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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 2748

    Internet Draft                                  Jim Boyle
    Expiration: June 1999                               Level 3
    File: draft-ietf-rap-cops-05.txt                Ron Cohen
                                                        Cisco
                                                    David Durham
                                                        Intel
                                                    Shai Herzog
                                                        IPHighway
                                                    Raju Rajan
                                                        IBM
                                                    Arun Sastry
                                                        Cisco




         The COPS (Common Open Policy Service) Protocol

                Last Updated: January 18, 1999


Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet Draft.  Internet Drafts are working
   documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its Areas,
   and its Working Groups.  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet Drafts.

   Internet Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
   months.  Internet Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by
   other documents at any time.  It is not appropriate to use Internet
   Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as a
   "working draft" or "work in progress".

   To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the
   1id-abstracts.txt listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow
   Directories on ftp.ietf.org, nic.nordu.net, ftp.isi.edu, or
   munnari.oz.au.

   A revised version of this draft document will be submitted to the
   RFC editor as a Proposed Standard for the Internet Community.
   Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.  This
   document will expire before June 1999. Distribution of this draft is
   unlimited.












Boyle et al.                                                  [Page 1]


Internet Draft                   COPS                     January 1999



   Status of this Memo................................................1
   Abstract...........................................................3
   1. Introduction....................................................3
   1.1 Basic Model....................................................4
   2. The Protocol....................................................7
   2.1 Common Header..................................................7
   2.2 COPS Specific Object Formats...................................8
   2.2.1 Handle Object (Handle).......................................9
   2.2.2 Context Object (Context).....................................9
   2.2.3 In-Interface Object (IN-Int)................................10
   2.2.4 Out-Interface Object (OUT-Int)..............................11
   2.2.5 Reason Object (Reason)......................................12
   2.2.6 Decision Object (Decision)..................................12
   2.2.7 LDP Decision Object (LDPDecision)...........................14
   2.2.8 Error Object (Error)........................................14
   2.2.9 Client Specific Information Object (ClientSI)...............14
   2.2.10 Keep-Alive Timer Object (KATimer)..........................15
   2.2.11 PEP Identification Object (PEPID)..........................15
   2.2.12 Report-Type Object (Report-Type)...........................15
   2.2.13 PDP Redirect Address (PDPRedirAddr)........................16
   2.2.14 Last PDP Address (LastPDPAddr).............................16
   2.2.15 Accounting Timer Object (AcctTimer)........................17
   2.3 Communication.................................................17
   2.4 Client Handle Usage...........................................18
   2.5 Synchronization Behavior......................................19
   3. Message Content................................................20
   3.1 Request (REQ)  PEP -> PDP.....................................20
   3.2 Decision (DEC)  PDP -> PEP....................................21
   3.3 Report State (RPT)  PEP -> PDP................................22
   3.4 Delete Request State (DRQ)  PEP -> PDP........................22
   3.5 Synchronize State Request (SSQ)  PDP -> PEP...................23
   3.6 Client-Open (OPN)  PEP -> PDP.................................23
   3.7 Client-Accept (CAT)  PDP -> PEP...............................24
   3.8 Client-Close (CC)  PEP -> PDP, PDP -> PEP.....................24
   3.9 Keep-Alive (KA)  PEP -> PDP, PDP -> PEP.......................25
   3.10 Synchronize State Complete (SSC) PEP -> PDP..................25
   4. Common Operation...............................................26
   4.1 PEP Initialization............................................26
   4.2 Outsourcing Operations........................................26
   4.3 Configuration Operations......................................27
   4.4 Keep-Alive Operations.........................................27
   4.5 PEP/PDP Close.................................................27
   5. Security.......................................................28
   6. IANA Considerations............................................29
   7. References.....................................................30
   8. Author Information and Acknowledgments.........................31







Boyle et al.              Expires June 1999                  [Page 2]


Internet Draft                   COPS                     January 1999




Abstract

   This document describes a simple client/server model for supporting
   policy control over QoS Signaling Protocols and provisioned QoS
   resource management. It is designed to be extensible so that other
   kinds of policy clients may be supported in the future. The model
   does not make any assumptions about the methods of the policy
   server, but is based on the server returning decisions to policy
   requests.


1. Introduction

   This document describes a simple query and response protocol that
   can be used to exchange policy information between a policy server
   (Policy Decision Point or PDP) and its clients (Policy Enforcement
   Points or PEPs).  One example of a policy client is RSVP routers
   that must exercise policy-based admission control over RSVP usage
   [RSVP].  We assume that at least one policy server exists in each
   controlled administrative domain. The basic model of interaction
   between a policy server and its clients is compatible with
   the framework document for policy based admission control [WRK].


   A chief objective of policy control protocol is to begin with a
   simple but extensible design. The main characteristics of the COPS
   protocol include:


       1. The protocol employs a client/server model where the PEP
       sends requests, updates, and deletes to the remote PDP and the
       PDP returns decisions back to the PEP.

       2. The protocol uses TCP as its transport protocol for reliable
       exchange of messages between policy clients and a server.
       Therefore, no additional mechanisms are necessary for reliable
       communication between a server and its clients.

       3. The protocol is extensible in that it is designed to leverage
       off self-identifying objects and can support diverse client
       specific information without requiring modifications to the COPS
       protocol itself. The protocol was created for the general
       administration, configuration, and enforcement of policies
       whether signaled or provisioned. The protocol may be extended
       for the administration of a variety of signaling protocols as
       well as policy configuration on a device.

       4. The protocol relies on existing protocols for security.
       Namely IPSEC [IPSEC] can be used to authenticate and secure the
       channel between the PEP and the server.


Boyle et al.              Expires June 1999                  [Page 3]


Internet Draft                   COPS                     January 1999


       5. The protocol is stateful in two main aspects:
       (1) Request/Decision state is shared between client and server
       and (2) State from various events (Request/Decision pairs) may
       be inter-associated. By (1) we mean that requests from the
       client PEP are installed or remembered by the remote PDP until
       they are explicitly deleted by the PEP. At the same time,
       Decisions from the remote PDP can be generated asynchronously at
       any time for a currently installed request state. By (2) we mean
       that the server may respond to new queries differently because
       of previously installed Request/Decision state(s) that are
       related.

       6. Additionally, the protocol is stateful in that it allows the
       server to push configuration information to the client, and then
       allows the server to remove such state from the client when it
       is no longer applicable.

1.1 Basic Model

       +----------------+
       |                |
       |  Network Node  |            Policy Server
       |                |
       |   +-----+      |   COPS        +-----+
       |   | PEP |<-----|-------------->| PDP |
       |   +-----+      |               +-----+
       |    ^           |
       |    |           |
       |    \-->+-----+ |
       |        | LDP | |
       |        +-----+ |
       |                |
       +----------------+

       Figure 1: A COPS illustration.


   Figure 1 Illustrates the layout of various policy components in a
   typical COPS example (taken from [WRK]). Here, COPS is used to
   communicate policy information between a Policy Enforcement Point
   (PEP) and a remote Policy Decision Point (PDP) within the context of
   a particular type of client.

   It is assumed that each participating policy client is functionally
   consistent with a PEP [WRK]. The PEP may communicate with a policy
   server (herein referred to as a remote PDP [WRK]) to obtain policy
   decisions or directives.

   The PEP is responsible for initiating a persistent TCP connection to
   a PDP. The PEP uses this TCP connection to send requests to and
   receive decisions from the remote PDP. Communication between the PEP
   and remote PDP is mainly in the form of a stateful request/decision
   exchange, though the remote PDP may occasionally send unsolicited

Boyle et al.              Expires June 1999                  [Page 4]


Internet Draft                   COPS                     January 1999


   decisions to the PEP to force changes in previously approved request
   states. The PEP also has the capacity to report to the remote PDP
   that it has committed to an accepted request state for purposes of
   accounting and monitoring. The PEP is responsible for notifying the
   PDP when a request state has changed on the PEP. Finally, the PEP is
   responsible for the deletion of any state that is no longer
   applicable due to events at the client or decisions issued by the
   server.

   When the PEP sends a configuration request, it expects the PDP to
   continuously send named units of configuration data to the PEP via
   decision messages as applicable for the configuration request. When
   a unit of named configuration data is successfully installed on the
   PEP, the PEP should send a report message to the PDP confirming the
   installation. The server may then update or remove the named
   configuration information via a new decision message. When the PDP
   sends a decision to remove named configuration data from the PEP,
   the PEP will delete the specified configuration and send a report
   message to the PDP as confirmation.

   The policy protocol is designed to communicate self-identifying
   objects which contain the data necessary for identifying request
   states, establishing the context for a request, identifying the type
   of request, referencing previously installed requests, relaying
   policy decisions, reporting errors, and transferring client
   specific/name space information.

   To distinguish between different kinds of clients, the type of
   client is identified in each message. Different types of clients may
   have different client specific data and may require different kinds
   of policy decisions. It is expected that each new client-type will
   have a corresponding usage draft specifying the specifics of its
   interaction with this policy protocol.

   The context of each request corresponds to the type of event that
   triggered it. COPS identifies three types of outsourcing events: (1)
   the arrival of an incoming message (2) allocation of local
   resources, and (3) the forwarding of an outgoing message. Each of
   these events may require different decisions to be made. Context sub
   types are also available to describe the type of message that
   triggered the policy event. The content of a COPS request/decision
   message depends on the context. A fourth type of request is useful
   for types of clients that wish to receive configuration information
   from the PDP. This allows a PEP to issue a configuration request for
   a specific named device or module that requires configuration
   information to be installed.

   The PEP may also have the capability to make a local policy decision
   via its Local Decision Point (LDP) [WRK], however, the PDP remains
   the authoritative decision point at all times. This means that the
   relevant local decision information must be relayed to the PDP. That
   is, the PDP must be granted access to all relevant information to
   make a final policy decision. To facilitate this functionality, the

Boyle et al.              Expires June 1999                  [Page 5]


Internet Draft                   COPS                     January 1999


   PEP must send its local decision information to the remote PDP via a
   LDP decision object. The PEP must then abide by the PDP's decision
   as it is absolute.

   Finally, fault tolerance is a required capability for this protocol,
   particularly due to the fact it is associated with the security and
   service management of distributed network devices. Fault tolerance
   can be achieved by having both the PEP and remote PDP constantly
   verify their connection to each other via keep-alive messages. When
   a failure is detected, the PEP must try to reconnect to the remote
   PDP or attempt to connect to a new/alternative PDP. While
   disconnected, the PEP should revert to making local decisions. Once
   a connection is reestablished, the PEP is expected to notify the PDP
   of any deleted state or new events that passed local admission
   control after the connection was lost. Additionally, the remote PDP
   may request that all the PEP's internal state be resynchronized (all
   previously installed requests are to be reissued). After failure and
   before the new connection is fully functional, disruption of service
   can be minimized if the PEP caches previously communicated decisions
   and continues to use them for some limited amount of time.


































Boyle et al.              Expires June 1999                  [Page 6]


Internet Draft                   COPS                     January 1999



2. The Protocol

   This section describes the message formats and objects exchanged
   between the PEP and remote PDP.

2.1 Common Header

   Each COPS message consists of the COPS header followed by a number
   of typed objects.

              0              1              2              3
       +--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
       |Version| Flags|    Op Code   |       Client-type           |
       +--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
       |                      Message Length                       |
       +--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+

   Global note: //// implies field is reserved, set to 0.

       The fields in the header are:
         Version: 4 bits
             COPS version number. Current version is 1.

         Flags: 4 bits
             Defined flag values (all other flags must be set to 0):
               0x1 Solicited Message Flag Bit
                This flag is set when the message is solicited by
                another COPS message. This flag is NOT to be set
                (value=0) unless otherwise specified in section 3.

         Op Code: 8 bits
            The COPS operations:
              1 = Request                 (REQ)
              2 = Decision                (DEC)
              3 = Report State            (RPT)
              4 = Delete Request State    (DRQ)
              5 = Synchronize State Req   (SSQ)
              6 = Client-Open             (OPN)
              7 = Client-Accept           (CAT)
              8 = Client-Close            (CC)
              9 = Keep-Alive              (KA)
              10= Synchronize Complete    (SSC)

       Client-type: 16 bits

       The Client-type identifies the policy client. Interpretation of
       all encapsulated objects is relative to the client-type. Client-
       types that set the most significant bit in the client-type field
       are enterprise specific (these are client-types 0x8000 -
       0xFFFF). (See the specific client usage documents for particular
       client-type IDs). For KA Messages, the client-type in the header


Boyle et al.              Expires June 1999                  [Page 7]


Internet Draft                   COPS                     January 1999


       should always be set to 0 as the KA is used for connection
       verification (not per client session verification).

       Message Length: 32 bits
       Size of message in octets, which includes the standard COPS
       header and all encapsulated objects. Messages must be aligned on
       4 octet intervals.

2.2 COPS Specific Object Formats

   All the objects follow the same object format; each object consists
   of one or more 32-bit words with a four-octet header, using the
   following format:

              0             1              2             3
       +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
       |       Length (octets)     |    C-Num    |   C-Type    |
       +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
       |                                                       |
       //                  (Object contents)                   //
       |                                                       |
       +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

   The length is a two-octet value that describes the number of octets
   (including the header) that compose the object. If the length in
   octets does not fall on a 32-bit word boundary, padding must be
   added to the end of the object so that it is aligned to the next 32-
   bit boundary before the object can be sent on the wire. On the
   receiving side, a subsequent object boundary can be found by simply
   rounding up the previous stated object length to the next 32-bit
   boundary.

   Typically, C-Num identifies the class of information contained in
   the object, and the C-Type identifies the subtype or version of the
   information contained in the object.

      C-num: 8 bits

               1  = Handle
               2  = Context
               3  = In Interface
               4  = Out Interface
               5  = Reason code
               6  = Decision
               7  = LDP Decision
               8  = Error
               9  = Client Specific Info
               10 = Keep-Alive Timer
               11 = PEP Identification
               12 = Report Type
               13 = PDP Redirect Address
               14 = Last PDP Address
               15 = Accounting Timer

Boyle et al.              Expires June 1999                  [Page 8]


Internet Draft                   COPS                     January 1999



      C-type: 8 bits
               Values defined per C-num.


2.2.1 Handle Object (Handle)

   The Handle Object encapsulates a unique value that identifies an
   installed state. This identification is used by most COPS
   operations. A state corresponding to a handle must be explicitly
   deleted when it is no longer applicable.

           C-Num = 1

           C-Type = 1, Client Handle.

   Variable-length field, no implied format other than it is unique
   from other client handles. It is always initially chosen by the PEP
   and then deleted by the PEP when no longer applicable. The client
   handle is used to refer to a request state initiated by the PEP and
   installed at the PDP. A PEP will specify a client handle in its
   Request messages, Report messages and Delete messages sent to the
   PDP. In all cases, the client handle is used to uniquely identify
   the PEP request.

   The client handle value is set by the PEP and is opaque to the PDP.
   The PDP simply performs a byte-wise comparison on the value in this
   object with respect to the handle object values of other currently
   installed requests.


2.2.2 Context Object (Context)

   Specifies the type of event(s) that triggered the query. Required
   for request messages. Admission control, resource allocation, and
   forwarding requests are all amenable to client-types that outsource
   their decision making facility to the PDP. For applicable client-
   types a PEP can also make a request to receive named configuration
   information from the PDP. This named configuration data may be in a
   form useful for setting system attributes on a PEP, or it may be in
   the form of policy rules that are to be directly verified by the
   PEP.

   Multiple flags can be set for the same request. This is only
   allowed, however, if the set of client specific information in the
   combined request is identical to the client specific information
   that would be specified if individual requests were made for each
   specified flag.

           C-num = 2, C-Type = 1




Boyle et al.              Expires June 1999                  [Page 9]


Internet Draft                   COPS                     January 1999


              0             1               2               3
       +--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
       |            R-Type           |            M-Type           |
       +--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+

           R-Type (Request Type Flag)

               0x01 = Incoming-Message/Admission Control request
               0x02 = Resource-Allocation request
               0x04 = Outgoing-Message request
               0x08 = Configuration request

           M-Type (Message Type)

               Client Specific 16 bit values of protocol message types


2.2.3 In-Interface Object (IN-Int)

   The In-Interface Object is used to identify the incoming interface
   on which a particular request applies and the address where the
   received message originated. For flows or messages generated from
   the PEP's local host, the loop back address and ifindex are used.

   This Interface object is also used to identify the incoming
   (receiving) interface via its ifindex. The ifindex may be used to
   differentiate between sub-interfaces and unnumbered interfaces (see
   RSVP's LIH for an example). When SNMP is supported by the PEP, this
   ifindex integer must correspond to the same integer value for the
   interface in the SNMP MIB-II interface index table.

   Note: The ifindex specified in the In-Interface is typically
   relative to the flow of the underlying protocol messages. The
   ifindex is the interface on which the protocol message was received.

           C-Num = 3

           C-Type = 1, IPv4 Address + Interface
               0             1              2             3
       +--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
       |                   IPv4 Address format                     |
       +--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
       |                          ifindex                          |
       +--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+

   For this type of the interface object, the IPv4 address should
   specify the IP address that the incoming message came from.

           C-Type = 2, IPv6 Address + Interface





Boyle et al.              Expires June 1999                 [Page 10]


Internet Draft                   COPS                     January 1999


               0             1              2             3
       +--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
       |                                                           |
       +                                                           +
       |                                                           |
       +                    IPv6 Address format                    +
       |                                                           |
       +                                                           +
       |                                                           |
       +--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
       |                          ifindex                          |
       +--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+

   For this type of the interface object, the IPv6 address should
   specify the IP address that the incoming message came from. The
   ifindex is used to refer to the MIB-II defined local incoming
   interface on the PEP as described above.


2.2.4 Out-Interface Object (OUT-Int)

   The Out-Interface is used to identify the outgoing interface to
   which a specific request applies and the address for where the
   forwarded message is to be sent. For flows or messages destined to
   the PEP's local host, the loop back address and ifindex are used.
   The Out-Interface has the same formats as the In-Interface Object.

   This Interface object is also used to identify the outgoing
   (forwarding) interface via its ifindex. The ifindex may be used to
   differentiate between sub-interfaces and unnumbered interfaces (see
   RSVP's LIH for an example). When SNMP is supported by the PEP, this
   ifindex integer must correspond to the same integer value for the
   interface in the SNMP MIB-II interface index table.

   Note: The ifindex specified in the Out-Interface is typically
   relative to the flow of the underlying protocol messages. The
   ifindex is the one on which a protocol message is about to be
   forwarded.

           C-Num = 4

           C-Type = 1, IPv4 Address + Interface

   Same C-Type format as the In-Interface object. The IPv4 address
   should specify the IP address to which the outgoing message is
   going. The ifindex is used to refer to the MIB-II defined local
   outgoing interface on the PEP.

           C-Type = 2, IPv6 Address + Interface

   Same C-Type format as the In-Interface object. For this type of the
   interface object, the IPv6 address should specify the IP address to


Boyle et al.              Expires June 1999                 [Page 11]


Internet Draft                   COPS                     January 1999


   which the outgoing message is going. The ifindex is used to refer to
   the MIB-II defined local outgoing interface on the PEP.


2.2.5 Reason Object (Reason)

   This object specifies the reason why the request state was deleted.
   It should appear in the delete request (DRQ) message. The Reason
   Sub-code field is reserved for more detailed client-specific reason
   codes defined in the corresponding documents.

           C-Num = 5, C-Type = 1

               0             1              2             3
       +--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
       |         Reason-Code         |       Reason Sub-code       |
       +--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+

           Reason Code:
               1 = Unspecified
               2 = Management
               3 = Preempted (Another request state takes precedence)
               4 = Tear (Used to communicate a signaled state removal)
               5 = Timeout (Local state has timed-out)
               6 = Route Change (Change invalidates request state)
               7 = Insufficient Resources (No local resource available)
               8 = PDP's Directive (PDP decision caused the delete)
               9 = Unsupported decision (PDP decision not supported)
               10= Synchronize Handle Unknown
               11= Transient Handle (stateless event)
               12= Malformed Decision (could not recover)


2.2.6 Decision Object (Decision)

   Decision made by the PDP. Must appear in replies. The specific non-
   mandatory decision objects required in a decision to a particular
   request depend on the type of client.

               C-Num = 6

               C-Type = 1, Decision Flags (Mandatory)

               0             1              2             3
       +--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
       |        Command-Code         |            Flags            |
       +--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+

           Commands:
               0 = NULL Decision (No configuration data available)
               1 = Install (Admit request/Install configuration)
               2 = Remove (Remove request/Remove configuration)


Boyle et al.              Expires June 1999                 [Page 12]


Internet Draft                   COPS                     January 1999


           Flags:
               0x01 = Trigger Error (Trigger error message if set)
                Note: Trigger Error is applicable to client-types that
                are capable of sending error notifications for signaled
                messages.

       Flag values not applicable to a given context's R-Type or
       client-type MUST be ignored by the PEP.

              C-Type = 2, Stateless Data

       This type of decision object carries additional stateless
       information that can be applied by the PEP locally. It is a
       variable length object and its internal format should be
       specified in the relevant COPS extension document for the given
       client-type. This object is optional in Decision messages and is
       interpreted relative to a given context.

       It is expected that even outsourcing PEPs will be able to make
       some simple stateless policy decisions locally in their LDP. As
       this set is well known and implemented ubiquitously, PDPs are
       aware of it as well (either universally, through configuration,
       or using the Client-Open message). The PDP may also include this
       information in its decision, and the PEP should apply it to the
       resource allocation event that generated the request.

               C-Type = 3, Replacement Data

       This type of decision object carries replacement data that is to
       replace existing data in a signaled message. It is a variable
       length object and its internal format should be specified in the
       relevant COPS extension document for the given client-type. It
       is optional in Decision messages and is interpreted relative to
       a given context.

               C-Type = 4, Client Specific Decision Data

       Additional decision types can be introduced using the Client
       Specific Decision Data Object. It is a variable length object
       and its internal format should be specified in the relevant COPS
       extension document for the given client-type. It is optional in
       Decision messages and is interpreted relative to a given
       context.

               C-Type = 5, Named Decision Data

       Named configuration information should be encapsulated in this
       version of the decision object in response to configuration
       requests. It is a variable length object and its internal format
       should be specified in the relevant COPS extension document for
       the given client-type. It is optional in Decision messages and
       is interpreted relative to both a given context and decision
       flags.

Boyle et al.              Expires June 1999                 [Page 13]


Internet Draft                   COPS                     January 1999



2.2.7 LDP Decision Object (LDPDecision)

   Decision made by the PEP's local decision point (LDP). May appear in
   requests. These objects correspond to and are formatted the same as
   the client specific decision objects defined above.

           C-Num = 7

           C-Type = (same C-Type as for Decision objects)


2.2.8 Error Object (Error)

   This object is used to identify a particular COPS protocol error.
   The error sub-code field contains additional detailed client
   specific error codes. The appropriate Error Sub-codes for a
   particular client-type should be specified in the relevant COPS
   extensions document.

            C-Num = 8, C-Type = 1

               0             1              2             3
       +--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
       |          Error-Code         |        Error Sub-code       |
       +--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+

           Error-Code:

               1 = Bad handle
               2 = Invalid handle reference
               3 = Bad message format (Malformed Message)
               4 = Unable to process (server gives up on query)
               5 = Mandatory client-specific info missing
               6 = Unsupported client-type
               7 = Mandatory COPS object missing
               8 = Client Failure
               9 = Communication Failure
               10= Unspecified
               11= Shutting down



2.2.9 Client Specific Information Object (ClientSI)

   The various types of this object are required for requests, and used
   in reports and opens when required. It contains client-type specific
   information.

           C-Num = 9,

           C-Type = 1, Signaled ClientSI.


Boyle et al.              Expires June 1999                 [Page 14]


Internet Draft                   COPS                     January 1999


   Variable-length field. All objects/attributes specific to a client's
   signaling protocol or internal state must be encapsulated within one
   or more signaled Client Specific Information Objects. The format of
   the data encapsulated in the ClientSI object is determined by the
   client-type.

           C-Type = 2, Named ClientSI.

   Variable-length field. Contains named configuration information
   useful for relaying specific information about the PEP, a request,
   or configured state to the PDP server.


2.2.10 Keep-Alive Timer Object (KATimer)

   Times are encoded as 2 octet integer values and are in units of
   seconds.  The timer value is treated as a delta.

           C-Num = 10,

           C-Type = 1, Keep-alive timer value

   Timer object used to specify the maximum time interval over which a
   COPS message must be sent or received. The value of zero implies
   infinity.

                0             1              2             3
       +--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
       |        //////////////       |        KA Timer Value       |
       +--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+


2.2.11 PEP Identification Object (PEPID)

   The PEP Identification Object is used to identify the PEP client to
   the remote PDP. It is required for Client-Open messages.

           C-Num = 11, C-Type = 1

   Variable-length field. It is a NULL terminated ASCII string that is
   also zero padded to a 32-bit word boundary (so the object length is
   a multiple of 4 octets). The PEPID must contain an ASCII string that
   uniquely identifies the PEP within the policy domain in a manner
   that is persistent across PEP reboots. For example, it may be the
   PEP's statically assigned IP address or DNS name. This identifier
   may safely be used by a PDP as a handle for identifying the PEP in
   its policy rules.


2.2.12 Report-Type Object (Report-Type)

   The Type of Report on the request state associated with a handle:


Boyle et al.              Expires June 1999                 [Page 15]


Internet Draft                   COPS                     January 1999


           C-Num = 12, C-Type = 1


               0             1              2             3
       +--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
       |         Report-Type         |        /////////////        |
       +--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+

           Report-Type:
               1 = Commit    : PEP's local resources now allocated
               2 = No Commit : PEP's resource allocation failure
               3 = Accounting: Accounting update for an installed state
               4 = Installed : Admitted request/Installed configuration
               5 = Removed   : Removed request/Removed configuration
               6 = NotInstall: Request/Configuration was not installed
               7 = NotRemoved: Request/Configuration was not removed


2.2.13 PDP Redirect Address (PDPRedirAddr)

   A PDP when closing a PEP session for a particular client-type may
   optionally use this object to redirect the PEP to another PDP
   server:

       C-Num = 13,

       C-Type = 1, IPv4 Address (4 octets)
                0             1              2             3
       +--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
       |                   IPv4 Address format                     |
       +--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+

       C-Type = 2, IPv6 Address (16 octets)
                0             1              2             3
       +--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
       |                                                           |
       +                                                           +
       |                                                           |
       +                    IPv6 Address format                    +
       |                                                           |
       +                                                           +
       |                                                           |
       +--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+


2.2.14 Last PDP Address (LastPDPAddr)

   When a PEP sends a Client-Open message for a particular client-type
   the PEP should specify the last PDP it has successfully opened
   (meaning it received a Client-Accept) since the PEP last rebooted.
   If no PDP was used since the last reboot, the PEP will simply not
   include this object in the Client-Open message.


Boyle et al.              Expires June 1999                 [Page 16]


Internet Draft                   COPS                     January 1999


       C-Num = 14,

       C-Type = 1, IPv4 Address (Same format as PDPRedirAddr)

       C-Type = 2, IPv6 Address (Same format as PDPRedirAddr)


2.2.15 Accounting Timer Object (AcctTimer)

   Times are encoded as 2 octet integer values and are in units of
   seconds.  The timer value is treated as a delta.

           C-Num = 15,

           C-Type = 1, Accounting timer value

   Optional timer value used to determine the minimum interval between
   periodic accounting type reports. It is used by the PDP to describe
   to the PEP an acceptable interval between accounting updates via
   Report messages where applicable. The value of zero implies there
   are no timing constraints on accounting updates.

                0             1              2             3
       +--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
       |        //////////////       |        ACCT Timer Value     |
       +--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+


2.3 Communication

   The COPS protocol uses a single persistent TCP connection between
   the PEP and a remote PDP. The remote PDP listens on a well-known
   port number (COPS=3288 [IANA]), and the PEP is responsible for
   initiating the connection. The location of the remote PDP can either
   be configured, or obtained via a service location mechanism
   [SRVLOC]. Service discovery is outside the scope of this protocol,
   however.

   If a single PEP can support multiple client-types, it may send
   multiple Client-Open messages, each specifying a particular client-
   type to a PDP over one or more TCP connections. Likewise, a PDP
   residing at a given address may support one or more client-types.
   Given the client-types it supports, a PDP has the ability to either
   accept or reject each client-type independently. If a client-type is
   rejected, the PDP can redirect the PEP to an alternative PDP for a
   given client-type via COPS. Additional provisions for supporting
   multiple client-types (perhaps from independent PDP vendors) on a
   single remote PDP server are not provided by the COPS protocol, but,
   rather, are left to the software architecture of the given server
   platform.




Boyle et al.              Expires June 1999                 [Page 17]


Internet Draft                   COPS                     January 1999


   It is possible a single PEP may have open connections to multiple
   PDPs. This is the case when there are physically different PDPs
   supporting different client-types as shown in figure 2.

       +----------------+
       |                |
       |  Network Node  |                  Policy Servers
       |                |
       |   +-----+      | COPS Client Type 1  +-----+
       |   |     |<-----|-------------------->| PDP1|
       |   + PEP +      | COPS Client Type 2  +-----+
       |   |     |<-----|---------\           +-----+
       |   +-----+      |          \----------| PDP2|
       |    ^           |                     +-----+
       |    |           |
       |    \-->+-----+ |
       |        | LDP | |
       |        +-----+ |
       |                |
       +----------------+

       Figure 2: Multiple PDPs illustration.

   When a TCP connection is torn down or is lost, the PDP is expected
   to eventually clean up any outstanding request state related to
   request/decision exchanges with the PEP. When the PEP detects a lost
   connection due to a timeout condition it should explicitly send a
   Client-Close message for each opened client-type containing an
   <Error> object indicating the "Communication Failure" Error-Code.
   Additionally, the PEP should continuously attempt to contact the
   primary PDP or, if unsuccessful, any known backup PDPs. Specifically
   the PEP should keep trying all relevant PDPs with which it has been
   configured until it can establish a connection. If a PEP is in
   communication with a backup PDP and the primary PDP becomes
   available, the backup PDP is responsible for redirecting the PEP
   back to the primary PDP (via a <Client-Close> message containing a
   <PDPRedirAddr> object indicating the primary PDP to use for each
   affected client-type).


2.4 Client Handle Usage

   The client handle is used to identify a unique request state. Client
   handles are chosen by the PEP and are opaque to the PDP. The PDP
   simply uses the request handle to uniquely identify the request
   state and generically tie its decisions to a corresponding request.
   Client handles are initiated in request messages and are then used
   by subsequent request, decision, and report messages to reference
   the same request state. When the PEP is ready to remove a local
   request state, it will issue a delete message to the PDP for the
   corresponding client handle. A handle MUST be explicitly deleted by
   the PEP before it can be used to identify a new request state.
   Handles referring to different request states must be unique.

Boyle et al.              Expires June 1999                 [Page 18]


Internet Draft                   COPS                     January 1999




2.5 Synchronization Behavior

   When disconnected from a PDP, the PEP should revert to making local
   decisions. Once a connection is reestablished, the PEP is expected
   to notify the PDP of any events that have passed local admission
   control. Additionally, the remote PDP may request that all the PEP's
   internal state be resynchronized (all previously installed requests
   are to be reissued) by sending a Synchronize State message.

   After a failure and before a new connection is fully functional,
   disruption of service can be minimized if the PEP caches previously
   communicated decisions and continues to use them for some
   appropriate length of time. Specific rules for such behavior are to
   be defined in the appropriate COPS client-type extension
   specifications.

   A PEP that caches state from a previous exchange with a disconnected
   PDP must communicate this fact to any PDP with which it is able to
   later reconnect. This is accomplished by including the address of
   the last PDP for which the PEP is still caching state in the Client-
   Open message. The <LastPDPAddr> object will only be included for the
   last PDP with which the PEP was completely in sync. If the service
   interruption was temporary and the PDP still contains the complete
   state for the PEP, the PDP may choose not to synchronize all states.
   It is still the responsibility of the PEP to update the PDP of all
   state changes that occurred during the disruption of service
   including any states communicated to the previous PDP that had been
   deleted after the connection was lost. These must be explicitly
   deleted after a connection is reestablished. If the PDP issues a
   synchronize request the PEP must pass all current states to the PDP
   followed by a Synchronize State Complete message (thus completing
   the synchronization process).




















Boyle et al.              Expires June 1999                 [Page 19]


Internet Draft                   COPS                     January 1999


3. Message Content

   This section describes the basic messages exchanged between a PEP
   and a remote PDP as well as their contents. As a convention, object
   ordering is expected as shown in the BNF for each COPS message
   unless otherwise noted. Malformed messages are to be silently
   dropped unless otherwise specified.


3.1 Request (REQ)  PEP -> PDP

   The PEP establishes a request state client handle for which the
   remote PDP may maintain a state. The remote PDP then uses this
   handle to refer to the exchanged information and decisions.

   Once a stateful handle is established for a new request, any
   subsequent modifications of the request can be made using the REQ
   message specifying the previously installed handle. The PEP is
   responsible for notifying the PDP whenever its local state changes
   so the PDP's state will be able to accurately mirror the PEP's
   state.

   The format of the Request message is as follows:

               <Request Message> ::=  <Common Header>
                                      <Client Handle>
                                      <Context>
                                      [<IN-Int>]
                                      [<OUT-Int>]
                                      [<ClientSI(s)>]
                                      [<LDPDecision(s)>]

               <ClientSI(s)> ::= <ClientSI> | <ClientSI(s)> <ClientSI>

               <LDPDecision(s)> ::= <LDPDecision> |
                                    <LDPDecision(s)> <LDPDecision>


   The context object is used to determine the context within which all
   the other objects are to be interpreted. It also is used to
   determine the kind of decision to be returned from the policy
   server. This decision might be related to admission control,
   resource allocation, object forwarding and substitution, or
   configuration.

   The interface objects are used to determine the corresponding
   interface on which a signaling protocol message was received or is
   about to be sent. They are typically used if the client is
   participating along the path of a signaling protocol or if the
   client is requesting configuration data for a particular interface.

   ClientSI, the client specific information object, holds the client-
   type specific data for which a policy decision needs to be made. In

Boyle et al.              Expires June 1999                 [Page 20]


Internet Draft                   COPS                     January 1999


   the case of configuration, the Named ClientSI may include named
   information about the module, interface, or functionality to be
   configured. The ordering of multiple ClientSIs is not important.

   Finally, LDPDecision object holds information regarding the local
   decision made by the LDP.


3.2 Decision (DEC)  PDP -> PEP

   The PDP responds to the REQ with a DEC message that includes the
   associated client handle and one or more decision objects grouped
   relative to a Context object and Decision Flags object type pair. If
   there was a protocol error an error object is returned instead.

   It is required that the first decision message for a new/updated
   request will have the solicited message flag set (value = 1) in the
   COPS header. This avoids the issue of keeping track of which updated
   request (that is, a request reissued for the same handle) a
   particular decision corresponds. It is important that, for a given
   handle, there be at most one outstanding solicited decision per
   request. This essentially means that the PEP should not issue more
   than one REQ (for a given handle) before it receives a corresponding
   DEC with the solicited message flag set.

   To avoid deadlock, the client can always timeout after issuing a
   request. It must then delete the timed-out handle, and possibly try
   again using a different (new) handle.

   The format of the Decision message is as follows:

               <Decision Message> ::= <Common Header>
                                      <Client Handle>
                                      <Decision(s)> | <Error>

               <Decision(s)> ::= <Decision> | <Decision(s)> <Decision>

               <Decision> ::= <Context>
                              <Decision: Flags>
                              [<Decision: Stateless Data>]
                              [<Decision: Replacement Data>]
                              [<Decision: ClientSI Data>]
                              [<Decision: Named Data>]

   The Decision message may include either an Error object or one or
   more context plus associated decision objects. COPS protocol
   problems are reported in the Error object (e.g. an error with the
   format of the original request, including malformed request
   messages). The applicable Decision object(s) depend on the context
   and the type of client. The only ordering requirement for decision
   objects is that the required Decision Flags object type must proceed
   the other Decision object types per context binding.


Boyle et al.              Expires June 1999                 [Page 21]


Internet Draft                   COPS                     January 1999


3.3 Report State (RPT)  PEP -> PDP

   This message is used by the PEP to communicate a change in the
   status of a previously installed state to the PDP. A commit or no-
   commit report-type indicates to the PDP that a particular policy
   directive has or has not been acted upon as is relevant for
   accounting purposes. (In RSVP this would mean that a reservation
   passed or failed local capacity admission control [RSVP]. For a
   configuration decision, it would mean the configuration identified
   in the ClientSI either could or could not be installed by the PEP).

   The Report State may also be used to provide periodic updates of
   client specific information for accounting and state monitoring
   purposes depending on the type of the client. In such cases the
   accounting report type should be specified utilizing the appropriate
   client specific information object.

              <Report State> ::== <Common Header>
                                  <Client Handle>
                                  <Report-Type>
                                  [<ClientSI>]


3.4 Delete Request State (DRQ)  PEP -> PDP

   When sent from the PEP this message indicates to the remote PDP that
   the state identified by the client handle is no longer
   available/relevant. This information will then be used by the remote
   PDP to initiate the appropriate housekeeping actions. The reason
   code object is interpreted with respect to the client-type and
   signifies the reason for the removal.

   The format of the Delete Request State message is as follows:

              <Delete Request>  ::= <Common Header>
                                    <Client Handle>
                                    <Reason>

   Given the stateful nature of COPS, it is important that when a
   request state is finally removed from the PEP, a DRQ message for
   this request state is sent to the PDP so the corresponding state may
   likewise be removed on the PDP. Request states not explicitly
   deleted by the PEP will be maintained by the PDP until either the
   client session is closed or the connection is terminated.

   Malformed Decision messages should trigger a DRQ specifying the
   appropriate erroneous reason code (Bad Message Format) and any
   associated state on the PEP should either be removed or re-
   requested.





Boyle et al.              Expires June 1999                 [Page 22]


Internet Draft                   COPS                     January 1999


3.5 Synchronize State Request (SSQ)  PDP -> PEP

   The format of the Synchronize State Query message is as follows:

              <Synchronize State> ::= <Common Header>
                                      [<Client Handle>]

   This message indicates that the remote PDP wishes the client (which
   appears in the common header) to re-send its state. If the optional
   Client Handle is present, only the state associated with this handle
   is synchronized. If the PEP does not recognize the requested handle,
   it should immediately send a DRQ message to the PDP for the handle
   that was specified in the SSQ message. If no handle is specified in
   the SSQ message, all the active client state should be synchronized
   with the PDP.

   The client performs state synchronization by re-issuing request
   queries of the specified client-type for the existing state in the
   PEP. When synchronization is complete, the PEP must issue a
   synchronize state complete message to the PDP.


3.6 Client-Open (OPN)  PEP -> PDP

   The Client-Open message can be used by the PEP to specify to the PDP
   the client-types the PEP can support, the last PDP to which the PEP
   connected for the given client-type, and/or client specific feature
   negotiation. A Client-Open message can be sent to the PDP at any
   time and multiple Client-Open messages for the same client-type are
   allowed (in case of global state changes).


        <Client-Open>  ::= <Common Header>
                           <PEPID>
                           [<ClientSI>]
                           [<LastPDPAddr>]

   The PEPID is a symbolic, variable length name that uniquely
   identifies the specific client to the PDP.

   A named ClientSI object can be included for relaying additional
   global information about the PEP to the PDP when required (as
   specified in the appropriate extensions document for the client-
   type).

   Finally, the PEP may provide a Last PDP Address object in its
   Client-Open message specifying the last PDP (for the given client-
   type) for which it is still caching decisions since its last reboot.
   A PDP can use this information to determine the appropriate
   synchronization behavior (See section 2.5).




Boyle et al.              Expires June 1999                 [Page 23]


Internet Draft                   COPS                     January 1999


3.7 Client-Accept (CAT)  PDP -> PEP

   The Client-Accept message is used to positively respond to the
   Client-Open message. This message will return to the PEP a timer
   object indicating the maximum time interval between keep-alive
   messages. Optionally, a timer specifying the minimum allowed
   interval between accounting report messages may be included when
   applicable.

              <Client-Accept>  ::= <Common Header>
                                   <KA Timer>
                                   [<ACCT Timer>]

   If the PDP refuses the client, it will instead issue a Client-Close
   message.

   The KA Timer corresponds to maximum acceptable intermediate time
   between the generation of messages by the PDP and PEP. The timer
   value is determined by the PDP and is specified in seconds. A timer
   value of 0 implies no secondary connection verification is
   necessary.

   The optional accounting timer allows the PDP to indicate to the PEP
   that periodic accounting reports should not exceed the specified
   timer interval. This allows the PDP to control the rate at which
   accounting reports are sent by the PEP (when applicable). In
   general, accounting type Report messages are sent to the PDP when
   determined appropriate by the PEP. The accounting timer merely is
   used by the PDP to keep the rate of such updates in check (i.e.
   Preventing the PEP from blasting the PDP with accounting reports).


3.8 Client-Close (CC)  PEP -> PDP, PDP -> PEP

   The Client-Close message can be issued by either the PDP or PEP to
   notify the other that a particular type of client is no longer being
   supported.

               <Client-Close>  ::= <Common Header>
                                   <Error>
                                   [<PDPRedirAddr>]

   The Error object is included to describe the reason for the close
   (e.g. the requested client-type is not supported by the remote PDP
   or client failure).

   A PDP may optionally include a PDP Redirect Address object in order
   to inform the PEP of the alternate PDP it should use for the client-
   type specified in the common header.





Boyle et al.              Expires June 1999                 [Page 24]


Internet Draft                   COPS                     January 1999


3.9 Keep-Alive (KA)  PEP -> PDP, PDP -> PEP

   The keep-alive message must be transmitted by the PEP within the
   period defined by the minimum of all KA Timer values specified in
   all received CAT messages for the connection. A KA message must be
   generated randomly between 1/4 and 3/4 of this minimum TA timer
   interval. When the PDP receives a keep-alive message from a PEP, it
   must echo a keep-alive back to the PEP. This message provides
   validation for each side that the connection is still functioning
   even when there is no other messaging.

   Note: The client-type in the header should always be set to 0 as the
   KA is used for connection verification (not per client session
   verification).

               <Keep-Alive>  ::= <Common Header>

   Both client and server may assume the TCP connection is insufficient
   for the client-type with the minimum time value (specified in the
   CAT message) if no communication activity is detected for a period
   exceeding the timer period. For the PEP, such detection implies the
   remote PDP or connection is down and the PEP should now attempt to
   use an alternative/backup PDP.


3.10 Synchronize State Complete (SSC) PEP -> PDP

   The Synchronize State Complete is sent by the PEP to the PDP after
   the PDP sends a synchronize state request to the PEP and the PEP has
   finished synchronization. It is useful so that the PDP will know
   when all the old client state has been successfully re-requested
   and, thus, the PEP and PDP are completely synchronized.

         <Synchronize State Complete>  ::= <Common Header>




















Boyle et al.              Expires June 1999                 [Page 25]


Internet Draft                   COPS                     January 1999



4. Common Operation

   This section describes the typical exchanges between remote PDP
   servers and PEP clients.


4.1 PEP Initialization

   Sometime after a connection is established between the PEP and a
   remote PDP, the PEP will send one or more Client-Open messages to
   the remote PDP, one for each client-type supported by the PEP. The
   Client-Open message must contain the address of the last PDP with
   which the PEP is still caching a complete set of decisions. If no
   decisions are being cached from the previous PDP the LastPDPAddr
   object must not be included in the Client-Open message (see Section
   2.5). Each Client-Open message should at least contain the common
   header noting one client-type supported by the PEP. The remote PDP
   will then respond with separate Client-Accept messages for each of
   the client-types requested by the PEP that the PDP can also support.

   If a specific client-type is not supported by the PDP, the PDP will
   instead respond with a Client-Close specifying the client-type is
   not supported and will possibly suggest an alternate PDP address.
   Otherwise, the PDP will send a Client-Accept specifying the timer
   interval between keep-alive messages and the PEP may begin issuing
   requests to the PDP.


4.2 Outsourcing Operations

   In the outsourcing scenario, when the PEP receives an event that
   requires a new policy decision it sends a request message to the
   remote PDP. What specifically qualifies as an event for a particular
   client-type should be specified in the specific document for that
   client-type. The remote PDP then makes a decision and sends a
   decision message back to the PEP. Since the request is stateful, the
   request will be remembered, or installed, on the remote PDP. The
   unique handle, specified in both the request and its corresponding
   decision identifies this request state. The PEP is responsible for
   deleting this request state once the request is no longer
   applicable.

   The PEP can update a previously installed request state by reissuing
   a request for the previously installed handle. The remote PDP is
   then expected to make new decisions and send a decision message back
   to the PEP. Likewise, the server may change a previously issued
   decision on any currently installed request state at any time by
   issuing another decision message. At all times the PEP module is
   expected to abide by the PDP's decisions and notify the PDP of any
   state changes.



Boyle et al.              Expires June 1999                 [Page 26]


Internet Draft                   COPS                     January 1999


4.3 Configuration Operations

   In the configuration scenario, as in the outsourcing scenario, the
   PEP will make a configuration request to the PDP for a particular
   interface, module, or functionality that may be specified in the
   named client specific information object. The PDP will then send
   potentially several decisions containing named units of
   configuration data to the PEP. The PEP is expected to install and
   use the configuration locally. A particular named configuration can
   be updated by simply sending additional decision messages for the
   same named configuration. When the PDP no longer wishes the PEP to
   use a piece of configuration information, it will send a decision
   message specifying the named configuration and a decision flags
   object with the remove configuration command. The PEP should then
   proceed to remove the corresponding configuration and send a report
   message to the PDP that specifies it has been deleted.

   In all cases, the PEP may notify the remote PDP of the local status
   of an installed state using the report message where appropriate.
   The report message is to be used to signify when billing should
   begin, what actions were taken, or to produce periodic updates for
   monitoring and accounting purposes depending on the client. This
   message can carry client specific information when needed.

4.4 Keep-Alive Operations

   The Keep-Alive message is used to validate the connection between
   the client and server is still functioning even when there is no
   other messaging from the PEP to PDP. The PEP must generate a COPS KA
   message randomly within one-fourth to three-fourths the negotiated
   minimum KA Timer interval. On receiving a Keep-Alive message from
   the PEP, the PDP must then respond to this Keep-Alive message by
   echoing a Keep-Alive message back to the PEP. If either side does
   not receive a Keep-Alive or any other COPS message within the
   minimum KA Timer interval from the other, the connection should be
   considered lost.

4.5 PEP/PDP Close

   Finally, Client-Close messages are used to negate the effects of the
   corresponding Client-Open messages, notifying the other side that
   the specified client-type is no longer supported/active. When the
   PEP detects a lost connection due to a keep-alive timeout condition
   it should explicitly send a Client-Close message for each opened
   client-type specifying a communications failure error code. Then the
   PEP may proceed to terminate the connection to the PDP and attempt
   to reconnect again or try a backup/alternative PDP. When the PDP is
   shutting down, it should also explicitly send a Client-Close to all
   connected PEPs for each client-type, perhaps specifying an
   alternative PDP to use instead.




Boyle et al.              Expires June 1999                 [Page 27]


Internet Draft                   COPS                     January 1999




5. Security

   The security of RSVP messages is provided by inter-router MD5
   authentication [MD5].  This assumes a chain-of-trust model for inter
   PEP authentication.  Security between the client (PEP) and server
   (PDP) is provided by IPSEC [IPSEC].

   To ensure the client (PEP) is communicating with the correct policy
   server (PDP) involves two issues: authentication of the policy
   client and server using a shared secret, and consistent proof that
   the connection remains valid. The shared secret requires manual
   configuration of keys, which is a maintenance issue. IPSEC AH may be
   used for the validation of the connection; IPSEC ESP may be used to
   provide both validation and secrecy.






































Boyle et al.              Expires June 1999                 [Page 28]


Internet Draft                   COPS                     January 1999




6. IANA Considerations


   The Client-type identifies the policy client application to which a
   message refers. Client-type values within the range 0x0000-0x3FFF
   are reserved Specification Required status as defined in [IANA-
   CONSIDERATIONS]. These values must be registered with IANA and their
   behavior and applicability must be described in a COPS extension
   document.

   Client-type values in the range 0x4000 - 0x7FFF are reserved for
   Private Use as defined in [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS]. These Client-types
   are not tracked by IANA and are not to be used in standards or
   general-release products, as their uniqueness cannot be assured.

   Client-type values in the range 0x8000 - 0xFFFF are First Come First
   Served as defined in [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS]. These Client-types are
   tracked by IANA but do not require published documents describing
   their use. IANA merely assures their uniqueness.

































Boyle et al.              Expires June 1999                 [Page 29]


Internet Draft                   COPS                     January 1999



7. References

   [RSVP]  Braden, R. ed. et al., "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)
           Version 1 - Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September
           1997.

   [WRK]   Yavatkar, R. et al., "A Framework for Policy-Based Admission
           Control", Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-rap-framework-01.txt,
           November 1998.

   [SRVLOC]Guttman, E. et al., "Service Location Protocol", Internet-
           Draft,  draft-ietf-svrloc-protocol-v2-01.txt, October 1997.

   [INSCH] Shenker, S., Wroclawski, J., "General Characterization
           Parameters for Integrated Service Network Elements", RFC
           2215, September 1997.

   [IPSEC] Atkinson, R., "Security Architecture for the Internet
           Protocol", RFC1825, August 1995.

   [MD5]   Baker, F., "RSVP Cryptographic Authentication", Internet-
           Draft, draft-ietf-rsvp-md5-05.txt, August 1997.

   [RSVPPR]Braden, R., Zhang, L., "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)
           - Version 1 Message Processing Rules", RFC 2209, September
           1997.

   [IANA]  http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/port-numbers

   [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS] Alvestrand, H. and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
           Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC
           2434, October 1998.





















Boyle et al.              Expires June 1999                 [Page 30]


Internet Draft                   COPS                     January 1999


8. Author Information and Acknowledgments

   Special thanks to Andrew Smith and Timothy O'Malley our WG Chairs,
   Raj Yavatkar,  Russell Fenger, Fred Baker, Laura Cunningham, Roch
   Guerin, Ping Pan, and Dimitrios Pendarakis for their valuable
   contributions.


       Jim Boyle                        Ron Cohen
       Level 3 Communications           Cisco Systems
       1450 Infinite Drive13            Hasadna St.
       Louisville, CO 80027             Ra'anana 43650 Israel
       303.926.3100                     972.9.7462020
       email: jboyle@l3.net             ronc@classdata.com

       David Durham                     Raju Rajan
       Intel                            IBM T.J. Watson Research Cntr
       2111 NE 25th Avenue              P.O. Box 704
       Hillsboro, OR 97124              Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
       503.264.6232                     914.784.7260
       David_Durham@mail.intel.com      raju@watson.ibm.com

       Shai Herzog                      Arun Sastry
       IPHighway                        Cisco Systems
       2055 Gateway Pl., Suite 400      506210 W Tasman Drive
       San Jose, CA 95110               San Jose, CA 95134
       408.390.3045                     408.526.7685
       herzog@iphighway.com             asastry@cisco.com


























Boyle et al.              Expires June 1999                 [Page 31]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/