draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-03.txt   draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-04.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
October, 2010 July 5, 2011
Diameter Priority Attribute Value Pairs Diameter Priority Attribute Value Pairs
draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-03.txt draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-04.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 Task Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task
Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working
documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-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 material time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 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 document Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document
authors. All rights reserved. authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions
Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of publication of this Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of publication of this
document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). Please review these document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). Please review these
documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document
must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of must 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.
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 various This document defines Attribute-Value Pair (AVP) containers for various
priority parameters for use with Diameter and the AAA framework. The priority parameters for use with Diameter and the AAA framework. The
parameters themselves are defined in several different protocols that parameters themselves are defined in several different protocols that
operate at either the network or application layer. operate at either the network or application layer.
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document defines a number of Attribute-Value Pairs (AVP) that can This document defines a number of Attribute-Value Pairs (AVP) that can
be used within the Diameter protocol [RFC3588] to convey a specific set be used within the Diameter protocol [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis] to
of priority parameters. These parameters are specified in other convey a specific set of priority parameters. These parameters are
documents, but are briefly described below. The corresponding AVPs specified in other documents, but are briefly described below. The
defined in Section 3 are an extension to those defined in [RFC5866]. corresponding AVPs defined in Section 3 are an extension to those
defined in [RFC5866]. We note that all the priority fields associated
with the AVPs defined in this document are extensible and allow for
additional values beyond what may have already been defined or
registered with IANA.
Priority influences the distribution of resources. This influence may Priority influences the distribution of resources. This influence may
be probabilistic, ranging between (but not including) 0% and 100%, or it be probabilistic, ranging between (but not including) 0% and 100%, or it
may be in the form of a guarantee to either receive or not receive the may be in the form of a guarantee to either receive or not receive the
resource. resource.
The influence attributed to prioritization may also affect QoS, but it 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 or more is not to be confused with QoS. As an example, if packets of two or more
flows are contending for the same shared resources, prioritization helps flows are contending for the same shared resources, prioritization helps
determine which packet receives the resource. However, this allocation determine which packet receives the resource. However, this allocation
skipping to change at page 2, line 46 skipping to change at page 2, line 50
flows. flows.
1.1 Other Priority-Related AVPs 1.1 Other Priority-Related AVPs
3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) has defined several Diameter 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) has defined several Diameter
AVPs that support prioritization of sessions. The following AVPs are AVPs that support prioritization of sessions. The following AVPs are
intended to be used for priority services (e.g., Multimedia Priority intended to be used for priority services (e.g., Multimedia Priority
Service): Service):
- Reservation-Priority AVP as defined in [ETSI] - Reservation-Priority AVP as defined in [ETSI]
- AF-Application-Identifier AVP as defined in [3GPPa] - MPS-Identifier AVP as defined in [3GPPa]
- Priority-Level AVP (as part of the Allocation Retention Priority AVP) - Priority-Level AVP (as part of the Allocation Retention Priority
as defined in [3GPPb] AVP) as defined in [3GPPb]
- Session-Priority AVP as defined in [3GPPc][3GPPd] - Session-Priority AVP as defined in [3GPPc][3GPPd]
Both the Reservation-Priority AVP and the Priority-Level AVP can carry a Both the Reservation-Priority AVP and the Priority-Level AVP can carry
priority level associated with a session initiated by a user. We note priority levels associated with a session initiated by a user. We note
that these AVPs are defined from the allotment set aside for 3GPP for that these AVPs are defined from the allotment set aside for 3GPP for
Diameter-based interfaces. 3GPP has also defined other priority Diameter-based interfaces. 3GPP has also defined other priority
information for use on non-Diameter based interfaces. However, this information for use on non-Diameter based interfaces. However, this
work is not relevant to the present document. The AVPs defined by 3GPP work is not relevant to the present document. The AVPs defined by 3GPP
are to be viewed as private implementations operating within a walled are to be viewed as private implementations operating within a walled
garden. 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 with This section defines a set of priority AVPs. This set is for use with
the DIAMETER QoS application [RFC5866] and represents a continuation of the DIAMETER QoS application [RFC5866] and represents a continuation of
the list of AVPs defined in [RFC5624]. The syntax notation used is that the list of AVPs defined in [RFC5624]. The syntax notation used is that
of [RFC3588]. of [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis].
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 Signaled derived from the corresponding priority fields specified 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. The Defending-Priority is set when the reservation has been admitted. The
Preemption-Priority of a newly requested reservation is compared with Preemption-Priority of a newly requested reservation is compared with
the Defending Priority of a previously admitted flow. The actions taken the Defending Priority of a previously admitted flow. The actions taken
based upon the result of this comparison are a function of local policy. based upon the result of this 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 Unsigned16.
Higher values represent higher priority. The value encoded in this AVP Higher values represent higher priority. The value encoded in this AVP
is the same as the preemption priority value that would be encoded in is the same as the preemption priority value that would be 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 Unsigned16. Higher
The Defending-Priority AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32. Higher
values represent higher priority. The value encoded in this AVP is the values represent higher priority. The value encoded in this AVP is the
same as the defending priority value that would be encoded in the same as the defending priority value that would be encoded 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 Unsigned8. 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 admission priority parameter defined in Section 5.1 of
[I-D.ietf-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 AVPs, The SIP-Resource-Priority AVP is a grouped AVP consisting of two AVPs,
skipping to change at page 4, line 37 skipping to change at page 4, line 38
{ 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. This AVP contains a string that identifies a unique ordered UTF8String. This AVP contains a string that identifies a unique ordered
set of priority values as described in [rfc4412]. 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-Namespace AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type
UTF8String. This AVP contains a string that identifies a specific UTF8String. This AVP contains a string (i.e., a Namespace entry) that
priority value within the set identified by the identifies a set of priority values unique to the Namespace. Examples
SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace AVP, as described in [rfc4412]. of Namespaces and corresponding sets of priorities are found 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 AVP. consisting of two AVPs, the ALRP-Namespace AVP and the ALRP-Value AVP.
Application-Level-Resource-Priority ::= < AVP Header: TBD > Application-Level-Resource-Priority ::= < AVP Header: TBD >
{ ALRP-Namespace } { ALRP-Namespace }
{ ALRP-Value } { ALRP-Value }
skipping to change at page 5, line 19 skipping to change at page 5, line 19
[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-Resource-Priority and values within them. Consequently, SIP-Resource-Priority and
Application-Level-Resource-Priority AVPs convey the same priority Application-Level-Resource-Priority AVPs convey the same priority
semantics, but with differing syntax. In the former case, an semantics, but with differing syntax. In the former case, an
alpha-numeric encoding is used, while the latter case is constrained to alpha-numeric encoding is used, while the latter case is constrained to
a numeric-only value. 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. This AVP The ALRP-Namespace AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned16. This AVP
contains a numerical value identifying the namespace of the contains a numerical value identifying the namespace of the
application-level resource priority as described in application-level resource priority as described in
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp]. [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. This AVP The ALRP-Priority AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned8. This AVP
contains the priority value within the ALRP-Namespace, as described in contains the priority value within the ALRP-Namespace, as described in
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp]. [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 are IANA is requested to allocate AVP codes for the following AVPs that are
defined in this document. defined in this document.
skipping to change at page 6, line 16 skipping to change at page 6, line 16
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. The defined in [RFC5624] for the QoS profile defined in this document. The
name of the profile is "Resource priority parameters". name of the profile is "Resource priority parameters".
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
This document describes the extension of Diameter for conveying Quality This document describes the extension of Diameter for conveying Quality
of Service information. The security considerations of the Diameter of Service information. The security considerations of the Diameter
protocol itself have been discussed in RFC 3588 [RFC3588]. Use of the protocol itself have been discussed in [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis]. Use
AVPs defined in this document MUST take into consideration the security of the AVPs defined in this document MUST take into consideration the
issues and requirements of the Diameter base protocol. security issues and requirements of the Diameter base protocol.
The authors also recommend that readers should familiarize themselves
with the security considerations of the various protocols listed in
the Normative References listed below.
6. Acknowledgements 6. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Lionel Morand, Janet Gunn, Piers O'Hanlon for the We would like to thank Lionel Morand, Janet Gunn, Piers O'Hanlon for the
comments on the draft, and Lars Eggert, Jan Engelhardt, Francois commenst 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-dime-rfc3588bis]
Fajardo, V., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn,
"Diameter Base Protocol", draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-26
(work in progress), January 2011.
[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) [RFC2205] Braden, B., et. al., "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)
-- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September -- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September
1997 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.
Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, September 2003.
[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
[3GPPa] "TS 29.214: Policy and charging control over Rx reference [3GPPa] "TS 29.214: Policy and charging control over Rx reference
point", 3GPP, October, 2010 point", 3GPP, March, 2011
[3GPPb] "TS 29.212: Policy and charging control over Gx reference [3GPPb] "TS 29.212: Policy and charging control over Gx reference
point", 3GPP, October, 2010 point", 3GPP, October, 2010
[3GPPc] "TS 29.229: Cx and Dx interfaces based on the Diameter [3GPPc] "TS 29.229: Cx and Dx interfaces based on the Diameter
protocol; Protocol details", 3GPP, September, 2010 protocol; Protocol details", 3GPP, September, 2010
[3GPPd] "TS 29.329: Sh interface based on the Diameter protocol; [3GPPd] "TS 29.329: Sh interface based on the Diameter protocol;
Protocol details", 3GPP, September, 2010 Protocol details", 3GPP, September, 2010
 End of changes. 20 change blocks. 
33 lines changed or deleted 43 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/