[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 RFC 5432

MMUSIC                                                        James Polk
Internet-Draft                                            Subha Dhesikan
Intended status: Standards Track                           Cisco Systems
Expires: May 22, 2009                                  Gonzalo Camarillo
                                                                Ericsson
                                                       November 18, 2008


Quality of Service (QoS) Mechanism Selection in the Session Description
                             Protocol (SDP)
              draft-ietf-mmusic-qos-identification-03.txt

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 22, 2009.

Abstract

   The offer/answer model for SDP assumes that endpoints establish
   somehow the QoS required for the media streams they establish.
   Endpoints in closed environments typically agree out of band (e.g.,
   using configuration information) which QoS mechanism to use.
   However, on the Internet, there is more than one QoS service
   available.  Consequently, there is a need for a mechanism to
   negotiate which QoS mechanism to use for a particular media stream.
   This document defines such a mechanism.




James Polk, et al.        Expires May 22, 2009                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft       QoS Mechanism Selection in SDP        November 2008


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  SDP Attributes Definition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   4.  Offer/answer Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     4.1.  Offerer Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     4.2.  Answerer Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     4.3.  Resource Reservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     4.4.  Subsequent Offer/answer Exchanges  . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   5.  Example  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     6.1.  Registration of the SDP 'qos-mech-send' Attribute  . . . .  6
     6.2.  Registration of the SDP 'qos-mech-recv' Attribute  . . . .  7
     6.3.  Registry for QoS Mechanism Tokens  . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   8.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 10





























James Polk, et al.        Expires May 22, 2009                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft       QoS Mechanism Selection in SDP        November 2008


1.  Introduction

   The offer/answer model [RFC3264] for SDP [RFC4566] does not provide
   any mechanism for endpoints to negotiate the QoS mechanism to be used
   for a particular media stream.  Even when QoS preconditions [RFC3312]
   are used, the choice of the QoS mechanism is left unspecified, up to
   the endpoints.

   Endpoints that support more than one QoS mechanism need a way to
   negotiate which one to use for a particular media stream.  Examples
   of QoS mechanisms are RSVP (Resource Reservation Protocol) [RFC2205]
   and NSIS (Next Steps in Signaling) [I-D.ietf-nsis-qos-nslp].

   This document defines a mechanism that allows endpoints to negotiate
   the QoS mechanism to be used for a particular media stream.  However,
   the fact that endpoints agree on a particular QoS mechanism does not
   imply that that particular mechanism is supported by the network.
   Discovering which QoS mechanisms are supported at the network layer
   is out of the scope of this document.  In any case, the information
   the endpoints exchange to negotiate QoS mechanisms, as defined in
   this document, can be useful for a network operator to resolve a
   subset of the QoS interoperability problem, namely to ensure that a
   mechanism commonly acceptable to the endpoints is chosen and make it
   possible to debug possible misconfiguration situations.


2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].


3.  SDP Attributes Definition

   This document defines the 'qos-mech-send' and 'qos-mech-recv' session
   and media-level SDP [RFC4566] attributes.  The following is their
   augmented Backus-Naur Form (BNF) [RFC5234] syntax, which is based on
   the SDP [RFC4566] grammar:












James Polk, et al.        Expires May 22, 2009                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft       QoS Mechanism Selection in SDP        November 2008


   attribute            =/ qos-mech-send-attr
   attribute            =/ qos-mech-recv-attr

   qos-mech-send-attr   = "qos-mech-send" ":"
                          [[SP] qos-mech *(SP qos-mech)]
   qos-mech-recv-attr   = "qos-mech-recv" ":"
                          [[SP] qos-mech *(SP qos-mech)]

   qos-mech             = "rsvp" / "nsis" / extension-mech
   extension-mech       = token

   The 'qos-mech' token identifies a QoS mechanism that is supported by
   the entity generating the session description.  A token that appears
   in a 'qos-mech-send' attribute identifies a QoS mechanism that can be
   used to reserve resources for traffic sent by the entity generating
   the session description.  A token that appears in a 'qos-mech-recv'
   attribute identifies a QoS mechanism that can be used to reserve
   resources for traffic received by the entity generating the session
   description.

   The 'qos-mech-send' and 'qos-mech-recv' attributes are not
   interdependent; one can be used without the other.

   The following is an example of an 'm' line with a 'qos-mech-send' and
   a 'qos-mech-recv' attributes:

     m=audio 50000 RTP/AVP 0
     a=qos-mech-send: rsvp nsis
     a=qos-mech-recv: rsvp nsis


4.  Offer/answer Behavior

   An offer/answer exchange using the 'qos-mech-send' and 'qos-mech-
   recv' attributes allows endpoints to come up with a list of common
   QoS mechanisms sorted by preference.  However, note that endpoints
   negotiate in which direction QoS is needed using other mechanisms,
   such as preconditions [RFC3312].  Endpoints may also use other
   mechanisms to negotiate, if needed, the parameters to use with a
   given QoS mechanism (e.g., bandwidth to be reserved).

4.1.  Offerer Behavior

   Offerers include a 'qos-mech-send' attribute with the tokens
   corresponding to the QoS mechanisms supported in the send direction
   in order of preference.  Similarly, offerers include a 'qos-mech-
   recv' attribute with the tokens corresponding to the QoS mechanisms
   supported in the receive direction in order of preference.



James Polk, et al.        Expires May 22, 2009                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft       QoS Mechanism Selection in SDP        November 2008


4.2.  Answerer Behavior

   On receiving an offer with a set of tokens in a 'qos-mech-send'
   attribute, the answerer takes those tokens corresponding to QoS
   mechanisms it supports in the receive direction and includes them, in
   order of preference, in a 'qos-mech-recv' attribute in the answer.
   On receiving an offer with a set of tokens in a 'qos-mech-recv'
   attribute, the answerer takes those tokens corresponding to QoS
   mechanisms it supports in the send direction and includes them, in
   order of preference, in a 'qos-mech-send' attribute in the answer.

   When ordering the tokens in a 'qos-mech-send' or a 'qos-mech-recv'
   attribute by preference, the answerer may take into account its own
   preferences and those expressed in the offer.  However, the exact
   algorithm to be used to order such token lists is outside the scope
   of this specification.

   Note that if the answerer does not have any QoS mechanism in common
   with the offerer, it will return empty 'qos-mech-send' and 'qos-mech-
   recv' attributes.

4.3.  Resource Reservation

   Once the offer/answer exchange completes, both offerer and answerer
   use the token lists in the 'qos-mech-send' and 'qos-mech-recv'
   attributes of the answer to perform resource reservations.  Offerers
   and answerers SHOULD attempt to use the QoS mechanism with highest
   priority in each direction first.  If an endpoint (the offerer or the
   answerer) does not succeed using the mechanism with highest priority
   in a given direction, it SHOULD attempt to use the next QoS mechanism
   in order of priority in that direction, and so on.

   If an endpoint tries unsuccessfully all the common QoS mechanisms for
   a given direction, the endpoint MAY attempt to use additional QoS
   mechanisms not supported by the remote endpoint.  This is because
   there may be network entities out of the endpoint's control (e.g., an
   RSVP proxy) that make those mechanisms work.

4.4.  Subsequent Offer/answer Exchanges

   If, during an established session for which the QoS mechanism to be
   used for a given direction was agreed using the mechanism defined in
   this specification, an endpoint receives a subsequent offer that does
   not contain the QoS selection attribute corresponding to that
   direction (i.e., the 'qos-mech-send' or 'qos-mech-recv' attribute is
   missing), the endpoints SHOULD continue using the same QoS mechanism
   used up to that moment.




James Polk, et al.        Expires May 22, 2009                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft       QoS Mechanism Selection in SDP        November 2008


5.  Example

   The following is an offer/answer exchange between two endpoints using
   the 'qos-mech-send' and 'qos-mech-recv' attributes.  Parts of the
   session descriptions are ommitted for clarity purposes.

   The offerer generates the following session description listing both
   RSVP and NSIS for both directions.  The offerer would prefer to use
   RSVP and, thus, includes it before NSIS.

     m=audio 50000 RTP/AVP 0
     a=qos-mech-send: rsvp nsis
     a=qos-mech-recv: rsvp nsis

   The answerer supports NSIS in both directions, but not RSVP.
   Consequently, it returns the following session description:

     m=audio 55000 RTP/AVP 0
     a=qos-mech-send: nsis
     a=qos-mech-recv: nsis


6.  IANA Considerations

   This specification registers two new SDP attributes and creates a new
   registry for QoS mechanisms.

6.1.  Registration of the SDP 'qos-mech-send' Attribute

   This section instructs the IANA to register the following SDP att-
   field under the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters
   registry:

   Contact name:   Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com

   Attribute name:   qos-mech-send

   Long-form attribute name:   QoS Mechanism for the Send Direction

   Type of attribute   Session and Media levels

   Subject to charset:   No

   Purpose of attribute:   To list QoS mechanisms supported in the send
      direction.






James Polk, et al.        Expires May 22, 2009                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft       QoS Mechanism Selection in SDP        November 2008



   Allowed attribute values:   IANA Registered Tokens

6.2.  Registration of the SDP 'qos-mech-recv' Attribute

   This section instructs the IANA to register the following SDP att-
   field under the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters
   registry:

   Contact name:   Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com

   Attribute name:   qos-mech-recv

   Long-form attribute name:   QoS Mechanism for the Receive Direction

   Type of attribute   Session and Media levels

   Subject to charset:   No

   Purpose of attribute:   To list QoS mechanisms supported in the
      receive direction.

   Allowed attribute values:   IANA Registered Tokens

6.3.  Registry for QoS Mechanism Tokens

   The IANA is requested to create a subregistry for QoS mechanism token
   values to be used in the 'qos-mech-send' and 'qos-mech-recv'
   attributes under the Session Description Protocol (SDP) Parameters
   registry.  The initial values for the subregistry are presented in
   the following, and IANA is requested to add them into its database:

      QoS Mechanism                Reference
      ---------------------------- ---------
      rsvp                         RFC xxxx
      nsis                         RFC xxxx

   [RFC Editor's note: please replace 'RFC xxxx' with the number this
   RFC will get.]

   As per the terminology in [RFC5226], the registration policy for new
   QoS mechanism token values shall be 'Specification Required'.


7.  Security Considerations

   An attacker may attempt to add, modify, or remove 'qos-mech-send' and
   'qos-mech-recv' attributes from a session description.  This could



James Polk, et al.        Expires May 22, 2009                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft       QoS Mechanism Selection in SDP        November 2008


   result in an application behaving in a non-desirable way.  For
   example, the endpoints under attack may not be able to find a common
   QoS mechanism to use.

   Consequently, it is strongly RECOMMENDED that integrity and
   authenticity protection be applied to SDP session descriptions
   carrying these attributes.  For session descriptions carried in SIP
   [RFC3261], S/MIME [RFC3851] is the natural choice to provide such
   end-to-end integrity protection, as described in [RFC3261].  Other
   applications MAY use a different form of integrity protection.


8.  Acknowledgements

   Dave Oran helped form this effort.  Flemming Andreasen and Magnus
   Westerlund provided useful comments on this specification.


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3264]  Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
              with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264,
              June 2002.

   [RFC3851]  Ramsdell, B., "Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail
              Extensions (S/MIME) Version 3.1 Message Specification",
              RFC 3851, July 2004.

   [RFC4566]  Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
              Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.

   [RFC5234]  Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.

9.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-nsis-qos-nslp]
              Manner, J., Karagiannis, G., and A. McDonald, "NSLP for
              Quality-of-Service Signaling", draft-ietf-nsis-qos-nslp-16



James Polk, et al.        Expires May 22, 2009                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft       QoS Mechanism Selection in SDP        November 2008


              (work in progress), February 2008.

   [RFC2205]  Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
              Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
              Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.

   [RFC3261]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
              A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
              Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
              June 2002.

   [RFC3312]  Camarillo, G., Marshall, W., and J. Rosenberg,
              "Integration of Resource Management and Session Initiation
              Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3312, October 2002.


Authors' Addresses

   James Polk
   Cisco Systems
   3913 Treemont Circle
   Colleyville, Texas  76034
   USA

   Phone: +1-817-271-3552
   Email: jmpolk@cisco.com


   Subha Dhesikan
   Cisco Systems
   170 W. Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email: sdhesika@cisco.com


   Gonzalo Camarillo
   Ericsson
   Hirsalantie 11
   Jorvas  02420
   Finland

   Email: Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com







James Polk, et al.        Expires May 22, 2009                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft       QoS Mechanism Selection in SDP        November 2008


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.


Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.











James Polk, et al.        Expires May 22, 2009                 [Page 10]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/