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

Versions: (draft-hamer-rap-session-auth) 00 01 02 03 RFC 3521

RAP Working Group                                            L-N. Hamer
Internet Draft                                                  B. Gage
Document: draft-ietf-rap-session-auth-03.txt            Nortel Networks

                                                             Hugh Shieh
                                                          AT&T Wireless

Category: Informational                                   February 2002



         Framework for session set-up with media authorization





Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 [1].

   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

   The distribution of this memo is unlimited. This memo is filed as
   <draft-ietf-rap-session-auth-03.txt>, and expires August 31, 2002.
   Please send comments to the authors.

Abstract

   Establishing multimedia streams must take into account requirements
   for end-to-end QoS, authorization of network resource usage and
   accurate accounting for resources used. During session set up,
   policies may be enforced to ensure that the media streams being
   requested lie within the bounds of the service profile established
   for the requesting host. Similarly, when a host requests resources
   to provide a certain QoS for a packet flow, policies may be enforced
   to ensure that the required resources lie within the bounds of the
   resource profile established for the requesting host.

   To prevent fraud and to ensure accurate billing, we describe various
   scenarios and mechanisms that provide the linkage required to verify
   that the resources being used to provide a requested QoS are in-line
   with the media streams requested (and authorized) for the session.




Hamer, Gage, Shieh       Expires August 2002                   [Page 1]

Internet Draft                                             February 2002
         Framework for session set-up with media authorization





















































Hamer, Gage, Shieh       Expires August 2002                   [Page 2]

Internet Draft                                             February 2002
         Framework for session set-up with media authorization

Contents

   Status of this Memo................................................1
   Abstract...........................................................1
   Contents...........................................................3
   1. Introduction....................................................4
   2. Conventions used in this document...............................5
   3. Definition of terms.............................................6
   4. The Coupled Model...............................................8
   4.1   Coupled Model Message Flows..................................8
   4.2   Coupled Model Authorization Token...........................10
   4.3   Coupled Model Protocol Impacts..............................10
   5. The Associated Model <<using One Policy Server>>...............11
   5.1   Associated Model Message Flows <<using One Policy Server>>..12
   5.2   Associated Model Authorization Token <<using One PS>>.......13
   5.3   Associated Model Protocol Impacts <<using One PS>>..........13
   5.4   Associated Model Network Impacts <<using One PS>>...........14
   6. The Associated Model <<using Two Policy Servers>>..............15
   6.1   Associated Model Message Flows <<using Two PS>>.............16
   6.2   Associated Model Authorization Token <<using Two PS>>.......17
   6.3   Associated Model Protocol Impacts <<using Two PS>>..........18
   7. The Non-Associated Model.......................................19
   7.1   Non-Associated Model Call Flow..............................19
   7.2   Non-Associated Model Authorization Token....................21
   7.3   Non-Associated Model Protocol Impacts.......................21
   8. Conclusions....................................................22
   9. Security Considerations........................................23
   References........................................................23
   Acknowledgments...................................................24
   Authors' Addresses................................................24
   Full Copyright Statement..........................................25
   Expiration Date...................................................25




















Hamer, Gage, Shieh       Expires August 2002                   [Page 3]

Internet Draft                                             February 2002
         Framework for session set-up with media authorization

1. Introduction

   Establishing multimedia streams must take into account requirements
   for end-to-end QoS, authorization of network resource usage and
   accurate accounting for resources used. During session set up,
   policies may be enforced to ensure that the media streams being
   requested lie within the bounds of the service profile established
   for the requesting host. Similarly, when a host requests resources
   to provide a certain QoS for a packet flow, policies may be enforced
   to ensure that the required resources lie within the bounds of the
   resource profile established for the requesting host.

   Mechanisms have been defined through which end hosts can use a
   session control protocol (e.g. SIP [9]) to indicate that QoS
   requirements must be met in order to successfully set up a session.
   However, a separate protocol (e.g. RSVP [10]) is used to request the
   resources required to meet the end-to-end QoS of the media stream.
   To prevent fraud and to ensure accurate billing, some linkage is
   required to verify that the resources being used to provide the
   requested QoS are in-line with the media streams requested (and
   authorized) for the session.

   This document describes such a linkage through use of a "token" that
   provides capabilities similar to that of a gate in [7] and of a
   ticket in the push model of [2]. The token is generated by a policy
   server (or a session manager) and is transparently relayed through
   the end host to the edge router where it is used as part of the
   policy-controlled flow admission process.

   In some environments, authorization of media streams can exploit the
   fact that pre-established relationships exist between elements of
   the network (e.g. session managers, edge routers, policy servers and
   end hosts). In other environments, however, such pre-established
   relationships may not exist either due to the complexity of creating
   these associations a priori (e.g. in a network with many elements),
   or due to the different business entities involved (e.g. service
   provider and access provider), or due to the dynamic nature of these
   associations (e.g. in a mobile environment).

   In this document, we describe these various scenarios and the
   mechanisms used for exchanging information between network elements
   in order to authorize the use of resources for a service and to co-
   ordinate actions between the session and resource management
   entities. Specific extensions to session control protocols (e.g. SIP
   [9], H.323), to resource reservation protocols (e.g. RSVP [6],
   YESSIR) and to policy managements protocols (e.g. COPS-PR [12],
   COPS-RSVP [5]) required to realize these scenarios and mechanisms
   are beyond the scope of this document.




Hamer, Gage, Shieh       Expires August 2002                   [Page 4]

Internet Draft                                             February 2002
         Framework for session set-up with media authorization

   For clarity, this document will illustrate the media authorization
   concepts using SIP for session signalling, RSVP for resource
   reservation and COPS for interaction with the policy servers. Note,
   however, that the framework could be applied to a multimedia
   services scenario using different signalling protocols.



2. 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 [1].







































Hamer, Gage, Shieh       Expires August 2002                   [Page 5]

Internet Draft                                             February 2002
         Framework for session set-up with media authorization

3. Definition of terms

   Figure 1 introduces a generic model for session establishment, QoS
   and policy enforcement.


                  +-------------------------------------+   +---+
                  | SCD - Service Control District      |   |   |
                  | +-----------------------+ +--------+|   | I |
                  | |Session management     | |Policy  ||   | n |
                  | |server                 | |Server  ||   | t |
                  | | +---------+ +------+  | |  +----+||<->| e |
                  | | |SIP Proxy| |PEP   |<-|-|->|PDP |||   | r |
                  | | +---------+ +------+  | |  +----+||   | - |
                  | +-----------------------+ +--------+|   | c |
                  |                                     |   | o |
                  +-------------------------------------+   | n |
                                                            | n |
                  +-------------------------------------+   | e |
                  | RCD - Resource Control District     |   | c |
                  |                                     |   | t |
                  |                                     |   | i |
                  |  +------------+    +-------------+  |   | n |
   +----------+   |  |Edge Router |    |Policy Server|  |   | g |
   | End      |   |  |            |    |             |  |   |   |
   | Host     |   |  |+----------+|    |+----------+ |  |   | N |
   |+--------+|   |  ||RSVP Agent||    ||PDP       | |  |   | e |
   ||RSVP    ||<->|  |+----------+|<-->|+----------+ |  |<->| t |
   ||Client  ||   |  |+----------+|    |             |  |   | w |
   |+--------+|   |  || PEP      ||    |             |  |   | o |
   ||SIP User||   |  |+----------+|    |             |  |   | r |
   ||Agent   ||   |  +------------+    +-------------+  |   | k |
   |+--------+|   |                                     |   |   |
   +----------+   +-------------------------------------+   +---+


   Figure 1: Generic media authorization network model


   EH - End Host: The End Host is a device used by a subscriber to
   access network services. The End Host includes a client for
   requesting network services (e.g. through SIP) and a client for
   requesting network resources (e.g. through RSVP).

   ER - Edge Router: The Edge Router is a network element connecting
   the end host to the rest of the Resource Control District. The Edge
   Router contains a PEP to enforce policies related to resource usage
   in the Resource Control District by the End Host. It also contains a
   signalling agent (e.g. for RSVP) for handling resource reservation
   requests from the End Host.


Hamer, Gage, Shieh       Expires August 2002                   [Page 6]

Internet Draft                                             February 2002
         Framework for session set-up with media authorization

   PDP - Policy Decision Point: The PDP is a logical entity located in
   the Policy Server that is responsible for authorizing or denying
   access to services and/or resources.

   PEP - Policy Enforcement Point: The PEP is a logical entity that
   enforces policy decisions made by the PDP. Note that other PEPs may
   reside in other network elements not shown in the model of Figure 1,
   however they will not be discussed in this document.

   PS - Policy Server: The Policy Server is a network element that
   includes a PDP. Note that there may be a PS in the Service Control
   District to control use of services and there may be a separate PS
   in the Resource Control District to control use of resources along
   the packet forwarding path. Note also that network topology may
   require multiple Policy Servers within either district, however they
   provide consistent policy decisions to offer the appearance of a
   single PDP in each district.

   RCD - Resource Control District: The Resource Control District is a
   logical grouping of elements that provide connectivity along the
   packet forwarding paths to and from an End Host. The RCD contains ER
   and PS entities whose responsibilities include management of
   resources along the packet forwarding paths.

   SCD - Service Control District: The Service Control District is a
   logical grouping of elements that offer applications and content to
   subscribers of their services. The Session Management Server resides
   in the SCD along with a PS.

   SMS - Session Management Server: The Session Management Server is a
   network element providing session management services (e.g.
   telephony call control).  The Session Management Server contains a
   PEP to enforce policies related to use of services by the End Host.
   It also contains a signalling agent or proxy (e.g. for SIP) for
   handling service requests from the End Host.

















Hamer, Gage, Shieh       Expires August 2002                   [Page 7]

Internet Draft                                             February 2002
         Framework for session set-up with media authorization

4. The Coupled Model

   In some environments, a pre-established trust relationship exists
   between elements of the network (e.g. session managers, edge
   routers, policy servers and end hosts). We refer to this as the
   "coupled model", indicating the tight relationship between entities
   that is presumed. The key aspects of this scenario are the
   following:

   -  Policy decisions, including media authorization, are made by a
      single Policy Server.

   -  The Edge Router, Session Manager and Policy Server involved in
      establishing the session are known a priori. For example, the End
      Host may be configured to use a Session Manager associated with
      the Edge Router to which the EH is connected.

   -  There are pre-defined trust relationships between the SMS and the
      PS and between the ER and the PS.



                                                +--------+
   +------+                                     |        |
   |      |   1     +--------------------+    2 |        |
   |      |-------->| Session Management |----->|        |
   |      |<--------|      Server        |<-----|        |
   |      |   4     +--------------------+    3 |        |
   | End  |                                     | Policy |
   | Host |                                     | Server |
   |      |                                     |        |
   |      |   5     +--------------------+   6  |        |
   |      |-------->|        Edge        |----->|        |
   |      |<--------|       Router       |<-----|        |
   |      |   8     +--------------------+    7 |        |
   +------+                                     |        |
                                                +--------+

   Figure 2: The Coupled Model



4.1   Coupled Model Message Flows

   In this model, it is assumed that there is one Policy Server serving
   both the Service Control and Resource Control districts and that
   there are pre-defined trust relationships between the PS and SMS and
   between the PS and ER. Communications between these entities are
   then possible as described below. Only the originating side flows
   are described for simplicity. The same concepts apply to the
   terminating side.

Hamer, Gage, Shieh       Expires August 2002                   [Page 8]

Internet Draft                                             February 2002
         Framework for session set-up with media authorization


   1. The End Host issues a session set-up request (e.g. SIP INVITE) to
      the Session Manager indicating, among other things, the media
      streams to be used in the session. As part of this step, the End
      Host may authenticate itself to the Session Manager.

   2. The Session Manager, possibly after waiting for negotiation of
      the media streams to be completed, sends a policy decision
      request (e.g. COPS REQ) to the Policy Server in order to
      determine if the session set-up request should be allowed to
      proceed.

   3. The Policy Server sends a decision (e.g. COPS DEC) to the Session
      Manager, possibly after modifying the parameters of the media to
      be used. Included in this response is a "token" that can
      subsequently be used by the Policy Server to identify the session
      and the media it has authorized.

   4. The Session Manager sends a response to the End Host (e.g. SIP
      200 or 183) indicating that session set-up is complete or is
      progressing. Included in this response is a description of the
      negotiated media along with the token from the Policy Server.

   5. The End Host issues a request (e.g. RSVP PATH) to reserve the
      resources necessary to provide the required QoS for the media
      stream. Included in this request is the token from the Policy
      Server provided via the Session Manager.

   6. The Edge Router intercepts the reservation request and sends a
      policy decision request (e.g. COPS REQ) to the Policy Server in
      order to determine if the resource reservation request should be
      allowed to proceed. Included in this request is the token from
      the Policy Server provided by the End Host. The Policy Server
      uses this token to correlate the request for resources with the
      media authorization previously provided to the Session Manager.

   7. The Policy Server sends a decision (e.g. COPS DEC) to the Edge
      Router, possibly after modifying the parameters of the resources
      to be reserved.

   8. The Edge Router, possibly after waiting for end-to-end
      negotiation for resources to be completed, sends a response to
      the End Host (e.g. RSVP RESV) indicating that resource
      reservation is complete or is progressing.








Hamer, Gage, Shieh       Expires August 2002                   [Page 9]

Internet Draft                                             February 2002
         Framework for session set-up with media authorization

4.2   Coupled Model Authorization Token

   In the Coupled Model, the Policy Server is the only network entity
   that needs to interpret the contents of the token. Therefore, in
   this model, the contents of the token are implementation dependent.
   Since the End Host is assumed to be untrusted, the Policy Server
   should take measures to ensure that the integrity of the token is
   preserved in transit; the exact mechanisms to be used are also
   implementation dependent.



4.3   Coupled Model Protocol Impacts

   The use of a media authorization token in the Coupled Model requires
   the addition of new fields to several protocols:

   -  Resource reservation protocol. A new protocol field or object
      must be added to the resource reservation protocol to
      transparently transport the token from the End Host to the Edge
      Router. The content and internal structure (if any) of this
      object should be opaque to the resource reservation protocol. For
      example, this is achieved in RSVP with the Policy Data object
      defined in [11].

   -  Policy management protocol. A new protocol field or object must
      be added to the policy management protocol to transparently
      transport the token from the Policy Server to the Session
      Management Server and from the Edge Router to the Policy Server.
      The content and internal structure (if any) of this object should
      be opaque to the policy management protocol. For example, this is
      achieved in COPS-RSVP with the Policy Data object defined in
      [11].

   -  Session management protocol. A new protocol field or object must
      be added to the session management protocol to transparently
      transport the media authorization token from the Session
      Management Server to the End Host. The content and internal
      structure (if any) of this object should be opaque to the session
      management protocol.












Hamer, Gage, Shieh       Expires August 2002                  [Page 10]

Internet Draft                                             February 2002
         Framework for session set-up with media authorization


5. The Associated Model <<using One Policy Server>>

   In this scenario, there are multiple instances of the Session
   Management Servers, Edge Routers and Policy Servers. This leads to a
   network of sufficient complexity that it precludes distributing
   knowledge of network topology to all network entities. The key
   aspects of this scenario are the following:

   -  Policy decisions, including media authorization, are made by the
      same Policy Server for both the Session Manager and the Edge
      Router. However, the Policy Server may change on per-transaction
      basis.

   -  The Edge Router, Session Manager and Policy Server involved in
      establishing the session are not known a priori. For example, the
      End Host may be dynamically configured to use one of a pool of
      Session Managers and each of the Session Managers may be
      statically configured to use one of a pool of Policy Servers.

      In another example, the End Host may be mobile and continually
      changing the Edge Router that its point of attachment uses to
      communicate with the rest of the network.

   -  There are pre-defined trust relationships between the SMS and the
      PS and between the ER and the PS.

                      +---------------------+    +---------+
                      |       SMS 'n'       |<-->|  PS 'm' |
                      +---------------------+   +--------+ |
   +------+                  : : :              |        | |
   |      |   1     +--------------------+    2 |        | |
   |      |-------->| Session Management |----->|        | |
   |      |<--------|    Server 1        |<-----|        | |
   |      |   4     +--------------------+    3 |        | |
   | End  |                                     | Policy | |
   | Host |           +--------------------+    | Server | |
   |      |           |      ER 'n'        |    |   1    | |
   |      |   5     +-+------------------+ |    |        | |
   |      |-------->|        Edge        |-+  6 |        | |
   |      |<--------|       Router       |----->|        | |
   |      |   8     +--------------------+    7 |        | |
   +------+                               <-----|        |-+
                                                +--------+

   Figure 3: The Associated Model using One Policy Server






Hamer, Gage, Shieh       Expires August 2002                  [Page 11]

Internet Draft                                             February 2002
         Framework for session set-up with media authorization

5.1   Associated Model Message Flows <<using One Policy Server>>

   In this model, it is assumed that a Policy Server can make decisions
   for both the Service Control and Resource Control districts and that
   there are pre-defined trust relationships between the PS and SMS and
   between the PS and ER. Communications between these entities are
   then possible as described below. Only the originating side flows
   are described for simplicity. The same concepts apply to the
   terminating side.


   1. The End Host issues a session set-up request (e.g. SIP INVITE) to
      the Session Manager indicating, among other things, the media
      streams to be used in the session. As part of this step, the End
      Host may authenticate itself to the Session Manager.

   2. The Session Manager, possibly after waiting for negotiation of
      the media streams to be completed, sends a policy decision
      request (e.g. COPS REQ) to the Policy Server in order to
      determine if the session set-up request should be allowed to
      proceed.

   3. The Policy Server sends a decision (e.g. COPS DEC) to the Session
      Manager, possibly after modifying the parameters of the media to
      be used. Included in this response is a "token" that can
      subsequently be used by the Policy Server to identify the session
      and the media it has authorized.

   4. The Session Manager sends a response to the End Host (e.g. SIP
      200 or 183) indicating that session set-up is complete or is
      progressing. Included in this response is a description of the
      negotiated media along with the token from the Policy Server.

   5. The End Host issues a request (e.g. RSVP PATH) to reserve the
      resources necessary to provide the required QoS for the media
      stream. Included in this request is the token from the Policy
      Server provided via the Session Manager.

   6. The Edge Router intercepts the reservation request and inspects
      the token to learn which Policy Server authorized the media. It
      then sends a policy decision request to that Policy Server in
      order to determine if the resource reservation request should be
      allowed to proceed. Included in this request is the token from
      the Policy Server provided by the End Host. The Policy Server
      uses this token to correlate the request for resources with the
      media authorization previously provided to the Session Manager.

   7. The Policy Server sends a decision to the Edge Router, possibly
      after modifying the parameters of the resources to be reserved.



Hamer, Gage, Shieh       Expires August 2002                  [Page 12]

Internet Draft                                             February 2002
         Framework for session set-up with media authorization

   8. The Edge Router, possibly after waiting for end-to-end
      negotiation for resources to be completed, sends a response to
      the End Host (e.g. RSVP RESV) indicating that resource
      reservation is complete or is progressing.



5.2   Associated Model Authorization Token <<using One Policy Server>>

   Since the ER does not know which SMS and PS are involved in session
   establishment, the token must include:

   -  A correlation identifier. This is information that the Policy
      Server can use to correlate the resource reservation request with
      the media authorized during session set up. The Policy Server is
      the only network entity that needs to interpret the contents of
      the correlation identifier therefore, in this model, the contents
      of the correlation identifier are implementation dependent. Since
      the End Host is assumed to be untrusted, the Policy Server should
      take measures to ensure that the integrity of the correlation
      identifier is preserved in transit; the exact mechanisms to be
      used are also implementation dependent.

   -  The identity of the authorizing entity. This information is used
      by the Edge Router to determine which Policy Server should be
      used to solicit resource policy decisions.

   In some environments, an Edge Router may have no means for
   determining if the identity refers to a legitimate Policy Server
   within its domain. In order to protect against redirection of
   authorization requests to a bogus authorizing entity, the token
   should also include:

   -  An authentication signature. This signature is calculated over
      all other fields of the token using an agreed mechanism. The Edge
      Router must be able to verify the signature using credentials of
      the signer to confirm a trust relationship. The mechanism used by
      the Edge Router is beyond the scope of this document.

   The detailed semantics of an example token are defined in [6].


5.3   Associated Model Protocol Impacts <<using One Policy Server>>

   The use of a media authorization token in this version of the
   Associated Model requires the addition of new fields to several
   protocols:

   -  Resource reservation protocol. A new protocol field or object
      must be added to the resource reservation protocol to
      transparently transport the token from the End Host to the Edge

Hamer, Gage, Shieh       Expires August 2002                  [Page 13]

Internet Draft                                             February 2002
         Framework for session set-up with media authorization

      Router. The content and internal structure of this object must be
      specified so that the Edge Router can distinguish between the
      elements of the token described in Section 5.2. For example, this
      is achieved in RSVP with the Policy Data object defined in [11].

   -  Policy management protocol. A new protocol field or object must
      be added to the policy management protocol to transparently
      transport the token -- or at least the correlation identifier --
      from the Edge Router to the Policy Server. The content and
      internal structure of this object should be opaque to the policy
      management protocol. For example, this is achieved in COPS-RSVP
      with the Policy Data object defined in [11].

   -  Session management protocol. A new protocol field or object must
      be added to the session management protocol to transparently
      transport the media authorization token from the Session
      Management Server to the End Host. The content and internal
      structure of this object should be opaque to the session
      management protocol.


5.4   Associated Model Network Impacts <<using One Policy Server>>

   The use of a media authorization token in this version of the
   Associated Model requires that the Edge Router inspect the token to
   learn which Policy Server authorized the media. In some
   environments, it may not be possible for the Edge Router to perform
   this function; in these cases, an Associated Model using Two Policy
   Servers (section 6) is required.

   This version of the Associated Model also requires that the Edge
   Router interact with multiple Policy Servers. Policy decisions are
   made by the same Policy Server for both the Session Manager and the
   Edge Router, however the Policy Server may change on per-transaction
   basis. Note that COPS does not currently allow PEPs to change PDP on
   a per-transaction basis. To use this model, a new framework and
   protocol must be defined for policy decision outsourcing. This model
   also implies that the Policy Servers are able to interact and/or
   make decisions for the Edge Router in a consistent manner (e.g. as
   though there is only a single RCD Policy Server). How this is
   accomplished is beyond the scope of this document.











Hamer, Gage, Shieh       Expires August 2002                  [Page 14]

Internet Draft                                             February 2002
         Framework for session set-up with media authorization

   6. The Associated Model <<using Two Policy Servers>>

   In this scenario, there are multiple instances of the Session
   Management Servers, Edge Routers and Policy Servers. This leads to a
   network of sufficient complexity that it precludes distributing
   knowledge of network topology to all network entities. The key
   aspects of this scenario are the following:

   -  Policy decisions, including media authorization, are made by
      Policy Servers.

   -  There is a PS in the Resource Control District that is separate
      from the PS in the Session Control District.

   -  The Edge Router, Session Manager and Policy Servers involved in
      establishing the session are not known a priori. For example, the
      End Host may be dynamically configured to use one of a pool of
      Session Managers or the End Host may be mobile and continually
      changing the Edge Router that it uses to communicate with the
      rest of the network.

   -  There is a pre-defined trust relationship between the SMS and the
      SCD PS.

   -  There is a pre-defined trust relationship between the ER and the
      RCD PS.

   -  There is a pre-defined trust relationship between the RCD and SCD
      Policy Servers.


                      +--------------------+    +--------+
   +------+           |       SMS ænÆ      |    |        |
   |      |   1     +-+------------------+ |    |  SCD   |
   |      |-------->| Session Management |-+  2 | Policy |
   |      |<--------|      Server        |----->| Server |
   |      |   4     +--------------------+<-----|        |
   | End  |                                   3 +--------+
   |      |                                      7 ^  |
   | Host |           +--------------------+       |  v 8
   |      |           |       ER 'n'       |    +--------+
   |      |   5     +-+------------------+ |    |        |
   |      |-------->|        Edge        |-+  6 |  RCD   |
   |      |<--------|       Router       |----->| Policy |
   |      |   10    +--------------------+<--- -| Server |
   +------+                                   9 |        |
                                                +--------+

   Figure 4: The Associated Model using Two Policy Servers



Hamer, Gage, Shieh       Expires August 2002                  [Page 15]

Internet Draft                                             February 2002
         Framework for session set-up with media authorization


6.1   Associated Model Message Flows <<using Two Policy Servers>>

   In this model, it is assumed that there is one Policy Server for the
   Service Control District and a different Policy Server for the
   Resource Control District. There are pre-defined trust relationships
   between the SCD PS and SMS, between the RCD PS and ER and between
   the RCD and SCD Policy Servers. Communications between these
   entities are then possible as described below. Only the originating
   side flows are described for simplicity. The same concepts apply to
   the terminating side.

   1. The End Host issues a session set-up request (e.g. SIP INVITE) to
      the Session Manager indicating, among other things, the media
      streams to be used in the session. As part of this step, the End
      Host may authenticate itself to the Session Manager.

   2. The Session Manager, possibly after waiting for negotiation of
      the media streams to be completed, sends a policy decision
      request (e.g. COPS REQ) to the SCD Policy Server in order to
      determine if the session set-up request should be allowed to
      proceed.

   3. The SCD Policy Server sends a decision (e.g. COPS DEC) to the
      Session Manager, possibly after modifying the parameters of the
      media to be used. Included in this response is a "token" that can
      subsequently be used by the SCD Policy Server to identify the
      session and the media it has authorized.

   4. The Session Manager sends a response to the End Host (e.g. SIP
      200 or 183) indicating that session set-up is complete or is
      progressing. Included in this response is a description of the
      negotiated media along with the token from the SCD Policy Server.

   5. The End Host issues a request (e.g. RSVP PATH) to reserve the
      resources necessary to provide the required QoS for the media
      stream. Included in this request is the token from the SCD Policy
      Server provided via the Session Manager.

   6. The Edge Router intercepts the reservation request and sends a
      policy decision request (e.g. COPS REQ) to the RCD Policy Server
      in order to determine if the resource reservation request should
      be allowed to proceed. Included in this request is the token from
      the SCD Policy Server provided by the End Host.

   7. The RCD Policy Server uses this token to learn which SCD Policy
      Server authorized the media. It then sends an authorization
      request [3] to that SCD Policy Server in order to determine if
      the resource reservation request should be allowed to proceed.
      Included in this request is the token from the SCD Policy Server
      provided by the End Host.

Hamer, Gage, Shieh       Expires August 2002                  [Page 16]

Internet Draft                                             February 2002
         Framework for session set-up with media authorization


   8. The SCD Policy Server uses this token to correlate the request
      for resources with the media authorization previously provided to
      the Session Manager. The SCD Policy Server sends a decision [3]
      to the RCD Policy Server on whether the requested resources are
      within the bounds authorized by the SCD Policy Server.

   9. The RCD Policy Server sends a decision (e.g. COPS DEC) to the
      Edge Router, possibly after modifying the parameters of the
      resources to be reserved.

   10. The Edge Router, possibly after waiting for end-to-end
      negotiation for resources to be completed, sends a response to
      the End Host (e.g. RSVP RESV) indicating that resource
      reservation is complete or is progressing



6.2   Associated Model Authorization Token <<using Two Policy Servers>>

   Since the RCD Policy Server does not know which SMS and SCD PS are
   involved in session establishment, the token must include:

   -  A correlation identifier. This is information that the SCD Policy
      Server can use to correlate the resource reservation request with
      the media authorized during session set up. The SCD Policy Server
      is the only network entity that needs to interpret the contents
      of the correlation identifier therefore, in this model, the
      contents of the correlation identifier are implementation
      dependent. Since the End Host is assumed to be untrusted, the SCD
      Policy Server should take measures to ensure that the integrity
      of the correlation identifier is preserved in transit; the exact
      mechanisms to be used are also implementation dependent.

   -  The identity of the authorizing entity. This information is used
      by the RCD Policy Server to determine which SCD Policy Server
      should be used to verify the contents of the resource reservation
      request.

   In some environments, an RCD Policy Server may have no means for
   determining if the identity refers to a legitimate SCD Policy
   Server. In order to protect against redirection of authorization
   requests to a bogus authorizing entity, the token should include:

   -  An authentication signature. This signature is calculated over
      all other fields of the token using an agreed mechanism. The RCD
      Policy Server must be able to verify the signature using
      credentials of the signer to confirm a trust relationship. The
      mechanism used by the RCD Policy Server is beyond the scope of
      this document.


Hamer, Gage, Shieh       Expires August 2002                  [Page 17]

Internet Draft                                             February 2002
         Framework for session set-up with media authorization


   Note that the information in this token is the same as that in
   Section 5.2 for the "One Policy Server" scenario.

   The detailed semantics of an example token are defined in [6].


6.3   Associated Model Protocol Impacts <<using Two Policy Servers>>

   The use of a media authorization token in this version of the
   Associated Model requires the addition of new fields to several
   protocols:

   -  Resource reservation protocol. A new protocol field or object
      must be added to the resource reservation protocol to
      transparently transport the token from the End Host to the Edge
      Router. The content and internal structure of this object should
      be opaque to the resource reservation protocol. For example, this
      is achieved in RSVP with the Policy Data object defined in [11].


   -  Policy management protocol. A new protocol field or object must
      be added to the policy management protocol to transport the token
      from the SCD Policy Server to the Session Management Server and
      from the Edge Router to the RCD Policy Server. The content and
      internal structure of this object must be specified so that the
      Policy Servers can distinguish between the elements of the token
      described in Section 6.2. For example, this is achieved in COPS-
      RSVP with the Policy Data object defined in [11].

   -  Session management protocol. A new protocol field or object must
      be added to the session management protocol to transparently
      transport the media authorization token from the Session
      Management Server to the End Host. The content and internal
      structure of this object should be opaque to the session
      management protocol.

   Note that these impacts are the same as those discussed in Section
   5.3 for the "One Policy Server" scenario. However the use of two
   Policy Servers has one additional impact:

   -  Authorization protocol. A new protocol field or object must be
      added to the authorization protocol to transport the token from
      the RCD Policy Server to the SCD Policy Server. The content and
      internal structure of this object must be specified so that the
      Policy Servers can distinguish between the elements of the token
      described in Section 6.2.





Hamer, Gage, Shieh       Expires August 2002                  [Page 18]

Internet Draft                                             February 2002
         Framework for session set-up with media authorization

7. The Non-Associated Model

   In this scenario, the Session Management Servers and Edge Routers
   are associated with different Policy Servers, the network entities
   do not have a priori knowledge of the topology of the network and
   there are no pre-established trust relationships between entities in
   the Resource Control District and entities in the Service Control
   District. The keys aspects of this scenario are the following:

   -  Policy decisions, including media authorization, are made by
      Policy Servers.

   -  The PS in the Resource Control District is separate from the PS
      in the Session Control District.

   -  There is a pre-defined trust relationship between the SMS and the
      SCD PS.

   -  There is a pre-defined trust relationship between the ER and the
      RCD PS.

   -  There are no pre-defined trust relationships between the ER and
      SMS or between the RCD and SCD Policy Servers.



                                                +--------+
   +------+                                     |        |
   |      |   1     +--------------------+    2 |  SCD   |
   |      |-------->| Session Management |----->| Policy |
   |      |<--------|      Server        |<-----| Server |
   |      |   4     +--------------------+    3 |        |
   | End  |                                     +--------+
   | Host |
   |      |                                     +--------+
   |      |   5     +--------------------+   6  |        |
   |      |-------->|        Edge        |----->|  RCD   |
   |      |<--------|       Router       |<-----| Policy |
   |      |   8     +--------------------+    7 | Server |
   +------+                                     |        |
                                                +--------+

   Figure 5: The Non-Associated Model



7.1   Non-Associated Model Call Flow

   In this model it is assumed that the policy servers make independent
   decisions for their respective districts, obviating the need for
   information exchange between policy servers. This model also enables

Hamer, Gage, Shieh       Expires August 2002                  [Page 19]

Internet Draft                                             February 2002
         Framework for session set-up with media authorization

   session authorization when communication between policy servers is
   not possible for various reasons. It may also be used as a means to
   speed up session setup and still ensure proper authorization is
   performed.

   This model does not preclude the possibility that the policy servers
   may communicate at other times for other purposes (e.g. exchange of
   accounting information).

   Communications between network entities in this model is described
   below. Only the originating side flows are described for simplicity.
   The same concepts apply to the terminating side.

   1. The End Host issues a session set-up request (e.g. SIP INVITE) to
      the Session Manager indicating, among other things, the media
      streams to be used in the session. As part of this step, the End
      Host may authenticate itself to the Session Manager.

   2. The Session Manager, possibly after waiting for negotiation of
      the media streams to be completed, sends a policy decision
      request (e.g. COPS REQ) to the SCD Policy Server in order to
      determine if the session set-up request should be allowed to
      proceed.

   3. The SCD Policy Server sends a decision (e.g. COPS DEC) to the
      Session Manager, possibly after modifying the parameters of the
      media to be used. Included in this response is a "token" that can
      subsequently be used by the RCD Policy Server to determine what
      media has been authorized.

   4. The Session Manager sends a response to the End Host (e.g. SIP
      200 or 183) indicating that session set-up is complete or is
      progressing. Included in this response is a description of the
      negotiated media along with the token from the SCD Policy Server.

   5. The End Host issues a request (e.g. RSVP PATH) to reserve the
      resources necessary to provide the required QoS for the media
      stream. Included in this request is the token from the SCD Policy
      Server provided via the Session Manager.

   6. The Edge Router intercepts the reservation request and sends a
      policy decision request (e.g. COPS REQ) to the RCD Policy Server
      in order to determine if the resource reservation request should
      be allowed to proceed. Included in this request is the token from
      the SCD Policy Server provided by the End Host.

   7. The RCD Policy Server uses this token to extract information
      about the media that was authorized by the SCD Policy Server. The
      RCD Policy Server uses this information in making its decision on
      whether the resource reservation should be allowed to proceed.


Hamer, Gage, Shieh       Expires August 2002                  [Page 20]

Internet Draft                                             February 2002
         Framework for session set-up with media authorization

      The Policy Server sends a decision (e.g. COPS DEC) to the Edge
      Router, possibly after modifying the parameters of the resources
      to be reserved.

   8. The Edge Router, possibly after waiting for end-to-end
      negotiation for resources to be completed, sends a response to
      the End Host (e.g. RSVP RESV) indicating that resource
      reservation is complete or is progressing



7.2   Non-Associated Model Authorization Token

   In this model, the token must contain sufficient information to
   allow the RCD Policy Server to make resource policy decisions
   autonomously from the SCD Policy Server. The token is created using
   information about the session received by the SMS. The information
   in the token must include:

   -  Calling party IP address and port number (e.g. from SDP "c="
      parameter).

   -  Called party IP address and port number (e.g. from SDP "c="
      parameter).

   -  The characteristics of (each of) the media stream(s) authorized
      for this session (e.g. codecs, maximum bandwidth from SDP "m="
      and/or "b=" parameters).

   -  The lifetime of (each of) the media stream(s) (e.g. from SDP "t="
      parameter).

   -  The authorization lifetime (e.g. the token should be valid for
      only a few seconds after the start time of the session).

   -  The identity of the authorizing entity to allow for validation of
      the token.

   -  An authentication signature used to prevent tampering with the
      token and to provide the credentials of the authorizing entity.
      This signature is calculated over all other fields of the token
      using an agreed mechanism. The RCD Policy Server must be able to
      verify the signature using credentials of the signer to confirm a
      trust relationship. The mechanism used by the RCD Policy Server
      is beyond the scope of this document.

   The detailed semantics of the token are defined in [6].

7.3   Non-Associated Model Protocol Impacts



Hamer, Gage, Shieh       Expires August 2002                  [Page 21]

Internet Draft                                             February 2002
         Framework for session set-up with media authorization

   The use of a media authorization token in the Non-Associated Model
   requires the addition of new fields to several protocols:

   -  Resource reservation protocol. A new protocol field or object
      must be added to the resource reservation protocol to
      transparently transport the token from the End Host to the Edge
      Router. The content and internal structure of this object should
      be opaque to the resource reservation protocol. For example, this
      is achieved in RSVP with the Policy Data object defined in [11].

   -  Policy management protocol. A new protocol field or object must
      be added to the policy management protocol to transport the token
      from the SCD Policy Server to the Session Management Server and
      from the Edge Router to the RCD Policy Server. The content and
      internal structure of this object must be specified so that the
      Policy Servers can distinguish between the elements of the token
      described in Section 7.2. For example, this is achieved in COPS-
      RSVP with the Policy Data object defined in [11].

   -  Session management protocol. A new protocol field or object must
      be added to the session management protocol to transparently
      transport the media authorization token from the Session
      Management Server to the End Host. The content and internal
      structure of this object should be opaque to the session
      management protocol.



8. Conclusions

   In this document we have defined three models for authorizing media
   during session establishment:

   -  The Coupled Model which assumes a priori knowledge of network
      topology and where pre-established trust relationships exist
      between network entities.

   -  The Associated Model where there are common or trusted policy
      servers but knowledge of the network topology is not known a
      priori.

   -  The Non-Associated Model where knowledge of the network topology
      is not known a priori, where there are different policy servers
      involved and where a trust relationship does not exist between
      the policy servers.

   The Associated Model is applicable to environments where the network
   elements involved in establishing a session have a pre-determined
   trust relationship but where their identities must be determined
   dynamically during session set up. The Non-Associated Model is
   applicable to environments where there is a complex network topology

Hamer, Gage, Shieh       Expires August 2002                  [Page 22]

Internet Draft                                             February 2002
         Framework for session set-up with media authorization

   and/or where trust relationships between domains do not exist (e.g.
   when they are different business entities).

   In any given network, one or more of these models may be applicable.
   Indeed, the model to be used may be chosen dynamically during
   session establishment based on knowledge of the end points involved
   in the call. In all cases, however, there is no need for the End
   Host, the Edge Router or the Session Management Server to understand
   or interpret the authorization token - to them it is an opaque
   protocol element that is simply copied from one container protocol
   to another.

   Finally, the framework defined in this document is extensible to any
   kind of session management protocol coupled to any one of a number
   of resource reservation and/or policy management protocols.


9. Security Considerations

   The purpose of this draft is to describe a mechanism for media
   authorization to prevent theft of service. It does not cover other
   possible security breaches such as IP spoofing.

   This draft assumes that trust relationships exist between various
   network entities, as described in each of the models. The means for
   establishing these relationships are beyond the scope of this
   document.

   For the authorization token to be effective, its integrity must be
   guaranteed as it passes through untrusted network entities such as
   the End Host. This can be achieved by using digital signatures.


References

   [1]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3",
        BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

   [2]  J. Vollbrecht et al., "AAA Authorization Framework", RFC 2904,
        August 2000.

   [3]  C. de Laat et al., "Generic AAA Architecture", RFC 2903, August
        2000.

   [4]  D. Durham et al., "The COPS (Common Open Policy Service)
        Protocol", RFC 2748, January 2000.

   [5]  S. Herzog et al., "COPS usage for RSVP", RFC 2749, January
        2000.



Hamer, Gage, Shieh       Expires August 2002                  [Page 23]

Internet Draft                                             February 2002
         Framework for session set-up with media authorization

   [6]  L. Hamer et al. "Session Authorization for RSVP", Internet-
        Draft, draft-ietf-rap-rsvp-authsession-02.txt, February 2002,
        Work in progress.

   [7]  "PacketCable Dynamic Quality of Service Specification",
        CableLabs, December 1999.
        http://www.packetcable.com/specs/pkt-sp-dqos-I01-991201.pdf

   [8]  M. Handley and V. Jacobson, "SDP: session description
        protocol," RFC 2327, Apr.1998.

   [9]  Handley, Schulzrinne, Schooler & Rosenberg, RFC 2543, "SIP:
        Session Initiation Protocol", March 1999.

   [10] R. Braden et al.,"Resource ReSerVation protocol (RSVP) --
        version 1 functional specification," RFC 2205, Sept.1997.

   [11] Herzog, S., "RSVP Extensions for Policy Control", RFC 2750,
        January 2000.

   [12]  K. Chan et al., "COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning ( COPS-PR
        )", RFC 3084, March 2001.

Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank to following people for their useful
   comments and suggestions related to this draft: Kwok Ho Chan, Doug
   Reeves, Sam Christie, Matt Broda, Yajun Liu, Brett Kosinski,
   Francois Audet, Bill Marshall, Diana Rawlins.


Authors' Addresses

   Louis-Nicolas Hamer
   Nortel Networks
   Ottawa, ON
   CANADA
   Email: nhamer@nortelnetworks.com

   Bill Gage
   Nortel Networks
   Ottawa, ON
   CANADA
   Email: gageb@nortelnetworks.com

   Hugh Shieh
   AT&T Wireless
   Redmond, WA
   USA
   Email: hugh.shieh@attws.com


Hamer, Gage, Shieh       Expires August 2002                  [Page 24]

Internet Draft                                             February 2002
         Framework for session set-up with media authorization




Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. This
   document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
   are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into.


Expiration Date

   This memo is filed as <draft-ietf-rap-session-auth-03.txt>, and
   expires August 31, 2002.




























Hamer, Gage, Shieh       Expires August 2002                  [Page 25]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/