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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 RFC 5975

IETF Internet Draft NSIS Working Group                        Jerry Ash
Internet Draft                                                     AT&T
<draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>                             Attila Bader
Expiration Date: April 2006                                    Ericsson
                                                       Cornelia Kappler
                                                             Siemens AG

                                                           October 2005


                         QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template

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 April 21, 2006.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).


Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>            [Page 1]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005


Abstract

   The QoS NSLP protocol is used to signal QoS reservations and is
   independent of a specific QoS model (QOSM) such as IntServ or
   DiffServ.  Rather, all information specific to a QOSM is encapsulated
   in a separate object, the QSPEC.  This draft defines a template for
   the QSPEC, which contains both the QoS description and QSPEC control
   information. The QSPEC format is defined, as are a number of QSPEC
   parameters.  The QSPEC parameters provide a common language to be
   re-used in several QOSMs.  To a certain extent QSPEC parameters
   ensure interoperability of QOSMs.  Optional QSPEC parameters aim to
   ensure the extensibility of QoS NSLP to other QOSMs in the future.
   The node initiating the NSIS signaling adds an Initiator QSPEC that
   must not be removed, thereby ensuring the intention of the NSIS
   initiator is preserved along the signaling path.

Table of Contents

   1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   2. Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   4. QSPEC Parameters, Processing, & Extensibility . . . . . . . . . 6
      4.1 QSPEC Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
      4.2 QSPEC Processing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
      4.3 Example of NSLP/QSPEC Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
      4.4 Treatment of QSPEC Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
          4.4.1 Mandatory and Optional QSPEC Parameters . . . . . . . 11
          4.4.2 Read-only and Read-write QSPEC Parameters . . . . . . 11
      4.5 Inability to handle parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
          4.5.1 Error Conditions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
          4.5.2 Inability to interpret and update parameters  . . . . 12
      4.6 QSPEC Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   5. QSPEC Format Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
      5.1 QSPEC Control Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
      5.2 QoS Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
          5.2.1 <QoS Desired> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
          5.2.2 <QoS Available> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
          5.2.3 <QoS Reserved>  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
          5.2.4 <Minimum QoS> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   6. QSPEC Procedures & Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
      6.1 QSPEC Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
          6.1.1 Sender-Initiated Reservations . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
          6.1.2 Receiver-Initiated Reservations . . . . . . . . . . . 20
          6.1.3 Resource Queries  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
          6.1.4 Bidirectional Reservations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
      6.2 QSPEC Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   7. QSPEC Functional Specification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
      7.1 General QSPEC Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
      7.2 Parameter Coding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
          7.2.1 <NON QOSM Hop> Parameter  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
          7.2.2 <Excess Treatment> Parameter  . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>            [Page 2]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005


          7.2.3 <Bandwidth> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
          7.2.4 <Slack Term> Parameter  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
          7.2.5 <Token Bucket> Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
          7.2.6 <QoS Class> Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
                7.2.6.1 <PHB Class> Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
                7.2.6.2 <Y.1541 QoS Class> Parameter  . . . . . . . . 29
                7.2.6.3 <DSTE Class Type> Parameter . . . . . . . . . 30
          7.2.7 Priority Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
                7.2.7.1 <Preemption Priority> & <Defending Priority>
                        Parameters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
                7.2.7.2 <Reservation Priority> Parameter  . . . . . . 31
          7.2.8 <Path Latency> Parameter  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
          7.2.9 <Path Jitter> Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
          7.2.10 <Path PLR> Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
          7.2.11 <Path PER> Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
          7.2.12 <Ctot> <Dtot> <Csum> <Dsum> Parameters . . . . . . . 35
   8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
   9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
   10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
   11. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
   12. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
   13. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
   Appendix A: QoS Models and QSPECs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
   Appendix B: Mapping of QoS Desired, QoS Available and QoS Reserved
               of NSIS onto AdSpec, TSpec and RSpec of RSVP IntServ . 43
   Appendix C: Main Changes Since Last Version & Open Issues  . . . . 44
               C.1 Main Changes Since Version -04 . . . . . . . . . . 44
               C.2 Open Issues  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
   Intellectual Property Statement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
   Disclaimer of Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
   Copyright Statement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45


Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>            [Page 3]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005


1. Conventions Used in This Document

   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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2.  Introduction

   The QoS NSLP establishes and maintains state at nodes along the path
   of a data flow for the purpose of providing forwarding resources
   (QoS) for that flow [QoS-SIG]. The design of QoS NSLP is conceptually
   similar to RSVP [RFC2205], and meets the requirements of [RFC3726].

   A QoS-enabled domain supports a particular QoS model (QOSM), which is
   a method to achieve QoS for a traffic flow.  A QOSM incorporates QoS
   provisioning methods and a QoS architecture.  It defines the behavior
   of the resource management function (RMF), including inputs and
   outputs, and how QSPEC information is interpreted on traffic
   description, resources required, resources available, and control
   information required by the RMF.  A QOSM also specifies a set of
   mandatory and optional QSPEC parameters that describe the QoS and how
   resources will be managed by the RMF.  QoS NSLP can support signaling
   for different QOSMs, such as for IntServ, DiffServ admission control,
   and those specified in [Y.1541-QOSM, INTSERV-QOSM, RMD-QOSM].  For
   more information on QOSMs see Section 7.2 and Appendix A.

   One of the major differences between RSVP and QoS-NSLP is that
   QoS-NSLP supports signaling for different QOSMs along the data path,
   all with one signaling message.  For example, the data path may start
   in a domain supporting DiffServ and end in a domain supporting
   Y.1541.  However, because some typical QoS parameters are
   standardized and can be reused in different QOSMs, some degree of
   interoperability between QOSMs exists.

   The QSPEC travels in QoS-NSLP messages and is opaque to the QoS NSLP.
   It is only interpreted by the RMF. The content of the QSPEC is QOSM
   specific.  Since QoS-NSLP signaling operation can be different for
   different QOSMs, the QSPEC contains two kinds of information, QSPEC
   control information and QoS description.

   QSPEC control information contains parameters that governs the RMF.
   An example of QSPEC control information is how the excess traffic is
   treated in the RMF queuing functions.

   The QoS description is composed of QSPEC objects loosely
   corresponding to the TSpec, RSpec and AdSpec objects specified in
   RSVP.  This is, the QSPEC may contain a description of QoS desired
   and QoS reserved.  It can also collect information about available
   resources.  Going beyond RSVP functionality, the QoS description
   also allows indicating a range of acceptable QoS by defining a QSPEC
   object denoting minimum QoS.  Usage of these QSPEC objects is not

Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>            [Page 4]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005


   bound to particular message types thus allowing for flexibility.  A
   QSPEC object collecting information about available resources MAY
   travel in any QoS-NSLP message, for example a QUERY message or a
   RESERVE message.

3. Terminology

   Mandatory QSPEC parameter: QSPEC parameter that a QNI SHOULD populate
   if applicable to the underlying QOSM and a QNE MUST interpret, if
   populated.

   Minimum QoS: Minimum QoS is a QSPEC object that MAY be supported by
   any QNE.  Together with a description of QoS Desired or QoS
   Available, it allows the QNI to specify a QoS range, i.e. an upper
   and lower bound.  If the QoS Desired cannot be reserved, QNEs are
   going to decrease the reservation until the minimum QoS is hit.

   Optional QSPEC parameter: QSPEC parameter that a QNI SHOULD populate
   if applicable to the underlying QOSM, and a QNE SHOULD interpret if
   populated and applicable to the QOSM(s) supported by the QNE. (A QNE
   MAY ignore if it does not support a QOSM needing the optional QSPEC
   parameter).

   QNE: QoS NSIS Entity, a node supporting QoS NSLP.

   QNI: QoS NSIS Initiator, a node initiating QoS-NSLP signaling.

   QNR: QoS NSIS Receiver, a node terminating QoS-NSLP signaling.

   QoS Description: Describes the actual QoS in QSPEC objects QoS
   Desired, QoS Available, QoS Reserved, and Minimum QoS.  These QSPEC
   objects are input or output parameters of the RMF.  In a valid QSPEC,
   at least one QSPEC object of the type QoS Desired, QoS Available or
   QoS Reserved MUST be included.

   QoS Available: QSPEC object containing parameters describing the
   available resources.  They are used to collect information along a
   reservation path.

   QoS Desired: QSPEC object containing parameters describing the
   desired QoS for which the sender requests reservation.

   QoS Model (QOSM): A method to achieve QoS for a traffic flow, e.g.,
   IntServ Controlled Load.  A QOSM specifies a set of mandatory and
   optional QSPEC parameters that describe the QoS and how resources
   will be managed by the RMF. It furthermore specifies how to use QoS
   NSLP to signal for this QOSM.

   QoS Reserved: QSPEC object containing parameters describing the
   reserved resources and related QoS parameters, for example,
   bandwidth.

Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>            [Page 5]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005



   QSPEC Control Information: Control information that is specific to a
   QSPEC, and contains parameters that govern the RMF.

   QSPEC: QSPEC is the object of QoS-NSLP containing all QOSM-specific
   information.

   QSPEC parameter: Any parameter appearing in a QSPEC; includes both
   QoS description and QSPEC control information parameters, for
   example, bandwidth, token bucket, and excess treatment parameters.

   QSPEC Object: Main building blocks of QoS Description containing a
   QSPEC parameter set that is input or output of an RMF operation.

   Resource Management Function (RMF): Functions that are related to
   resource management, specific to a QOSM.  It processes the QoS
   description parameters and QSPEC control parameters.

   Read-only Parameter: QSPEC Parameter that is set by initiating or
   responding QNE and is not changed during the processing of the QSPEC
   along the path.

   Read-write Parameter: QSPEC Parameter that can be changed during the
   processing of the QSPEC by any QNE along the path.

4. QSPEC Parameters, Processing, & Extensibility

4.1 QSPEC Parameters

   The definition of a QOSM includes the specification of how the
   requested QoS resources will be described and how they will be
   managed by the RMF.  For this purpose, the QOSM specifies a set of
   QSPEC parameters that describe the QoS and QoS resource control in
   the RMF.  A given QOSM defines which of the mandatory and optional
   QSPEC parameters it uses, and it MAY define additional optional QSPEC
   parameters.  Mandatory and optional QSPEC parameters provide a common
   language for QOSM developers to build their QSPECs and are likely to
   be re-used in several QOSMs.  Mandatory and optional QSPEC parameters
   are defined in this document, and additional optional QSPEC
   parameters can be defined in separate documents.  Specification of
   additional optional QSPEC parameters requires standards action, as
   defined in Section 4.6.

4.2 QSPEC Processing

   The QSPEC is opaque to the QoS-NSLP processing.  The QSPEC control
   information and the QoS description are interpreted and MAY be
   modified by the RMF in a QNE (see description in [QoS-SIG]).

   A QoS-enabled domain supports a particular QOSM, e.g. DiffServ
   admission control.  If this domain supports QoS-NSLP signaling, its

Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>            [Page 6]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005


   QNEs MUST support the DiffServ admission control QOSM. The QNEs MAY
   also support additional QOSMs.

   A QoS NSLP message can contain a stack of at most 2.  The first on
   the stack is the Initiator QSPEC.  This is a QSPEC provided by the
   QNI, which travels end-to-end, and therefore the stack always has at
   least depth 1.  QSPEC parameters MUST NOT be deleted from or added to
   the Initiator QSPEC.  In addition, the stack MAY contain a Local
   QSPEC stacked on top of the Initiator QSPEC.  A QNE only considers
   the topmost QSPEC.

   At the ingress edge of a local QoS domain, a Local QSPEC MAY be
   pushed on the stack in order to describe the requested resources in a
   domain-specific manner.  Also, the Local QSPEC is popped from the
   stack at the egress edge of the local QoS domain.

   This draft provides a template for the QSPEC, which is needed in
   order to help define individual QOSMs and in order to promote
   interoperability between QOSMs.  Figure 1 illustrates how the QSPEC
   is composed of QSPEC control information and QoS description.  QoS
   description in turn is composed of up to four QSPEC objects (not all
   of them need to be present), namely QoS Desired, QoS Available, QoS
   Reserved and Minimum QoS.  Each of these QSPEC Objects, as well as
   QSPEC Control Information, consists of a number of mandatory and
   optional QSPEC parameters.

   +-------------+---------------------------------------+
   |QSPEC Control|              QoS                      |
   | Information |           Description                 |
   +-------------+---------------------------------------+

                 \________________ ______________________/
                                  V
                 +----------+----------+---------+-------+ \
                 |QoS Desir.|QoS Avail.|QoS Rsrv.|Min QoS|  > QSPEC
                 +----------+----------+---------+-------+ / Objects

   \_______ ____/\____ ____/\___ _____/\___ ____/\__ ___/
           V          V         V          V        V

    +-------------+...     +-------------+...
    |QSPEC Para. 1|        |QSPEC Para. n|
    +-------------+...     +-------------+...

                  Figure 1: Structure of the QSPEC

   The internal structure of each QSPEC object and the QSPEC control
   information, with mandatory and optional parameters, is illustrated
   in Figure 2.


Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>            [Page 7]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005


   +------------------+-----------------+---------------+
   | QSPEC/Ctrl Info  | Mandatory QSPEC |Optional QSPEC |
   |  Object ID       |   Parameters    | Parameters    |
   +------------------+-----------------+---------------+

   Figure 2: Structure of QSPEC Objects & Control Information

4.3 Example of NSLP/QSPEC Operation

   This Section illustrates the operation and use of the QSPEC within
   the NSLP.  The example configuration in shown in Figure 3.

+----------+      /-------\       /--------\       /--------\
| Laptop   |     |   Home  |     |  Cable   |     | DiffServ |
| Computer |-----| Network |-----| Network  |-----| Network  |----+
+----------+     | No QOSM |     |DQOS QOSM |     | RMD QOSM |    |
                  \-------/       \--------/       \--------/     |
                                                                  |
                  +-----------------------------------------------+
                  |
                  |    /--------\      +----------+
                  |   |  "X"G    |     | Handheld |
                  +---| Wireless |-----|  Device  |
                      | XG QOSM  |     +----------+
                       \--------/

      Figure 3: Example Configuration to Illustrate QoS-NSLP/QSPEC
                Operation

   In this configuration, a laptop computer and a handheld wireless
   device are the endpoints for some application that has QoS
   requirements.  Assume initially that the two endpoints are stationary
   during the application session, later we consider mobile endpoints.
   For this session, the laptop computer is connected to a home network
   that has no QoS support.  The home network is connected to a
   CableLabs-type cable access network with dynamic QoS (DQOS) support,
   such as specified in the 'CMS to CMS Signaling Specification' [CMSS]
   for cable access networks.  That network is connected to a DiffServ
   core network that uses the RMD QOSM [RMD-QOSM].  On the other side of
   the DiffServ core is a wireless access network built on generation
   "X" technology with QoS support as defined by generation "X".  And
   finally the handheld endpoint is connected to the wireless access
   network.

   We assume that the Laptop is the QNI and handheld device is the QNR.

   The QNI will populate an Initiator QSPEC to achieve the QoS desired
   on the path.  In this example we consider two different ways to
   perform sender-initiated signaling for QoS:

   Case 1) The QNI sets <QoS Desired>, <QoS Available> and possibly

Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>            [Page 8]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005


   <Minimum QoS> QSPEC objects in the Initiator QSPEC, and initializes
   <QoS Available> to <QoS Desired>.  Since this is a reservation in a
   heterogenic network with different QOSMs supported in different
   domains, each QNE on the path reads and interprets those parameters
   in the Initiator QSPEC that it needs to implement the QOSM within its
   domain (as described below). Each QNE along the path checks to see if
   <QoS Available> resources can be reserved, and if not, the QNE
   reduces the respective parameter values in <QoS Available> and
   reserves these values.  The minimum parameter values are given in
   <Minimum QoS>, if populated, otherwise zero if <Minimum QoS> is not
   included.  If one or more parameters in <Available QoS> fails to
   satisfy the corresponding minimum values in Minimum QoS, the QNE
   notifies the QNI and the reservation is aborted.  Otherwise, the QNR
   notifies the QNI of the <QoS Available> for the reservation.

   Case 2) The QNI populated the Initiator QSPEC with <QoS Desired>.
   Since this is a reservation in a heterogenic network with different
   QOSMs supported in different domains, each QNE on the path reads and
   interprets those parameters in the Initiator QSPEC that it needs to
   implement the QOSM within its domain (as described below).  If a QNE
   cannot reserve <QoS Desired> resources, the reservation fails.

   In both cases, the QNI populates mandatory and optional QSPEC to
   ensure correct treatment of its traffic in domains down the path.
   Since the QNI does not know the QOSM used in downstream domains, it
   includes values for those mandatory and optional QSPEC parameters it
   cares about.  Let us assume the QNI wants to achieve IntServ-like QoS
   guarantees, and also is interested in what path latency it can
   achieve.  The QNI therefore includes in the QSPEC the QOSM ID for
   IntServ Controlled Load Service. The QSPEC objects are populated with
   all parameters necessary for IntServ Controlled Load and additionally
   the parameter to measure path latency, as follows:

   <QoS Desired> = <Token Bucket>
   <QoS Available> = <Token Bucket> <Path Latency>

   In both cases, each QNE on the path reads and interprets those
   parameters in the Initiator QSPEC that it needs to implement the QOSM
   within its domain.  It may need additional parameters for its QOSM,
   which are not specified in the Initiator QSPEC.  If possible, these
   parameters must be inferred from those that are present, according to
   rules defined in the QOSM implemented by this QNE.

   There are two possibilities when a RESERVE message is received at a
   QNE at a domain border (we illustrate both possibilities in the
   example):

   - the QNE can stack a local QSPEC on top of the Initiator QSPEC (this
   is new in QoS NSLP, RSVP does not do this).


Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>            [Page 9]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005


   - the QNE can tunnel the Initiator RESERVE message through its domain
   and issue its own Local RESERVE message.  For this new Local RESERVE
   message, the QNE acts as the QNI, and the QSPEC in the domain is an
   Initiator QSPEC.  This procedure is also used by RSVP in making
   aggregate reservations, in which case there is not a new intra-domain
   (aggregate) RESERVE for each newly arriving interdomain (per-flow)
   RESERVE, but the aggregate reservation is updated by the border QNE
   (QNI) as need be.  This is also how RMD works [RMD-QOSM].

   For example, at the RMD domain, a local RESERVE with its own RMD
   Initiator QSPEC corresponding to the RMD-QOSM is generated based on
   the original Initiator QSPEC according to the procedures described in
   Section 4.5 of [QoS-SIG] and in [RMD-QOSM].  That is, the ingress QNE
   to the RMD domain must map the QSPEC parameters contained in the
   original Initiator QSPEC into the RMD QSPEC.  The RMD QSPEC for
   example needs <Bandwidth> and <QoS Class>.  <Bandwidth> is generated
   from the <Token Bucket> parameter.  Information on <QoS Class>,
   however, is not provided.  According to the rules laid out in the RMD
   QOSM, the ingress QNE infers from the fact that an IntServ Controlled
   Load QOSM was signaled that the EF PHB is appropriate to set the <PHB
   Class> parameter.  These RMD QSPEC parameters are populated in the
   RMD Initiator QSPEC generated within the RMD domain.

   Furthermore, the node at the egress to the RMD domain updates <QoS
   Available> on behalf of the entire RMD domain if it can.  If it
   cannot, it raises the parameter-specific, 'not-supported' flag,
   warning the QNR that the final value of these parameters in QoS
   Available is imprecise.

   In the XG domain, the Initiator QSPEC is translated into a Local
   QSPEC using a similar procedure as described above.  The Local QSPEC
   becomes the current QSPEC used within the XG domain, that is, the
   it becomes the first QSPEC on the stack, and the Initiator QSPEC is
   second.  This saves the QNEs within the XG domain the trouble of
   re-translating the Initiator QSPEC.  At the egress edge of the XG
   domain, the translated Local QSPEC is popped, and the Initiator QSPEC
   returns to the number one position.

   If the reservation was successful, eventually the RESERVE request
   arrives at the QNR (otherwise the QNE at which the reservation failed
   would have aborted the RESERVE and sent an error RESPONSE back to the
   QNI). The QNR generates a positive RESPONSE with QSPEC objects <QoS
   Reserved> - and for case 1 - additionally <QoS Available>.  The
   parameters appearing in <QoS Reserved> are the same as in <QoS
   Desired>, with values copied from <QoS Available> in case 1, and with
   the original values from <QoS Desired> in case 2. That is, it is not
   necessary to transport the <QoS Desired> object back to the QNI since
   the QNI knows what it signaled originally, and the information is not
   useful for QNEs in the reverse direction.  The <QoS Reserved> object
   should transport all necessary information, although the <QoS
   Available> and <QoS Reserved> objects may end up transporting some of

Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>           [Page 10]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005


   the same information.

   Hence, the QNR populates the following QSPEC objects:

   <QoS Reserved> = <Token Bucket>
   <QoS Available> = <Token Bucket> <Path Latency>

   If the handheld device on the right of Figure 3 is mobile, and moves
   through different "XG" wireless networks, then the QoS might change
   on the path since different XG wireless networks might support
   different QOSMs.  As a result, QoS-NSLP/QSPEC processing will have to
   renegotiate the <QoS Available> on the path.  From a QSPEC
   perspective, this is like a new reservation on the new section of the
   path and is basically the same as any other rerouting event - to the
   QNEs on the new path it looks like a new reservation.  That is, in
   this mobile scenario, the new segment may support a different QOSM
   than the old segment, and the QNI would now signal a new reservation
   (explicitly, or implicitly with the next refreshing RESERVE message)
   to account for the different QOSM in the XG wireless domain.  Further
   details on rerouting are specified in [QoS-SIG].

4.4 Treatment of QSPEC Parameters

4.4.1 Mandatory and Optional QSPEC Parameters

   Mandatory and optional QSPEC parameters are defined in this document
   and are applicable to a number of QOSMs.  Mandatory QSPEC parameters
   are treated as follows:

   o A QNI SHOULD populate mandatory QSPEC parameters if applicable to
     the underlying QOSM.
   o QNEs MUST interpret mandatory QSPEC parameters, if populated.

   Optional QSPEC parameters are treated as follows:

   o A QNI SHOULD populate optional QSPEC parameters if applicable to
     the QOSM for which it is signaling.

   o QNEs SHOULD interpret optional QSPEC parameters, if populated and
     applicable to the QOSM(s) supported by the QNE. (A QNE MAY ignore
     the optional QSPEC parameter if it does not support a QOSM needing
     the optional QSPEC parameter).

4.4.2 Read-only and Read-write QSPEC Parameters

   Both mandatory and optional QSPEC parameters can be read-only or
   read-write. Read-write parameters can be changed by any QNE, whereas
   read-only parameters are fixed by the QNI and/or QNR. For example in
   a RESERVE message, all parameters in <QoS Available> are read-write
   parameters, which are updated by intermediate QNEs.  Read-only
   parameters are, for example, all parameters in <QoS Desired> as sent

Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>           [Page 11]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005


   by the QNI.

   QoS description parameters can be both read-only or read-write,
   depending on which QSPEC object, and which message, they appear in.
   In particular, all parameters in <QoS Desired> and <Minimum QoS> are
   read-only for all messages.  More details are provided in Sec. 7.1.

   In the QSPEC Control Information Object, the property of being
   read-write or read-only is parameter specific.

4.5 Inability to handle parameters

   A QNE may not be able to interpret or update the QSPEC or individual
   parameters for several reasons.  For example, the QSPEC cannot be
   read or interpreted because it is erroneous, or because of a QNE
   fault.  This is an error condition. Another reason is that a
   parameter type is unknown because it is optional, or a parameter
   value in QoS Available cannot be updated because QoS NSLP was
   tunneled to the QNE.  These are not error conditions.

4.5.1 Error Conditions

   When an RMF cannot interpret the QSPEC because the coding is
   erroneous, it raises corresponding flags in the QSPEC.  That is, the
   'error flags' are located in each QSPEC Object and in each parameter.
   If such a flag is set, at least one QNE along the data transmission
   path between the QNI and QNR cannot interpret a mandatory or optional
   QSPEC parameter or the QSPEC object for any reason, such as a
   protocol error, QNE fault, etc.  In this case, more detailed error
   information may be given in the QoS NSLP error message.  That is, if
   possible the RMF must communicate error details to the QoS NSLP
   processing.  QoS NSLP [QoS-SIG] describes how the erroneous message
   is handled further.

   When the error can be located in a particular parameter, the QNE
   detecting the error raises the error flag in this parameter.
   Additionally, it raises the error flag in the corresponding QSPEC
   Object. If the error cannot be located at the parameter level, only
   the error flag in the QSPEC object is raised.

4.5.2 Inability to interpret and update parameters

   Each QSPEC parameter has an associated 'not-supported flag'.  If the
   not-supported flag is set, then at least one QNE along the data
   transmission path between the QNI and QNR can not support the
   specified optional parameter.  This means the value collected in the
   corresponding parameter is a lower bound to the "real" value.  A QNE
   MUST be able to set the not-supported flag if it does not support the
   optional parameter.

   Each QSPEC parameter has an associated 'tunneled-parameter flag'.

Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>           [Page 12]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005


   When a RESERVE message is tunneled through a domain, QNEs inside the
   domain cannot update read-write parameters.  The egress QNE in a
   domain has two choices: either it is configured to have the knowledge
   to update the parameters correctly.  Or it cannot update the
   parameters.  In this case it MUST set the tunneled-parameter flag to
   tell the QNI (or QNR) that the information contained in the
   read-write parameter is most likely incorrect (or a lower bound).

   The formats and semantics of all flags are given in Section 6.1.

4.6 QSPEC Extensibility

   Additional optional QSPEC parameters MAY need to be defined in the
   future.  Additional optional QSPEC parameters are defined in separate
   Informational documents specific to a given QOSM.  For example,
   optional QSPEC parameters are defined in [RMD-QOSM] and
   [Y.1541-QOSM].

5. QSPEC Format Overview

   QSPEC = <QSPEC Version> <QOSM ID> <QSPEC Control Information>
           <QoS Description>

   As described above, the QSPEC contains an identifier for the QOSM,
   the actual resource description (QoS description) as well as QSPEC
   control information.  Note that all QSPEC parameters defined in the
   following Sections are mandatory QSPEC parameters unless specifically
   designated as optional QSPEC parameters.

   A QSPEC object ID identifies whether the object is <QSPEC Control
   Information> or <QoS Description>.  As described below, the <QoS
   Description> is further broken down into <QoS Desired>, <QoS
   Available>, <QoS Reserved>, and <Minimum QoS> objects.  A QSPEC
   parameter ID is assigned to identify each QSPEC parameter defined
   below.

   <QSPEC Version> identifies the QSPEC version number, and <QOSM ID>
   identifies the particular QOSM being used by the QNI (the QSPEC
   Version and QOSM ID are assigned by IANA).  The <QOSM ID> tells a QNE
   which parameters to expect.  This may simplify processing and error
   analysis.  Furthermore, it may be helpful for a QNE or a domain
   supporting more than one QOSM to learn which QOSM the QNI would like
   to have in order to use the most suitable QOSM.  Note that the QSPEC
   parameters do not uniquely define the QNI QOSM since more parameters
   than required by the QNI QOSM can be included by the QNI. QOSM IDs
   are assigned by IANA.

5.1 QSPEC Control Information

   QSPEC control information is used for signaling QOSM RMF functions
   not defined in QoS-NSLP.  It enables building new RMF functions

Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>           [Page 13]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005


   required by a QOSM within a QoS-NSLP signaling framework, such as
   specified, for example, in [RMD-QOSM] and [Y.1541-QOSM].

   <QSPEC Control Information> = <QSPEC Procedure Identifier>
                                 <NON QOSM Hop> <Excess Treatment>

   Note that <NON QOSM Hop> is a read-write parameter.  <QSPEC Procedure
   Identifier> and <Excess Treatment> are read-only parameters.

   <QSPEC Procedure Identifier> is an identifier for which QSPEC
   procedures are used, as defined in Section 7.1.

   <NON QOSM Hop> is a flag bit telling the QNR (or QNI in a RESPONSE
   message) whether or not a particular QOSM is supported by each QNE
   in the path between the QNI and QNR.  A QNE sets the <NON QOSM Hop>
   flag parameter if it does not support the relevant QOSM
   specification.  If the QNR finds this bit set, at least one QNE along
   the data transmission path between the QNI and QNR can not support
   the specified QOSM.In a local QSPEC, <NON QOSM Hop> refers to the
   QoS-NSLP peers of the local QOSM domain.

   The <Excess Treatment> parameter describes how the QNE will process
   excess traffic, that is, out-of-profile traffic.  Excess traffic MAY
   be dropped, shaped and/or remarked. The excess treatment parameter is
   initially set by the QNI and is read-only.

5.2 QoS Description

   The QoS Description is broken down into the following QSPEC objects:

   <QoS Description> = <QoS Desired> <QoS Available> <QoS Reserved>
                       <Minimum QoS>

   Of these QSPEC objects, QoS Desired, QoS Available and QoS Reserved
   MUST be supported by QNEs.  Minimum QoS MAY be supported.

5.2.1 <QoS Desired>

   <QoS Desired> = <Traffic Description> <QoS Class> <Priority>
                   <Path Latency> <Path Jitter> <Path PLR> <Path PER>

   These parameters describe the resources the QNI desires to reserve
   and hence this is a read-only QSPEC object.  The <QoS Desired>
   resources that the QNI wishes to reserve are of course directly
   related to the traffic the QNI is going to inject into the network.
   Therefore, when used in the <QoS Desired> object, <Traffic
   Description> refers to traffic injected by the QNI into the network.

   <Traffic Description> = <Bandwidth> <Token Bucket>

   <Bandwidth> = link bandwidth needed by flow [RFC 2212, RFC 2215]

Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>           [Page 14]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005



   <Token Bucket> = <r> <b> <p> <m> <MTU> [RFC 2210]

   Note that the Path MTU Discovery (PMTUD) working group is currently
   specifying a robust method for determining the MTU supported over an
   end-to-end path.  This new method is expected to update RFC1191 and
   RFC1981, the current standards track protocols for this purpose.

   <QoS Class> = <PHB Class> <Y.1541 QoS Class> <DSTE Class Type>

   An application MAY like to reserve resources for packets with a
   particular QoS class, e.g. a DiffServ per-hop behavior (PHB)
   [RFC2475], or DiffServ-enabled MPLS traffic engineering (DSTE) class
   type [RFC3564].

   <Priority> = <Reservation Priority> <Preemption Priority>
                <Defending Priority>

   <Reservation priority> is an essential way to differentiate flows for
   emergency services, ETS, E911, etc., and assign them a higher
   admission priority than normal priority flows and best-effort
   priority flows.  <Preemption Priority> is the priority of the new
   flow compared with the defending priority of previously admitted
   flows.  Once a flow is admitted, the preemption priority becomes
   irrelevant.  <Defending Priority> is used to compare with the
   preemption priority of new flows.  For any specific flow, its
   preemption priority MUST always be less than or equal to the
   defending priority.

   Appropriate security measures need to be taken to prevent abuse of
   the <Priority> parameters, see Section 8 on Security Considerations.

   [Y.1540] defines packet transfer outcomes, as follows:

   Successful: packet arrives within the preset waiting time with no
               errors

   Lost: packet fails to arrive within the waiting time

   Errored: packet arrives in time, but has one or more bit errors
            in the header or payload

   Packet Loss Ratio (PLR) = total packets lost/total packets sent

   Packet Error Ratio (PER) = total errored packets/total packets sent

   <Path Latency>, <Path Jitter>, <Path PLR>, and <Path PER> are
   optional parameters describing the desired path latency, path jitter
   and path bit error rate respectively.  Since these parameters are
   cumulative, an individual QNE cannot decide whether the desired path
   latency, etc., is available, and hence they cannot decide whether a

Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>           [Page 15]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005


   reservation fails.  Rather, when these parameters are included in
   <Desired QoS>, the QNI SHOULD also include corresponding parameters
   in a <QoS Available> QSPEC object in order to facilitate collecting
   this information.

5.2.2 <QoS Available>

   <QoS Available> = <Traffic Description> <QoS Class> <Priority>
                     <Path Latency> <Path Jitter> <Path PLR> <Path PER>
                     <Ctot> <Dtot> <Csum> <Dsum>

   When used in the <QoS Available> object, <Traffic Description> refers
   to traffic resources available at a QNE in the network.

   The <QoS Available> Object collects information on the resources
   currently available on the path when it travels in a RESERVE or QUERY
   message and hence in this case this QSPEC object is read-write.  Each
   QNE MUST inspect all parameters of this QSPEC object, and if
   resources available to this QNE are less than what a particular
   parameter says currently, the QNE MUST adapt this parameter
   accordingly.  Hence when the message arrives at the recipient of the
   message, <QoS Available> reflects the bottleneck of the resources
   currently available on a path.  It can be used in a QUERY message,
   for example, to collect the available resources along a data path.

   When <QoS Available> travels in a RESPONSE message, it in fact just
   transports the result of a previous measurement performed by a
   RESERVE or QUERY message back to the initiator.  Therefore in this
   case, <QoS Available> is read-only.

   The parameters <Token Bucket> and <Bandwidth> provide information,
   for example, about the bandwidth available along the path followed by
   a data flow.  The local parameter is an estimate of the bandwidth the
   QNE has available for packets following the path.  Computation of the
   value of this parameter SHOULD take into account all information
   available to the QNE about the path, taking into consideration
   administrative and policy controls on bandwidth, as well as physical
   resources.  The composition rule for this parameter is the MIN
   function.  The composed value is the minimum of the QNE's value and
   the previously composed value.  This quantity, when composed
   end-to-end, informs the QNR (or QNI in a RESPONSE message) of the
   minimal bandwidth link along the path from QNI to QNR.

   The <Path Latency> parameter accumulates the latency of the packet
   forwarding process associated with each QNE, where the latency is
   defined to be the mean packet delay added by each QNE.  This delay
   results from speed-of-light propagation delay, from packet processing
   limitations, or both.  It does not include any variable queuing delay
   that may be present.  Each QNE MUST add the propagation delay of its
   outgoing link, which includes the QNR adding the associated delay for
   the egress link.  Furthermore, the QNI MUST add the propagation delay

Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>           [Page 16]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005


   of the ingress link.  The composition rule for the <Path Latency>
   parameter is summation with a clamp of (2**32 - 1) on the maximum
   value.  This quantity, when composed end-to-end, informs the QNR (or
   QNI in a RESPONSE message) of the minimal packet delay along the path
   from QNI to QNR.  The purpose of this parameter is to provide a
   minimum path latency for use with services which provide estimates or
   bounds on additional path delay [RFC 2212].  Together with the
   queuing delay bound, this parameter gives the application knowledge
   of both the minimum and maximum packet delivery delay.  Knowing both
   the minimum and maximum latency experienced by data packets allows
   the receiving application to know the bound on delay variation and
   de-jitter buffer requirements.

   The <Path Jitter> parameter accumulates the jitter of the packet
   forwarding process associated with each QNE, where the jitter is
   defined to be the nominal jitter added by each QNE.  IP packet
   jitter, or delay variation, is defined in [RFC3393], Section 3.4
   (Type-P-One-way-ipdv), and where the selection function includes the
   packet with minimum delay such that the distribution is equivalent to
   2-point delay variation in [Y.1540]. The suggested evaluation
   interval is 1 minute.  Note that the method to estimate IP delay
   variation without active measurements requires more study.  This
   jitter results from packet processing limitations, and includes any
   variable queuing delay which may be present.  Each QNE MUST add the
   jitter of its outgoing link, which includes the QNR adding the
   associated jitter for the egress link.  Furthermore, the QNI MUST
   add the jitter of the ingress link.  The composition method for the
   <Path Jitter> parameter is the combination of several statistics
   describing the delay variation distribution with a clamp on the
   maximum value (note that the methods of accumulation and estimation
   of nominal QNE jitter are under study).  This quantity, when composed
   end-to-end, informs the QNR (or QNI in a RESPONSE message) of the
   nominal packet jitter along the path from QNI to QNR.  The purpose of
   this parameter is to provide a nominal path jitter for use with
   services that provide estimates or bounds on additional path delay
   [RFC2212].  Together with the <Path Latency> and the queuing delay
   bound, this parameter gives the application knowledge of the typical
   packet delivery delay variation.

   The <Path PLR> parameter accumulates the packet loss rate (PLR) of
   the packet forwarding process associated with each QNE, where the PLR
   is defined to be the PLR added by each QNE.  Each QNE MUST add the
   PLR of its outgoing link, which includes the QNR adding the
   associated PLR for the egress link.  Furthermore, the QNI MUST add
   the PLR of the ingress link.  The composition rule for the <Path
   PLR> parameter is summation with a clamp on the maximum value (this
   assumes sufficiently low PLR values such that summation error is not
   significant).  This quantity, when composed end-to-end, informs the
   QNR (or QNI in a RESPONSE message) of the minimal packet PLR along
   the path from QNI to QNR.  As with <Path Jitter>, the method to
   estimate <Path PLR> requires more study.

Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>           [Page 17]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005



   <Ctot>, <Dtot>, <Csum>, <Dsum>: Error terms C and D represent how the
   element's implementation of the guaranteed service deviates from the
   fluid model.  These two parameters have an additive composition rule.
   The error term C is the rate-dependent error term.  It represents the
   delay a datagram in the flow might experience due to the rate
   parameters of the flow.  The error term D is the rate-independent,
   per-element error term and represents the worst case non-rate-based
   transit time variation through the service element.  If the
   composition function is applied along the entire path to compute the
   end-to-end sums of C and D (<Ctot> and <Dtot>) and the resulting
   values are then provided to the QNR (or QNI in a RESPONSE message).
   <Csum> and <Dsum> are the sums of the parameters C and D between the
   last reshaping point and the current reshaping point.

5.2.3 <QoS Reserved>

   <QoS Reserved> = <Traffic Description> <QoS Class> <Priority> <S>

   These parameters describe the QoS reserved by the QNEs along the data
   path, and hence the QoS reserved QSPEC object is read-write.

   <Traffic Description>, <QoS Class> and <Priority> are defined above.

   <S> = slack term, which is the difference between desired delay and
   delay obtained by using bandwidth reservation, and which is used to
   reduce the resource reservation for a flow [RFC 2212].  This is an
   optional parameter.

5.2.4 <Minimum QoS>

   <Minimum QoS> = <Traffic Description> <QoS Class> <Priority>

   <Minimum QoS> does not have an equivalent in RSVP.  It allows the QNI
   to define a range of acceptable QoS levels by including both the
   desired QoS value and the minimum acceptable QoS in the same message.
   It is a read-only QSPEC object.  The desired QoS is included with a
   <QoS Desired> and/or a <QoS Available> QSPEC object seeded to the
   desired QoS value.  The minimum acceptable QoS value MAY be coded in
   the <Minimum QoS> QSPEC object.  As the message travels towards the
   QNR, <QoS Available> is updated by QNEs on the path.  If its value
   drops below the value of <Minimum QoS> the reservation fails and is
   aborted.  When this method is employed, the QNR SHOULD signal back to
   the QNI the value of <QoS Available> attained in the end, because the
   reservation MAY need to be adapted accordingly.

6. QSPEC Procedures & Examples

6.1 QSPEC Procedures

   While the QSPEC template aims to put minimal restrictions on usage of

Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>           [Page 18]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005


   QSPEC objects in <QoS Description>, interoperability between QNEs and
   between QOSMs must be ensured.  We therefore give below an exhaustive
   list of QSPEC object combinations for the message sequences described
   in QoS NSLP [QOS-SIG].  A specific QOSM may impose more restrictions
   on the QNI or QNR freedom.

6.1.1 Sender-Initiated Reservations

   Here the QNI issues a RESERVE, which is replied to by a RESPONSE.
   This response is generated either by the QNR or, in case the
   reservation was unsuccessful, by a QNE.  The following possibilities
   for QSPEC object usage exist:

   ID | RESERVE                           | RESPONSE
   ---------------------------------------------------------------
   1 | QoS Desired                       | QoS Reserved
   2 | QoS Desired, QoS Avail.           | QoS Reserved, QoS Avail.
   3 | QoS Desired, QoS Avail., Min. QoS | QoS Reserved, QoS Avail.

   (1) If only QoS Desired is included in the RESERVE, the implicit
   assumption is that exactly these resources must be reserved.  If this
   is not possible the reservation fails.  The parameters in QoS
   Reserved are copied from the parameters in QoS Desired.

   (2) When QoS Available is included in the RESERVE also, some
   parameters will appear only in QoS Available and not in QoS Desired.
   It is assumed that the value of these parameters is collected for
   informational purposes only (e.g. path latency).

   However, some parameters in QoS Available can be the same as in QoS
   Desired.  For these parameters the implicit message is that the QNI
   would be satisfied by a reservation with lower parameter values than
   specified in QoS Desired.  For these parameters, the QNI seeds the
   parameter values in QoS Available to those in QoS Desired (except for
   cumulative parameters such as <path latency>).

   Each QNE adapts the parameters in QoS Available according to its
   current capabilities.  Reservations in each QNE are hence based on
   current parameter values in QoS Available (and additionally those
   parameters that only appear in QoS Desired).  The drawback of this
   approach is that, if the resulting resource reservation becomes
   gradually smaller towards the QNR, QNEs close to the QNI have an
   oversized reservation, possibly resulting in unnecessary costs for
   the user.  Of course, in the RESPONSE the QNI learns what the actual
   reservation is (from the QoS RESERVED object) and can immediately
   issue a properly sized refreshing RESERVE.  The advantage of the
   approach is that the reservation is performed in half-a-roundtrip
   time.

   The parameter types included in QoS Reserved in the RESPONSE MUST be
   the same as those in QoS Desired in RESERVE.  For those parameters

Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>           [Page 19]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005


   that were also included in QoS Available in RESERVE, their value is
   copied into QoS Desired.  For the other parameters, the value is
   copied from QoS Desired (the reservation would fail if the
   corresponding QoS could not be reserved).

   The parameters in the QoS Available QSPEC object in the RESPONSE are
   copied with their values from the QoS Available QSPEC object in the
   RESERVE.  Note that the parameters in QoS Available are read-write
   in the RESERVE message, whereas they are read-only in the RESPONSE.

   (3) this case is handled as case (2), except that the reservation
   fails when QoS Available becomes less than Minimum QoS for one
   parameter.  If a parameter appears in QoS Available but not in
   Minimum QoS it is assumed that the minimum value for this parameter
   is that given in QoS Available.

6.1.2 Receiver-Initiated Reservations

   Here the QNR issues a QUERY which is replied to by the QNI with a
   RESERVE if the reservation was successful.  The QNR in turn sends a
   RESPONSE to the QNI.

   ID| QUERY            | RESERVE                    | RESPONSE
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   1 |QoS Des.          | QoS Des.                   | QoS Res.
   2 |QoS Des.,Min. QoS | QoS Des.,QoS Avl.,(Min QoS)| QoS Res.,QoS Avl.
   3 |QoS Avail.        | QoS Des.                   | QoS Res.

   (1) and (2) The idea is that the sender (QNR in this scenario) needs
   to inform the receiver (QNI in this scenario) about the QoS it
   desires.  To this end the sender sends a QUERY message to the
   receiver including a QoS Desired QSPEC object. If the QoS is
   negotiable it additionally includes a (possibly zero) Minimum QoS, as
   in Case b.

   The RESERVE message includes QoS Available if the sender signaled QoS
   is negotiable (i.e. it included Minimum QoS).  If the Minimum QoS
   received from the sender is non-zero, the QNR also includes Minimum
   QoS.

   (3) This is the "RSVP-style" scenario. The sender (QNR) issues a
   QUERY with QoS Available to collect path properties, and the QoS
   Desired in the RESERVE issued by the receiver (QNI) is populated from
   the parameter values in QoS Available from the QUERY message.  The
   advantage of this model is that the situation of over-reservation in
   QNEs close to the QNI as described above does not occur.  On the
   other hand, the QUERY may find, for example, a particular bandwidth
   is not available.  When the actual reservation is performed, however,
   the desired bandwidth may meanwhile have become free.  That is, the
   'RSVP style' may result in a smaller reservation than necessary.


Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>           [Page 20]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005


6.1.3 Resource Queries

   Here the QNI issues a QUERY in order to investigate what resources
   are currently available. The QNR replies with a RESPONSE.

   ID | QUERY                | RESPONSE
   --------------------------------------------
   1  | QoS Available        | QoS Available

   Note QoS Available when traveling in the QUERY is read-write, whereas
   in the RESPONSE it is read-only.

6.1.4 Bidirectional Reservations

   On a QSPEC level, bidirectional reservations are no different from
   uni-directional reservations, since QSPECs for different directions
   never travel in the same message.

6.2 QSPEC Examples

   This Section provides an example QSPEC for DiffServ admission
   control.  The QSPEC for IntServ controlled load service is
   specified in [INTSERV-QOSM] (note that the QOSMs for IntServ
   Controlled Load Service and IntServ Guaranteed Service are defined in
   [RFC2211] and [RFC2212], respectively).

   The QSPEC for DiffServ admission control may be composed, for
   example, of the QSPEC objects <QoS Desired> and <QoS Available>, as
   well as <QoS Reserved>.  Which QSPEC object is present in a
   particular QSPEC depends on the message type (RESERVE, QUERY etc) in
   which the QSPEC travels.  Parameters in the QSPEC for DiffServ
   requesting bandwidth for different PHBs are as follows:

   Example QSPEC for the DiffServ EF PHB [RFC3297]:

   <QSPEC Control Information> = <Excess Treatment>
   <QoS Description> = <QoS Desired> <QoS Available> <QoS Reserved>
   <QoS Desired> = <Traffic Description> <QoS Class>
   <Traffic Description> = <Token Bucket>
   <QoS class> = <PHB Class=EF>
   <QoS Available> = <Token Bucket>
   <QoS Reserved> = <Token Bucket>

   In general, the EF PHB is a property of the service that is NOT
   dependent on the input traffic characteristics.  A server of rate R
   and latency E that is compliant with the EF PHB must deliver at least
   the configured service rate R with at most latency E for any traffic
   characterization.  Therefore, strictly speaking, there is no specific
   traffic descriptor required to deliver the EF PHB (which by
   definition is a local per-hop characterization).  However, in order
   to deliver a reasonable end-to-end delay, it is typically assumed

Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>           [Page 21]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005


   that EF traffic is shaped at the ingress.  A typical assumption is
   that input traffic at any ingress is constrained by a single rate
   token bucket.  Therefore, a single rate token bucket is sufficient
   to signal in QoS-NSLP/QSPEC for the DiffServ-QOSM.

   Example QSPEC for the DiffServ AFxy PHB [RFC2597]:

   <QSPEC Control Information> = <Excess Treatment>
   <QoS Description> = <QoS Desired> <QoS Available> <QoS Reserved>
   <QoS Desired> = <Traffic Description> <QoS Class>
   <Traffic Description> = <Committed Burst Size (CBS) Token Bucket>
                           <Excess Burst Size (EBS) Token Bucket>
   <QoS class> = <PHB Class=AFxy>
   <QoS Available> = <CBS Token Bucket> <EBS Token Bucket>
   <QoS Reserved> = <CBS Token Bucket> <EBS Token Bucket>

   QNEs process two sets of token bucket parameters to implement the
   DiffServ AF QOSM, one token bucket for the average (CBS) traffic and
   one token bucket for the burst (EBS) traffic.  These 2 token buckets
   are sufficient to cover most of the ways in which one would
   distinguish among 3 levels of drop precedence at the queuing
   mechanics level, as described in the Appendix to [RFC2597].

   QoS-NSLP/QSPEC can support signaling the parameters required for the
   DiffServ marker elements described in [RFC2697] and [RFC2698].
   [RFC2697] defines a Single Rate Three Color Marker (srTCM), which
   can be used as component in a DiffServ traffic conditioner [RFC2475,
   RFC2474].  The srTCM meters a traffic stream and marks its packets
   according to three traffic parameters, Committed Information Rate
   (CIR), Committed Burst Size (CBS), and Excess Burst Size (EBS), to be
   either green, yellow, or red.  A packet is marked green if it does
   not exceed the CBS, yellow if it does exceed the CBS, but not the
   EBS, and red otherwise.

   RFC 2697 and RFC 2698 provide specific procedures, where in essence,
   RFC 2697 is using two token buckets that run at the same rate.

   The <Token Bucket> parameter (see Section 7.2.5) includes values for
   Token Bucket Rate [r], Token Bucket Size [b], Peak Data Rate [p],
   Minimum Policed Unit [m], and Maximum Packet Size [MTU].  Most
   DiffServ discussions of token buckets consider only Token Bucket Rate
   and Token Bucket Size.  To realize this sort of basic token bucket,
   the peak rate value [p] is set to positive infinity, the Minimum
   Policed Unit [m] to zero, and the Maximum Packet Size [MTU] to a very
   large number (e.g., the maximum positive 32-bit integer).  Most
   DiffServ implementations can be expected to ignore these three
   values.  Note that [RFC2215] adds p, m, and MTU to get a
   TOKEN_BUCKET_TSPEC, however DiffServ does not use these three added
   values.

   The srTCM [RFC 2697] may be signaled by using the same Committed

Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>           [Page 22]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005


   Information Rate as the rate [r] for both Token Buckets (#1 and #2)
   and carrying the Committed Burst Size as the size of Token Bucket #1
   and the Excess Burst Size as the size of Token Bucket #2.  The trTCM
   [RFC2698] can be realized by carrying the Committed Information
   Rate and Committed Burst Size in Token Bucket #1 and the Peak
   Information Rate and Peak Burst Size in Token Bucket #2.  Note that
   this approach does not capture color-blind versus color-aware
   configurations of a trTCM.  However, the QSPEC carries the traffic
   description, for which two token buckets are enough, and detailed
   DiffServ configuration to deal with this is handled via other means.

7. QSPEC Functional Specification

   This Section defines the encodings of the QSPEC parameters and QSPEC
   control information defined in Section 5.  We first give the general
   QSPEC formats and then the formats of the QSPEC objects and
   parameters.

   Note that all QoS Description parameters can be either read-write or
   read-only, depending on which object and which message they appear
   in.  However, in a given QSPEC object, all objects are either
   read-write or read-only.  In order to simplify keeping track of
   whether an object is read-write or read-only, a corresponding flag is
   associated with each object.

   Network byte order ('big-endian') for all 16- and 32-bit integers, as
   well as 32-bit floating point numbers, are as specified in [RFC1832,
   IEEE754, NETWORK-BYTE-ORDER].

7.1 General QSPEC Formats

   The format of the QSPEC closely follows that used in GIST [GIST] and
   QoS NSLP [QoS-SIG].  Every object (and parameter) has the following
   general format:

   o The overall format is Type-Length-Value (in that order).

   o Some parts of the type field are set aside for control flags.

   o Length has the units of 32-bit words, and measures the length of
     Value.  If there is no Value, Length=0.

   o Value is a whole number of 32-bit words.  If there is any padding
     required, the length and location MUST be defined by the
     object-specific format information; objects that contain variable
     length types may need to include additional length subfields to do
     so.

   o Any part of the object used for padding or defined as reserved("r")
     MUST be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored on reception.


Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>           [Page 23]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005


    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Common QSPEC Header                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   //                  QSPEC Control Information                  //
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   //                       QSPEC QoS Objects                     //
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The Common QSPEC Header is a fixed 4-byte long object containing the
   QOSM ID and an identifier for the QSPEC Procedure (see Section 6.1):

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Vers. |    QOSM ID            |  QSPEC Proc.  |  Reserved     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Note that a length field is not necessary since the overall length of
   the QSPEC is contained in the higher level QoS NSLP data object.

   Vers.: Identifies the QSPEC version number.  It is assigned by IANA.

   QOSM ID: Identifies the particular QOSM being used by the QNI. It is
            assigned by IANA.

   QSPEC Proc.: Is composed of two times 4 bits.  The first set of bits
                identifies the Message Sequence, the second set
                identifies the QSPEC Object Combination used for this
                particular message sequence:

                 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
                +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                |Mes.Sq |Obj.Cmb|
                +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                The Message Sequence field can attain the following
                values:

                0: Sender-Initiated Reservations, as defined in Section
                   6.1.1
                1: Receiver-Initiated Reservations, as defined in
                   Section 6.1.2
                2: Resource Queries, as defined in Section 6.1.3

                The Object Combination field can take the values between
                1 and 3 indicated in the tables in Section 6.1.1 to
                6.1.3.

   The QSPEC Control Information is a variable length object containing

Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>           [Page 24]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005


   one or more parameters.  The QSPEC Objects field is a collection of
   QSPEC objects (QoS Desired, QoS Available, etc.), which share a
   common format and each contain several parameters.

   Both the QSPEC Control Information object and the QSPEC QoS objects
   share a common header format:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |R|E|r|r|       Object Type     |r|r|r|r|         Length        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   R Flag: If set the parameters contained in the object are read-only.
           Otherwise they are read-write. Note that in the case of
           Object Type = 0 (Control Information), this value is
           overwritten by parameter-specific values.

   E Flag: Set if an error occurs on object level

   Object Type = 0: control information
               = 1: QoS Desired
               = 2: QoS Available
               = 3: QoS Reserved
               = 4: Minimum QoS

   The r-flags are reserved.

   Each optional or mandatory parameter within an object can be
   similarly encoded in TLV format using a similar parameter header:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |M|E|N|T|     Parameter ID      |r|r|r|r|         Length        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   M Flag: When set indicates the subsequent parameter is a mandatory
           parameter and MUST be interpreted. Otherwise the parameter is
           optional and can be ignored if not understood.
   E Flag: When set indicates an error occurred when this parameter was
           being interpreted.
   N Flag: Not-supported Flag (see Section 4.5)
   T Flag: Tunneled-parameter Flag (see Section 4.5)
   Parameter Type: Assigned to each parameter (see below)

7.2 Parameter Coding

   Parameters are usually coded individually, for example, the Bandwidth
   Parameter (Section 7.2.2).  However, it is also possible to combine
   several parameters into one parameter field, which is called

Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>           [Page 25]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005


   "container coding".  This coding is useful if either a) the
   parameters always occur together, as for example the several
   parameters that jointly make up the token bucket, or b) in order to
   make coding more efficient because the length of each parameter value
   is much less than a 32-bit word (as for example described in
   [RMD-QOSM]).

7.2.1 <NON QOSM Hop> Parameter

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |1|E|N|T|           0           |r|r|r|r|          1            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | NON QOSM Hop|                   Reserved                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   NON QOSM Hop: This field is set to 1 if a non QOSM-aware QNE is
   encountered on the path from the QNI to the QNR.  It is a read-write
   parameter.

7.2.2 <Excess Treatment> Parameter

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |1|E|N|T|           1           |r|r|r|r|          1            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Excess Trtmnt|                   Reserved                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Excess Treatment: Indicates how the QNE SHOULD process out-of-profile
   traffic.  The excess treatment parameter is set by the QNI.  It is a
   read-only parameter. Allowed values are as follows:

   0: drop
   1: shape
   2: remark
   3: don't care

7.2.3 <Bandwidth> [RFC 2212, RFC 2215]

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |1|E|N|T|           3           |r|r|r|r|          1            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Bandwidth       (32-bit IEEE floating point number)          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The <Bandwidth> parameter MUST be nonnegative and is measured in

Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>           [Page 26]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005


   bytes per second and has the same range and suggested representation
   as the bucket and peak rates of the <Token Bucket>.  <Bandwidth> can
   be represented using single-precision IEEE floating point.  The
   representation MUST be able to express values ranging from 1 byte per
   second to 40 terabytes per second.  For values of this parameter only
   valid non-negative floating point numbers are allowed.  Negative
   numbers (including "negative zero"), infinities, and NAN's are not
   allowed.

   A QNE MAY export a local value of zero for this parameter.  A network
   element or application receiving a composed value of zero for this
   parameter MUST assume that the actual bandwidth available is unknown.

7.2.4 <Slack Term> Parameter [RFC 2212, RFC 2215]

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0|E|N|T|           3           |r|r|r|r|          1            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Slack Term [S]  (32-bit integer)                             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Slack term S MUST be nonnegative and is measured in microseconds.
   The Slack term, S, can be represented as a 32-bit integer.  Its value
   can range from 0 to (2**32)-1 microseconds.

7.2.5 <Token Bucket> Parameters [RFC 2215]

   The <Token Bucket> parameters are represented by three floating
   point numbers in single-precision IEEE floating point format followed
   by two 32-bit integers in network byte order.  The first floating
   point value is the rate (r), the second floating point value is the
   bucket size (b), the third floating point is the peak rate (p), the
   first unsigned integer is the minimum policed unit (m), and the
   second unsigned integer is the maximum datagram size (MTU).

   Note that the two sets of <Token Bucket> parameters can be
   distinguished, as could be needed for example to support DiffServ
   applications (see Section 7.2).

   Token Bucket #1 Parameter ID = 5
   Token Bucket #1: Mandatory QSPEC Parameter


Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>           [Page 27]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005


   Parameter Values:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |1|E|N|T|           4           |r|r|r|r|          5            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Token Bucket Rate [r] (32-bit IEEE floating point number)    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Token Bucket Size [b] (32-bit IEEE floating point number)    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Peak Data Rate [p] (32-bit IEEE floating point number)       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Minimum Policed Unit [m] (32-bit unsigned integer)           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Maximum Packet Size [MTU] (32-bit unsigned integer)          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Token Bucket #2 Parameter ID = 6
   Token Bucket #2: Optional QSPEC Parameter

   Parameter Values:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0|E|N|T|           5           |r|r|r|r|          5            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Token Bucket Rate [r] (32-bit IEEE floating point number)    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Token Bucket Size [b] (32-bit IEEE floating point number)    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Peak Data Rate [p] (32-bit IEEE floating point number)       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Minimum Policed Unit [m] (32-bit unsigned integer)           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Maximum Packet Size [MTU] (32-bit unsigned integer)          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   When r, b, and p terms are represented as IEEE floating point values,
   the sign bit MUST be zero (all values MUST be non-negative).
   Exponents less than 127 (i.e., 0) are prohibited.  Exponents greater
   than 162 (i.e., positive 35) are discouraged, except for specifying a
   peak rate of infinity.  Infinity is represented with an exponent of
   all ones (255) and a sign bit and mantissa of all zeroes.

7.2.6 <QoS Class> Parameters

7.2.6.1 <PHB Class> Parameter [RFC 3140]

   As prescribed in RFC 3140, the encoding for a single PHB is the

Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>           [Page 28]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005


   recommended DSCP value for that PHB, left-justified in the 16 bit
   field, with bits 6 through 15 set to zero.

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |1|E|N|T|           6           |r|r|r|r|          1            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | DSCP      |0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|            Reserved           |
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+

   The registries needed to use RFC 3140 already exist, see [DSCP-
   REGISTRY, PHBID-CODES-REGISTRY].  Hence, no new registry needs to be
   created for this purpose.

7.2.6.2 <Y.1541 QoS Class> Parameter [Y.1541]

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |1|E|N|T|           7           |r|r|r|r|          1            |
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
   |Y.1541 QoS Cls.|                  Reserved                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Y.1541 QoS Class: Indicates the Y.1541 QoS Class. Values currently
   allowed are 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

   Class 0:
   Mean delay <= 100 ms, delay variation <= 50 ms, loss ratio <= 10^-3.
   Real-time, highly interactive applications, sensitive to jitter.
   Application examples include VoIP, Video Teleconference.

   Class 1:
   Mean delay <= 400 ms, delay variation <= 50 ms, loss ratio <= 10^-3.
   Real-time, interactive applications, sensitive to jitter.
   Application examples include VoIP, Video Teleconference.

   Class 2:
   Mean delay <= 100 ms, delay variation unspecified, loss ratio <=
   10^-3.  Highly interactive transaction data.  Application examples

Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>           [Page 29]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005


   include signaling.

   Class 3:
   Mean delay <= 400 ms, delay variation unspecified, loss ratio <=
   10^-3.  Interactive transaction data.  Application examples include
   signaling.

   Class 4:
   Mean delay <= 1 sec, delay variation unspecified, loss ratio <=
   10^-3.  Low Loss Only applications.  Application examples include
   short transactions, bulk data, video streaming.

   Class 5:
   Mean delay unspecified, delay variation unspecified, loss ratio
   unspecified.  Unspecified applications.  Application examples include
   traditional applications of default IP networks.

7.6.2.3 <DSTE Class Type> Parameter [RFC3564]

   DSTE class type is defined as follows:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |1|E|N|T|           8           |r|r|r|r|          1            |
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
   |DSTE Cls. Type |                  Reserved                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   DSTE Class Type: Indicates the DSTE class type.  Values currently
   allowed are 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

7.2.7 Priority Parameters

7.2.7.1 <Preemption Priority> & <Defending Priority> Parameters
      [RFC 3181]

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |1|E|N|T|           9           |r|r|r|r|          1            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Preemption Priority        |      Defending Priority       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Preemption Priority: The priority of the new flow compared with the
   defending priority of previously admitted flows.  Higher values
   represent higher priority.

   Defending Priority: Once a flow is admitted, the preemption priority
   becomes irrelevant.  Instead, its defending priority is used to

Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>           [Page 30]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005


   compare with the preemption priority of new flows.

   As specified in [RFC3181], <Preemption Priority> and <Defending
   Priority> are 16-bit integer values and both MUST be populated if the
   parameter is used.

7.2.7.2 <Reservation Priority> Parameter [PRIORITY-RQMTS, SIP-PRIORITY]

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |1|E|N|T|           10          |r|r|r|r|          1            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   +   Admission   |         RPH Namespace         | RPH Priority  |
   +   Priority    |                               |               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   High priority flows, normal priority flows, and best-effort priority
   flows can have access to resources depending on their admission
   priority value, as described in [PRIORITY-RQMTS], as follows:

   Admission Priority:

   0 - high priority flow
   1 - normal priority flow
   2 - best-effort priority flow

   [SIP-PRIORITY] defines a resource priority header (RPH) with
   parameters "RPH Namespace" and "RPH Priority" combination,
   and if populated is applicable only to flows with high reservation
   priority, as follows:

   RPH Namespace:

   0 - dsn
   1 - drsn
   2 - q735
   3 - ets
   4 - wps
   5 - not populated


Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>           [Page 31]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005


   RPH Priority:
   Each namespace has a finite list of relative priority-values.  Each
   is listed here in the order of lowest priority to highest priority:

   4 - dsn.routine
   3 - dsn.priority
   2 - dsn.immediate
   1 - dsn.flash
   0 - dsn.flash-override

   5 - drsn.routine
   4 - drsn.priority
   3 - drsn.immediate
   2 - drsn.flash
   1 - drsn.flash-override
   0 - drsn.flash-override-override

   4 - q735.4
   3 - q735.3
   2 - q735.2
   1 - q735.1
   0 - q735.0

   4 - ets.4
   3 - ets.3
   2 - ets.2
   1 - ets.1
   0 - ets.0

   4 - wps.4
   3 - wps.3
   2 - wps.2
   1 - wps.1
   0 - wps.0

   Note that SIP nodes can send multiple NameSpace.Priority tupple
   values in the same message, in part because end nodes may not know
   what Namespace "domain" it resides in, nor which Namespace "domains"
   it may traverse.  Therefore multiple <Reservation Priority>
   parameters MAY be sent in a given QSPEC, which is turn contain
   multiple RPH Namespace/Priority combinations.

   Note that additional work is needed to communicate these flow
   priority values to bearer-level network elements
   [VERTICAL-INTERFACE].


Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>           [Page 32]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005


7.2.8 <Path Latency> Parameter [RFC 2210, 2215]

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0|E|N|T|           11          |r|r|r|r|          1            |
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
   |                Path Latency (32-bit integer)                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The Path Latency is a single 32-bit integer in network byte order.
   The composition rule for the <Path Latency> parameter is summation
   with a clamp of (2**32 - 1) on the maximum value.  The latencies are
   average values reported in units of one microsecond. A system with
   resolution less than one microsecond MUST set unused digits to zero.
   An individual QNE can advertise a latency value between 1 and 2**28
   (somewhat over two minutes) and the total latency added across all
   QNEs can range as high as (2**32)-2. If the sum of the different
   elements delays exceeds (2**32)-2, the end-to-end advertised delay
   SHOULD be reported as indeterminate.  A QNE that cannot accurately
   predict the latency of packets it is processing MUST raise the
   not-supported flagand either leave the value of Path Latency as is,
   or add its best estimate of its lower bound.  A raised not-supported
   flagflag indicates the value of Path Latency is a lower bound of the
   real Path Latency.  The distinguished value (2**32)-1 is taken to
   mean indeterminate latency because the composition function limits
   the composed sum to this value, it indicates the range of the
   composition calculation was exceeded.

7.2.9 <Path Jitter> Parameter

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0|E|N|T|           12          |r|r|r|r|          3            |
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
   |                 Path Jitter STAT1 (32-bit integer)            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 Path Jitter STAT2 (32-bit integer)            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 Path Jitter STAT3 (32-bit integer)            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The Path Jitter is a set of three 32-bit integers in network byte
   order.  The Path Jitter parameter is the combination of three
   statistics describing the Jitter distribution with a clamp of
   (2**32 - 1) on the maximum of each value. The jitter STATs are
   reported in units of one microsecond. A system with resolution less
   than one microsecond MUST set unused digits to zero.  An individual
   QNE can advertise jitter values between 1 and 2**28 (somewhat over
   two minutes) and the total jitter computed across all QNEs can range

Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>           [Page 33]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005


   as high as (2**32)-2. If the combination of the different element
   values exceeds (2**32)-2, the end-to-end advertised jitter SHOULD be
   reported as indeterminate.  A QNE that cannot accurately predict the
   jitter of packets it is processing MUST raise the not-supported flag
   and either leave the value of Path Jitter as is, or add its best
   estimate of its STAT values.  A raised not-supported flag indicates
   the value of Path Jitter is a lower bound of the real Path Jitter.
   The distinguished value (2**32)-1 is taken to mean indeterminate
   jitter.  A QNE that cannot accurately predict the jitter of packets
   it is processing SHOULD set its local parameter to this value.
   Because the composition function limits the total to this value,
   receipt of this value at a network element or application indicates
   that the true path jitter is not known.  This MAY happen because one
   or more network elements could not supply a value, or because the
   range of the composition calculation was exceeded.

   NOTE: The Jitter composition function and the statistics to use are a
   subject of active development in IETF IPPM WG and ITU-T SG 12.
   Resolution of this topic is expected shortly.

7.2.10 <Path PLR> Parameter

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0|E|N|T|           13          |r|r|r|r|          1            |
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
   |             Path Packet Loss Ratio (32-bit floating point)    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The Path PLR is a single 32-bit single precision IEEE floating point
   number in network byte order.  The composition rule for the <Path
   PLR> parameter is summation with a clamp of 10^-1 on the maximum
   value.  The PLRs are reported in units of 10^-11.  A system with
   resolution less than one microsecond MUST set unused digits to zero.
   An individual QNE can advertise a PLR value between zero and 10^-2
   and the total PLR added across all QNEs can range as high as 10^-1.
   If the sum of the different elements values exceeds 10^-1, the
   end-to-end advertised PLR SHOULD be reported as indeterminate.  A QNE
   that cannot accurately predict the PLR of packets it is processing
   MUST raise the not-supported flag and either leave the value of Path
   PLR as is, or add its best estimate of its lower bound.  A raised
   not-supported flag indicates the value of Path PLR is a lower bound
   of the real Path PLR.  The distinguished value 10^-1 is taken to mean
   indeterminate PLR.  A QNE which cannot accurately predict the PLR of
   packets it is processing SHOULD set its local parameter to this
   value.  Because the composition function limits the composed sum to
   this value, receipt of this value at a network element or application
   indicates that the true path PLR is not known.  This MAY happen
   because one or more network elements could not supply a value, or
   because the range of the composition calculation was exceeded.

Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>           [Page 34]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005



7.2.11 <Path PER> Parameter

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0|E|N|T|           14          |r|r|r|r|          1            |
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
   |             Path Packet Error Ratio (32-bit floating point)   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The Path PER is a single 32-bit single precision IEEE floating point
   number in network byte order.  The composition rule for the <Path
   PER> parameter is summation with a clamp of 10^-1 on the maximum
   value.  The PERs are reported in units of 10^-11.  A system with
   resolution less than one microsecond MUST set unused digits to zero.
   An individual QNE can advertise a PER value between zero and 10^-2
   and the total PER added across all QNEs can range as high as 10^-1.
   If the sum of the different elements values exceeds 10^-1, the
   end-to-end advertised PER SHOULD be reported as indeterminate.  A QNE
   that cannot accurately predict the PER of packets it is processing
   MUST raise the not-supported flag and either leave the value of Path
   PER as is, or add its best estimate of its lower bound.  A raised
   not-supported flag indicates the value of Path PER is a lower bound
   of the real Path PER.  The distinguished value 10^-1 is taken to mean
   indeterminate PER.  A QNE which cannot accurately predict the PER of
   packets it is processing SHOULD set its local parameter to this
   value.  Because the composition function limits the composed sum to
   this value, receipt of this value at a network element or application
   indicates that the true path PER is not known.  This MAY happen
   because one or more network elements could not supply a value, or
   because the range of the composition calculation was exceeded.

7.2.12 <Ctot> <Dtot> <Csum> <Dsum> Parameters [RFC 2210, 2212, 2215]

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0|E|N|T|           15          |r|r|r|r|          1            |
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
   |   End-to-end composed value for C [Ctot] (32-bit integer)     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0|E|N|T|           16          |r|r|r|r|          1            |
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
   |   End-to-end composed value for D [Dtot] (32-bit integer)     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>           [Page 35]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005


    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0|E|N|T|           17          |r|r|r|r|          1            |
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
   | Since-last-reshaping point composed C [Csum] (32-bit integer) |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0|E|N|T|           18          |r|r|r|r|          1            |
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
   | Since-last-reshaping point composed D [Dsum] (32-bit integer) |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The error term C is measured in units of bytes.  An individual QNE
   can advertise a C value between 1 and 2**28 (a little over 250
   megabytes) and the total added over all QNEs can range as high as
   (2**32)-1.  Should the sum of the different QNEs delay exceed
   (2**32)-1, the end-to-end error term MUST be set to (2**32)-1.  The
   error term D is measured in units of one microsecond.  An individual
   QNE can advertise a delay value between 1 and 2**28 (somewhat over
   two minutes) and the total delay added over all QNEs can range as
   high as (2**32)-1.  Should the sum of the different QNEs delay
   exceed (2**32)-1, the end-to-end delay MUST be set to (2**32)-1.

8. Security Considerations

   The priority parameter raises possibilities for Theft of Service
   Attacks because users could claim an emergency priority for their
   flows without real need, thereby effectively preventing serious
   emergency calls to get through. Several options exist for countering
   such attacks, for example

   - only some user groups (e.g. the police) are authorized to set the
   emergency priority bit

   - any user is authorized to employ the emergency priority bit for
   particular destination addresses (e.g. police)

9.  IANA Considerations

   This section defines the registries and initial codepoint assignments
   for the QSPEC template, in accordance with BCP 26 RFC 2434 [RFC2434].
   It also defines the procedural requirements to be followed by IANA in
   allocating new codepoints.  Guidelines on the technical criteria to
   be followed in evaluating requests for new codepoint assignments are
   given for the overall NSIS protocol suite in a separate NSIS
   extensibility document [NSIS-EXTENSIBILITY].


Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>           [Page 36]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005


   This specification allocates the following codepoints in existing
   registries:

   PHB Class Parameter [RFC 3140] (Section 7.2.6.1)

   The registries needed to use RFC 3140 already exist [DSCP-REGISTRY,
   PHBID-CODES-REGISTRY].

   This specification defines 5 objects for the QSPEC Template.  Objects
   0-4 are defined in Section 7.  Guidelines on the technical criteria
   to be followed in evaluating requests for new codepoint assignments
   are given for the overall NSIS protocol suite in a separate NSIS
   extensibility document [NSIS-EXTENSIBILITY].

   This specification creates the following registries with the
   structures as defined below:

   QSPEC Version (4 bits):
   The following value is allocated by this specification:
   0: assigned to Version 0 QSPEC
   The allocation policies for further values are as follows:
   1-15: Standards Action

   QOSM ID (12 bits):
   The following values are allocated by this specification:
   0: IntServ Controlled Load Service QOSM [INTSERV-QOSM]
   1: RMD QOSM [RMD-QOSM]
   2: Y.1541 QOSM [Y.1541-QOSM]
   The allocation policies for further values are as follows:
   3-63: Standards Action
   64-127: Private/Experimental Use
   128-4095: Reserved

   QSPEC Procedure (8 bits):
   Broken down into
   Message Sequence (4 bits):
   The following values are allocated by this specification:
   0-2: assigned as specified in Section 7.1
   The allocation policies for further values are as follows:
   3-15: Standards Action
   Object Combination:
   The following values are allocated by this specification:
   0-2: assigned as specified in tables in Section 6.1.1 --> 6.1.3
   The allocation policies for further values are as follows:
   3-15: Standards Action

   Parameter ID (12 bits):
   The following values are allocated by this specification:
   0-18: assigned as specified in Sections 7.2.1 --> 7.2.12.
   The allocation policies for further values are as follows:
   3-63: Standards Action

Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>           [Page 37]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005


   64-127: Private/Experimental Use
   128-4095: Reserved

   Excess Treatment Parameter (8 bits):
   The following values are allocated by this specification:
   0-3: assigned as specified in Section 7.2.2
   The allocation policies for further values are as follows:
   4-63: Standards Action
   64-127: Private/Experimental Use
   127-255: Reserved

   Y.1541 QoS Class Parameter (12 bits):
   The following values are allocated by this specification:
   0-7: assigned as specified in Section 7.2.6.2
   The allocation policies for further values are as follows:
   3-63: Standards Action
   64-127: Private/Experimental Use
   128-4095: Reserved

   DSTE Class Type Parameter (12 bits):
   The following values are allocated by this specification:
   0-7: assigned as specified in Section 7.2.6.3
   The allocation policies for further values are as follows:
   3-63: Standards Action
   64-127: Private/Experimental Use
   128-4095: Reserved

   Admission Priority Parameter (8 bits):
   The following values are allocated by this specification:
   0-2: assigned as specified in Section 7.2.6.2
   The allocation policies for further values are as follows:
   3-63: Standards Action
   64-127: Private/Experimental Use
   128-255: Reserved

   RPH Namespace Parameter (16 bits):
   The following values are allocated by this specification:
   0-5: assigned as specified in Section 7.2.7.2
   The allocation policies for further values are as follows:
   6-63: Standards Action
   64-127: Private/Experimental Use
   128-65535: Reserved

   RPH Priority Parameter (8 bits):
   dsn namespace:
   The following values are allocated by this specification:
   0-4: assigned as specified in Section 7.2.7.2
   The allocation policies for further values are as follows:
   5-63: Standards Action
   64-127: Private/Experimental Use
   128-255: Reserved

Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>           [Page 38]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005


   drsn namespace:
   The following values are allocated by this specification:
   0-5: assigned as specified in Section 7.2.7.2
   The allocation policies for further values are as follows:
   6-63: Standards Action
   64-127: Private/Experimental Use
   128-255: Reserved
   Q735 namespace:
   The following values are allocated by this specification:
   0-4: assigned as specified in Section 7.2.7.2
   The allocation policies for further values are as follows:
   5-63: Standards Action
   64-127: Private/Experimental Use
   128-255: Reserved
   ets namespace:
   The following values are allocated by this specification:
   0-4: assigned as specified in Section 7.2.7.2
   The allocation policies for further values are as follows:
   5-63: Standards Action
   64-127: Private/Experimental Use
   128-255: Reserved
   wts namespace:
   The following values are allocated by this specification:
   0-4: assigned as specified in Section 7.2.7.2
   The allocation policies for further values are as follows:
   5-63: Standards Action
   64-127: Private/Experimental Use
   128-255: Reserved

10.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank (in alphabetical order) David Black,
   Anna Charny, Matthias Friedrich, Xiaoming Fu, Robert Hancock, Chris
   Lang, Dave Oran, Tom Phelan, Hannes Tschofenig, and Sven van den
   Bosch for their very helpful suggestions.

11.  Normative References

   [DSCP-REGISTRY] http://www.iana.org/assignments/dscp-registry
   [PHBID-CODES-REGISTRY] http://www.iana.org/assignments/phbid-codes
   [GIST] Schulzrinne, H., Hancock, R., "GIST: General Internet
   Signaling Transport," work in progress.
   [NSIS-EXTENSIBILITY]  Loughney, J., "NSIS Extensibility Model", work
   in progress.
   [QoS-SIG] Manner, J., et. al., "NSLP for Quality-of-Service
   Signaling," work in progress.
   [RFC1832] Srinivasan, R., "XDR: External Data Representation
   Standard," RFC 1832, August 1995.
   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
   Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>           [Page 39]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005


   [RFC2205] Braden, B., et. al., "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)
   -- Version 1 Functional Specification," RFC 2205, September 1997.
   [RFC2210] Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated
   Services", RFC 2210, September 1997.
   [RFC2211] Wroclawski, J., "Specification of the Controlled-Load
   Network Element Service", RFC 2211, Sept. 1997.
   [RFC2212} Shenker, S., et. al., "Specification of Guaranteed Quality
   of Service," September 1997.
   [RFC2215] Shenker, S., Wroclawski, J., "General Characterization
   Parameters for Integrated Service Network Elements", RFC 2215, Sept.
   1997.
   [RFC2474] Nichols, K., et. al., "Definition of the Differentiated
   Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers," RFC 2474,
   December 1998.
   [RFC2475] Blake, S., et. al., "An Architecture for Differentiated
   Services", RFC 2475, December 1998.
   [RFC2597] Heinanen, J., et. al., "Assured Forwarding PHB Group," RFC
   2597, June 1999.
   [RFC2697] Heinanen, J., Guerin, R., "A Single Rate Three Color
   Marker," RFC 2697, September 1999.
   [RFC2698] Heinanen, J., Guerin, R., "A Two Rate Three Color Marker,"
   RFC 2698, September 1999.
   [RFC3140] Black, D., et. al., "Per Hop Behavior Identification
   Codes," June 2001.
   [RFC3297]Charny, A., et. al., "Supplemental Information for the New
   Definition of the EF PHB (Expedited Forwarding Per-Hop Behavior),"
   RFC 3297, March 2002.

12.  Informative References

   [CMSS] "PacketCable (TM) CMS to CMS Signaling Specification,
   PKT-SP-CMSS-103-040402, April 2004.
   [DIFFSERV-CLASS] Baker, F., et. al., "Configuration Guidelines
   for DiffServ Service Classes," work in progress.
   [IEEE754] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "IEEE
   Standard for Binary Floating-Point Arithmetic," ANSI/IEEE Standard
   754-1985, August 1985.
   [INTSERV-QOSM] Kappler, C., "A QoS Model for Signaling IntServ
   Controlled-Load Service with NSIS," work in progress.
   [METWORK-BYTE-ORDER] Wikipedia, "Endianness,"
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endianness.
   [PRIORITY-RQMTS] Tarapore, P., et. al., "User Plane Priority Levels
   for IP Networks and Services," T1A1/2003-196 R3, November 2004.
   [Q.2630] ITU-T Recommendation Q.2630.3: "AAL Type 2 Signaling
   Protocol - Capability Set 3" Sep. 2003
   [RFC1633] Braden, B., et. al., "Integrated Services in the Internet
   Architecture: an Overview," RFC 1633, June 1994.
   [RFC3393] Demichelis, C., Chimento, P., "IP Packet Delay Variation
   Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM), RFC 3393, November 2002.

Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>           [Page 40]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005


   [RFC3564] Le Faucheur, F., et. al., Requirements for Support of
   Differentiated Services-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering, RFC 3564,
   July 2003
   [RFC3726] Brunner, M., et. al., "Requirements for Signaling
   Protocols", RFC 3726, April 2004.
   [RMD-QOSM] Bader, A., et. al., " RMD-QOSM: An NSIS QoS Signaling
   Policy Model for Networks
   Using Resource Management in DiffServ (RMD)," work in progress.
   [SIP-PRIORITY] Schulzrinne, H., Polk, J., "Communications Resource
   Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol(SIP)." work in
   progress.
   [VERTICAL-INTERFACE] Dolly, M., Tarapore, P., Sayers, S., "Discussion
   on Associating of Control Signaling Messages with Media Priority
   Levels," T1S1.7 & PRQC, October 2004.
   [Y.1540] ITU-T Recommendation Y.1540, "Internet Protocol Data
   Communication Service - IP Packet Transfer and Availability
   Performance Parameters," December 2002.
   [Y.1541] ITU-T Recommendation Y.1541, "Network Performance Objectives
   for IP-Based Services," May 2002.
   [Y.1541-QOSM] Ash, J., et. al., "Y.1541-QOSM -- Y.1541 QoS Model for
   Networks Using Y.1541 QoS Classes," work in progress.

13. Authors' Addresses

   Jerry Ash (Editor)
   AT&T
   Room MT D5-2A01
   200 Laurel Avenue
   Middletown, NJ 07748, USA
   Phone: +1-(732)-420-4578
   Fax:   +1-(732)-368-8659
   Email: gash@att.com

   Attila Bader (Editor)
   Traffic Lab
   Ericsson Research
   Ericsson Hungary Ltd.
   Laborc u. 1 H-1037
   Budapest Hungary
   Email: Attila.Bader@ericsson.com

   Cornelia Kappler (Editor)
   Siemens AG
   Siemensdamm 62
   Berlin 13627
   Germany
   Email: cornelia.kappler@siemens.com


Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>           [Page 41]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005


   Chuck Dvorak
   AT&T
   Room 2A37
   180 Park Avenue, Building 2
   Florham Park, NJ 07932
   Phone: + 1 973-236-6700
   Fax:+1 973-236-7453
   Email: cdvorak@att.com

   Yacine El Mghazli
   Alcatel
   Route de Nozay
   91460 Marcoussis cedex
   FRANCE
   Phone: +33 1 69 63 41 87
   Email: yacine.el_mghazli@alcatel.fr

   Georgios Karagiannis
   University of Twente
   P.O. BOX 217
   7500 AE Enschede
   The Netherlands
   Email: g.karagiannis@ewi.utwente.nl

   Andrew McDonald
   Siemens/Roke Manor Research
   Roke Manor Research Ltd.
   Romsey, Hants SO51 0ZN
   UK
   Email: andrew.mcdonald@roke.co.uk

   Al Morton
   AT&T
   Room D3-3C06
   200 S. Laurel Avenue
   Middletown, NJ 07748
   Phone: + 1 732 420-1571
   Fax: +.1 732 368-1192
   Email: acmorton@att.com

   Percy Tarapore
   AT&T
   Room D1-33
   200 S. Laurel Avenue
   Middletown, NJ 07748
   Phone: + 1 732 420-4172
   Email: tarapore@.att.com

   Lars Westberg
   Ericsson Research
   Torshamnsgatan 23

Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>           [Page 42]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005


   SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden
   Email: Lars.Westberg@ericsson.com

Appendix A: QoS Models and QSPECs

   This Appendix gives a description of QoS Models and QSPECs and
   explains what is the relation between them. Once these descriptions
   are contained in a stable form in the appropriate IDs this Appendix
   will be removed.

   QoS NSLP is a generic QoS signaling protocol that can signal for many
   QOSMs. A QOSM is a particular QoS provisioning method or QoS
   architecture such as IntServ Controlled Load or Guaranteed Service,
   DiffServ, or RMD for DiffServ.

   The definition of the QOSM is independent from the definition of QoS
   NSLP.  Existing QOSMs do not specify how to use QoS NSLP to signal
   for them. Therefore, we need to define the QOSM specific signaling
   functions, as [RMD-QOSM], [INTSERV-QOSM], and [Y.1541-QOSM].

   A QOSM SHOULD include the following information:

   - Role of QNEs in this QOSM:
   E.g. location, frequency, statefulness...
   - QSPEC Definition:
   A QOSM SHOULD specify the QSPEC, including QSPEC parameters.
   Furthermore it needs to explain how QSPEC parameters not used in this
   QOSM are mapped onto parameters defined therein.
   - Message Format
   QSPEC objects to be carried in RESERVE, QUERY RESPONSE and NOTIFY
   - State Management
   It describes how QSPEC info is treated and interpreted in the
   RMF and QOSM specific processing. E.g.
   admission control, scheduling, policy control, QoS parameter
   accumulation (e.g. delay).
   - Operation and Sequence of Events
   Usage of QoS-NSLP messages to signal the QOSM.

Appendix B: Mapping of QoS Desired, QoS Available and QoS Reserved of
NSIS onto AdSpec, TSpec and RSpec of RSVP IntServ

   The union of QoS Desired, QoS Available and QoS Reserved can provide
   all functionality of the objects specified in RSVP IntServ, however
   it is difficult to provide an exact mapping.

   In RSVP, the Sender TSpec specifies the traffic an application is
   going to send (e.g. token bucket). The AdSpec can collect path
   characteristics (e.g. delay). Both are issued by the sender. The
   receiver sends the FlowSpec which includes a Receiver TSpec
   describing the resources reserved using the same parameters as the
   Sender TSpec, as well as a RSpec which provides additional IntServ

Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>           [Page 43]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005


   QoS Model specific parameters, e.g. Rate and Slack.

   The RSVP TSpec/AdSpec/RSpec seem quite tailored to receiver-initiated
   signaling employed by RSVP, and the IntServ QoS Model. E.g. to the
   knowledge of the authors it is not possible for the sender to specify
   a desired maximum delay except implicitly and mutably by seeding the
   AdSpec accordingly. Likewise, the RSpec is only meaningfully sent in
   the receiver-issued RSVP RESERVE message. For this reason our
   discussion at this point leads us to a slightly different mapping of
   necessary functionality to objects, which should result in more
   flexible signaling models.

Appendix C: Main Changes Since Last Version & Open Issues

C.1 Main Changes Since Version -04

   Version -05:

   - fixed <QOSM hops> in Sec. 5 and 6.2 as discussed at Interim Meeting
   - discarded QSPEC parameter <M> (Maximum packet size) since MTU
     discovery is expected to be handled by procedure currently defined
     by PMTUD WG
   - added "container QSPEC parameter" in Sec. 6.1 to augment encoding
     efficiency
   - added the 'tunneled QSPEC parameter flag' to Sections 5 and 6
   - revised Section 6.2.2 on SIP priorities
   - added QSPEC procedures for "RSVP-style reservation", resource
     queries and bidirectional reservations in Sec. 7.1
   - reworked Section 7.2

   Version -06:

   - defined "not-supported flag" and "tunneled parameter flag"
     (subsumes "optional parameter flag")
   - defined "error flag" for error handling
   - updated bit error rate (BER) parameter to packet loss ratio (PLR)
     parameter
   - added packet error ratio (PER) parameter
   - coding checked by independent expert
   - coding updated to include RE flags in QSPEC objects and MENT flags
     in QSPEC parameters

   Version -07:

   - added text (from David Black) on DiffServ QSPEC example in Section
     6
   - re-numbered QSPEC parameter IDs to start with 0 (Section 7)
   - expanded IANA Considerations Section 9


Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>           [Page 44]

Internet Draft          QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template            October 2005


C.2 Open Issues

   - placement of packet_classifier in QSPEC or QoS-NSLP?

Intellectual Property Statement

   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.

Disclaimer of Validity

   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 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.

Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).  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.

Ash, et. al.         <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-07.txt>           [Page 45]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/