draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-02.txt   draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-03.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
July 8, 2010 October, 2010
Diameter Priority Attribute Value Pairs Diameter Priority Attribute Value Pairs
draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-02.txt draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-03.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
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 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
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
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
document authors. All rights reserved. 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
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of publication of this
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). Please review these
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document
extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
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
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these
publication of this document. Please review these documents documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. 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
various priority parameters for use with Diameter and the AAA priority parameters for use with Diameter and the AAA framework. The
framework. The parameters themselves are defined in several parameters themselves are defined in several different protocols that
different protocols that operate at either the network or application operate at either the network or application layer.
layer.
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document defines a number of Attribute-Value Pairs (AVP) that This document defines a number of Attribute-Value Pairs (AVP) that can
can be used within the Diameter protocol [RFC3588] to convey a be used within the Diameter protocol [RFC3588] to convey a specific set
specific set of priority parameters. These parameters are specified of priority parameters. These parameters are specified in other
in other documents, but are briefly described below. The documents, but are briefly described below. The corresponding AVPs
corresponding AVPs defined in Section 3 are an extension to to those defined in Section 3 are an extension to those defined in [RFC5866].
defined in [RFC5866].
Priority influences the distribution of resources. This influence Priority influences the distribution of resources. This influence may
may be probabilistic, ranging between (but not including) 0% and be probabilistic, ranging between (but not including) 0% and 100%, or it
100%, or it may be in the form of a guarantee to either receive or may be in the form of a guarantee to either receive or not receive the
not receive the resource. resource.
The influence attributed to prioritization may also affect QoS, but The influence attributed to prioritization may also affect QoS, but it
it is not to be confused with QoS. As an example, if packets of two is not to be confused with QoS. As an example, if packets of two or more
or more flows are contending for the same shared resources, flows are contending for the same shared resources, prioritization helps
prioritization helps determine which packet receives the resource. determine which packet receives the resource. However, this allocation
However, this allocation of resource does not correlate directly to of resource does not correlate directly to any specific delay or loss
any specific delay or loss bounds that have been associated with the 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
in Appendix A.3 (the priority by-pass model) of [I-D.ietf-tsvwg- Appendix A.3 (the priority by-pass model) of
emergency-rsvp]. In this case, prioritized flows may gain access to [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp]. In this case, prioritized flows may
resources that are never shared with non-prioritized flows. gain access to resources that are never shared with non-prioritized
flows.
1.1 Other Priority-Related AVPs
3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) has defined several Diameter
AVPs that support prioritization of sessions. The following AVPs are
intended to be used for priority services (e.g., Multimedia Priority
Service):
- Reservation-Priority AVP as defined in [ETSI]
- AF-Application-Identifier AVP as defined in [3GPPa]
- Priority-Level AVP (as part of the Allocation Retention Priority AVP)
as defined in [3GPPb]
- Session-Priority AVP as defined in [3GPPc][3GPPd]
Both the Reservation-Priority AVP and the Priority-Level AVP can carry a
priority level associated with a session initiated by a user. We note
that these AVPs are defined from the allotment set aside for 3GPP for
Diameter-based interfaces. 3GPP has also defined other priority
information for use on non-Diameter based interfaces. However, this
work is not relevant to the present document. The AVPs defined by 3GPP
are to be viewed as private implementations operating within a walled
garden.
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
with the DIAMETER QoS application [RFC5866] and represents a the DIAMETER QoS application [RFC5866] and represents a continuation of
continuation of the list of AVPs defined in [RFC5624]. The syntax the list of AVPs defined in [RFC5624]. The syntax notation used is that
notation used is that of [RFC3588]. 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 specified in the derived from the corresponding priority fields specified in the Signaled
Signaled Preemption Priority Policy Element [RFC3181] of RSVP Preemption Priority Policy Element [RFC3181] of RSVP [RFC2205]. The
[RFC2205]. The Defending-Priority is set when the reservation has Defending-Priority is set when the reservation has been admitted. The
been admitted. The Preemption-Priority of a newly requested Preemption-Priority of a newly requested reservation is compared with
reservation is compared with the Defending Priority of a previously the Defending Priority of a previously admitted flow. The actions taken
admitted flow. The actions taken based upon the result of this based upon the result of this comparison are a function 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
AVP is the same as the preemption priority value that would be is the same as the preemption priority value that would be encoded in
encoded in the signaled preemption priority policy element. the signaled preemption priority policy element.
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
Higher values represent higher priority. The value encoded in this values represent higher priority. The value encoded in this AVP is the
AVP is the same as the defending priority value that would be encoded same as the defending priority value that would be encoded in the
in the signaled preemption priority policy element. 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 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
tsvwg-emergency-rsvp]. [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp].
3.3. SIP-Resource-Priority AVP 3.3. SIP-Resource-Priority AVP
The SIP-Resource-Priority AVP is a grouped AVP consisting of two The SIP-Resource-Priority AVP is a grouped AVP consisting of two AVPs,
AVPs, the SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace and the SIP-Resource- the SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace and the SIP-Resource- Priority-Value
Priority-Value AVP, which are derived from the corresponding optional AVP, which are derived from the corresponding optional header fields in
header fields in [rfc4412]. The SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace [rfc4412].
identifies a particular ordered set of priority values. The SIP-
Resource-Priority-Value identifies a specific priority value within
the set identified by the SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace.
SIP-Resource-Priority ::= < AVP Header: TBD > SIP-Resource-Priority ::= < AVP Header: TBD >
{ SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace } { SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace }
{ SIP-Resource-Priority-Value } { SIP-Resource-Priority-Value }
3.3.1. SIP-Namespace AVP 3.3.1. SIP-Namespace AVP
The SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type The SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type
UTF8String. UTF8String. This AVP contains a string that identifies a unique ordered
set of priority values as described in [rfc4412].
3.3.2 SIP-Resource-Priority-Value AVP 3.3.2 SIP-Resource-Priority-Value AVP
The SIP-Resource-Priority-Value AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type The SIP-Resource-Priority-Value AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type
UTF8String. UTF8String. This AVP contains a string that identifies a specific
priority value within the set identified by the
SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace AVP, as described in [rfc4412].
3.4. Application-Level-Resource-Priority AVP 3.4. Application-Level-Resource-Priority AVP
The Application-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-Value 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
in [RFC4412] and in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp]. The registry
set up by [RFC4412] provided string values for both the priority
namespace and the priority values associated with that namespace.
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp] modifies that registry to assign
numerical values to both the namespace identifiers and the priority
values within them. Consequently, SIP-Resource-Priority and
Application-Level-Resource-Priority AVPs convey the same priority
semantics, but with differing 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.
Application-Level-Resource-Priority ::= < AVP Header: TBD > Application-Level-Resource-Priority ::= < AVP Header: TBD >
{ ALRP-Namespace } { ALRP-Namespace }
{ ALRP-Value } { ALRP-Value }
A description of the semantics of the parameter values can be found in
[RFC4412] and in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp]. The registry set up
by [RFC4412] provided string values for both the priority namespace and
the priority values associated with that namespace.
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp] modifies that registry to assign
numerical values to both the namespace identifiers and the priority
values within them. Consequently, SIP-Resource-Priority and
Application-Level-Resource-Priority AVPs convey the same priority
semantics, but with differing syntax. In the former case, an
alpha-numeric encoding is used, while the latter case is constrained to
a numeric-only 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. This AVP
contains a numerical value identifying the namespace of the
application-level resource priority as described in
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp].
3.4.2. ALRP-Value 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. This AVP
contains the priority value within the ALRP-Namespace, as described in
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp].
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
are defined in this document. 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-Resource-Priority 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 |
|Application-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-Value 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
The name of the profile is "Resource priority parameters". The name of the profile is "Resource priority parameters".
reference is [RFCXXXX] (this document).
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
This document describes the extension of Diameter for conveying This document describes the extension of Diameter for conveying Quality
Quality of Service information. The security considerations of the of Service information. The security considerations of the Diameter
Diameter protocol itself have been discussed in RFC 3588 [RFC3588]. protocol itself have been discussed in RFC 3588 [RFC3588]. Use of the
Use of the AVPs defined in this document MUST take into consideration AVPs defined in this document MUST take into consideration the security
the security issues and requirements of the Diameter base protocol. issues and requirements of the Diameter base protocol.
6. Acknowledgements 6. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Lionel Morand, Janet Gunn, Piers O'Hanlon for We would like to thank Lionel Morand, Janet Gunn, Piers O'Hanlon for the
the commenst on the draft, and Lars Eggert, Jan Engelhardt, Francois comments on the draft, and 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.
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.
[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.
[RFC2205] Braden, B., et. al., "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)
-- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September
1997
[RFC3181] Herzog, S., "Signaled Preemption Priority Policy Element", [RFC3181] Herzog, S., "Signaled Preemption Priority Policy Element",
RFC 3181, October 2001. RFC 3181, October 2001.
[RFC3588] Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J. [RFC3588] Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J.
Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, September 2003. Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, September 2003.
[RFC4124] Le Faucheur, F., "Protocol Extensions for Support of
Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4124,
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.
[RFC5866] Sun, D., et. al., "Diameter Quality-of-Service [RFC5866] Sun, D., et. al., "Diameter Quality-of-Service
Application", RFC 5866, May 2010. Application", RFC 5866, May 2010.
7.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-nsis-qspec] [3GPPa] "TS 29.214: Policy and charging control over Rx reference
Bader, A., Kappler, C., and D. Oran, "QoS NSLP QSPEC point", 3GPP, October, 2010
Template", draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-21 (work in progress),
November 2008.
[RFC3564] Le Faucheur, F. and W. Lai, "Requirements for Support of [3GPPb] "TS 29.212: Policy and charging control over Gx reference
Differentiated Services-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", point", 3GPP, October, 2010
RFC 3564, July 2003.
[3GPPc] "TS 29.229: Cx and Dx interfaces based on the Diameter
protocol; Protocol details", 3GPP, September, 2010
[3GPPd] "TS 29.329: Sh interface based on the Diameter protocol;
Protocol details", 3GPP, September, 2010
[ETSI] "TS 183 017: Telecommunications and Internet Converged
Services and Protocols for Advanced Networking (TISPAN);
Resource and Admission Control", ETSI
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Ken Carlberg (editor) Tom Taylor Ken Carlberg (editor) Tom Taylor
G11 Huawei Technologies G11 Huawei Technologies
1601 Clarendon Dr 1852 Lorraine Ave 1601 Clarendon Dr 1852 Lorraine Ave
Arlington, VA 22209 Ottawa Arlington, VA 22209 Ottawa
United States Canada United States Canada
Email: carlberg@g11.org.uk Email: tom111.taylor@bell.net Email: carlberg@g11.org.uk Email: tom111.taylor@bell.net
 End of changes. 36 change blocks. 
146 lines changed or deleted 168 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.40. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/