freed, [e-mail]
                Innosoft, Inc.

            Harrie Hazewinkel, [e-mail]
                University of Twente

            Cheryl Krupczak, [e-mail]
                Empire Technologies, Inc.

            Rui Meneses, [e-mail]
                Centre for Earth Observation

            Jon Saperia, [e-mail]
                BGS Systems, Inc.

            Juergen Schoenwaelder, [e-mail]
                University of Twente

            Chris Wellens, [e-mail]
                InterWorking Labs, Inc.

11. Further Information

   The current status of the HTTP-MIB standardization can be found on
   the World Wide Web at <URL:http://http-mib.onramp.net/>.  An email
   list is in operation for discussion of this topic.  To subscribe,
   send email to "[e-mail]" with the message body of
   "subscribe HTTP-MIB".

12. Security Considerations

   Security issues are not discussed in this memo.

13. Authors' Address

   Carl W. Kalbfleisch
   OnRamp Technologies, Inc.
   Email: [e-mail]
   1950 Stemmons Frwy
   2026 INFOMART
   Dallas, TX 75207, USA               Tel: [phone]
   [e-mail]                      Fax: [phone]






Kalbfleisch                  Informational                     [Page 14]