[Docs] [txt|pdf] [draft-ietf-policy...] [Diff1] [Diff2]

PROPOSED STANDARD

Network Working Group                                            Y. Snir
Request for Comments: 3644                                    Y. Ramberg
Category: Standards Track                                  Cisco Systems
                                                            J. Strassner
                                                              Intelliden
                                                                R. Cohen
                                                               Ntear LLC
                                                                B. Moore
                                                                     IBM
                                                           November 2003


           Policy Quality of Service (QoS) Information Model

Status of this Memo

   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This document presents an object-oriented information model for
   representing Quality of Service (QoS) network management policies.
   This document is based on the IETF Policy Core Information Model and
   its extensions.  It defines an information model for QoS enforcement
   for differentiated and integrated services using policy.  It is
   important to note that this document defines an information model,
   which by definition is independent of any particular data storage
   mechanism and access protocol.















Snir, et al.                Standards Track                     [Page 1]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


Table of Contents

   1.   Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
        1.1.  The Process of QoS Policy Definition. . . . . . . . . .  5
        1.2.  Design Goals and Their Ramifications. . . . . . . . . .  8
              1.2.1.  Policy-Definition Oriented. . . . . . . . . . .  8
                      1.2.1.1.  Rule-based Modeling . . . . . . . . .  9
                      1.2.1.2.  Organize Information Hierarchically .  9
                      1.2.1.3.  Goal-Oriented Policy Definition . . . 10
              1.2.2. Policy Domain Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
                      1.2.2.1.  Model QoS Policy in a Device- and
                                Vendor-Independent Manner . . . . . . 11
                      1.2.2.2.  Use Roles for Mapping Policy to
                                Network Devices . . . . . . . . . . . 11
                      1.2.2.3.  Reusability . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
              1.2.3.  Enforceable Policy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
              1.2.4.  QPIM Covers Both Signaled And Provisioned QoS . 14
              1.2.5.  Interoperability for PDPs and Management
                      Applications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
        1.3.  Modeling Abstract QoS Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
        1.4.  Rule Hierarchy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
              1.4.1.  Use of Hierarchy Within Bandwidth Allocation
                      Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
              1.4.2.  Use of Rule Hierarchy to Describe Drop
                      Threshold Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
              1.4.3.  Restrictions of the Use of Hierarchy Within
                      QPIM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
        1.5.  Intended Audiences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   2.   Class Hierarchies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
        2.1.  Inheritance Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
        2.2.  Relationship Hierarchy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
   3.   QoS Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
        3.1.  Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
        3.2.  RSVP Policy Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
              3.2.1.  Example: Controlling COPS Stateless Decision. . 28
              3.2.2.  Example: Controlling the COPS Replace Decision. 29
        3.3.  Provisioning Policy Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
              3.3.1.  Admission Actions: Controlling Policers and
                      Shapers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
              3.3.2.  Controlling Markers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
              3.3.3.  Controlling Edge Policies - Examples. . . . . . 33
        3.4.  Per-Hop Behavior Actions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
              3.4.1.  Controlling Bandwidth and Delay . . . . . . . . 35
              3.4.2.  Congestion Control Actions. . . . . . . . . . . 35
              3.4.3.  Using Hierarchical Policies: Examples for PHB
                      Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
   4.   Traffic Profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
        4.1.  Provisioning Traffic Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38



Snir, et al.                Standards Track                     [Page 2]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


        4.2.  RSVP Traffic Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
   5.   Pre-Defined QoS-Related Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
   6.   QoS Related Values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
   7.   Class Definitions: Association Hierarchy. . . . . . . . . . . 44
        7.1.  The Association "QoSPolicyTrfcProfInAdmissionAction". . 44
              7.1.1.  The Reference "Antecedent". . . . . . . . . . . 44
              7.1.2.  The Reference "Dependent" . . . . . . . . . . . 44
        7.2.  The Association "PolicyConformAction" . . . . . . . . . 44
              7.2.1.  The Reference "Antecedent". . . . . . . . . . . 45
              7.2.2.  The Reference "Dependent" . . . . . . . . . . . 45
        7.3.  The Association "QoSPolicyExceedAction" . . . . . . . . 45
              7.3.1.  The Reference "Antecedent". . . . . . . . . . . 46
              7.3.2.  The Reference "Dependent" . . . . . . . . . . . 46
        7.4.  The Association "PolicyViolateAction" . . . . . . . . . 46
              7.4.1.  The Reference "Antecedent". . . . . . . . . . . 46
              7.4.2.  The Reference "Dependent" . . . . . . . . . . . 47
        7.5   The Aggregation
              "QoSPolicyRSVPVariableInRSVPSimplePolicyAction" . . . . 47
              7.5.1.  The Reference "GroupComponent". . . . . . . . . 47
              7.5.2.  The Reference "PartComponent" . . . . . . . . . 47
   8.   Class Definitions: Inheritance Hierarchy. . . . . . . . . . . 48
        8.1.  The Class QoSPolicyDiscardAction. . . . . . . . . . . . 48
        8.2.  The Class QoSPolicyAdmissionAction. . . . . . . . . . . 48
              8.2.1.  The Property qpAdmissionScope . . . . . . . . . 48
        8.3.  The Class QoSPolicyPoliceAction . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
        8.4.  The Class QoSPolicyShapeAction. . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
        8.5.  The Class QoSPolicyRSVPAdmissionAction. . . . . . . . . 50
              8.5.1.  The Property qpRSVPWarnOnly . . . . . . . . . . 50
              8.5.2.  The Property qpRSVPMaxSessions. . . . . . . . . 51
        8.6.  The Class QoSPolicyPHBAction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
              8.6.1.  The Property qpMaxPacketSize. . . . . . . . . . 51
        8.7.  The Class QoSPolicyBandwidthAction. . . . . . . . . . . 52
              8.7.1.  The Property qpForwardingPriority . . . . . . . 52
              8.7.2.  The Property qpBandwidthUnits . . . . . . . . . 52
              8.7.3.  The Property qpMinBandwidth . . . . . . . . . . 53
              8.7.4.  The Property qpMaxBandwidth . . . . . . . . . . 53
              8.7.5.  The Property qpMaxDelay . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
              8.7.6.  The Property qpMaxJitter. . . . . . . . . . . . 53
              8.7.7.  The Property qpFairness . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
        8.8.  The Class QoSPolicyCongestionControlAction. . . . . . . 54
              8.8.1.  The Property qpQueueSizeUnits . . . . . . . . . 54
              8.8.2.  The Property qpQueueSize. . . . . . . . . . . . 55
              8.8.3.  The Property qpDropMethod . . . . . . . . . . . 55
              8.8.4.  The Property qpDropThresholdUnits . . . . . . . 55
              8.8.5.  The Property qpDropMinThresholdValue. . . . . . 55
              8.8.6.  The Property qpDropMaxThresholdValue. . . . . . 56
        8.9.  The Class QoSPolicyTrfcProf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
        8.10. The Class QoSPolicyTokenBucketTrfcProf. . . . . . . . . 57



Snir, et al.                Standards Track                     [Page 3]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


              8.10.1. The Property qpTBRate . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
              8.10.2. The Property qpTBNormalBurst. . . . . . . . . . 57
              8.10.3. The Property qpTBExcessBurst. . . . . . . . . . 57
        8.11. The Class QoSPolicyIntServTrfcProf. . . . . . . . . . . 57
              8.11.1. The Property qpISTokenRate. . . . . . . . . . . 58
              8.11.2. The Property qpISPeakRate . . . . . . . . . . . 58
              8.11.3. The Property qpISBucketSize . . . . . . . . . . 58
              8.11.4. The Property qpISResvRate . . . . . . . . . . . 58
              8.11.5. The Property qpISResvSlack. . . . . . . . . . . 59
              8.11.6. The Property qpISMinPolicedUnit . . . . . . . . 59
              8.11.7. The Property qpISMaxPktSize . . . . . . . . . . 59
        8.12. The Class QoSPolicyAttributeValue . . . . . . . . . . . 59
              8.12.1. The Property qpAttributeName. . . . . . . . . . 60
              8.12.2. The Property qpAttributeValueList . . . . . . . 60
        8.13. The Class QoSPolicyRSVPVariable . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
        8.14. The Class QoSPolicyRSVPSourceIPv4Variable . . . . . . . 61
        8.15. The Class QoSPolicyRSVPDestinationIPv4Variable. . . . . 61
        8.16. The Class QoSPolicyRSVPSourceIPv6Variable . . . . . . . 62
        8.17. The Class QoSPolicyRSVPDestinationIPv6Variable. . . . . 62
        8.18. The Class QoSPolicyRSVPSourcePortVariable . . . . . . . 62
        8.19. The Class QoSPolicyRSVPDestinationPortVariable. . . . . 63
        8.20. The Class QoSPolicyRSVPIPProtocolVariable . . . . . . . 63
        8.21. The Class QoSPolicyRSVPIPVersionVariable. . . . . . . . 63
        8.22. The Class QoSPolicyRSVPDCLASSVariable . . . . . . . . . 64
        8.23. The Class QoSPolicyRSVPStyleVariable. . . . . . . . . . 64
        8.24. The Class QoSPolicyRSVPIntServVariable. . . . . . . . . 65
        8.25. The Class QoSPolicyRSVPMessageTypeVariable. . . . . . . 65
        8.26. The Class QoSPolicyRSVPPreemptionPriorityVariable . . . 65
        8.27. The Class QoSPolicyRSVPPreemptionDefPriorityVariable. . 66
        8.28. The Class QoSPolicyRSVPUserVariable . . . . . . . . . . 66
        8.29. The Class QoSPolicyRSVPApplicationVariable. . . . . . . 66
        8.30. The Class QoSPolicyRSVPAuthMethodVariable . . . . . . . 67
        8.31. The Class QosPolicyDNValue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
              8.31.1. The Property qpDNList . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
        8.32. The Class QoSPolicyRSVPSimpleAction . . . . . . . . . . 68
              8.32.1. The Property qpRSVPActionType . . . . . . . . . 68
   9.   Intellectual Property Rights Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . 69
   10.  Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
   11.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
   12.  References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
        12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
        12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
   13.  Authors' Addresses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
   14.  Full Copyright Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73







Snir, et al.                Standards Track                     [Page 4]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


1.  Introduction

   The QoS Policy Information Model (QPIM) establishes a standard
   framework and constructs for specifying and representing policies
   that administer, manage, and control access to network QoS resources.
   Such policies will be referred to as "QoS policies" in this document.
   The framework consists of a set of classes and relationships that are
   organized in an object-oriented information model.  It is agnostic of
   any specific Policy Decision Point (PDP) or Policy Enforcement Point
   (PEP) (see [TERMS] for definitions) implementation, and independent
   of any particular QoS implementation mechanism.

   QPIM is designed to represent QoS policy information for large-scale
   policy domains (the term "policy domain" is defined in [TERMS]).  A
   primary goal of this information model is to assist human
   administrators in their definition of policies to control QoS
   resources (as opposed to individual network element configuration).
   The process of creating QPIM data instances is fed by business rules,
   network topology and QoS methodology (e.g., Differentiated Services).

   This document is based on the IETF Policy Core Information Model and
   its extensions as specified by [PCIM] and [PCIMe].  QPIM builds upon
   these two documents to define an information model for QoS
   enforcement for differentiated and integrated services ([DIFFSERV]
   and [INTSERV], respectively) using policy.  It is important to note
   that this document defines an information model, which by definition
   is independent of any particular data storage mechanism and access
   protocol.  This enables various data models (e.g., directory
   schemata, relational database schemata, and SNMP MIBs) to be designed
   and implemented according to a single uniform model.

   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 BCP 14, RFC 2119
   [KEYWORDS].

1.1.  The Process of QoS Policy Definition

   This section describes the process of using QPIM for the definition
   QoS policy for a policy domain.  Figure 1 illustrates information
   flow and not the actual procedure, which has several loops and
   feedback not depicted.









Snir, et al.                Standards Track                     [Page 5]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


    ----------        ----------       -----------
   | Business |      | Topology |     |   QoS     |
   | Policy   |      |          |     |Methodology|
    ----------        ----------       -----------
        |                  |               |
        |                  |               |
        ------------------------------------
                           |
                           V
                    ---------------
                   |  QPIM/PCIM(e) |
                   |   modeling    |
                    ---------------
                           |
                           |            --------------
                           |<----------| Device info, |
                           |           | capabilities |
                           |            --------------
                           V
                    (---------------)
                    (    device     )---)
                    ( configuration )   )---)
                    (---------------)   )   )
                         (--------------)   )
                              (-------------)

               Figure 1: The QoS definition information flow

   The process of QoS policy definition is dependent on three types of
   information: the topology of the network devices under management,
   the particular type of QoS methodology used (e.g., DiffServ) and the
   business rules and requirements for specifying service(s) [TERMS]
   delivered by the network.  Both topology and business rules are
   outside the scope of QPIM.  However, important facets of both must be
   known and understood for correctly specifying the QoS policy.

   Typically, the process of QoS policy definition relies on a
   methodology based on one or more QoS methodologies.  For example, the
   DiffServ methodology may be employed in the QoS policy definition
   process.

   The topology of the network consists of an inventory of the network
   elements that make up the network and the set of paths that traffic
   may take through the network.  For example, a network administrator
   may decide to use the DiffServ architectural model [DIFFSERV] and
   classify network devices using the roles "boundary" and "core" (see
   [TERMS] for a definition of role, and [PCIM] for an explanation of




Snir, et al.                Standards Track                     [Page 6]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   how they are used in the policy framework).  While this is not a
   complete topological view of the network, many times it may suffice
   for the purpose of QoS policy definition.

   Business rules are informal sets of requirements for specifying the
   behavior of various types of traffic that may traverse the network.
   For example, the administrator may be instructed to implement policy
   such that VoIP traffic manifests behavior that is similar to legacy
   voice traffic over telephone networks.  Note that this business rule
   (indirectly) prescribes specific behavior for this traffic type
   (VoIP), for example in terms of minimal delay, jitter and loss.
   Other traffic types, such as WEB buying transactions, system backup
   traffic, video streaming, etc., will express their traffic
   conditioning requirements in different terms.  Again, this
   information is required not by QPIM itself, but by the overall policy
   management system that uses QPIM.  QPIM is used to help map the
   business rules into a form that defines the requirements for
   conditioning different types of traffic in the network.

   The topology, QoS methodology, and business rules are necessary
   prerequisites for defining traffic conditioning.  QPIM enables a set
   of tools for specifying traffic conditioning policy in a standard
   manner.  Using a standard QoS policy information model such as QPIM
   is needed also because different devices can have markedly different
   capabilities.  Even the same model of equipment can have different
   functionality if the network operating system and software running in
   those devices is different.  Therefore, a means is required to
   specify functionality in a standard way that is independent of the
   capabilities of different vendors' devices.  This is the role of
   QPIM.

   In a typical scenario, the administrator would first determine the
   role(s) that each interface of each network element plays in the
   overall network topology.  These roles define the functions supplied
   by a given network element independent of vendor and device type.
   The [PCIM] and [PCIMe] documents define the concept of a role.  Roles
   can be used to identify what parts of the network need which type of
   traffic conditioning.  For example, network interface cards that are
   categorized as "core" interfaces can be assigned the role name
   "core-interface".  This enables the administrator to design policies
   to configure all interfaces having the role "core-interface"
   independent of the actual physical devices themselves.  QPIM uses
   roles to help the administrator map a given set of devices or
   interfaces to a given set of policy constructs.







Snir, et al.                Standards Track                     [Page 7]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   The policy constructs define the functionality required to perform
   the desired traffic conditioning for particular traffic type(s).  The
   functions themselves depend on the particular type of networking
   technologies chosen.  For example, the DiffServ methodology
   encourages us to aggregate similar types of traffic by assigning to
   each traffic class a particular per-hop forwarding behavior on each
   node.  RSVP enables bandwidth to be reserved.  These two
   methodologies can be used separately or in conjunction, as defined by
   the appropriate business policy.  QPIM provides specific classes to
   enable DiffServ and RSVP conditioning to be modeled.

   The QPIM class definitions are used to create instances of various
   policy constructs such as QoS actions and conditions that may be
   hierarchically organized in rules and groups (PolicyGroup and
   PolicyRule as defined in [PCIM] and [PCIMe]).  Examples of policy
   actions are rate limiting, jitter control and bandwidth allocation.
   Policy conditions are constructs that can select traffic according to
   a complex Boolean expression.

   A hierarchical organization was chosen for two reasons.  First, it
   best reflects the way humans tend to think about complex policy.
   Second, it enables policy to be easily mapped onto administrative
   organizations, as the hierarchical organization of policy mirrors
   most administrative organizations.  It is important to note that the
   policy definition process described here is done independent of any
   specific device capabilities and configuration options.  The policy
   definition is completely independent from the details of the
   implementation and the configuration interface of individual network
   elements, as well as of the mechanisms that a network element can use
   to condition traffic.

1.2.  Design Goals and Their Ramifications

   This section explains the QPIM design goals and how these goals are
   addressed in this document.  This section also describes the
   ramifications of the design goals and the design decisions made in
   developing QPIM.

1.2.1.  Policy-Definition Oriented

   The primary design goal of QPIM is to model policies controlling QoS
   behavior in a way that as closely as possible reflects the way humans
   tend to think about policy.  Therefore, QPIM is designed to address
   the needs of policy definition and management, and not device/network
   configuration.






Snir, et al.                Standards Track                     [Page 8]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   There are several ramifications of this design goal.  First, QPIM
   uses rules to define policies, based on [PCIM] and [PCIMe].  Second,
   QPIM uses hierarchical organizations of policies and policy
   information extensively.  Third, QPIM does not force the policy
   writer to specify all implementation details; rather, it assumes that
   configuration agents (PDPs) interpret the policies and match them to
   suit the needs of device-specific configurations.

1.2.1.1.  Rule-based Modeling

   Policy is best described using rule-based modeling as explained and
   described in [PCIM] and [PCIMe].  A QoS policy rule is structured as
   a condition clause and an action clause.  The semantics are simple:
   if the condition clause evaluates to TRUE, then a set of QoS actions
   (specified in the action clause) can be executed.  For example, the
   rule:

      "WEB traffic should receive at least 50% of the available
      bandwidth resources or more, when more is available"

   can be formalized as:

      "<If protocol == HTTP> then <minimum BW = 50%>"

   where the first angle bracketed clause is a traffic condition and the
   second angle bracketed clause is a QoS action.

   This approach differs from data path modeling that describes the
   mechanisms that operates on the packet flows to achieve the desired
   effect.

   Note that the approach taken in QPIM specifically did NOT subclass
   the PolicyRule class.  Rather, it uses the SimplePolicyCondition,
   CompoundPolicyCondition, SimplePolicyAction, and CompoundPolicyAction
   classes defined in [PCIMe], as well as defining subclasses of the
   following classes: Policy, PolicyAction, SimplePolicyAction,
   PolicyImplicitVariable, and PolicyValue.  Subclassing the PolicyRule
   class would have made it more difficult to combine actions and
   conditions defined within different functional domains [PCIMe] within
   the same rules.

1.2.1.2.  Organize Information Hierarchically

   The organization of the information represented by QPIM is designed
   to be hierarchical.  To do this, QPIM utilizes the PolicySetComponent
   aggregation [PCIMe] to provide an arbitrarily nested organization of
   policy information.  A policy group functions as a container of




Snir, et al.                Standards Track                     [Page 9]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   policy rules and/or policy groups.  A policy rule can also contain
   policy rules and/or groups, enabling a rule/sub-rule relationship to
   be realized.

   The hierarchical design decision is based on the realization that it
   is natural for humans to organize policy rules in groups.  Breaking
   down a complex policy into a set of simple rules is a process that
   follows the way people tend to think and analyze systems.  The
   complexity of the abstract, business-oriented policy is simplified
   and made into a hierarchy of simple rules and grouping of simple
   rules.

   The hierarchical information organization helps to simplify the
   definition and readability of data instances based on QPIM.
   Hierarchies can also serve to carry additional semantics for QoS
   actions in a given context.  An example, detailed in section 2.3,
   demonstrates how hierarchical bandwidth allocation policies can be
   specified in an intuitive form, without the need to specify complex
   scheduler structures.

1.2.1.3.  Goal-Oriented Policy Definition

   QPIM facilitates goal-oriented QoS policy definition.  This means
   that the process of defining QoS policy is focused on the desired
   effect of policies, as opposed to the means of implementing the
   policy on network elements.

   QPIM is intended to define a minimal specification of desired network
   behavior.  It is the role of device-specific configuration agents to
   interpret policy expressed in a standard way and fill in the
   necessary configuration details that are required for their
   particular application.  The benefit of using QPIM is that it
   provides a common lingua franca that each of the device- and/or
   vendor-specific configuration agents can use.  This helps ensure a
   common interpretation of the general policy as well as aid the
   administrator in specifying a common policy to be implemented across
   different devices.  This is analogous to the fundamental object-
   oriented paradigm of separating specification from implementation.
   Using QPIM, traffic conditioning can be specified in a general manner
   that can help different implementations satisfy a common goal.

   For example, a valid policy may include only a single rule that
   specifies that bandwidth should be reserved for a given set of
   traffic flows.  The rule does not need to include any of the various
   other details that may be needed for implementing a scheduler that
   supports this bandwidth allocation (e.g., the queue length required).
   It is assumed that a PDP or the PEPs would fill in these details
   using (for example) their default queue length settings.  The policy



Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 10]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   writer need only specify the main goal of the policy, making sure
   that the preferred application receives enough bandwidth to operate
   adequately.

1.2.2.  Policy Domain Model

   An important design goal of QPIM is to provide a means for defining
   policies that span numerous devices.  This goal differentiates QPIM
   from device-level information models, which are designed for modeling
   policy that controls a single device, its mechanisms and
   capabilities.

   This design goal has several ramifications.  First, roles [PCIM] are
   used to define policies across multiple devices.  Second, the use of
   abstract policies frees the policy definition process from having to
   deal with individual device peculiarities, and leaves interpretation
   and configuration to be modeled by PDPs or other configuration
   agents. Third, QPIM allows extensive reuse of all policy building
   blocks in multiple rules used within different devices.

1.2.2.1.  Model QoS Policy in a Device- and Vendor-Independent Manner

   QPIM models QoS policy in a way designed to be independent of any
   particular device or vendor.  This enables networks made up of
   different devices that have different capabilities to be managed and
   controlled using a single standard set of policies.  Using such a
   single set of policies is important because otherwise, the policy
   will itself reflect the differences between different device
   implementations.

1.2.2.2.  Use Roles for Mapping Policy to Network Devices

   The use of roles enables a policy definition to be targeted to the
   network function of a network element, rather than to the element's
   type and capabilities.  The use of roles for mapping policy to
   network elements provides an efficient and simple method for compact
   and abstract policy definition.  A given abstract policy may be
   mapped to a group of network elements without the need to specify
   configuration for each of those elements based on the capabilities of
   any one individual element.

   The policy definition is designed to allow aggregating multiple
   devices within the same role, if desired.  For example, if two core
   network interfaces operate at different rates, one does not have to
   define two separate policy rules to express the very same abstract
   policy (e.g., allocating 30% of the interface bandwidth to a given





Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 11]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   preferred set of flows).  The use of hierarchical context and
   relative QoS actions in QPIM addresses this and other related
   problems.

1.2.2.3.  Reusability

   Reusable objects, as defined by [PCIM] and [PCIMe], are the means for
   sharing policy building blocks, thus allowing central management of
   global concepts.  QPIM provides the ability to reuse all policy
   building blocks: variables and values, conditions and actions,
   traffic profiles, and policy groups and policy rules.  This provides
   the required flexibility to manage large sets of policy rules over
   large policy domains.

   For example, the following rule makes use of centrally defined
   objects being reused (referenced):

      If <DestinationAddress == FinanceSubNet> then <DSCP =
      MissionCritical>

   In this rule, the condition refers to an object named FinanceSubNet,
   which is a value (or possibly a set of values) defined and maintained
   in a reusable objects container.  The QoS action makes use of a value
   named MissionCritical, which is also a reusable object.  The
   advantage of specifying a policy in this way is its inherent
   flexibility.  Given the above policy, whenever business needs require
   a change in the subnet definition for the organization, all that's
   required is to change the reusable value FinanceSubNet centrally.
   All referencing rules are immediately affected, without the need to
   modify them individually. Without this capability, the repository
   that is used to store the rules would have to be searched for all
   rules that refer to the finance subnet, and then each matching rule's
   condition would have to be individually updated.  This is not only
   much less efficient, but also is more prone to error.

   For a complete description of reusable objects, refer to [PCIM] and
   [PCIMe].

1.2.3.  Enforceable Policy

   Policy defined by QPIM should be enforceable.  This means that a PDP
   can use QPIM's policy definition in order to make the necessary
   decisions and enforce the required policy rules.  For example, RSVP
   admission decisions should be made based on the policy definitions
   specified by QPIM.  A PDP should be able to map QPIM policy
   definitions into PEP configurations, using either standard or
   proprietary protocols.




Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 12]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   QPIM is designed to be agnostic of any particular, vendor-dependent
   technology.  However, QPIM's constructs SHOULD always be interpreted
   so that policy-compliant behavior can be enforced on the network
   under management.  Therefore, there are three fundamental
   requirements that QPIM must satisfy:

   1. Policy specified by QPIM must be able to be mapped to actual
      network elements.

   2. Policy specified by QPIM must be able to control QoS network
      functions without making reference to a specific type of device or
      vendor.

   3. Policy specified by QPIM must be able to be translated into
      network element configuration.

   QPIM satisfies requirements #1 and #2 above by using the concept of
   roles (specifically, the PolicyRoles property, defined in PCIM).  By
   matching roles assigned to policy groups and to network elements, a
   PDP (or other enforcement agent) can determine what policy should be
   applied to a given device or devices.

   The use of roles in mapping policy to network elements supports model
   scalability.  QPIM policy can be mapped to large-scale policy domains
   by assigning a single role to a group of network elements.  This can
   be done even when the policy domain contains heterogeneous devices.
   So, a small set of policies can be deployed to large networks without
   having to re-specify the policy for each device separately.  This
   QPIM property is important for QoS policy management applications
   that strive to ease the task of policy definition for large policy
   domains.

   Requirement #2 is also satisfied by making QPIM domain-oriented (see
   [TERMS] for a definition of "domain").  In other words, the target of
   the policy is a domain, as opposed to a specific device or interface.

   Requirement #3 is satisfied by modeling QoS conditions and actions
   that are commonly configured on various devices.  However, QPIM is
   extensible to allow modeling of actions that are not included in
   QPIM.

   It is important to note that different PEPs will have different
   capabilities and functions, which necessitate different individual
   configurations even if the different PEPs are controlled by the same
   policy.






Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 13]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


1.2.4.  QPIM Covers Both Signaled And Provisioned QoS

   The two predominant standards-based QoS methodologies developed so
   far are Differentiated Services (DiffServ) and Integrated Services
   (IntServ).  The DiffServ provides a way to enforce policies that
   apply to a large number of devices in a scalable manner.  QPIM
   provides actions and conditions that control the classification,
   policing and shaping done within the differentiated service domain
   boundaries, as well as actions that control the per-hop behavior
   within the core of the DiffServ network.  QPIM does not mandate the
   use of DiffServ as a policy methodology.

   Integrated services, together with its signaling protocol (RSVP),
   provides a way for end nodes (and edge nodes) to request QoS from the
   network.  QPIM provides actions that control the reservation of such
   requests within the network.

   As both methodologies continue to evolve, QPIM does not attempt to
   provide full coverage of all possible scenarios.  Instead, QPIM aims
   to provide policy control modeling for all major scenarios.  QPIM is
   designed to be extensible to allow for incorporation of control over
   newly developed QoS mechanisms.

1.2.5.  Interoperability for PDPs and Management Applications

   Another design goal of QPIM is to facilitate interoperability among
   policy systems such as PDPs and policy management applications.  QPIM
   accomplishes this interoperability goal by standardizing the
   representation of policy.  Producers and consumers of QoS policy need
   only rely on QPIM-based schemata (and resulting data models) to
   ensure mutual understanding and agreement on the semantics of QoS
   policy.

   For example, suppose that a QoS policy management application, built
   by vendor A writes its policies based on the LDAP schema that maps
   from QPIM to a directory implementation using LDAP.  Now assume that
   a separately built PDP from vendor B also relies on this same LDAP
   schema derived from QPIM.  Even though these are two vendors with two
   different PDPs, each may read the schema of the other and
   "understand" it.  This is because both the management application and
   the PDP were architected to comply with the QPIM specification.  The
   same is true with two policy management applications.  For example,
   vendor B's policy application may run a validation tool that computes
   whether there are conflicts within rules specified by the other
   vendor's policy management application.






Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 14]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   Interoperability of QPIM producers/consumers is by definition at a
   high level, and does not guarantee that the same policy will result
   in the same PEP configuration.  First, different PEPs will have
   different capabilities and functions, which necessitate different
   individual configurations even if the different PEPs are controlled
   by the same policy.  Second, different PDPs will also have different
   capabilities and functions, and may choose to translate the high-
   level QPIM policy differently depending on the functionality of the
   PDP, as well as on the capabilities of the PEPs that are being
   controlled by the PDP.  However, the different configurations should
   still result in the same network behavior as that specified by the
   policy rules.

1.3.  Modeling Abstract QoS Policies

   This section provides a discussion of QoS policy abstraction and the
   way QPIM addresses this issue.

   As described above, the main goal of the QPIM is to create an
   information model that can be used to help bridge part of the
   conceptual gap between a human policy maker and a network element
   that is configured to enforce the policy.  Clearly this wide gap
   implies several translation levels, from the abstract to the
   concrete.  At the abstract end are the business QoS policy rules.
   Once the business rules are known, a network administrator must
   interpret them as network QoS policy and represent this QoS policy by
   using QPIM constructs.  QPIM facilitates a formal representation of
   QoS rules, thus providing the first concretization level: formally
   representing humanly expressed QoS policy.

   When a human business executive defines network policy, it is usually
   done using informal business terms and language.  For example, a
   human may utter a policy statement that reads:

      "human resources applications should have better QoS than simple
      web applications"

   This might be translated to a slightly more sophisticated form, such
   as:

      "traffic generated by our human resources applications should have
      a higher probability of communicating with its destinations than
      traffic generated by people browsing the WEB using non-mission-
      critical applications"

   While this statement clearly defines QoS policy at the business
   level, it isn't specific enough to be enforceable by network
   elements. Translation to "network terms and language" is required.



Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 15]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   On the other end of the scale, a network element functioning as a
   PEP, such as a router, can be configured with specific commands that
   determine the operational parameters of its inner working QoS
   mechanisms.  For example, the (imaginary) command "output-queue-depth
   = 100" may be an instruction to a network interface card of a router
   to allow up to 100 packets to be stored before subsequent packets are
   discarded (not forwarded).  On a different device within the same
   network, the same instruction may take another form, because a
   different vendor built that device or it has a different set of
   functions, and hence implementation, even though it is from the same
   vendor.  In addition, a particular PEP may not have the ability to
   create queues that are longer than, say, 50 packets, which may result
   in a different instruction implementing the same QoS policy.

   The first example illustrates 'abstract policy', while the second
   illustrates 'concrete configuration'.  Furthermore, the first example
   illustrates end-to-end policy, which covers the conditioning of
   application traffic throughout the network.  The second example
   illustrates configuration for a particular PEP or a set thereof.
   While an end-to-end policy statement can only be enforced by
   configuration of PEPs in various parts of the network, the
   information model of policy and that of the mechanisms that a PEP
   uses to implement that policy are vastly different.

   The translation process from abstract business policy to concrete PEP
   configuration is roughly expressed as follows:

   1. Informal business QoS policy is expressed by a human policy maker
      (e.g., "All executives' WEB requests should be prioritized ahead
      of other employees' WEB requests")

   2. A network administrator analyzes the policy domain's topology and
      determines the roles of particular device interfaces.  A role may
      be assigned to a large group of elements, which will result in
      mapping a particular policy to a large group of device interfaces.

   3. The network administrator models the informal policy using QPIM
      constructs, thus creating a formal representation of the abstract
      policy.  For example, "If a packet's protocol is HTTP and its
      destination is in  the 'EXECUTIVES' user group, then assign IPP 7
      to the packet header".

   4. The network administrator assigns roles to the policy groups
      created in the previous step matching the network elements' roles
      assigned in step #2 above.






Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 16]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   5. A PDP translates the abstract policy constructs created in step #3
      into device-specific configuration commands for all devices
      effected by the new policy (i.e., devices that have interfaces
      that are assigned a role matching the new policy constructs'
      roles).  In this process, the PDP consults the particular devices'
      capabilities to determine the appropriate configuration commands
      implementing the policy.

   6. For each PEP in the network, the PDP (or an agent of the PDP)
      issues the appropriate device-specific instructions necessary to
      enforce the policy.

   QPIM, PCIM and PCIMe are used in step #3 above.

1.4.  Rule Hierarchy

   Policy is described by a set of policy rules that may be grouped into
   subsets [PCIMe].  Policy rules and policy groups can be nested within
   other policy rules, providing a hierarchical policy definition.
   Nested rules are also called sub-rules, and we use both terms in this
   document interchangeably.  The aggregation PolicySetComponent
   (defined in [PCIMe] is used to represent the nesting of a policy rule
   or group in another policy rule.

   The hierarchical policy rule definition enhances policy readability
   and reusability.  Within the QoS policy information model, hierarchy
   is used to model context or scope for the sub-rule actions.  Within
   QPIM, bandwidth allocation policy actions and drop threshold actions
   use this hierarchal context.  First we provide a detailed example of
   the use of hierarchy in bandwidth allocation policies.  The
   differences between flat and hierarchical policy representation are
   discussed.  The use of hierarchy in drop threshold policies is
   described in a following subsection.  Last but not least, the
   restrictions on the use of rule hierarchies within QPIM are
   described.

1.4.1.  Use of Hierarchy Within Bandwidth Allocation Policies

   Consider the following example where the informal policy reads:

      On any interface on which these rules apply, guarantee at least
      30% of the interface bandwidth to UDP flows, and at least 40% of
      the interface bandwidth to TCP flows.

   The QoS Policy information model follows the Policy Core information
   model by using roles as a way to specify the set of interfaces on
   which this policy applies.  The policy does not assume that all
   interfaces are run at the same speed, or have any other property in



Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 17]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   common apart from being able to forward packets.  Bandwidth is
   allocated between UDP and TCP flows using percentages of the
   available interface bandwidth.  Assume that we have an available
   interface bandwidth of 1 Mbits/sec.  Then this rule will guarantee
   300Kbits/sec to UDP flows.  However, if the interface bandwidth was
   instead only 64kbits/sec, then this rule would correspondingly
   guarantee 19.2kb/sec.

   This policy is modeled within QPIM using two policy rules of the
   form:

      If (IP protocol is UDP) THEN (guarantee 30% of available BW) (1)
      If (IP protocol is TCP) THEN (guarantee 40% of available BW) (2)

   Assume that these two rules are grouped within a PolicySet [PCIMe]
   carrying the appropriate role combination.  A possible implementation
   of these rules within a PEP would be to use a Weighted-Round-Robin
   scheduler with 3 queues.  The first queue would be used for UDP
   traffic, the second queue for TCP traffic and the third queue for the
   rest of the traffic.  The weights of the Weighted-Round-Robin
   scheduler would be 30% for the first queue, 40% for the second queue
   and 30% for the last queue.

   The actions specifying the bandwidth guarantee implicitly assume that
   the bandwidth resource being guaranteed is the bandwidth available at
   the interface level.  A PolicyRoleCollection is a class defined in
   [PCIMe] whose purpose is to identify the set of resources (in this
   example, interfaces) that are assigned to a particular role.  Thus,
   the type of managed elements aggregated within the
   PolicyRoleCollection defines the bandwidth resource being controlled.
   In our example, interfaces are aggregated within the
   PolicyRoleCollection.  Therefore, the rules specify bandwidth
   allocation to all interfaces that match a given role.  Other behavior
   could be similarly defined by changing what was aggregated within the
   PolicyRoleCollection.

   Normally, a full specification of the rules would require indicating
   the direction of the traffic for which bandwidth allocation is being
   made.  Using the direction variable defined in [PCIMe], the rules can
   be specified in the following form:

      If (direction is out)
          If (IP protocol is UDP) THEN (guarantee 30% of available BW)
          If (IP protocol is TCP) THEN (guarantee 40% of available BW)

   where indentation is used to indicate rule nesting.  To save space,
   we omit the direction condition from further discussion.




Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 18]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   Rule nesting provides the ability to further refine the scope of
   bandwidth allocation within a given traffic class forwarded via these
   interfaces.  The example below adds two nested rules to refine
   bandwidth allocation for UDP and TCP applications.

      If (IP protocol is UDP) THEN (guarantee 30% of available BW) (1)
         If (protocol is TFTP) THEN (guarantee 10% of available BW) (1a)
         If (protocol is NFS) THEN (guarantee 40% of available BW) (1b)
      If (IP protocol is TCP) THEN (guarantee 40% of available BW) (2)
         If (protocol is HTTP) THEN guarantee 20% of available BW) (2a)
         If (protocol is FTP) THEN (guarantee 30% of available BW) (2b)

   Subrules 1a and 1b specify bandwidth allocation for UDP applications.
   The total bandwidth resource being partitioned among UDP applications
   is the bandwidth available for the UDP traffic class (i.e., 30%), not
   the total bandwidth available at the interface level.  Furthermore,
   TFTP and NFS are guaranteed to get at least 10% and 40% of the total
   available bandwidth for UDP, while other UDP applications aren't
   guaranteed to receive anything.  Thus, TFTP and NFS are guaranteed to
   get at least 3% and 12% of the total bandwidth.  Similar logic
   applies to the TCP applications.

   The point of this section will be to show that a hierarchical policy
   representation enables a finer level of granularity for bandwidth
   allocation to be specified than is otherwise available using a non-
   hierarchical policy representation.  To see this, let's compare this
   set of rules with a non-hierarchical (flat) rule representation.  In
   the non-hierarchical representation, the guaranteed bandwidth for
   TFTP flows is calculated by taking 10% of the bandwidth guaranteed to
   UDP flows, resulting in 3% of the total interface bandwidth
   guarantee.

      If (UDP AND TFTP) THEN (guarantee 3% of available BW) (1a)
      If (UDP AND NFS) THEN (guarantee 12% of available BW) (1b)
      If (other UDP APPs) THEN (guarantee 15% of available BW) (1c)
      If (TCP AND HTTP) THEN guarantee 8% of available BW) (2a)
      If (TCP AND FTP) THEN (guarantee 12% of available BW) (2b)
      If (other TCP APPs) THEN (guarantee 20% of available BW) (2c)

   Are these two representations identical?  No, bandwidth allocation is
   not the same.  For example, within the hierarchical representation,
   UDP applications are guaranteed 30% of the bandwidth.  Suppose a
   single UDP flow of an application different from NFS or TFTP is
   running.  This application would be guaranteed 30% of the interface
   bandwidth in the hierarchical representation but only 15% of the
   interface bandwidth in the flat representation.





Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 19]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   A two stage scheduler is best modeled by a hierarchical
   representation whereas a flat representation may be realized by a
   non-hierarchical scheduler.

   A schematic hierarchical Weighted-Round-Robin scheduler
   implementation that supports the hierarchical rule representation is
   described below.

      --UDP AND TFTP queue--10%
      --UDP AND NFS  queue--40%-Scheduler-30%--+
      --Other UDP    queue--50%     A1         |
                                               |
      --TCP AND HTTP queue--20%                |
      --TCP AND FTP  queue--30%-Scheduler-40%--Scheduler--Interface
      --Other TCP    queue--50%     A2         |   B
                                               |
      ------------Non UDP/TCP traffic-----30%--+

   Scheduler A1 extracts packets from the 3 UDP queues according to the
   weight specified by the UDP sub-rule policy.  Scheduler A2 extracts
   packets from the 3 TCP queues specified by the TCP sub-rule policy.
   The second stage scheduler B schedules between UDP, TCP and all other
   traffic according to the policy specified in the top most rule level.

   Another difference between the flat and hierarchical rule
   representation is the actual division of bandwidth above the minimal
   bandwidth guarantee.  Suppose two high rate streams are being
   forwarded via this interface: an HTTP stream and an NFS stream.
   Suppose that the rate of each flow is far beyond the capacity of the
   interface.  In the flat scheduler implementation, the ratio between
   the weights is 8:12 (i.e., HTTP:NFS), and therefore HTTP stream would
   consume 40% of the bandwidth while NFS would consume 60% of the
   bandwidth.  In the hierarchical scheduler implementation the only
   scheduler that has two queues filled is scheduler B, therefore the
   ratio between the HTTP (TCP) stream and the NFS (UDP) stream would be
   30:40, and therefore the HTTP stream would consume approximately 42%
   of the interface bandwidth while NFS would consume 58% of the
   interface bandwidth.  In both cases both HTTP and NFS streams got
   more than the minimal guaranteed bandwidth, but the actual rates
   forwarded via the interface differ.

   The conclusion is that hierarchical policy representation provides
   additional structure and context beyond the flat policy
   representation.  Furthermore, policies specifying bandwidth
   allocation using rule hierarchies should be enforced using
   hierarchical schedulers where the rule hierarchy level is mapped to
   the hierarchical scheduler level.




Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 20]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


1.4.2.  Use of Rule Hierarchy to Describe Drop Threshold Policies

   Two major resources govern the per hop behavior in each node.  The
   bandwidth allocation resource governs the forwarding behavior of each
   traffic class.  A scheduler priority and weights are controlled by
   the bandwidth allocation policies, as well as the (minimal) number of
   queues needed for traffic separation.  A second resource, which is
   not controlled by bandwidth allocation policies, is the queuing
   length and drop behavior.  For this purpose, queue length and
   threshold policies are used.

   Rule hierarchy is used to describe the context on which thresholds
   act.  The policy rule's condition describes the traffic class and the
   rule's actions describe the bandwidth allocation, the forwarding
   priority and the queue length.  If the traffic class contains
   different drop precedence sub-classes that require different
   thresholds within the same queue, the sub-rules actions describe
   these thresholds.

   Below is an example of the use of rule nesting for threshold control
   purposes.  Let's look at the following rules:

      If (protocol is FTP) THEN (guarantee 10% of available BW)
                                (queue length equals 40 packets)
                                (drop technique is random)

         if (src-ip is from net 2.x.x.x) THEN min threshold = 30%
                                              max threshold = 70%

         if (src-ip is from net 3.x.x.x) THEN min threshold = 40%
                                              max threshold = 90%

         if (all other)                  THEN min threshold = 20%
                                                    max threshold = 60%

   The rule describes the bandwidth allocation, the queue length and the
   drop technique assigned to FTP flows.  The sub-rules describe the
   drop threshold priorities within those FTP flows.  FTP packets
   received from all networks apart from networks 2.x.x.x and 3.x.x.x
   are randomly dropped when the queue threshold for FTP flows
   accumulates to 20% of the queue length.  Once the queue fills to 60%,
   all these packets are dropped before queuing.  The two other sub
   rules provide other thresholds for FTP packets coming from the
   specified two subnets.  The Assured Forwarding per hop behavior (AF)
   is another good example of the use of hierarchy to describe the
   different drop preferences within a traffic class.  This example is
   provided in a later section.




Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 21]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


1.4.3.  Restrictions of the Use of Hierarchy Within QPIM

   Rule nesting is used within QPIM for two important purposes:

   1) Enhance clarity, readability and reusability.

   2) Provide hierarchical context for actions.

   The second point captures the ability to specify context for
   bandwidth allocation, as well as providing context for drop threshold
   policies.

   When is a hierarchy level supposed to specify the bandwidth
   allocation context, when is the hierarchy used for specifying the
   drop threshold context, and when is it used merely for clarity and
   reusability?  The answer depends entirely on the actions.  Bandwidth
   control actions within a sub-rule specify how the bandwidth allocated
   to the traffic class determined by the rule's condition clause should
   be further divided among the sub-rules.  Drop threshold actions
   control the traffic class's queue drop behavior for each of the sub-
   rules.  The bandwidth control actions have an implicit pointer
   saying: the bandwidth allocation is relative to the bandwidth
   resources defined by the higher level rule. Drop threshold actions
   have an implicit pointer saying: the thresholds are taken from the
   queue resources defined by the higher level rule. Other actions do
   not have such an implicit pointer, and for these actions hierarchy is
   used only for reusability and readability purposes.

   Each rule that includes a bandwidth allocation action implies that a
   queue should be allocated to the traffic class defined by the rule's
   condition clause.  Therefore, once a bandwidth allocation action
   exists within the actions of a sub-rule, a threshold action within
   this sub-rule cannot refer to thresholds of the parent rule's queue.
   Instead, it must refer to the queue of the sub-rule itself.
   Therefore, in order to have a clear and unambiguous definition,
   refinement of thresholds and refinements of bandwidth allocations
   within sub-rules should be avoided.  If both refinements are needed
   for the same rule, threshold refinements and bandwidth refinements
   rules should each be aggregated to a separate group, and these groups
   should be aggregated under the policy rule, using the
   PolicySetComponent aggregation.










Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 22]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


1.5.  Intended Audiences

   QPIM is intended for several audiences.  The following lists some of
   the intended audiences and their respective uses:

   1. Developers of QoS policy management applications can use this
      model as an extensible framework for defining policies to control
      PEPs and PDPs in an interoperable manner.

   2. Developers of Policy Decision Point (PDP) systems built to control
      resource allocation signaled by RSVP requests.

   3. Developers of Policy Decision Points (PDP) systems built to create
      QoS configuration for PEPs.

   4. Builders of large organization data and knowledge bases who decide
      to combine QoS policy information with other networking policy
      information, assuming all modeling is based on [PCIM] and [PCIMe].

   5. Authors of various standards may use constructs introduced in this
      document to enhance their work.  Authors of data models wishing to
      map a storage specific technology to QPIM must use this document
      as well.

2.  Class Hierarchies

2.1.  Inheritance Hierarchy

   QPIM's class and association inheritance hierarchies are rooted in
   [PCIM] and [PCIMe].  Figures 2 and 3 depict these QPIM inheritance
   hierarchies, while noting their relationships to [PCIM] and
   [PCIMe]classes.  Note that many other classes used to form QPIM
   policies, such as SimplePolicyCondition, are defined in [PCIM] and
   [PCIMe].  Thus, the following figures do NOT represent ALL necessary
   classes and relationships for defining QPIM policies.  Rather, the
   designer using QPIM should use appropriate classes and relationships
   from [PCIM] and [PCIMe] in conjunction with those defined below.














Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 23]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


 [ManagedElement] (abstract, PCIM)
   |
   +--Policy (abstract, PCIM)
   |  |
   |  +---PolicyAction (abstract, PCIM)
   |  |     |
   |  |     +---SimplePolicyAction (PCIMe)
   |  |     |   |
   |  |     |   +---QoSPolicyRSVPSimpleAction (QPIM)
   |  |     |
   |  |     +---QoSPolicyDiscardAction (QPIM)
   |  |     |
   |  |     +---QoSPolicyAdmissionAction (abstract, QPIM)
   |  |     |   |
   |  |     |   +---QoSPolicyPoliceAction (QPIM)
   |  |     |   |
   |  |     |   +---QoSPolicyShapeAction (QPIM)
   |  |     |   |
   |  |     |   +---QoSPolicyRSVPAdmissionAction (QPIM)
   |  |     |
   |  |     +---QoSPolicyPHBAction (abstract, QPIM)
   |  |         |
   |  |         +---QoSPolicyBandwidthAction (QPIM)
   |  |         |
   |  |         +---QoSPolicyCongestionControlAction (QPIM)
   |  |
   |  +---QoSPolicyTrfcProf (abstract, QPIM)
   |  |   |
   |  |   +---QoSPolicyTokenBucketTrfcProf (QPIM)
   |  |   |
   |  |   +---QoSPolicyIntServTrfcProf (QPIM)
   |  |
   |  |
   |  +---PolicyVariable (abstract, PCIMe)
   |  |   |
   |  |   +---PolicyImplicitVariable (abstract, PCIMe)
   |  |       |
   |  |       +---QoSPolicyRSVPVariable (abstract, QPIM)
   |  |           |
   |  |           +---QoSPolicyRSVPSourceIPv4Variable (QPIM)
   |  |           |
   |  |           +---QoSPolicyRSVPDestinationIPv4Variable (QPIM)
   |  |           |
   |  |           +---QoSPolicyRSVPSourceIPv6Variable (QPIM)
   |  |           |

(continued on the next page)




Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 24]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


(continued from the previous page)

[ManagedElement] (abstract, PCIM, repeated for convenience)
   |
   +--Policy (abstract, PCIM, repeated for convenience)
   |  |
   |  +---PolicyVariable (abstract, PCIMe)
   |  |   |
   |  |   +---PolicyImplicitVariable (abstract, PCIMe)
   |  |       |
   |  |       +---QoSPolicyRSVPVariable (abstract, QPIM)
   |  |           |
   |  |           +---QoSPolicyRSVPDestinationIPv6Variable (QPIM)
   |  |           |
   |  |           +---QoSPolicyRSVPSourcePortVariable (QPIM)
   |  |           |
   |  |           +---QoSPolicyRSVPDestinationPortVariable (QPIM)
   |  |           |
   |  |           +---QoSPolicyRSVPIPProtocolVariable (QPIM)
   |  |           |
   |  |           +---QoSPolicyRSVPIPVersionVariable (QPIM)
   |  |           |
   |  |           +---QoSPolicyRSVPDCLASSVariable (QPIM)
   |  |           |
   |  |           +---QoSPolicyRSVPStyleVariable (QPIM)
   |  |           |
   |  |           +---QoSPolicyRSVPDIntServVariable (QPIM)
   |  |           |
   |  |           +---QoSPolicyRSVPMessageTypeVariable (QPIM)
   |  |           |
   |  |           +---QoSPolicyRSVPPreemptionPriorityVariable (QPIM)
   |  |           |
   |  |           +---QoSPolicyRSVPPreemptionDefPriorityVariable (QPIM)
   |  |           |
   |  |           +---QoSPolicyRSVPUserVariable (QPIM)
   |  |           |
   |  |           +---QoSPolicyRSVPApplicationVariable (QPIM)
   |  |           |
   |  |           +---QoSPolicyRSVPAuthMethodVariable (QPIM)
   |  |
   |  +---PolicyValue (abstract, PCIMe)
   |  |     |
   |  |     +---QoSPolicyDNValue (QPIM)
   |  |     |
   |  |     +---QoSPolicyAttributeValue (QPIM)

            Figure 2.  The QPIM Class Inheritance Hierarchy




Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 25]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


2.2.  Relationship Hierarchy

   Figure 3 shows the QPIM relationship hierarchy.

   [unrooted] (abstract, PCIM)
     |
     +---Dependency (abstract)
     |   |
     |   +--- QoSPolicyTrfcProfInAdmissionAction (QPIM)
     |   |
     |   +--- QoSPolicyConformAction (QPIM)
     |   |
     |   +--- QoSPolicyExceedAction (QPIM)
     |   |
     |   +--- QoSPolicyViolateAction (QPIM)
     |   |
     |   +--- PolicyVariableInSimplePolicyAction
     |   |       |
     |   |       + QoSPolicyRSVPVariableInRSVPSimplePolicyAction

        Figure 3.  The QPIM Association Class Inheritance Hierarchy

3.  QoS Actions

   This section describes the QoS actions that are modeled by QPIM.  QoS
   actions are policy enforced network behaviors that are specified for
   traffic selected by QoS conditions.  QoS actions are modeled using
   the classes PolicyAction (defined in [PCIM]), SimplePolicyAction
   (defined in [PCIMe]) and several QoS actions defined in this document
   that are derived from both of these classes, which are described
   below.

   Note that there is no discussion of PolicyRule, PolicyGroup, or
   different types of PolicyCondition classes in this document.  This is
   because these classes are fully specified in [PCIM] and [PCIMe].

3.1.  Overview

   QoS policy based systems allow the network administrator to specify a
   set of rules that control both the selection of the flows that need
   to be provided with a preferred forwarding treatment, as well as
   specifying the specific set of preferred forwarding behaviors.  QPIM
   provides an information model for specifying such a set of rules.

   QoS policy rules enable controlling environments in which RSVP
   signaling is used to request different forwarding treatment for
   different traffic types from the network, as well as environments
   where no signaling is used, but preferred treatment is desired for



Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 26]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   some (but not all) traffic types.  QoS policy rules also allow
   controlling environments where strict QoS guarantees are provided to
   individual flows, as well as environments where QoS is provided to
   flow aggregates.  QoS actions allow a PDP or a PEP to determine which
   RSVP requests should be admitted before network resources are
   allocated.  QoS actions allow control of the RSVP signaling content
   itself, as well as differentiation between priorities of RSVP
   requests.  QoS actions allow controlling the Differentiated Service
   edge enforcement including policing, shaping and marking, as well as
   the per-hop behaviors used in the network core.  Finally, QoS actions
   can be used to control mapping of RSVP requests at the edge of a
   differentiated service cloud into per hop behaviors.

   Four groups of actions are derived from action classes defined in
   [PCIM] and [PCIMe].  The first QoS action group contains a single
   action, QoSPolicyRSVPSimpleAction.  This action is used for both RSVP
   signal control and install actions.  The second QoS action group
   determines whether a flow or class of flows should be admitted.  This
   is done by specifying an appropriate traffic profile using the
   QoSPolicyTrfcProf class and its subclasses.  This set of actions also
   includes QoS admission control actions, which use the
   QoSPolicyAdmissionAction class and its subclasses.  The third group
   of actions control bandwidth allocation and congestion control
   differentiations, which together specify the per-hop behavior
   forwarding treatment.  This group of actions includes the
   QoSPolicyPHBAction class and its subclasses.  The fourth QoS action
   is an unconditional packet discard action, which uses the
   QoSPolicyDiscardAction class.  This action is used either by itself
   or as a building block of the QoSPolicyPoliceAction.

   Note that some QoS actions are not directly modeled.  Instead, they
   are modeled by using the class SimplePolicyAction with the
   appropriate associations.  For example, the three marking actions
   (DSCP, IPP and CoS) are modeled by using the SimplePolicyAction
   class, and associating that class with variables and values of the
   appropriate type defined in [PCIMe].

3.2.  RSVP Policy Actions

   There are three types of decisions a PDP (either remote or within a
   PEP) can make when it evaluates an RSVP request:

   1.  Admit or reject the request
   2.  Add or modify the request admission parameters
   3.  Modify the RSVP signaling content






Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 27]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   The COPS for RSVP [RFC2749] specification uses different Decision
   object types to model each of these decisions.  QPIM follows the COPS
   for RSVP specification and models each decision using a different
   action class.

   The QoSPolicyRSVPAdmissionAction controls the Decision Command and
   Decision Flags objects used within COPS for RSVP.  The
   QoSPolicyRSVPAdmissionAction class, with its associated
   QoSPolicyIntServTrfcProf class, is used to determine whether to
   accept or reject a given RSVP request by comparing the RSVP request's
   TSPEC or RSPEC parameters against the traffic profile specified by
   the QoSPolicyIntServTrfcProf.  For a full description of the
   comparison method, see section 4.  Following the COPS for RSVP
   specification, the admission decision has an option to both accept
   the request and send a warning to the requester.  The
   QoSPolicyRSVPAdmissionAction can be used to limit the number of
   admitted reservations as well.

   The class QoSPolicyRSVPSimpleAction, which is derived from the
   PolicySimpleAction class [PCIMe], can be used to control the two
   other COPS RSVP decision types.  The property qpRSVPActionType
   designates the instance of the class to be either of type 'REPLACE',
   'STATELESS', or both ('REPLACEANDSTATELESS').  For instances carrying
   a qpRSVPActionType property value of 'REPLACE', the action is
   interpreted as a COPS Replace Decision, controlling the contents of
   the RSVP message.  For instances carrying a qpRSVPActionType property
   value of 'STATELESS', the action is interpreted as a COPS Stateless
   Decision, controlling the admission parameters.  If both of these
   actions are required, this can be done by assigning the value
   REPLACEANDSTATELESS to the qpRSVPActionType property.

   This class is modeled to represent the COPS for RSVP Replace and
   Stateless decisions.  This similarity allows future use of these COPS
   decisions to be directly controlled by a QoSPolicySimpleAction.  The
   only required extension might be the definition of a new RSVP
   variable.

3.2.1.  Example: Controlling COPS Stateless Decision

   The QoSPolicyRSVPSimpleAction allows the specification of admission
   parameters.  It allows specification of the preemption priority
   [RFC3181] of a given RSVP Reservation request.  Using the preemption
   priority value, the PEP can determine the importance of a Reservation
   compared with already admitted reservations, and if necessary can
   preempt lower priority reservations to make room for the higher
   priority one.  This class can also be used to control mapping of RSVP
   requests to a differentiated services domain by setting the




Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 28]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   QoSPolicyRSVPDCLASSVariable to the required value.  This instructs
   the PEP to mark traffic matching the Session and Sender
   specifications carried in an RSVP request to a given DSCP value.

3.2.2.  Example: Controlling the COPS Replace Decision

   A Policy system should be able to control the information carried in
   the RSVP messages.  The QoSPolicyRSVPSimpleAction allows control of
   the content of RSVP signaling messages.  An RSVP message can carry a
   preemption policy object [RFC3181] specifying the priority of the
   reservation request in comparison to other requests.  An RSVP message
   can also carry a policy object for authentication purposes.  An RSVP
   message can carry a DCLASS [DCLASS] object that specifies to the
   receiver or sender the particular DSCP value that should be set on
   the data traffic.  A COPS for RSVP Replacement Data Decision controls
   the content of the RSVP message by specifying a set of RSVP objects
   replacing or removing the existing ones.

3.3.  Provisioning Policy Actions

   The differentiated Service Architecture [DIFFSERV] was designed to
   provide a scalable QoS differentiation without requiring any
   signaling protocols running between the hosts and the network.  The
   QoS actions modeled in QPIM can be used to control all of the
   building blocks of the Differentiated Service architecture, including
   per-hop behaviors, edge classification, and policing and shaping,
   without a need to specify the datapath mechanisms used by PEP
   implementations.  This provides an abstraction level hiding the
   unnecessary details and allowing the network administrator to write
   rules that express the network requirements in a more natural form.
   In this architecture, as no signaling between the end host and the
   network occurs before the sender starts sending information, the QoS
   mechanisms should be set up in advance.  This usually means that PEPs
   need to be provisioned with the set of policy rules in advance.

   Policing and Shaping actions are modeled as subclasses of the QoS
   admission action.  DSCP and CoS marking are modeled by using the
   SimplePolicyAction ([PCIMe]) class associated with the appropriate
   variables and values.  Bandwidth allocation and congestion control
   actions are modeled as subclasses of the QpQPolicyPHBAction, which is
   itself a subclass PolicyAction class ([PCIM])

3.3.1.  Admission Actions: Controlling Policers and Shapers

   Admission Actions (QoSPolicyAdmissionAction and its subclasses) are
   used to police and/or shape traffic.





Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 29]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   Each Admission Action is bound to a traffic profile
   (QoSPolicyTrfcProf) via the QoSPolicyTrfcProfInAdmissionAction
   association.  The traffic profile is used to meter traffic for
   purposes of policing or shaping.

   An Admission Action carries a scope property (qpAdmissionScope) that
   is used to determine whether the action controls individual traffic
   flows or aggregate traffic classes.  The concepts of "flow" and
   "traffic class" are explained in [DIFFSERV] using the terms
   'microflow' and 'traffic stream'.  Roughly speaking, a flow is a set
   of packets carrying an IP header that has the same values for source
   IP, destination IP, protocol and layer 4 source and destination
   ports.  A traffic class is a set of flows.  In QPIM, simple and
   compound conditions can identify flows and/or traffic classes by
   using Boolean terms over the values of IP header fields, including
   the value of the ToS byte.

   Thus, the interpretation of the scope property is as follows: If the
   value of the scope property is 0 (per-flow), each (micro) flow that
   can be positively matched with the rule's condition is metered and
   policed individually.  If the value of the scope property is 1 (per-
   class), all flows matched with the rule's condition are metered as a
   single aggregate and policed together.

   The following example illustrates the use of the scope property.
   Using two provisioned policing actions, the following policies can be
   enforced:

   -  Make sure that each HTTP flow will not exceed 64kb/s

   -  Make sure that the aggregate rate of all HTTP flows will not
      exceed 512Kb/s

   Both policies are modeled using the same class QoSPolicyPoliceAction
   (derived from QoSPolicyAdmissionAction).  The first policy has its
   scope property set to 'flow', while the second policy has its scope
   property set to 'class'.  The two policies are modeled using a rule
   with two police actions that, in a pseudo-formal definition, looks
   like the following:

      If (HTTP) Action1=police, Traffic Profile1=64kb/s, Scope1=flow
                Action2=police, Traffic Profile2=512kb/s, Scope2=class

   The provisioned policing action QoSPolicyPoliceAction has three
   associations, QoSPolicyConformAction, QoSPolicyExceedAction and
   QoSPolicyViolateAction.





Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 30]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   To accomplish the desired result stated above, two possible modeling
   techniques may be used: The two actions can be part of a single
   policy rule using two PolicyActionInPolicyRule [PCIM] associations.
   In this case the ExecutionStrategy property of the PolicyRule class
   [PCIMe] SHOULD be set to "Do All" so that both individual flows and
   aggregate streams are policed.

   Alternatively, Action1 and Action2 could be aggregated in a
   CompundPolicyAction instance using the PolicyActionInPolicyAction
   aggregations [PCIMe].  In this case, in order for both individual
   flows and aggregate traffic classes to be policed, the
   ExecutionStrategy property of the CompoundPolicyAction class [PCIMe]
   SHOULD be set to "Do All".

   The policing action is associated with a three-level token bucket
   traffic profile carrying rate, burst and excess-burst parameters.
   Traffic measured by a meter can be classified as conforming traffic
   when the metered rate is below the rate defined by the traffic
   profile, as excess traffic when the metered traffic is above the
   normal burst and below the excess burst size, and violating traffic
   when rate is above the maximum excess burst.

   The [DIFF-MIB] defines a two-level meter, and provides a means to
   combine two-level meters into more complex meters.  In this document,
   a three-level traffic profile is defined.  This allows construction
   of both two-level meters as well as providing an easier definition
   for three-level meters needed for creating AF [AF] provisioning
   actions.

   A policing action that models three-level policing MUST associate
   three separate actions with a three-level traffic profile.  These
   actions are a conforming action, an exceeding action and a violating
   action.  A policing action that models two-level policing uses a
   two-level traffic profile and associates only conforming and
   exceeding actions.  A policing action with a three-level traffic
   profile that specifies an exceed action but does not specify a
   violate action implies that the action taken when the traffic is
   above the maximum excess burst is identical to the action taken when
   the traffic is above the normal burst.  A policer determines whether
   the profile is being met, while the actions to be performed are
   determined by the associations QoSPolicyXXXAction.

   Shapers are used to delay some or all of the packets in a traffic
   stream, in order to bring the stream into compliance with a traffic
   profile.  A shaper usually has a finite-sized buffer, and packets may
   be discarded if there is not sufficient buffer space to hold the
   delayed packets.  Shaping is controlled by the QoSPolicyShapeAction




Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 31]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   class.  The only required association is a traffic profile that
   specifies the rate and burst parameters that the outgoing flows
   should conform with.

3.3.2.  Controlling Markers

   Three types of marking control actions are modeled in QPIM:
   Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) assignment, IP Precedence
   (IPP) assignment and layer-2 Class of Service (CoS) assignment.
   These assignment actions themselves are modeled by using the
   SimplePolicyAction class associated with the appropriate variables
   and values.

   DSCP assignment sets ("marks" or "colors") the DS field of a packet
   header to a particular DS Code Point (DSCP), adding the marked packet
   to a particular DS behavior aggregate.

   When used in the basic form, "If <condition> then 'DCSP = ds1'", the
   assignment action assigns a DSCP value (ds1) to all packets that
   result in the condition being evaluated to true.

   When used in combination with a policing action, a different
   assignment action can be issued via each of the 'conform', 'exceed'
   and 'violate' action associations.  This way, one may select a PHB in
   a PHB group according to the state of a meter.

   The semantics of the DSCP assignment is encapsulated in the pairing
   of a DSCP variable and a DSCP value within a single
   SimplePolicyAction instance via the appropriate associations.

   IPP assignment sets the IPP field of a packet header to a particular
   IPP value (0 through 7).  The semantics of the IPP assignment is
   encapsulated in the pairing of a ToS variable (PolicyIPTosVariable)
   and a bit string value () (defined in [PCIMe]) within a single
   SimplePolicyAction instance via the appropriate associations.  The
   bit string value is used in its masked bit string format.  The mask
   indicates the relevant 3 bits of the IPP sub field within the ToS
   byte, while the bit string indicates the IPP value to be set.

   CoS assignments control the mapping of a per-hop behavior to a
   layer-2 Class of Service.  For example, mapping of a set of DSCP
   values into a 802.1p user priority value can be specified using a
   rule with a condition describing the set of DSCP values, and a CoS
   assignment action that specifies the required mapping to the given
   user priority value. The semantics of the CoS assignment is
   encapsulated in the pairing of a CoS variable and a CoS value
   (integer in the range of 0 through 7) within a single
   SimplePolicyAction instance via the appropriate associations.



Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 32]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


3.3.3.  Controlling Edge Policies - Examples

   Assuming that the AF1 behavior aggregate is enforced within a DS
   domain, policy rules on the boundaries of the network should mark
   packets to one of the AF1x DSCPs, depending on the conformance of the
   traffic to a predetermined three-parameter traffic profile.  QPIM
   models such AF1 policing action as defined in Figure 4.

     +-----------------------+    +------------------------------+
     | QoSPolicyPoliceAction |====| QoSPolicyTokenBucketTrfcProf |
     | scope = class         |    | rate = x, bc = y, be = z     |
     +-----------------------+    +------------------------------+
       *     @     #
       *     @     #
       *     @  +--------------------+   +--------------------------+
       *     @  | SimplePolicyAction |---| PolicyIntegerValue -AF13 |
       *     @  +--------------------+   +--------------------------+
       *     @
       *  +--------------------+   +---------------------------+
       *  | SimplePolicyAction |---| PolicyIntegerValue - AF12 |
       *  +--------------------+   +---------------------------+
       *
     +--------------------+   +---------------------------+
     | SimplePolicyAction |---| PolicyIntegerValue - AF11 |
     +--------------------+   +---------------------------+

   Association and Aggregation Legend:

     ****  QoSPolicyConformAction
     @@@@  QoSPolicyExceedAction
     ####  QoSPolicyViolateAction
     ====  QoSTrfcProfInAdmissionAction
     ----  PolicyValueInSimplePolicyAction ([PCIMe])
     &&&&  PolicyVariableInSimplePolicyAction ([PCIMe], not shown)

                   Figure 4.    AF Policing and Marking

   The AF policing action is composed of a police action, a token bucket
   traffic profile and three instances of the SimplePolicyAction class.
   Each of the simple policy action instances models a different marking
   action.  Each SimplePolicyAction uses the aggregation
   PolicyVariableInSimplePolicyAction to specify that the associated
   PolicyDSCPVariable is set to the appropriate integer value.  This is
   done using the PolicyValueInSimplePolicyAction aggregation.  The
   three PolicyVariableInSimplePolicyAction aggregations which connect
   the appropriate SimplePolicyActions with the appropriate DSCP





Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 33]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   Variables, are not shown in this figure for simplicity.  AF11 is
   marked on detecting conforming traffic; AF12 is marked on detecting
   exceeding traffic, and AF13 on detecting violating traffic.

   The second example, shown in Figure 5, is the simplest policing
   action.  Traffic below a two-parameter traffic profile is unmodified,
   while traffic exceeding the traffic profile is discarded.

     +-----------------------+    +------------------------------+
     | QoSPolicyPoliceAction |====| QoSPolicyTokenBucketTrfcProf |
     | scope = class         |    | rate = x, bc = y             |
     +-----------------------+    +------------------------------+
            @
            @
         +-------------------------+
         | QoSPolicyDiscardAction  |
         +-------------------------+

   Association and Aggregation Legend:
     ****  QoSPolicyConformAction (not used)
     @@@@  QoSPolicyExceedAction
     ####  QoSPolicyViolateAction (not used)
     ====  QoSTrfcProfInAdmissionAction

   Figure 5.    A Simple Policing Action

3.4.  Per-Hop Behavior Actions

   A Per-Hop Behavior (PHB) is a description of the externally
   observable forwarding behavior of a DS node applied to a particular
   DS behavior aggregate [DIFFSERV].  The approach taken here is that a
   PHB action specifies both observable forwarding behavior (e.g., loss,
   delay, jitter) as well as specifying the buffer and bandwidth
   resources that need to be allocated to each of the behavior
   aggregates in order to achieve this behavior.  That is, a rule with a
   set of PHB actions can specify that an EF packet must not be delayed
   more than 20 msec in each hop.  The same rule may also specify that
   EF packets need to be treated with preemptive forwarding (e.g., with
   priority queuing), and specify the maximum bandwidth for this class,
   as well as the maximum buffer resources.  PHB actions can therefore
   be used both to represent the final requirements from PHBs and to
   provide enough detail to be able to map the PHB actions into a set of
   configuration parameters to configure queues, schedulers, droppers
   and other mechanisms.

   The QoSPolicyPHBAction abstract class has two subclasses.  The
   QoSPolicyBandwidthAction class is used to control bandwidth, delay
   and forwarding behavior, while the QoSPolicyCongestionControlAction



Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 34]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   class is used to control queue size, thresholds and congestion
   algorithms.  The qpMaxPacketSize property of the QoSPolicyPHBAction
   class specifies the packet size in bytes, and is needed when
   translating the bandwidth and congestion control actions into actual
   implementation configurations. For example, an implementation
   measuring queue length in bytes will need to use this property to map
   the qpQueueSize property into the desired queue length in bytes.

3.4.1.  Controlling Bandwidth and Delay

   QoSPolicyBandwidthAction allows specifying the minimal bandwidth that
   should be reserved for a class of traffic.  The property
   qpMinBandwidth can be specified either in Kb/sec or as a percentage
   of the total available bandwidth.  The property qpBandwidthUnits is
   used to determine whether percentages or fixed values are used.

   The property qpForwardingPriority is used whenever preemptive
   forwarding is required.  A policy rule that defines the EF PHB should
   indicate a non-zero forwarding priority.  The qpForwardingPriority
   property holds an integer value to enable multiple levels of
   preemptive forwarding where higher values are used to specify higher
   priority.

   The property qpMaxBandwidth specifies the maximum bandwidth that
   should be allocated to a class of traffic.  This property may be
   specified in PHB actions with non-zero forwarding priority in order
   to guard against starvation of other PHBs.

   The properties qpMaxDelay and qpMaxJitter specify limits on the per-
   hop delay and jitter in milliseconds for any given packet within a
   traffic class.  Enforcement of the maximum delay and jitter may
   require use of preemptive forwarding as well as minimum and maximum
   bandwidth controls.  Enforcement of low max delay and jitter values
   may also require fragmentation and interleave mechanisms over low
   speed links.

   The Boolean property qpFairness indicates whether flows should have a
   fair chance to be forwarded without drop or delay.  A way to enforce
   a bandwidth action with qpFairness set to TRUE would be to build a
   queue per flow for the class of traffic specified in the rule's
   filter.  In this way, interactive flows like terminal access will not
   be queued behind a bursty flow (like FTP) and therefore have a
   reasonable response time.

3.4.2.  Congestion Control Actions

   The QoSPolicyCongestionControlAction class controls queue length,
   thresholds and congestion control algorithms.



Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 35]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   A PEP should be able to keep in its queues qpQueueSize packets
   matching the rule's condition.  In order to provide a link-speed
   independent queue size, the qpQueueSize property can also be measured
   in milliseconds.  The time interval specifies the time needed to
   transmit all packets within the queue if the link speed is dedicated
   entirely for transmission of packets within this queue.  The property
   qpQueueSizeUnit determines whether queue size is measured in number
   of packets or in milliseconds.  The property qpDropMethod selects
   either tail-drop, head-drop or random-drop algorithms.  The set of
   maximum and minimum threshold values can be specified as well, using
   qpDropMinThresholdValue and qpDropMaxThresholdValue properties,
   either in packets or in percentage of the total available queue size
   as specified by the qpDropThresholdUnits property.

3.4.3.  Using Hierarchical Policies: Examples for PHB Actions

   Hierarchical policy definition is a primary tool in the QoS Policy
   information model.  Rule nesting introduced in [PCIMe] allows
   specification of hierarchical policies controlling RSVP requests,
   hierarchical shaping, policing and marking actions, as well as
   hierarchical schedulers and definition of the differences in PHB
   groups.

   This example provides a set of rules that specify PHBs enforced
   within a Differentiated Service domain.  The network administrator
   chose to enforce the EF, AF11 and AF13 and Best Effort PHBs.  For
   simplicity, AF12 is not differentiated.  The set of rules takes the
   form:

      If (EF) then do EF actions
      If (AF1) then do AF1 actions
          If (AF11) then do AF11 actions
          If (AF12) then do AF12 actions
          If (AF13) then do AF13 actions
      If (default) then do Default actions.

   EF, AF1, AF11, AF12 and AF13 are conditions that filter traffic
   according to DSCP values.  The AF1 condition matches the entire AF1
   PHB group including the AF11, AF12 and AF13 DSCP values.  The default
   rule specifies the Best Effort rules.  The nesting of the AF1x rules
   within the AF1 rule specifies that there are further refinements on
   how AF1x traffic should be treated relative to the entire AF1 PHB
   group.  The set of rules reside in a PolicyGroup with a decision
   strategy property set to 'FirstMatching'.

   The class instances below specify the set of actions used to describe
   each of the PHBs.  Queue sizes are not specified, but can easily be
   added to the example.



Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 36]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   The actions used to describe the Best Effort PHB are simple.  No
   bandwidth is allocated to Best Effort traffic.  The first action
   specifies that Best Effort traffic class should have fairness.

   QoSPolicyBandwidthAction  BE-B:
     qpFairness: TRUE

   The second action specifies that the congestion algorithm for the
   Best Effort traffic class should be random, and specifies the
   thresholds in percentage of the default queue size.

   QoSPolicyCongestionControlAction  BE-C:
     qpDropMethod: random
     qpDropThresholdUnits %
     qpDropMinThreshold:  10%
     qpDropMaxThreshold:  70%

   EF requires preemptive forwarding.  The maximum bandwidth is also
   specified to make sure that the EF class does not starve the other
   classes.  EF PHB uses tail drop as the applications using EF are
   supposed to be UDP-based and therefore would not benefit from a
   random dropper.

   QoSPolicyBandwidthAction  EF-B:
     qpForwardingPriority: 1
     qpBandwidthUnits: %
     qpMaxBandwidth  50%
     qpFairness: FALSE

   QoSPolicyCongestionControlAction  EF-C:
     qpDropMethod: tail-drop
     qpDropThresholdUnits packet
     qpDropMaxThreshold:  3 packets

   The AF1 actions define the bandwidth allocations for the entire PHB
   group:

   QoSPolicyBandwidthAction  AF1-B:
     qpBandwidthUnits: %
     qpMinBandwidth: 30%

   The AF1i actions specifies the differentiating refinement for the
   AF1x PHBs within the AF1 PHB group.  The different threshold values
   provide the difference in discard probability of the AF1x PHBs within
   the AF1 PHB group.






Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 37]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   QoSPolicyCongestionControlAction  AF11-C:
     qpDropMethod: random
     qpDropThresholdUnits packet
     qpDropMinThreshold:  6 packets
     qpDropMaxThreshold:  16 packets

   QoSPolicyCongestionControlAction  AF12-C:
     qpDropMethod: random
     qpDropThresholdUnits packet
     qpDropMinThreshold:  4 packets
     qpDropMaxThreshold:  13 packets

   QoSPolicyCongestionControlAction  AF13-C:
     qpDropMethod: random
     qpDropThresholdUnits packet
     qpDropMinThreshold:  2 packets
     qpDropMaxThreshold:  10 packets

4.  Traffic Profiles

   Meters measure the temporal state of a flow or a set of flows against
   a traffic profile.  In this document, traffic profiles are modeled by
   the QoSPolicyTrfcProf class.  The association QoSPolicyTrfcProf
   InAdmissionAction binds the traffic profile to the admission action
   using it.  Two traffic profiles are derived from the abstract class
   QoSPolicyTrfcProf.  The first is a Token Bucket provisioning traffic
   profile carrying rate and burst parameters.  The second is an RSVP
   traffic profile, which enables flows to be compared with RSVP TSPEC
   and FLOWSPEC parameters.

4.1.  Provisioning Traffic Profiles

   Provisioned Admission Actions, including shaping and policing, are
   specified using a two- or three-parameter token bucket traffic
   profile.  The QoSPolicyTokenBucketTrfcProf class includes the
   following properties:

   1.  Rate measured in kbits/sec
   2.  Normal burst measured in bytes
   3.  Excess burst measured in bytes

   Rate determines the long-term average transmission rate.  Traffic
   that falls under this rate is conforming, as long as the normal burst
   is not exceeded at any time.  Traffic exceeding the normal burst but
   still below the excess burst is exceeding the traffic profile.
   Traffic beyond the excess burst is said to be violating the traffic
   profile.




Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 38]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   Excess burst size is measured in bytes in addition to the burst size.
   A zero excess burst size indicates that no excess burst is allowed.

4.2.  RSVP traffic profiles

   RSVP admission policy can condition the decision whether to accept or
   deny an RSVP request based on the traffic specification of the flow
   (TSPEC) or the amount of QoS resources requested (FLOWSPEC).  The
   admission decision can be based on matching individual RSVP requests
   against a traffic profile or by matching the aggregated sum of all
   FLOWSPECs (TSPECs) currently admitted, as determined by the
   qpAdmissionScope property in an associated
   QoSPolicyRSVPAdmissionAction.

   The QoSPolicyIntservTrfcProf class models both such traffic profiles.
   This class has the following properties:

      1.  Token Rate (r) measured in bits/sec
      2.  Peak Rate (p) measured in bits/sec
      3.  Bucket Size (b) measured in bytes
      4.  Min Policed unit (m) measured in bytes
      5.  Max packet size (M) measured in bytes
      6.  Resv Rate (R) measured in bits/sec
      7.  Slack term (s) measured in microseconds

   The first five parameters are the traffic specification parameters
   used in the Integrated Service architecture ([INTSERV]).  These
   parameters are used to define a sender TSPEC as well as a FLOWSPEC
   for the Controlled-Load service [CL].  For a definition and full
   explanation of their meanings, please refer to [RSVP-IS].

   Parameters 6 and 7 are the additional parameters used for
   specification of the Guaranteed Service FLOWSPEC [GS].

   A partial order is defined between TSPECs (and FLOWSPECs).  The TSPEC
   A is larger than the TSPEC B if and only if rA>rB, pA>pB, bA>bB,
   mA<mB and MA>MB.  A TSPEC (FLOWSPEC) measured against a traffic
   profile uses the same ordering rule.  An RSVP message is accepted
   only if its TSPEC (FLOWSPEC) is either smaller or equal to the
   traffic profile.  Only parameters specified in the traffic profile
   are compared.

   The GS FLOWSPEC is compared against the rate R and the slack term s.
   The term R should not be larger than the traffic profile R parameter,
   while the FLOWSPEC slack term should not be smaller than that
   specified in the slack term.





Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 39]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   TSPECs as well as FLOWSPECs can be added.  The sum of two TSPECs is
   computed by summing the rate r, the peak rate p, the bucket size b,
   and by taking the minimum value of the minimum policed unit m and the
   maximum value of the maximum packet size M.  GS FLOWSPECs are summed
   by adding the Resv rate and minimizing the slack term s.  These rules
   are used to compute the temporal state of admitted RSVP states
   matching the traffic class defined by the rule condition.  This state
   is compared with the traffic profile to arrive at an admission
   decision when the scope of the QoSPolicyRSVPAdmissionAction is set to
   'class'.

5.  Pre-Defined QoS-Related Variables

   Pre-defined variables are necessary for ensuring interoperability
   among policy servers and policy management tools from different
   vendors.  The purpose of this section is to define frequently used
   variables in QoS policy domains.

   Notice that this section only adds to the variable classes as defined
   in [PCIMe] and reuses the mechanism defined there.

   The QoS policy information model specifies a set of pre-defined
   variable classes to support a set of fundamental QoS terms that are
   commonly used to form conditions and actions and are missing from the
   [PCIMe]. Examples of these include RSVP related variables.  All
   variable classes defined in this document extend the
   QoSPolicyRSVPVariable class (defined in this document), which itself
   extends the PolicyImplictVariable class, defined in [PCIMe].
   Subclasses specify the data type and semantics of the policy
   variables.

   This document defines the following RSVP variable classes; for
   details, see their class definitions:

   RSVP related Variables:

   1.   QoSPolicyRSVPSourceIPv4Variable - The source IPv4 address of the
        RSVP signaled flow, as defined in the RSVP PATH SENDER_TEMPLATE
        and RSVP RESV FILTER_SPEC [RSVP] objects.

   2.   QoSPolicyRSVPDestinationIPv4Variable - The destination port of
        the RSVP signaled flow, as defined in the RSVP PATH and RESV
        SESSION [RSVP] objects (for IPv4 traffic).

   3.   QoSPolicyRSVPSourceIPv6Variable - The source IPv6 address of the
        RSVP signaled flow, as defied in the RSVP PATH SENDER_TEMPLATE
        and RSVP RESV FILTER_SPEC [RSVP] objects.




Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 40]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   4.   QoSPolicyRSVPDestinationIPv6Variable - The destination port of
        the RSVP signaled flow, as defined in the RSVP PATH and RESV
        SESSION [RSVP] objects (for IPv6 traffic).

   5.   QoSPolicyRSVPSourcePortVariable - The source port of the RSVP
        signaled flow, as defined in the RSVP PATH SENDER_TEMPLATE and
        RSVP RESV FILTER_SPEC [RSVP] objects.

   6.   QoSPolicyRSVPDestinationPortVariable - The destination port of
        the RSVP signaled flow, as defined in the RSVP PATH and RESV
        SESSION [RSVP] objects.

   7.   QoSPolicyRSVPIPProtocolVariable - The IP Protocol of the RSVP
        signaled flow, as defined in the RSVP PATH and RESV SESSION
        [RSVP] objects.

   8.   QoSPolicyRSVPIPVersionVariable - The version of the IP addresses
        carrying the RSVP signaled flow, as defined in the RSVP PATH and
        RESV SESSION [RSVP] objects.

   9.   QoSPolicyRSVPDCLASSVariable - The DSCP value as defined in the
        RSVP DCLASS [DCLASS] object.

   10.  QoSPolicyRSVPStyleVariable - The reservation style (FF, SE, WF)
        as defined in the RSVP RESV message [RSVP].

   11.  QoSPolicyRSVPIntServVariable - The type of Integrated Service
        (CL, GS, NULL) requested in the RSVP Reservation message, as
        defined in the FLOWSPEC RSVP Object [RSVP].

   12.  QoSPolicyRSVPMessageTypeVariable - The RSVP message type, either
        PATH, PATHTEAR, RESV, RESVTEAR, RESVERR, CONF or PATHERR [RSVP].

   13.  QoSPolicyRSVPPreemptionPriorityVariable - The RSVP reservation
        priority as defined in [RFC3181].

   14.  QoSPolicyRSVPPreemptionDefPriorityVariable - The RSVP preemption
        reservation defending priority as defined in [RFC3181].

   15.  QoSPolicyRSVPUserVariable - The ID of the user that initiated
        the flow as defined in the User Locator string in the Identity
        Policy Object [RFC3182].

   16.  QoSPolicyRSVPApplicationVariable - The ID of the application
        that generated the flow as defined in the application locator
        string in the Application policy object [RFC2872].





Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 41]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   17.  QoSPolicyRSVPAuthMethodVariable - The RSVP Authentication type
        used in the Identity Policy Object [RFC3182].

   Each class restricts the possible value types associated with a
   specific variable.  For example, the QoSPolicyRSVPSourcePortVariable
   class is used to define the source port of the RSVP signaled flow.
   The value associated with this variable is of type
   PolicyIntegerValue.

6.  QoS Related Values

   Values are used in the information model as building blocks for the
   policy conditions and policy actions, as described in [PCIM] and
   [PCIMe].  This section defines a set of auxiliary values that are
   used for QoS policies as well as other policy domains.

   All value classes extend the PolicyValue class [PCIMe].  The
   subclasses specify specific data/value types that are not defined in
   [PCIMe].

   This document defines the following two subclasses of the PolicyValue
   class:

   QoSPolicyDNValue          This class is used to represent a single or
                             set of Distinguished Name [DNDEF] values,
                             including wildcards.  A Distinguished Name
                             is a name that can be used as a key to
                             retrieve an object from a directory
                             service.  This value can be used in
                             comparison to reference values carried in
                             RSVP policy objects, as specified in
                             [RFC3182].  This class is defined in
                             Section 8.31.

   QoSPolicyAttributeValue   A condition term uses the form "Variable
                             matches Value", and an action term uses the
                             form "set Variable to Value" ([PCIMe]).
                             This class is used to represent a single or
                             set of property values for the "Value" term
                             in either a condition or an action. This
                             value can be used in conjunction with
                             reference values carried in RSVP objects,
                             as specified in [RFC3182].  This class is
                             defined in section 8.12.

   The property name is used to specify which of the properties in the
   QoSPolicyAttributeValue class instance is being used in the condition
   or action term.  The value of this property or properties will then



Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 42]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   be retrieved.  In the case of a condition, a match (which is
   dependent on the property name) will be used to see if the condition
   is satisfied or not.  In the case of an action, the semantics are
   instead "set the variable to this value".

   For example, suppose the "user" objects in the organization include
   several properties, among them:

      - First Name
      - Last Name
      - Login Name
      - Department
      - Title

   A simple condition could be constructed to identify flows by their
   RSVP user carried policy object.  The simple condition: Last Name =
   "Smith" to identify a user named Bill would be constructed in the
   following way:

      A SimplePolicyCondition [PCIMe] would aggregate a
      QoSPolicyRSVPUserVariable [QPIM] object, via the
      PolicyVariableInSimplePolicyCondition [PCIMe] aggregation.

   The implicit value associated with this condition is created in the
   following way:

      A QoSPolicyAttributeValue object would be aggregated to the simple
      condition object via a PolicyValueInSimplePolicyCondition [PCIMe].
      The QoSPolicyAttributeValue attribute qpAttributeName would be set
      to "last name" and the qpAttributeValueList would be set to
      "Smith".

   Another example is a condition that has to do with the user's
   organizational department.  It can be constructed in the exact same
   way, by changing the QoSPolicyAttributeValue attribute
   qpAttributeName to "Department" and the qpAttributeValueList would be
   set to the particular value that is to be matched (e.g.,
   "engineering" or "customer support").  The logical condition would
   than be evaluated to true if the user belong to either the
   engineering department or the customer support.

   Notice that many multiple-attribute objects require the use of the
   QoSPolicyAttributeValue class to specify exactly which of its
   attributes should be used in the condition match operation.







Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 43]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


7.  Class Definitions: Association Hierarchy

   The following sections define associations that are specified by
   QPIM.

7.1.  The Association "QoSPolicyTrfcProfInAdmissionAction"

   This association links a QoSPolicyTrfcProf object (defined in section
   8.9), modeling a specific traffic profile, to a
   QoSPolicyAdmissionAction object (defined in section 8.2).  The class
   definition for this association is as follows:

   NAME              QoSPolicyTrfcProfInAdmissionAction
   DESCRIPTION       A class representing the association between a
                     QoS admission action and its traffic profile.
   DERIVED FROM      Dependency (See [PCIM])
   ABSTRACT          FALSE
   PROPERTIES        Antecedent[ref QoSPolicyAdmissionAction [0..n]]
                     Dependent[ref QoSPolicyTrfcProf [1..1]]

7.1.1.  The Reference "Antecedent"

   This property is inherited from the Dependency association, defined
   in [PCIM].  Its type is overridden to become an object reference to a
   QoSPolicyAdmissionAction object.  This represents the "independent"
   part of the association.  The [0..n] cardinality indicates that any
   number of QoSPolicyAdmissionAction object(s) may use a given
   QoSPolicyTrfcProf.

7.1.2.  The Reference "Dependent"

   This property is inherited from the Dependency association, and is
   overridden to become an object reference to a QoSPolicyTrfcProf
   object.  This represents a specific traffic profile that is used by
   any number of QoSPolicyAdmissionAction objects.  The [1..1]
   cardinality means that exactly one object of the QoSPolicyTrfcProf
   can be used by a given QoSPolicyAddmissionAction.

7.2.  The Association "PolicyConformAction"

   This association links a policing action with an object defining an
   action to be applied to conforming traffic relative to the associated
   traffic profile.  The class definition for this association is as
   follows:







Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 44]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   NAME              PolicyConformAction
   DESCRIPTION       A class representing the association between a
                     policing action and the action that should be
                     applied to traffic conforming to an associated
                     traffic profile.
   DERIVED FROM      Dependency (see [PCIM])
   ABSTRACT          FALSE
   PROPERTIES        Antecedent[ref QoSPolicyPoliceAction[0..n]]
                     Dependent[ref PolicyAction [1..1]]

7.2.1.  The Reference "Antecedent"

   This property is inherited from the Dependency association.  Its type
   is overridden to become an object reference to a
   QoSPolicyPoliceAction object.  This represents the "independent" part
   of the association.  The [0..n] cardinality indicates that any number
   of QoSPolicyPoliceAction objects may be given the same action to be
   executed as the conforming action.

7.2.2.  The Reference "Dependent"

   This property is inherited from the Dependency association, and is
   overridden to become an object reference to a PolicyAction object.
   This represents a specific policy action that is used by a given
   QoSPolicyPoliceAction.  The [1..1] cardinality means that exactly one
   policy action  can be used as the "conform" action for a
   QoSPolicyPoliceAction.  To execute more than one conforming action,
   use the PolicyCompoundAction class to model the conforming action.

7.3.  The Association "QoSPolicyExceedAction"

   This association links a policing action with an object defining an
   action to be applied to traffic exceeding the associated traffic
   profile.  The class definition for this association is as follows:

   NAME              QoSPolicyExceedAction
   DESCRIPTION       A class representing the association between a
                     policing action and the action that should be
                     applied to traffic exceeding an associated traffic
                     profile.
   DERIVED FROM      Dependency (see [PCIM])
   ABSTRACT          FALSE
   PROPERTIES        Antecedent[ref QoSPolicePoliceAction[0..n]]
                     Dependent[ref PolicyAction [1..1]]







Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 45]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


7.3.1.  The Reference "Antecedent"

   This property is inherited from the Dependency association.  Its type
   is overridden to become an object reference to a
   QoSPolicyPoliceAction object.  This represents the "independent" part
   of the association.  The [0..n] cardinality indicates that any number
   of QoSPolicyPoliceAction objects may be given the same action to be
   executed as the exceeding action.

7.3.2.  The Reference "Dependent"

   This property is inherited from the Dependency association, and is
   overridden to become an object reference to a PolicyAction object.
   This represents a specific policy action that is used by a given
   QoSPolicyPoliceAction.  The [1..1] cardinality means that a exactly
   one policy action can be used as the "exceed" action by a
   QoSPolicyPoliceAction.  To execute more than one conforming action,
   use the PolicyCompoundAction class to model the exceeding action.

7.4.  The Association "PolicyViolateAction"

   This association links a policing action with an object defining an
   action to be applied to traffic violating the associated traffic
   profile.  The class definition for this association is as follows:

   NAME              PolicyViolateAction
   DESCRIPTION       A class representing the association between
                     a policing action and the action that should be
                     applied to traffic violating an associated traffic
                     profile.
   DERIVED FROM      Dependency (see [PCIM])
   ABSTRACT          FALSE
   PROPERTIES        Antecedent[ref QoSPolicePoliceAction[0..n]]
                     Dependent[ref PolicyAction [1..1]]

7.4.1.  The Reference "Antecedent"

   This property is inherited from the Dependency association.  Its type
   is overridden to become an object reference to a
   QoSPolicyPoliceAction object.  This represents the "independent" part
   of the association.  The [0..n] cardinality indicates that any number
   of QoSPolicyPoliceAction objects may be given the same action to be
   executed as the violating action.








Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 46]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


7.4.2.  The Reference "Dependent"

   This property is inherited from the Dependency association, and is
   overridden to become an object reference to a PolicyAction object.
   This represents a specific policy action that is used by a given
   QoSPolicyPoliceAction.  The [1..1] cardinality means that exactly one
   policy action can be used as the "violate" action by a
   QoSPolicyPoliceAction.  To execute more than one violating action,
   use the PolicyCompoundAction class to model the conforming action.

7.5.  The Aggregation "QoSPolicyRSVPVariableInRSVPSimplePolicyAction"

   A simple RSVP policy action is represented as a pair {variable,
   value}. This aggregation provides the linkage between a
   QoSPolicyRSVPSimpleAction instance and a single
   QoSPolicyRSVPVariable.  The aggregation
   PolicyValueInSimplePolicyAction links the QoSPolicyRSVPSimpleAction
   to a single PolicyValue.

   The class definition for this aggregation is as follows:

   NAME             QoSPolicyRSVPVariableInRSVPSimplePolicyAction
   DERIVED FROM     PolicyVariableInSimplePolicyAction
   ABSTRACT         FALSE
   PROPERTIES       GroupComponent[ref QoSPolicyRSVPSimpleAction
                      [0..n]]
                    PartComponent[ref QoSPolicyRSVPVariable [1..1] ]

7.5.1.  The Reference "GroupComponent"

   The reference property "GroupComponent" is inherited from
   PolicyComponent, and overridden to become an object reference to a
   QoSPolicyRSVPSimpleAction that contains exactly one
   QoSPolicyRSVPVariable.  Note that for any single instance of the
   aggregation class QoSPolicyRSVPVariableInRSVPSimplePolicyAction, this
   property is single-valued.  The [0..n] cardinality indicates that
   there may be 0, 1, or more QoSPolicyRSVPSimpleAction objects that
   contain any given RSVP variable object.

7.5.2.  The Reference "PartComponent"

   The reference property "PartComponent" is inherited from
   PolicyComponent, and overridden to become an object reference to a
   QoSPolicyRSVPVariable that is defined within the scope of a
   QoSPolicyRSVPSimpleAction.  Note that for any single instance of the
   association class QoSPolicyRSVPVariableInRSVPSimplePolicyAction, this
   property (like all reference properties) is single-valued.  The




Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 47]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   [1..1] cardinality indicates that a
   QoSPolicyRSVPVariableInRSVPSimplePolicyAction must have exactly one
   RSVP variable defined within its scope in order to be meaningful.

8.  Class Definitions: Inheritance Hierarchy

   The following sections define object classes that are specified by
   QPIM.

8.1.  The Class QoSPolicyDiscardAction

   This class is used to specify that packets should be discarded.  This
   is the same as stating that packets should be denied forwarding.  The
   class definition is as follows:

   NAME           QoSPolicyDiscardAction
   DESCRIPTION    This action specifies that packets should be
                  discarded.
   DERIVED FROM   PolicyAction (defined in [PCIM])
   ABSTRACT       FALSEFALSE
   PROPERTIES     None

8.2.  The Class QoSPolicyAdmissionAction

   This class is the base class for performing admission decisions based
   on a comparison of a meter measuring the temporal behavior of a flow
   or a set of flow with a traffic profile.  The qpAdmissionScope
   property controls whether the comparison is done per flow or per
   class (of flows).  Only packets that conform to the traffic profile
   are admitted for further processing; other packets are discarded.
   The class definition is as follows:

   NAME           QoSPolicyAdmissionAction
   DESCRIPTION    This action controls admission decisions based on
                  comparison of a meter to a traffic profile.
   DERIVED FROM   PolicyAction (defined in [PCIM])
   ABSTRACT       FALSEFALSE
   PROPERTIES     qpAdmissionScope

8.2.1.  The Property qpAdmissionScope

   This attribute specifies whether the admission decision is done per
   flow or per the entire class of flows defined by the rule condition.
   If the scope is "flow", the actual or requested rate of each flow is
   compared against the traffic profile.  If the scope is set to
   "class", the aggregate actual or requested rate of all flows matching
   the rule condition is measured against the traffic profile.  The
   property is defined as follows:



Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 48]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   NAME         qpAdmissionScope
   DESCRIPTION  This property specifies whether the admission decision
                is done per flow or per the entire class of flows.
   SYNTAX       Integer
   VALUE        This is an enumerated integer.  A value of 0 specifies
                that admission is done on a per-flow basis, and a value
                of 1 specifies that admission is done on a per-class
                basis.

8.3.  The Class QoSPolicyPoliceAction

   This is used for defining policing actions (i.e., those actions that
   restrict traffic based on a comparison with a traffic profile).
   Using the three associations QoSPolicyConformAction,
   QoSPolicyExceedAction and QoSPolicyViolateAction, it is possible to
   specify different actions to take based on whether the traffic is
   conforming, exceeding, or violating a traffic profile.  The traffic
   profile is specified in a subclass of the QoSPolicyTrfcProf class.
   The class definition is as follows:

   NAME         QoSPolicyPoliceAction
   DESCRIPTION  This action controls the operation of policers.  The
                rate of flows is measured against a traffic profile.
                The actions that need to be performed on conforming,
                exceeding and violating traffic are indicated using
                the conform, exceed and violate action associations.
   DERIVED FROM QoSPolicyAdmissionAction (defined in this document)
   ABSTRACT     FALSEFALSE
   PROPERTIES   None

8.4.  The Class  QoSPolicyShapeAction

   This class is used for defining shaping actions.  Shapers are used to
   delay some or all of the packets in a traffic stream in order to
   bring a particular traffic stream into compliance with a given
   traffic profile.  The traffic profile is specified in a subclass of
   the QoSPolicyTrfcProf class.  The class definition is as follows:

   NAME         QoSPolicyShapeAction
   DESCRIPTION  This action indicate that traffic should be shaped to be
                conforming with a traffic profile.
   DERIVED FROM QoSPolicyAdmissionAction (defined in this document)
   ABSTRACT     FALSEFALSE
   PROPERTIES   None







Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 49]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


8.5.  The Class QoSPolicyRSVPAdmissionAction

   This class determines whether to accept or reject a given RSVP
   request by comparing the RSVP request's TSPEC or RSPEC parameters
   against the associated traffic profile and/or by enforcing the pre-
   set maximum sessions limit.  The traffic profile is specified in the
   QoSPolicyIntServTrfcProf class.  This class inherits the
   qpAdmissionScope property from its superclass.  This property
   specifies whether admission should be done on a per-flow or per-class
   basis.  If the traffic profile is not larger than or equal to the
   requested reservation, or to the sum of the admitted reservation
   merged with the requested reservation, the result is a deny decision.
   If no traffic profile is specified, the assumption is that all
   traffic can be admitted.

   The class definition is as follows:

   NAME         QoSPolicyRSVPAdmissionAction
   DESCRIPTION  This action controls the admission of RSVP requests.
                Depending on the scope, either a single RSVP request or
                the total admitted RSVP requests matching the conditions
                are compared against a traffic profile.
   DERIVED FROM QoSPolicyAdmissionAction (defined in this document)
   ABSTRACT     FALSEFALSE
   PROPERTIES   qpRSVPWarnOnly, qpRSVPMaxSessions

8.5.1.  The Property qpRSVPWarnOnly

   This property is applicable when fulfilling ("admitting") an RSVP
   request would violate the policer (traffic profile) limits or when
   the maximum number session would be exceeded (or both).

   When this property is set to TRUE, the RSVP request is admitted in
   spite of the violation, but an RSVP error message carrying a warning
   is sent to the originator (sender or receiver).  When set to FALSE,
   the request would be denied and an error message would be sent back
   to the originator.  So the meaning of the qpWarnOnly flag is: Based
   on property's value (TRUE or FALSE), determine whether to admit but
   warn the originator that the request is in violation or to deny the
   request altogether (and send back an error).

   Specifically, a PATHERR (in response to a Path message) or a RESVERR
   (in response of a RESV message) will be sent.  This follows the COPS
   for RSVP send error flag in the Decision Flags object.  This property
   is defined as follows:






Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 50]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   NAME      qpRSVPWarnOnly
   SYNTAX    Boolean
   Default   FALSE
   VALUE     The value TRUE means that the request should be admitted
             AND an RSVP warning message should be sent to the
             originator.  The value of FALSE means that the request
             should be not admitted and an appropriate error message
             should be sent back to the originator of the request.

8.5.2.  The Property qpRSVPMaxSessions

   This attribute is used to limit the total number of RSVP requests
   admitted for the specified class of traffic.  For this property to be
   meaningful, the qpAdmissionScope property must be set to class.  The
   definition of this property is as follows:

   NAME     qpRSVPMaxSessions
   SYNTAX   Integer
   VALUE    Must be greater than 0.

8.6.  The Class QoSPolicyPHBAction

   This class is a base class that is used to define the per-hop
   behavior that is to be assigned to behavior aggregates.  It defines a
   common property, qpMaxPacketSize, for use by its subclasses
   (QoSPolicyBandwidthAction and QoSPolicyCongestionControlAction).  The
   class definition is as follows:

   NAME           QoSPolicyPHBAction
   DESCRIPTION    This action controls the Per-Hop-Behavior provided to
                  behavior aggregates.
   DERIVED FROM   PolicyAction  (defined in [PCIM])
   ABSTRACT       TRUE
   PROPERTIES     qpMaxPacketSize

8.6.1.  The Property qpMaxPacketSize

   This property specifies the maximum packet size in bytes, of packets
   in the designated flow.  This attribute is used in translation of
   QPIM attributes to QoS mechanisms used within a PEP.  For example,
   queue length may be measured in bytes, while the minimum number of
   packets that should be kept in a PEP is defined within QPIM in number
   of packets.  This property is defined as follows:

   NAME       qpMaxPacketSize
   SYNTAX     Integer
   Value      Must be greater than 0




Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 51]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


8.7.  The Class QoSPolicyBandwidthAction

   This class is used to control the bandwidth, delay, and forwarding
   behavior of a PHB.  Its class definition is as follows:

   NAME           QoSPolicyBandwidthAction
   DESCRIPTION    This action controls the bandwidth, delay, and
                  forwarding characteristics of the PHB.
   DERIVED FROM   QoSPolicyPBHAction (defined in this document)
   ABSTRACT       FALSE
   PROPERTIES     qpForwardingPriority, qpBandwidthUnits,
                  qpMinBandwdith, qpMaxBandwidth, qpMaxDelay,
                  qpMaxJitter, qpFairness

8.7.1.  The Property qpForwardingPriority

   This property defines the forwarding priority for this set of flows.
   A non-zero value indicates that preemptive forwarding is required.
   Higher values represent higher forwarding priority.  This property is
   defined as follows:

   NAME        qpForwardingPriority
   SYNTAX      Integer
   VALUE       Must be non-negative.  The value 0 means that preemptive
               forwarding is not required.  A positive value indicates
               the priority that is to be assigned for this (set of)
               flow(s).  Larger values represent higher priorities.

8.7.2.  The Property qpBandwidthUnits

   This property defines the units that the properties qpMinBandwidth
   and qpMaxBandwidth have.  Bandwidth can either be defined in bits/sec
   or as a percentage of the available bandwidth or scheduler resources.
   This property is defined as follows:

   NAME        qpBandwidthUnits
   SYNTAX      Integer
   VALUE       Two values are possible.  The value of 0 is used to
               specify units of bits/sec, while the value of 1 is used
               to specify units as a percentage of the available
               bandwidth.  If this property indicates that the bandwidth
               units are percentages, then each of the bandwidth
               properties expresses a whole-number percentage, and hence
               its maximum value is 100.







Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 52]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


8.7.3.  The Property qpMinBandwidth

   This property defines the minimum bandwidth that should be reserved
   for this class of traffic.  Both relative (i.e., a percentage of the
   bandwidth) and absolute (i.e., bits/second) values can be specified
   according to the value of the qpBandwidthUnits property.  This
   property is defined as follows:

   NAME        qpMinBandwidth
   SYNTAX      Integer
   VALUE       The value must be greater than 0.  If the property
               qpMaxBandwidth is defined, then the value of
               qpMinBandwidth must be less than or equal to the value of
               qpMaxBandwidth.

8.7.4.  The Property qpMaxBandwidth

   This property defines the maximum bandwidth that should be allocated
   to this class of traffic.  Both relative (i.e., a percentage of the
   bandwidth)and absolute (i.e., bits/second) values can be specified
   according to the value of the qpBandwidthUnits property.  This
   property is defined as follows:

   NAME        qpMaxBandwidth
   SYNTAX      Integer
   VALUE       The value must be greater than 0.  If the property
               qpMaxBandwidth is defined, then the value of
               qpMinBandwidth must be less than or equal to the value of
               qpMaxBandwidth.

8.7.5.  The Property qpMaxDelay

   This property defines the maximal per-hop delay that traffic of this
   class should experience while being forwarded through this hop.  The
   maximum delay is measured in microseconds.  This property is defined
   as follows:

   NAME        qpMaxDelay
   SYNTAX      Integer (microseconds)
   VALUE       The value must be greater than 0.

8.7.6.  The Property qpMaxJitter

   This property defines the maximal per-hop delay variance that traffic
   of this class should experience while being forwarded through this
   hop. The maximum jitter is measured in microseconds.  This property
   is defined as follows:




Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 53]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   NAME        qpMaxJitter
   SYNTAX      Integer (microseconds)
   VALUE       The value must be greater than 0.

8.7.7.  The Property qpFairness

   This property defines whether fair queuing is required for this class
   of traffic.  This property is defined as follows:

   NAME        qpFairness
   SYNTAX      Boolean
   VALUE       The value of FALSE means that fair queuing is not
               required for this class of traffic, while the value of
               TRUE means that fair queuing is required for this class
               of traffic.

8.8.  The Class QoSPolicyCongestionControlAction

   This class is used to control the characteristics of the congestion
   control algorithm being used.  The class definition is as follows:

   NAME         QoSPolicyCongestionControlAction
   DESCRIPTION  This action control congestion control characteristics
                of the PHB.
   DERIVED FROM QoSPolicyPBHAction (defined in this document)
   ABSTRACT     FALSE
   PROPERTIES   qpQueueSizeUnits, qpQueueSize, qpDropMethod,
                qpDropThresholdUnits, qpDropMinThresholdValue,
                qpDropMaxThresholdValue

8.8.1.  The property qpQueueSizeUnits

   This property specifies the units in which the qpQueueSize attribute
   is measured.  The queue size is measured either in number of packets
   or in units of time.  The time interval specifies the time needed to
   transmit all packets within the queue if the link speed is dedicated
   entirely to transmission of packets within this queue.  The property
   definition is:

   NAME        qpQueueSizeUnits
   SYNTAX      Integer
   VALUE       This property can have two values.  If the value is set
               to 0, then the unit of measurement is number of packets.
               If the value is set to 1, then the unit of measurement is
               milliseconds.






Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 54]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


8.8.2.  The Property qpQueueSize

   This property specifies the maximum queue size in packets or in
   milliseconds, depending on the value of the qpQueueSizeUnits (0
   specifies packets, and 1 specifies milliseconds).  This property is
   defined as follows:

   NAME        qpQueueSize
   SYNTAX      Integer
   VALUE       This value must be greater than 0.

8.8.3.  The Property qpDropMethod

   This property specifies the congestion control drop algorithm that
   should be used for this type of traffic.  This property is defined as
   follows:

   NAME        qpDropMethod
   SYNTAX      Integer
   VALUES      Three values are currently defined.  The value 0
               specifies a random drop algorithm, the value 1 specifies
               a tail drop algorithm, and the value 2 specifies a head
               drop algorithm.

8.8.4.  The Property qpDropThresholdUnits

   This property specifies the units in which the two properties
   qpDropMinThresholdValue and qpDropMaxThresholdValue are measured.
   Thresholds can be measured either in packets or as a percentage of
   the available queue sizes.  This property is defined as follows:

   NAME        qpDropThresholdUnits
   SYNTAX      Integer
   VALUES      Three values are defined.  The value 0 defines the units
               as number of packets, the value 1 defines the units as a
               percentage of the queue size and the value 2 defines the
               units in milliseconds.  If this property indicates that
               the threshold units are percentages, then each of the
               threshold properties expresses a whole-number percentage,
               and hence its maximum value is 100.

8.8.5.  The Property qpDropMinThresholdValue

   This property specifies the minimum number of queuing and buffer
   resources that should be reserved for this class of flows.  The
   threshold can be specified as either relative (i.e., a percentage) or
   absolute (i.e., number of packets or millisecond) value according to
   the value of the qpDropThresholdUnits property.  If this property



Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 55]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   specifies a value of 5 packets, then enough buffer and queuing
   resources should be reserved to hold 5 packets before running the
   specified congestion control drop algorithm.  This property is
   defined as follows:

   NAME        qpDropMinThresholdValue
   SYNTAX      Integer
   VALUE       This value must be greater than or equal to 0.  If the
               property qpDropMaxThresholdValue is defined, then the
               value of the qpDropMinThresholdValue property must be
               less than or equal to the value of the
               qpDropMaxThresholdValue property.

8.8.6.  The Property qpDropMaxThresholdValue

   This property specifies the maximum number of queuing and buffer
   resources that should be reserved for this class of flows.  The
   threshold can be specified as either relative (i.e., a percentage) or
   absolute (i.e., number of packets or milliseconds) value according to
   the value of the qpDropThresholdUnits property.  Congestion Control
   droppers should not keep more packets than the value specified in
   this property.  Note, however, that some droppers may calculate queue
   occupancy averages, and therefore the actual maximum queue resources
   should be larger.  This property is defined as follows:

   NAME        qpDropMaxThresholdValue
   SYNTAX      Integer
   VALUE       This value must be greater than or equal to 0.  If the
               property qpDropMinThresholdValue is defined, then the
               value of the qpDropMinThresholdValue property must be
               less than or equal to the value of the
               qpDropMaxThresholdValue property.

8.9.  Class QoSPolicyTrfcProf

   This is an abstract base class that models a traffic profile.
   Traffic profiles specify the maximum rate parameters used within
   admission decisions.  The association
   QoSPolicyTrfcProfInAdmissionAction binds the admission decision to
   the traffic profile.  The class definition is as follows:

   NAME          QoSPolicyTrfcProf
   DERIVED FROM  Policy (defined in [PCIM])
   ABSTRACT      TRUE
   PROPERTIES    None






Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 56]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


8.10.  Class QoSPolicyTokenBucketTrfcProf

   This class models a two- or three-level Token Bucket traffic profile.
   Additional profiles can be modeled by cascading multiple instances of
   this class (e.g., by connecting the output of one instance to the
   input of another instance).  This traffic profile carries the policer
   or shaper rate values to be enforced on a flow or a set of flows.
   The class definition is as follows:

   NAME          QoSPolicyTokenBucketTrfcProf
   DERIVED FROM  QoSPolicyTrfcProf (defined in this document)
   ABSTRACT      FALSE
   PROPERTIES    qpTBRate, qpTBNormalBurst, qpTBExcessBurst

8.10.1.  The Property qpTBRate

   This is a non-negative integer that defines the token rate in
   kilobits per second.  A rate of zero means that all packets will be
   out of profile.  This property is defined as follows:

   NAME        qpTBRate
   SYNTAX      Integer
   VALUE       This value must be greater than to 0

8.10.2.  The Property qpTBNormalBurst

   This property is an integer that defines the normal size of a burst
   measured in bytes.  This property is defined as follows:

   NAME        qpTBNormalBurst
   SYNTAX      Integer
   VALUE       This value must be greater than to 0

8.10.3.  The Property qpTBExcessBurst

   This property is an integer that defines the excess burst size
   measured in bytes.  This property is defined as follows:

   NAME        qpTBExcessBurst
   SYNTAX      Integer
   VALUE       This value must be greater than or equal to
               qpTBNormalBurst

8.11.  Class QoSPolicyIntServTrfcProf

   This class represents an IntServ traffic profile.  Values of IntServ
   traffic profiles are compared against Traffic specification (TSPEC)
   and QoS Reservation (FLOWSPEC) requests carried in RSVP requests.



Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 57]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   The class definition is as follows:

   NAME          QoSPolicyIntServTrfcProf
   DERIVED FROM  QoSPolicyTrfcProf (defined in this document)
   ABSTRACT      FALSE
   PROPERTIES    qpISTokenRate, qpISPeakRate, qpISBucketSize,
                 qpISResvRate, qpISResvSlack, qpISMinPolicedUnit,
                 qpISMaxPktSize

8.11.1.  The Property qpISTokenRate

   This property is a non-negative integer that defines the token rate
   parameter, measured in kilobits per second.  This property is defined
   as follows:

   NAME        qpISTokenRate
   SYNTAX      Integer
   VALUE       This value must be greater than or equal to 0

8.11.2.  The Property qpISPeakRate

   This property is a non-negative integer that defines the peak rate
   parameter, measured in kilobits per second.  This property is defined
   as follows:

   NAME        qpISPeakRate
   SYNTAX      Integer
   VALUE       This value must be greater than or equal to 0

8.11.3.  The Property qpISBucketSize

   This property is a non-negative integer that defines the token bucket
   size parameter, measured in bytes.  This property is defined as
   follows:

   NAME        qpISBucketSize
   SYNTAX      Integer
   VALUE       This value must be greater than or equal to 0

8.11.4.  The Property qpISResvRate

   This property is a non-negative integer that defines the reservation
   rate (R-Spec) in the RSVP guaranteed service reservation.  It is
   measured in kilobits per second.  This property is defined as
   follows:






Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 58]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   NAME        qpISResvRate
   SYNTAX      Integer
   VALUE       This value must be greater than or equal to 0

8.11.5.  The Property qpISResvSlack

   This property is a non-negative integer that defines the RSVP slack
   term in the RSVP guaranteed service reservation.  It is measured in
   microseconds.  This property is defined as follows:

   NAME        qpISResvSlack
   SYNTAX      Integer
   VALUE       This value must be greater than or equal to 0

8.11.6.  The Property qpISMinPolicedUnit

   This property is a non-negative integer that defines the minimum RSVP
   policed unit, measured in bytes.  This property is defined as
   follows:

   NAME        qpISMinPolicedUnit
   SYNTAX      Integer
   VALUE       This value must be greater than or equal to 0

8.11.7.  The Property qpISMaxPktSize

   This property is a positive integer that defines the maximum allowed
   packet size for RSVP messages, measured in bytes.  This property is
   defined as follows:

   NAME        qpISMaxPktSize
   SYNTAX      Integer
   VALUE       This value must be a positive integer, denoting the
               number of bytes in the largest payload packet of an RSVP
               signaled flow or class.

8.12.  The Class QoSPolicyAttributeValue

   This class can be used for representing an indirection in variable
   and value references either in a simple condition ("<x> match <y>")
   or a simple action ("<x> = <y>").  In both cases, <x> and <y> are
   known as the variable and the value of either the condition or
   action.  The value of the properties qpAttributeName and
   qpAttributeValueList are used to substitute <x> and <y> in the
   condition or action respectively.






Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 59]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   The substitution is done as follows: The value of the property
   qpAttributeName is used to substitute <x> and the value of the
   property qpAttributeValueList is used to substitute <y>.

   Once the substitution is done, the condition can be evaluated and the
   action can be performed.

   For example, suppose we want to define a condition over a user name
   of the form "user == 'Smith'", using the QoSPolicyRSVPUserVariable
   class.  The user information in the RSVP message provides a DN.  The
   DN points to a user objects holding many attributes.  If the relevant
   attribute is "last name", we would use the QoSPolicyAttributeValue
   class with qpAttributeName = "Last Name", qpAttributeValueList =
   {"Smith"}.

   The class definition is as follows:

   NAME           QoSPolicyAttributeValue
   DERIVED FROM   PolicyValue (defined in [PCIMe])
   ABSTRACT       FALSE
   PROPERTIES     qpAttributeName, qpAttributeValueList

8.12.1.  The Property qpAttributeName

   This property carries the name of the attribute that is to be used to
   substitute <x> in a simple condition or simple condition of the forms
   "<x> match <y>" or "<x> = <y>" respectively.  This property is
   defined as follows:

   NAME       qpAttributeName
   SYNTAX     String

8.12.2.  The Property qpAttributeValueList

   This property carries a list of values that is to be used to
   substitute <y> in a simple condition or simple action of the forms
   "<x> match <y>" or "<x> = <y>" respectively.

   This property is defined as follows:

   NAME       qpAttributeValueList
   SYNTAX     String

8.13.  The Class "QoSPolicyRSVPVariable"

   This is an abstract class that serves as the base class for all
   implicit variables that have to do with RSVP conditioning.  The class
   definition is as follows:



Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 60]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   NAME           QoSPolicyRSVPVariable
   DESCRIPTION    An abstract base class used to build other classes
                  that specify different attributes of an RSVP request
   DERIVED FROM   PolicyImplicitVariable (defined in [PCIMe])
   ABSTRACT       TRUE
   PROPERTIES     None

8.14.  The Class "QoSPolicyRSVPSourceIPv4Variable"

   This is a concrete class that contains the source IPv4 address of the
   RSVP signaled flow, as defined in the RSVP PATH SENDER_TEMPLATE and
   RSVP RESV FILTER_SPEC [RSVP] objects.  The class definition is as
   follows:

   NAME           QoSPolicyRSVPSourceIPv4Variable
   DESCRIPTION    The source IPv4 address of the RSVP signaled flow, as
                  defined in the RSVP PATH SENDER_TEMPLATE and RSVP RESV
                  FILTER_SPEC [RSVP] objects.

                  ALLOWED VALUE TYPES: PolicyIPv4AddrValue

   DERIVED FROM   QoSPolicyRSVPVariable (defined in this document)
   ABSTRACT       FALSE
   PROPERTIES     None

8.15.  The Class "QoSPolicyRSVPDestinationIPv4Variable"

   This is a concrete class that contains the destination IPv4 address
   of the RSVP signaled flow, as defined in the RSVP PATH
   SENDER_TEMPLATE and RSVP RESV FILTER_SPEC [RSVP] objects.  The class
   definition is as follows:

   NAME           QoSPolicyRSVPDestinationIPv4Variable
   DESCRIPTION    The destination IPv4 address of the RSVP signaled
                  flow, as defined in the RSVP PATH and RESV SESSION
                  [RSVP] objects.

                  ALLOWED VALUE TYPES: PolicyIPv4AddrValue

   DERIVED FROM   QoSPolicyRSVPVariable (defined in this document)
   ABSTRACT       FALSE
   PROPERTIES     None









Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 61]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


8.16.  The Class "QoSPolicyRSVPSourceIPv6Variable"

   This is a concrete class that contains the source IPv6 address of the
   RSVP signaled flow, as defined in the RSVP PATH SENDER_TEMPLATE and
   RSVP RESV FILTER_SPEC [RSVP] objects.  The class definition is as
   follows:

   NAME           QoSPolicyRSVPSourceIPv6Variable
   DESCRIPTION    The source IPv6 address of the RSVP signaled flow, as
                  defined in the RSVP PATH SENDER_TEMPLATE and RSVP RESV
                  FILTER_SPEC [RSVP] objects.

                  ALLOWED VALUE TYPES: PolicyIPv6AddrValue

   DERIVED FROM   QoSPolicyRSVPVariable (defined in this document)
   ABSTRACT       FALSE
   PROPERTIES     None

8.17.  The Class "QoSPolicyRSVPDestinationIPv6Variable"

   This is a concrete class that contains the destination IPv6 address
   of the RSVP signaled flow, as defined in the RSVP PATH
   SENDER_TEMPLATE and RSVP RESV FILTER_SPEC [RSVP] objects.  The class
   definition is as follows:

   NAME           QoSPolicyRSVPDestinationIPv6Variable
   DESCRIPTION    The destination IPv6 address of the RSVP signaled
                  flow, as defined in the RSVP PATH and RESV SESSION
                  [RSVP] objects.

                  ALLOWED VALUE TYPES: PolicyIPv6AddrValue

   DERIVED FROM   QoSPolicyRSVPVariable (defined in this document)
   ABSTRACT       FALSE
   PROPERTIES     None

8.18.  The Class "QoSPolicyRSVPSourcePortVariable"

   This class contains the source port of the RSVP signaled flow, as
   defined in the RSVP PATH SENDER_TEMPLATE and RSVP RESV FILTER_SPEC
   [RSVP] objects.  The class definition is as follows:

   NAME           QoSPolicyRSVPSourcePortVariable
   DESCRIPTION    The source port of the RSVP signaled flow, as defined
                  in the RSVP PATH SENDER_TEMPLATE and RSVP RESV
                  FILTER_SPEC [RSVP] objects.

                  ALLOWED VALUE TYPES: PolicyIntegerValue (0..65535)



Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 62]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   DERIVED FROM   QoSPolicyRSVPVariable (defined in this document)
   ABSTRACT       FALSE
   PROPERTIES     None

8.19.  The Class "QoSPolicyRSVPDestinationPortVariable"

   This is a concrete class that contains the destination port of the
   RSVP signaled flow, as defined in the RSVP PATH SENDER_TEMPLATE and
   RSVP RESV FILTER_SPEC [RSVP] objects.  The class definition is as
   follows:

   NAME           QoSPolicyRSVPDestinationPortVariable
   DESCRIPTION    The destination port of the RSVP signaled flow, as
                  defined in the RSVP PATH and RESV SESSION [RSVP]
                  objects.

                  ALLOWED VALUE TYPES: PolicyIntegerValue (0..65535)

   DERIVED FROM   QoSPolicyRSVPVariable (defined in this document)
   ABSTRACT       FALSE
   PROPERTIES     None

8.20.  The Class "QoSPolicyRSVPIPProtocolVariable"

   This is a concrete class that contains the IP Protocol number of the
   RSVP signaled flow, as defined in the RSVP PATH and RESV SESSION
   [RSVP] objects.  The class definition is as follows:

   NAME           QoSPolicyRSVPIPProtocolVariable
   DESCRIPTION    The IP Protocol number of the RSVP signaled flow, as
                  defined in the RSVP PATH and RESV SESSION [RSVP]
                  objects.

                  ALLOWED VALUE TYPES: PolicyIntegerValue

   DERIVED FROM   QoSPolicyRSVPVariable (defined in this document)
   ABSTRACT       FALSE
   PROPERTIES     None

8.21.  The Class "QoSPolicyRSVPIPVersionVariable"

   This is a concrete class that contains the IP Protocol version number
   of the RSVP signaled flow, as defined in the RSVP PATH and RESV
   SESSION [RSVP] objects.  The well-known version numbers are 4 and 6.
   This variable allows a policy definition of the type:

      "If IP version = IPv4 then ...".




Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 63]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   The class definition is as follows:

   NAME           QoSPolicyRSVPIPVersionVariable
   DESCRIPTION    The IP version number of the IP Addresses carried the
                  RSVP signaled flow, as defined in the RSVP PATH and
                  RESV SESSION [RSVP] objects.

                  ALLOWED VALUE TYPES: PolciIntegerValue

   DERIVED FROM   QoSPolicyRSVPVariable (defined in this document)
   ABSTRACT       FALSE
   PROPERTIES     None

8.22.  The Class "QoSPolicyRSVPDCLASSVariable"

   This is a concrete class that contains the DSCP value as defined in
   the RSVP DCLASS [DCLASS] object.  The class definition is as follows:

   NAME           QoSPolicyRSVPDCLASSVariable
   DESCRIPTION    The DSCP value as defined in the RSVP DCLASS [DCLASS]
                  object.

                  ALLOWED VALUE TYPES: PolicyIntegerValue,
                                       PolicyBitStringValue

   DERIVED FROM   QoSPolicyRSVPVariable (defined in this document)
   ABSTRACT       FALSE
   PROPERTIES     None

8.23.  The Class "QoSPolicyRSVPStyleVariable"

   This is a concrete class that contains the reservation style as
   defined in the RSVP STYLE object in the RESV message [RSVP].  The
   class definition is as follows:

   NAME           QoSPolicyRSVPStyleVariable
   DESCRIPTION    The reservation style as defined in the RSVP STYLE
                  object in the RESV message [RSVP].

                  ALLOWED VALUE TYPES:  PolicyBitStringValue,
                                        PolicyIntegerValue (Integer has
                                        an enumeration of
                                        { Fixed-Filter=1,
                                         Shared-Explicit=2,
                                         Wildcard-Filter=3}






Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 64]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   DERIVED FROM   QoSPolicyRSVPVariable (defined in this document)
   ABSTRACT       FALSE
   PROPERTIES     None

8.24.  The Class "QoSPolicyIntServVariable"

   This is a concrete class that contains the Integrated Service
   requested in the RSVP Reservation message, as defined in the FLOWSPEC
   RSVP Object [RSVP].  The class definition is as follows:

   NAME           QoSPolicyRSVPIntServVariable
   DESCRIPTION    The integrated Service requested in the RSVP
                  Reservation message, as defined in the FLOWSPEC RSVP
                  Object [RSVP].

                 ALLOWED VALUE TYPES: PolicyIntegerValue (An enumerated
                                      value of { CL=1 , GS=2, NULL=3}

   DERIVED FROM   QoSPolicyRSVPVariable (defined in this document)
   ABSTRACT       FALSE
   PROPERTIES     None

8.25.  The Class "QoSPolicyRSVPMessageTypeVariable"

   This is a concrete class that contains the RSVP message type, as
   defined in the RSVP message common header [RSVP] object.  The class
   definition is as follows:

   NAME          QoSPolicyRSVPMessageTypeVariable
   DESCRIPTION   The RSVP message type, as defined in the RSVP message
                 common header [RSVP] object.

                 ALLOWED VALUE TYPES: Integer (An enumerated value of
                                       {PATH=1 , PATHTEAR=2, RESV=3,
                                        RESVTEAR=4, RESVERR=5, CONF=6,
                                        PATHERR=7}

   DERIVED FROM  QoSPolicyRSVPVariable (defined in this document)
   ABSTRACT      FALSE
   PROPERTIES    None

8.26.  The Class "QoSPolicyRSVPPreemptionPriorityVariable"

   This is a concrete class that contains the RSVP reservation priority,
   as defined in [RFC3181] object.  The class definition is as follows:

   NAME          QoSPolicyRSVPPreemptionPriorityVariable
   DESCRIPTION   The RSVP reservation priority as defined in [RFC3181].



Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 65]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


                 ALLOWED VALUE TYPES: PolicyIntegerValue

   DERIVED FROM  QoSPolicyRSVPVariable (defined in this document)
   ABSTRACT      FALSE
   PROPERTIES    None

8.27.  The Class "QoSPolicyRSVPPreemptionDefPriorityVariable"

   This is a concrete class that contains the RSVP reservation defending
   priority, as defined in [RFC3181] object.  The class definition is as
   follows:

   NAME          QoSPolicyRSVPPreemptionDefPriorityVariable
   DESCRIPTION   The RSVP preemption reservation defending priority as
                 defined in [RFC3181].

                 ALLOWED VALUE TYPES: PolicyIntegerValue

   DERIVED FROM  QoSPolicyRSVPVariable (defined in this document)
   ABSTRACT      FALSE
   PROPERTIES    None

8.28.  The Class "QoSPolicyRSVPUserVariable"

   This is a concrete class that contains the ID of the user that
   initiated the flow as defined in the User Locator string in the
   Identity Policy Object [RFC3182].  The class definition is as
   follows:

   NAME          QoSPolicyRSVPUserVariable
   DESCRIPTION   The ID of the user that initiated the flow as defined
                 in the User Locator string in the Identity Policy
                 Object [RFC3182].

                 ALLOWED VALUE TYPES: QoSPolicyDNValue,
                                      PolicyStringValue,
                                      QoSPolicyAttributeValue

   DERIVED FROM  QoSPolicyRSVPVariable (defined in this document)
   ABSTRACT      FALSE
   PROPERTIES    None

8.29.  The Class "QoSPolicyRSVPApplicationVariable"

   This is a concrete class that contains the ID of the application that
   generated the flow as defined in the application locator string in
   the Application policy object [RFC2872].  The class definition is as
   follows:



Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 66]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   NAME          QoSPolicyRSVPApplicationVariable
   DESCRIPTION   The ID of the application that generated the flow as
                 defined in the application locator string in the
                 Application policy object [RFC2872].

                 ALLOWED VALUE TYPES: QoSPolicyDNValue,
                                      PolicyStringValue,
                                      QoSPolicyAttributeValue

   DERIVED FROM  QoSPolicyRSVPVariable (defined in this document)
   ABSTRACT      FALSE
   PROPERTIES    None

8.30.  The Class "QoSPolicyRSVPAuthMethodVariable"

   This is a concrete class that contains the type of authentication
   used in the Identity Policy Object [RFC3182].  The class definition
   is as follows:

   NAME          QoSPolicyRSVPAuthMethodVariable
   DESCRIPTION   The RSVP Authentication type used in the Identity
                 Policy Object [RFC3182].

                 ALLOWED VALUE TYPES: PolicyIntegerValue (An enumeration
                                      of { NONE=0, PLAIN-TEXT=1,
                                      DIGITAL-SIG = 2, KERBEROS_TKT=3,
                                      X509_V3_CERT=4, PGP_CERT=5}

   DERIVED FROM  QoSPolicyRSVPVariable (defined in this document)
   ABSTRACT      FALSE
   PROPERTIES    None

8.31.  The Class QoSPolicyDNValue

   This class is used to represent a single or set of Distinguished Name
   [DNDEF] values, including wildcards.  A Distinguished Name is a name
   that can be used as a key to retrieve an object from a directory
   service. This value can be used in comparison to reference values
   carried in RSVP policy objects, as specified in [RFC3182].  The class
   definition is as follows:

   NAME           QoSPolicyDNValue
   DERIVED FROM   PolicyValue
   ABSTRACT       FALSE
   PROPERTIES     qpDNList






Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 67]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


8.31.1.  The Property qpDNList

   This attribute provides an unordered list of strings, each
   representing a Distinguished Name (DN) with wildcards.  The format of
   a DN is defined in [DNDEF].  The asterisk character ("*") is used as
   wildcard for either a single attribute value or a wildcard for an
   RDN.  The order of RDNs is significant.  For example: A qpDNList
   attribute carrying the following value:

      "CN=*, OU=Sales, O=Widget Inc., *, C=US" matches:

      "CN=J. Smith, OU=Sales, O=Widget Inc, C=US"

   and also matches:

      "CN=J. Smith, OU=Sales, O=Widget Inc, L=CA, C=US".

   The attribute is defined as follows:

   NAME     qpDNList
   SYNTAX   List of Distinguished Names implemented as strings, each of
            which serves as a reference to another object.

8.32.  The Class QoSPolicyRSVPSimpleAction

   This action controls the content of RSVP messages and the way RSVP
   requests are admitted.  Depending on the value of its
   qpRSVPActionType property, this action directly translates into
   either a COPS Replace Decision or a COPS Stateless Decision, or both
   as defined in COPS for RSVP.  Only variables that are subclasses of
   the QoSPolicyRSVPVariable are allowed to be associated with this
   action.  The property definition is as follows:

   NAME          QoSPolicyRSVPSimpleAction
   DESCRIPTION   This action controls the content of RSVP messages and
                 the way RSVP requests are admitted.
   DERIVED FROM  SimplePolicyAction (defined in [PCIMe])
   ABSTRACT      FALSE
   PROPERTIES    qpRSVPActionType

8.32.1.  The Property qpRSVPActionType

   This property is an enumerated integer denoting the type(s) of RSVP
   action.  The value 'REPLACE' denotes a COPS Replace Decision action.
   The value 'STATELESS' denotes a COPS Stateless Decision action.  The
   value REPLACEANDSTATELESS denotes both decision actions.  Refer to
   [RFC2749] for details.




Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 68]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   NAME          qpRSVPActionType
   DESCRIPTION   This property specifies whether the action type is for
                 COPS Replace, Stateless, or both types of decisions.
   SYNTAX        Integer
   VALUE         This is an enumerated integer.  A value of 0 specifies
                 a COPS Replace decision.  A value of 1 specifies a COPS
                 Stateless Decision.  A value of 2 specifies both COPS
                 Replace and COPS Stateless decisions.

9.  Intellectual Property Rights Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   intellectual property 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; neither does it represent that it
   has made any effort to identify any such rights.  Information on the
   IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
   standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11.

   Copies of claims of rights made available for publication 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 Secretariat.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF Executive
   Director.

10.  Acknowledgements

   The authors wish to thank the input of the participants of the Policy
   Framework working group, and especially the combined group of the
   PCIMe coauthors, Lee Rafalow, Andrea Westerinen, Ritu Chadha and
   Marcus Brunner.  In addition, we'd like to acknowledge the valuable
   contribution from Ed Ellesson, Joel Halpern and Mircea Pana.  Thank
   you all for your comments, critique, ideas and general contribution.

11.  Security Considerations

   The Policy Core Information Model [PCIM] describes the general
   security considerations related to the general core policy model.
   The extensions defined in this document do not introduce any
   additional considerations related to security.




Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 69]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

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

   [PCIM]     Moore, B., Ellesson, E., Strassner, J. and A. Westerinen,
              "Policy Core Information Model -- Version 1
              Specification", RFC 3060, February 2001.

   [PCIMe]    Moore, B., Ed., "Policy Core Information Model
              Extensions", RFC 3460, January 2003.

12.2.  Informative References

   [TERMS]    Westerinen, A., Schnizlein, J., Strassner, J., Scherling,
              M., Quinn, B., Herzog, S., Huynh, A., Carlson, M., Perry,
              J. and M. Waldbusser, "Terminology for Policy-based
              Management", RFC 3198, November 2001.

   [DIFFSERV] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.
              and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
              Services", RFC 2475, December 1998.

   [INTSERV]  Braden, R., Clark, D. and S. Shenker, "Integrated Services
              in the Internet Architecture: an Overview", RFC 1633, June
              1994.

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

   [RFC2749]  Herzog, S., Ed., Boyle, J., Cohen, R., Durham, D., Rajan,
              R. and A. Sastry, "COPS usage for RSVP", RFC 2749, January
              2000.

   [RFC3181]  Herzog, S., "Signaled Preemption Priority Policy Element",
              RFC 3181, October 2001.

   [DIFF-MIB] Baker, F., Chan, K. and A. Smith, "Management Information
              Base for the Differentiated Services Architecture", RFC
              3289, May 2002.

   [AF]       Heinanen, J., Baker, F., Weiss, W. and J. Wroclawski,
              "Assured Forwarding PHB Group", RFC 2597, June 1999.





Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 70]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


   [CL]       Wroclawski, J., "Specification of the Controlled-Load
              Network Element Service", RFC 2211, September 1997.

   [RSVP-IS]  Wroclawski, J., "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated
              Services", RFC 2210, September 1997.

   [GS]       Shenker, S., Partridge, C. and R. Guerin, "Specification
              of the Guaranteed Quality of Service", RFC 2212, September
              1997.

   [DCLASS]   Bernet, Y., "Format of the RSVP DCLASS Object", RFC 2996,
              November 2000.

   [RFC3182]  Yadav, S., Yavatkar, R., Pabbati, R., Ford, P., Moore, T.,
              Herzog, S. and R. Hess, "Identity Representation for
              RSVP", RFC 3182, October 2001.

   [RFC2872]  Bernet, Y. and R. Pabbati, "Application and Sub
              Application Identity Policy Element for Use with RSVP",
              RFC 2872, June 2000.

   [DNDEF]    Wahl, M., Kille, S. and T. Howes, "Lightweight Directory
              Access Protocol (v3): UTF-8 String Representation of
              Distinguished Names", RFC 2253, December 1997.



























Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 71]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


13.  Authors' Addresses

   Yoram Ramberg
   Cisco Systems
   4 Maskit Street
   Herzliya Pituach, Israel  46766

   Phone:  +972-9-970-0081
   Fax:    +972-9-970-0219
   EMail:  yramberg@cisco.com

   Yoram Snir
   Cisco Systems
   300 East Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA 95134

   Phone:  +1 408-853-4053
   Fax:    +1 408 526-7864
   EMail:  ysnir@cisco.com

   John Strassner
   Intelliden Corporation
   90 South Cascade Avenue
   Colorado Springs, Colorado  80903

   Phone:  +1-719-785-0648
   Fax:    +1-719-785-0644
   EMail: john.strassner@intelliden.com

   Ron Cohen
   Ntear LLC

   Phone: +972-8-9402586
   Fax:   +972-9-9717798
   EMail: ronc@lyciumnetworks.com

   Bob Moore
   IBM Corporation
   P. O. Box 12195, BRQA/501/G206
   3039 Cornwallis Rd.
   Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2195

   Phone:   +1 919-254-4436
   Fax:     +1 919-254-6243
   EMail: remoore@us.ibm.com






Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 72]

RFC 3644              Policy QoS Information Model         November 2003


14.  Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  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 languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.



















Snir, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 73]


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