draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-00.txt   draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-01.txt 
Diameter Maintenance and K. Carlberg, Ed. Diameter Maintenance and K. Carlberg, Ed.
Extensions (DIME) G11 Extensions (DIME) G11
Internet-Draft T. Taylor Internet-Draft T. Taylor
Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies
Feb 28, 2010 June 11, 2010
Diameter Priority Attribute Value Pairs Diameter Priority Attribute Value Pairs
draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-00.txt draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-01.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Abstract Abstract
This document defines Attribute-Value Pair (AVP) containers for This document defines Attribute-Value Pair (AVP) containers for
various priority parameters for use with Diameter and the AAA various priority parameters for use with Diameter and the AAA
framework. The parameters themselves are defined in several framework. The parameters themselves are defined in several
different protocols that operate at either the network or application different protocols that operate at either the network or application
layer. layer.
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
skipping to change at page 2, line 27 skipping to change at page 2, line 34
The influence attributed to prioritization may also affect QoS, but The influence attributed to prioritization may also affect QoS, but
it is not to be confused with QoS. As an example, if packets of two it is not to be confused with QoS. As an example, if packets of two
or more flows are contending for the same shared resources, or more flows are contending for the same shared resources,
prioritization helps determine which packet receives the resource. prioritization helps determine which packet receives the resource.
However, this allocation of resource does not correlate directly to However, this allocation of resource does not correlate directly to
any specific delay or loss bounds that have been associated with the any specific delay or loss bounds that have been associated with the
packet. packet.
Another example of how prioritization can be realized is articulated Another example of how prioritization can be realized is articulated
in Appendix A.3 (the priority by-pass model) of [draft.rsvp- in Appendix A.3 (the priority by-pass model) of [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-
priority-extension]. In this case, prioritized flows may gain access emergency-rsvp]. In this case, prioritized flows may gain access to
to resources that are never shared with non-prioritized flows. resources that are never shared with non-prioritized flows.
2. Terminology and Abbreviations 2. Terminology and Abbreviations
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [RFC2119].
3. Priority Parameter Encoding 3. Priority Parameter Encoding
This section defines a set of priority AVPs. This set is for use This section defines a set of priority AVPs. This set is for use
with the DIAMETER QoS application and represents a continuation of with the DIAMETER QoS application [RFC5866] and represents a
the list of AVPs defined in [RFC5624]. The syntax notation used is continuation of the list of AVPs defined in [RFC5624]. The syntax
that of [RFC3588]. notation used is that of [RFC3588].
3.1. Dual-Priority AVP 3.1. Dual-Priority AVP
The Dual-Priority AVP is a grouped AVP consisting of two AVPs; the The Dual-Priority AVP is a grouped AVP consisting of two AVPs; the
Preemption-Priority and the Defending-Priority AVP. These AVPs are Preemption-Priority and the Defending-Priority AVP. These AVPs are
derived from the corresponding priority fields in the Signaled derived from the corresponding priority fields in the Signaled
Preemption Priority Policy Element [RFC3181] of RSVP [RFC2205]. The Preemption Priority Policy Element [RFC3181] of RSVP [RFC2205]. The
Defending-Priority is set when the reservation has been admitted. Defending-Priority is set when the reservation has been admitted.
The Preemption-Priority of a newly requested reservation is compared The Preemption-Priority of a newly requested reservation is compared
with the Defending Priority of a previously admitted flow. The with the Defending Priority of a previously admitted flow. The
skipping to change at page 3, line 31 skipping to change at page 3, line 37
3.1.2. Defending-Priority AVP 3.1.2. Defending-Priority AVP
The Defending-Priority AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32. The Defending-Priority AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32.
Higher values represent higher priority. The value encoded in this Higher values represent higher priority. The value encoded in this
AVP is the same as the defending priority value that would be encoded AVP is the same as the defending priority value that would be encoded
in the signaled preemption priority policy element. in the signaled preemption priority policy element.
3.2. Admission-Priority AVP 3.2. Admission-Priority AVP
The Admission-Priority AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32. The Admission-Priority AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32. The
admission priority of the flow is used to increase the probability of
The admission priority of the flow is used to increase the session establishment for selected flows. Higher values represent
probability of session establishment for selected flows. Higher higher priority. A given admission priority is encoded in this
values represent higher priority. A given admission priority is information element using the same value as when encoded in the
encoded in this information element using the same value as when admission priority parameter defined in Section 5.1 of [I-D.ietf-
encoded in the admission priority parameter defined in Section 3.1 of tsvwg-emergency-rsvp].
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp].
3.3. SIP-RPH AVP 3.3. SIP-RPH AVP
The SIP-RPH AVP is a grouped AVP consisting of two AVPs, the SIP- The SIP-RPH AVP is a grouped AVP consisting of two AVPs, the SIP-
Namespace and the SIP-Value AVP, which are derived from the RPH-Namespace and the SIP-RPH-Value AVP, which are derived from the
corresponding optional header fields in [rfc4412]. The SIP-Namespace corresponding optional header fields in [rfc4412]. The SIP-RPH-
identifies a particular ordered set of priority values. The SIP- Namespace identifies a particular ordered set of priority values.
Value identifies a specific priority value within the set identified The SIP-RPH-Value identifies a specific priority value within the set
by the SIP-Namespace. identified by the SIP-RPH-Namespace.
SIP-RPH ::= < AVP Header: TBD > SIP-RPH ::= < AVP Header: TBD >
{ SIP-Namespace } { SIP-RPH-Namespace }
{ SIP-Value } { SIP-RPH-Value }
3.3.1. SIP-Namespace AVP 3.3.1. SIP-Namespace AVP
The SIP-Namespace AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type UTF8String. The SIP-RPH-Namespace AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type UTF8String.
3.3.2 SIP-Value AVP 3.3.2 SIP-RPH-Value AVP
The SIP-Value AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type UTF8String. The SIP-RPH-Value AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type UTF8String.
3.4. App-Level-Resource-Priority AVP 3.4. App-Level-Resource-Priority AVP
The App-Level-Resource-Priority (ALRP) AVP is a grouped AVP The App-Level-Resource-Priority (ALRP) AVP is a grouped AVP
consisting of two AVPs, the ALRP-Namespace AVP and the ALRP-Priority consisting of two AVPs, the ALRP-Namespace AVP and the ALRP-Priority
AVP. AVP.
A description of the semantics of the parameter values can be found A description of the semantics of the parameter values can be found
in [RFC4412] and in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp]. The registry in [RFC4412] and in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp]. The registry
set up by [RFC4412] provided string values for both the priority set up by [RFC4412] provided string values for both the priority
namespace and the priority values associated with that namespace. namespace and the priority values associated with that namespace.
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp] modifies that registry to assign [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp] modifies that registry to assign
numerical values to both the namespace identifiers and the priority numerical values to both the namespace identifiers and the priority
values within them. Consequently, SIP-RPH and App-Level-Resource- values within them. Consequently, SIP-RPH and App-Level-Resource-
Priority AVPs convey the same priority semantics, but with differing Priority AVPs convey the same priority semantics, but with differing
syntax. The coding for parameters is as follows: syntax. The coding for parameters is as follows:
Eventhough [RFC4412] and [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp] refer to the
same information (ie, namespace and value), the actual encodings of
each are defined in different forms. In the former case, an alpha-
numeric encoding is used while the latter is constrained to a
numeric-only value. This difference is reflected in the in the
defined structures of Section 3.3 and 3.4 of this document.
App-Level-Resource-Priority ::= < AVP Header: TBD > App-Level-Resource-Priority ::= < AVP Header: TBD >
{ ALRP-Namespace } { ALRP-Namespace }
{ ALRP-Priority } { ALRP-Priority }
3.3.1. ALRP-Namespace AVP 3.4.1. ALRP-Namespace AVP
The ALRP-Namespace AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32. The ALRP-Namespace AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32.
3.3.2. ALRP-Priority AVP 3.4.2. ALRP-Priority AVP
The ALRP-Priority AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32. The ALRP-Priority AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32.
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
4.1. AVP Codes 4.1. AVP Codes
IANA is requested to allocate AVP codes for the following AVPs that IANA is requested to allocate AVP codes for the following AVPs that
are defined in this document. are defined in this document.
+------------------------------------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------------------------------------+
skipping to change at page 5, line 29 skipping to change at page 5, line 37
+------------------------------------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------------------------------------+
4.2. QoS Profile 4.2. QoS Profile
IANA is requested to allocate a new value from the Authentication, IANA is requested to allocate a new value from the Authentication,
Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Parameters/QoS Profile registry Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Parameters/QoS Profile registry
defined in [RFC5624] for the QoS profile defined in this document. defined in [RFC5624] for the QoS profile defined in this document.
The name of the profile is "Resource priority parameters". The The name of the profile is "Resource priority parameters". The
reference is [RFCXXXX] (this document). reference is [RFCXXXX] (this document).
5. Examples 5. Security Considerations
+--------+ +--------+
|Diameter| | SIP |
| server | | server |
+--------+ +--------+
| |
| |
| |
1. SIP INVITE w/ RPH |
------------------------------>|
| 2. MAR w/ SIP-RPH AVP |
|<----------------------|
| 3. MAA. |
|---------------------->| 8. SIP INVITE
| |---------------->
| | 9. SIP 200 (OK)
10. SIP 200 (OK) |<----------------
<------------------------------|
| |
6. Security Considerations
TBD TBD
7. Acknowledgements 6. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Lars Eggert, Jan Engelhardt, Francois We would like to thank Lars Eggert, Jan Engelhardt, Francois
LeFaucheur, John Loughney, An Nguyen, Dave Oran, James Polk, Martin LeFaucheur, John Loughney, An Nguyen, Dave Oran, James Polk, Martin
Stiemerling, and Magnus Westerlund for their help with resolving Stiemerling, and Magnus Westerlund for their help with resolving
problems regarding the Admission Priority and the ALRP parameter. problems regarding the Admission Priority and the ALRP parameter.
Additionally, we would like to thank Martin Dolly and Viqar Shaikh Additionally, we would like to thank Martin Dolly and Viqar Shaikh
for their feedback on previous discussion related to the topic of for their feedback on previous discussion related to the topic of
prioritization. prioritization.
8. References 7. References
8.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp] [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp]
Faucheur, F., Polk, J., and K. Carlberg, "Resource Faucheur, F., Polk, J., and K. Carlberg, "Resource
ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) Extensions for Emergency ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) Extensions for Emergency
Services", draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp-14 (work in Services", draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp-14 (work in
progress), Nov 2009. progress), Nov 2009.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
skipping to change at page 6, line 46 skipping to change at page 6, line 38
June 2005. June 2005.
[RFC4412] Schulzrinne, H. and J. Polk, "Communications Resource [RFC4412] Schulzrinne, H. and J. Polk, "Communications Resource
Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
RFC 4412, February 2006. RFC 4412, February 2006.
[RFC5624] Korhonen, J., Tschofenig, H., and E. Davies, "Quality of [RFC5624] Korhonen, J., Tschofenig, H., and E. Davies, "Quality of
Service Parameters for Usage with Diameter", RFC 5624, Service Parameters for Usage with Diameter", RFC 5624,
Aug 2009. Aug 2009.
8.2. Informative References [RFC5866] Sun, D., et. al., "Diameter Quality-of-Service
Application", RFC 5866, May 2010.
7.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-nsis-qspec] [I-D.ietf-nsis-qspec]
Bader, A., Kappler, C., and D. Oran, "QoS NSLP QSPEC Bader, A., Kappler, C., and D. Oran, "QoS NSLP QSPEC
Template", draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-21 (work in progress), Template", draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-21 (work in progress),
November 2008. November 2008.
[RFC3564] Le Faucheur, F. and W. Lai, "Requirements for Support of [RFC3564] Le Faucheur, F. and W. Lai, "Requirements for Support of
Differentiated Services-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", Differentiated Services-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering",
RFC 3564, July 2003. RFC 3564, July 2003.
 End of changes. 21 change blocks. 
65 lines changed or deleted 59 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.38. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/