draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-01.txt   draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-02.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
June 11, 2010 July 8, 2010
Diameter Priority Attribute Value Pairs Diameter Priority Attribute Value Pairs
draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-01.txt draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-02.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). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
skipping to change at page 2, line 15 skipping to change at page 2, line 15
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
This document defines a number of Attribute-Value Pairs (AVPs) that This document defines a number of Attribute-Value Pairs (AVP) that
can be used within the Diameter protocol [RFC3588] to convey a can be used within the Diameter protocol [RFC3588] to convey a
specific set of priority parameters. The parameters themselves are specific set of priority parameters. These parameters are specified
specified in other documents, but are described briefly below. in other documents, but are briefly described below. The
corresponding AVPs defined in Section 3 are an extension to to those
defined in [RFC5866].
Priority influences the distribution of resources. This influence Priority influences the distribution of resources. This influence
may be probabilistic, ranging between (but not including) 0% and may be probabilistic, ranging between (but not including) 0% and
100%, or it may be in the form of a guarantee to either receive or 100%, or it may be in the form of a guarantee to either receive or
not receive the resource. not receive the resource.
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.
skipping to change at page 3, line 9 skipping to change at page 3, line 10
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 [RFC5866] and represents a with the DIAMETER QoS application [RFC5866] and represents a
continuation of the list of AVPs defined in [RFC5624]. The syntax continuation of the list of AVPs defined in [RFC5624]. The syntax
notation used is 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 specified in the
Preemption Priority Policy Element [RFC3181] of RSVP [RFC2205]. The Signaled Preemption Priority Policy Element [RFC3181] of RSVP
Defending-Priority is set when the reservation has been admitted. [RFC2205]. The Defending-Priority is set when the reservation has
The Preemption-Priority of a newly requested reservation is compared been admitted. The Preemption-Priority of a newly requested
with the Defending Priority of a previously admitted flow. The reservation is compared with the Defending Priority of a previously
actions taken based upon the result of this comparison are a function admitted flow. The actions taken based upon the result of this
of local policy. comparison are a function of local policy.
Dual-Priority ::= < AVP Header: TBD > Dual-Priority ::= < AVP Header: TBD >
{ Preemption-Priority } { Preemption-Priority }
{ Defending-Priority } { Defending-Priority }
3.1.1. Preemption-Priority AVP 3.1.1. Preemption-Priority AVP
The Preemption-Priority AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32. The Preemption-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 preemption priority value that would be AVP is the same as the preemption priority value that would be
skipping to change at page 3, line 45 skipping to change at page 3, line 46
3.2. Admission-Priority AVP 3.2. Admission-Priority AVP
The Admission-Priority AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32. The The Admission-Priority AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32. The
admission priority of the flow is used to increase the probability of admission priority of the flow is used to increase the probability of
session establishment for selected flows. Higher values represent session establishment for selected flows. Higher values represent
higher priority. A given admission priority is encoded in this higher priority. A given admission priority is encoded in this
information element using the same value as when encoded in the information element using the same value as when encoded in the
admission priority parameter defined in Section 5.1 of [I-D.ietf- admission priority parameter defined in Section 5.1 of [I-D.ietf-
tsvwg-emergency-rsvp]. tsvwg-emergency-rsvp].
3.3. SIP-RPH AVP 3.3. SIP-Resource-Priority AVP
The SIP-RPH AVP is a grouped AVP consisting of two AVPs, the SIP- The SIP-Resource-Priority AVP is a grouped AVP consisting of two
RPH-Namespace and the SIP-RPH-Value AVP, which are derived from the AVPs, the SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace and the SIP-Resource-
corresponding optional header fields in [rfc4412]. The SIP-RPH- Priority-Value AVP, which are derived from the corresponding optional
Namespace identifies a particular ordered set of priority values. header fields in [rfc4412]. The SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace
The SIP-RPH-Value identifies a specific priority value within the set identifies a particular ordered set of priority values. The SIP-
identified by the SIP-RPH-Namespace. Resource-Priority-Value identifies a specific priority value within
the set identified by the SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace.
SIP-RPH ::= < AVP Header: TBD > SIP-Resource-Priority ::= < AVP Header: TBD >
{ SIP-RPH-Namespace } { SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace }
{ SIP-RPH-Value } { SIP-Resource-Priority-Value }
3.3.1. SIP-Namespace AVP 3.3.1. SIP-Namespace AVP
The SIP-RPH-Namespace AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type UTF8String. The SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type
UTF8String.
3.3.2 SIP-RPH-Value AVP 3.3.2 SIP-Resource-Priority-Value AVP
The SIP-RPH-Value AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type UTF8String. The SIP-Resource-Priority-Value AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type
UTF8String.
3.4. App-Level-Resource-Priority AVP 3.4. Application-Level-Resource-Priority AVP
The App-Level-Resource-Priority (ALRP) AVP is a grouped AVP The Application-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-Value
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-Resource-Priority and
Priority AVPs convey the same priority semantics, but with differing Application-Level-Resource-Priority AVPs convey the same priority
syntax. The coding for parameters is as follows: semantics, but with differing syntax. The coding for parameters is as
follows:
Eventhough [RFC4412] and [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp] refer to the Eventhough [RFC4412] and [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp] refer to the
same information (ie, namespace and value), the actual encodings of same information (ie, namespace and value), the actual encodings of
each are defined in different forms. In the former case, an alpha- each are defined in different forms. In the former case, an alpha-
numeric encoding is used while the latter is constrained to a numeric encoding is used while the latter is constrained to a
numeric-only value. This difference is reflected in the in the numeric-only value. This difference is reflected in the in the
defined structures of Section 3.3 and 3.4 of this document. defined structures of Section 3.3 and 3.4 of this document.
App-Level-Resource-Priority ::= < AVP Header: TBD > Application-Level-Resource-Priority ::= < AVP Header: TBD >
{ ALRP-Namespace } { ALRP-Namespace }
{ ALRP-Priority } { ALRP-Value }
3.4.1. 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.
3.4.2. ALRP-Priority AVP 3.4.2. ALRP-Value 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.
+------------------------------------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------------------------------------+
| AVP Section | | AVP Section |
|AVP Name Code Defined Data Type | |AVP Name Code Defined Data Type |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Dual-Priority TBD 3.1 Grouped | |Dual-Priority TBD 3.1 Grouped |
|Preemption-Priority TBD 3.1.1 Unsigned32 | |Preemption-Priority TBD 3.1.1 Unsigned32 |
|Defending-Priority TBD 3.1.2 Unsigned32 | |Defending-Priority TBD 3.1.2 Unsigned32 |
|Admission-Priority TBD 3.2 Unsigned32 | |Admission-Priority TBD 3.2 Unsigned32 |
|SIP-RPH TBD 3.3 Grouped | |SIP-Resource-Priority TBD 3.3 Grouped |
|SIP-Namespace TBD 3.3.1 UTF8String | |SIP-Namespace TBD 3.3.1 UTF8String |
|SIP-Value TBD 3.3.2 UTF8String | |SIP-Value TBD 3.3.2 UTF8String |
|App-Level-Resource-Priority TBD 3.4 Grouped | |Application-Level-Resource-Priority TBD 3.4 Grouped |
|ALRP-Namespace TBD 3.4.1 Unsigned32 | |ALRP-Namespace TBD 3.4.1 Unsigned32 |
|ALRP-Priority TBD 3.4.2 Unsigned32 | |ALRP-Value TBD 3.4.2 Unsigned32 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------------------------------------+
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. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
TBD This document describes the extension of Diameter for conveying
Quality of Service information. The security considerations of the
Diameter protocol itself have been discussed in RFC 3588 [RFC3588].
Use of the AVPs defined in this document MUST take into consideration
the security issues and requirements of the Diameter base protocol.
6. Acknowledgements 6. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Lars Eggert, Jan Engelhardt, Francois We would like to thank Lionel Morand, Janet Gunn, Piers O'Hanlon for
LeFaucheur, John Loughney, An Nguyen, Dave Oran, James Polk, Martin the commenst on the draft, and Lars Eggert, Jan Engelhardt, Francois
Stiemerling, and Magnus Westerlund for their help with resolving LeFaucheur, John Loughney, An Nguyen, Dave Oran, James Polk, Martin
problems regarding the Admission Priority and the ALRP parameter. Stiemerling, and Magnus Westerlund for their help with resolving
Additionally, we would like to thank Martin Dolly and Viqar Shaikh problems regarding the Admission Priority and the ALRP parameter.
for their feedback on previous discussion related to the topic of
prioritization.
7. References 7. References
7.1. 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.
 End of changes. 22 change blocks. 
45 lines changed or deleted 54 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/