draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-05.txt   draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-06.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 PT Taylor Consulting
Oct 31, 2011 June 28, 2012
Diameter Priority Attribute Value Pairs Diameter Priority Attribute Value Pairs
draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-05.txt draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-06.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) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2012 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 Provisions 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 Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in
effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these effect on the date of publication of this document. 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 24 skipping to change at page 2, line 24
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 [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis] to be used within the Diameter protocol [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis] to
convey a specific set of priority parameters. These parameters are convey a specific set of priority parameters. These parameters are
specified in other documents, but are briefly described below. The specified in other documents, but are briefly described below. The
corresponding AVPs defined in Section 3 are an extension to those corresponding AVPs defined in Section 3 are an extension to those
defined in [RFC5866]. We note that all the priority fields associated defined in [RFC5866]. We note that all the priority fields associated
with the AVPs defined in this document are extensible and allow for with the AVPs defined in this document are extensible and allow for
additional values beyond what may have already been defined or additional values beyond what may have already been defined or
registered with IANA. registered with IANA.
Priority influences the distribution of resources. This influence may Priority influences the distribution of resources, and in turn the QoS
be probabilistic, ranging between (but not including) 0% and 100%, or it associated with that resource. This influence may be probabilistic,
may be in the form of a guarantee to either receive or not receive the ranging between (but not including) 0% and 100%, or it may be in the
resource. form of a guarantee to either receive or not receive the resource.
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
flows are contending for the same shared resources, prioritization helps
determine which packet receives the resource. However, this allocation
of resource does not correlate directly to any specific delay or loss
bounds that have been associated with the packet.
Another example of how prioritization can be realized is articulated in Another example of how prioritization can be realized is articulated in
Appendix A.3 (the priority by-pass model) of Appendix A.3 (the priority by-pass model) of [RFC6401]. In this case,
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp]. In this case, prioritized flows may prioritized flows may gain access to resources that are never shared
gain access to resources that are never shared with non-prioritized with non-prioritized 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]
- MPS-Identifier AVP as defined in [3GPPa] - MPS-Identifier AVP as defined in [3GPPa]
skipping to change at page 3, line 4 skipping to change at page 2, line 45
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]
- MPS-Identifier AVP as defined in [3GPPa] - MPS-Identifier AVP as defined in [3GPPa]
- Priority-Level AVP (as part of the Allocation Retention Priority - Priority-Level AVP (as part of the Allocation Retention Priority
AVP) 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 Both the Reservation-Priority AVP and the Priority-Level AVP can carry
priority levels 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 and are particularly aimed at IP Multimedia
information for use on non-Diameter based interfaces. However, this Subsystem (IMS) deployment environments. The above 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. In contrast, the priority related AVPs defined below in Section
3 are not constrained to IMS environments. The potential applicability
or use case scenarios that involve coexistance between the above 3GPP
defined priority related AVPs and those defined below in Section 3 is
for further study.
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 AVPs that correlate to priority fields
the DIAMETER QoS application [RFC5866] and represents a continuation of defined in other protocols. This set of priority related AVPs is for
the list of AVPs defined in [RFC5624]. The syntax notation used is that use with the DIAMETER QoS application [RFC5866] and represents a
of [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis]. continuation of the list of AVPs defined in [RFC5624]. The syntax
notation used is that of [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis]. We note that the
following subsections describe the prioritization field of a given
protocol as well as the structure of the AVP corresponding to that
field.
We stress that neither the priority related AVPs, nor the Diameter
protocol, perform or realize QoS for a session or flow of packets.
Rather, these AVPs are part of a mechanism to determine validation of
the priority value.
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].
Defending-Priority is set when the reservation has been admitted. The
Preemption-Priority of a newly requested reservation is compared with In [RFC3181], the Defending-Priority value is set when the reservation
the Defending Priority of a previously admitted flow. The actions taken has been admitted by the RSVP protocol. The Preemption-Priority field
based upon the result of this comparison are a function of local policy. in [RFC3181] of a newly requested reservation is compared with the
Defending-Priority value of a previously admitted flow. The actions
taken 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 Unsigned16. 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
skipping to change at page 4, line 15 skipping to change at page 4, line 22
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 Unsigned16. 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 Unsigned8. 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 associated with an RSVP flow is used to increase the
session establishment for selected flows. Higher values represent probability of session establishment for selected RSVP flows. Higher
higher priority. A given admission priority is encoded in this values represent higher priority. A given admission priority is encoded
information element using the same value as when encoded in the in this 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 [RFC6401].
[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,
the SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace and the SIP-Resource- Priority-Value the SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace and the SIP-Resource- Priority-Value
AVP, which are derived from the corresponding optional header fields in AVP, which are derived from the corresponding optional header fields in
[rfc4412]. [rfc4412].
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-Resource-Priority-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-Namespace AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type The SIP-Resource-Priority-Value AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type
UTF8String. This AVP contains a string (i.e., a Namespace entry) that UTF8String. This AVP contains a string (i.e., a Namespace entry) that
identifies a set of priority values unique to the Namespace. Examples identifies a member of a set of priority values unique to the Namespace.
of Namespaces and corresponding sets of priorities are found in Examples of Namespaces and corresponding sets of priority values are
[rfc4412]. 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 }
A description of the semantics of the parameter values can be found in 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 [RFC4412] and in [RFC6401]. The registry set up by [RFC4412] provided
by [RFC4412] provided string values for both the priority namespace and string values for both the priority namespace and the priority values
the priority values associated with that namespace. associated with that namespace. [RFC6401] modifies that registry to
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp] modifies that registry to assign assign numerical values to both the namespace identifiers and the
numerical values to both the namespace identifiers and the priority 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 Unsigned16. 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 [RFC6401].
[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 Unsigned8. This AVP The ALRP-Value 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]. [RFC6401].
4. IANA Considerations 4. Examples of Usage
4.1. AVP Codes
Usage of the Dual-Priority, Admission-Priority, and
Application-Level-Resource-Priority AVPs can all be illustrated by the
same simple network scenario, although they would not all typically be
used in the same network. The scenario is as follows:
An user with special authorization is authenticated by a Network Access
Server (NAS), which acts as a client to a Diameter Server supporting the
user's desired application. Once the user has authenticated, the
Diameter Server provides the NAS with information on the user's
authorized QoS, including instances of the Dual-Priority,
Admission-Priority, and/or Application-Level-Resource-Priority AVPs.
Local policy governs the usage of the values conveyed by these AVPs at
the NAS to decide whether the flow associated with the user's
application can be admitted. If the decision is positive, the NAS
forwards the authorized QoS values as objects in RSVP signalling. In
particular, the values in the Dual-Priority AVP would be carried in the
Signaled Preemption Priority Policy Element defined in [RFC3181], and so
on. Each subsequent node would make its own decision taking account of
the authorized QoS objects including the priority-related objects, again
governed by local policy. The example assumes that the user session
terminates on a host or server in the same administrative domain as the
NAS, to avoid complications due to the restricted applicability of
[RFC3181] and [RFC6401].
Local policy might for example indicate:
- which value to take if both Admission-Priority and Application-Level-
Resource-Priority are present;
- what namespace or namespaces are recognized for use in
Application-Level-Resource-Priority;
- which resources are subject to pre-emption if the values in
Dual-Priority are high enough to allow it.
A scenario for the use of the SIP-Resource-Priority AVP will differ
slightly from the previous one, in that the initial decision point would
typically be a SIP proxy receiving a session initiation request
containing a Resource-Priority header field and deciding whether to
admit the session to the domain. Like the NAS, the SIP proxy would serve
as client to a Diameter Server during the process of user
authentication, and upon successful authentication would receive back
from the Diameter Server AVPs indicating authorized QoS. Among these
might be the SIP-Resource-Priority AVP, the contents of which would be
compared with the contents of the Resource-Priority header field. Again,
local policy would determine which namespaces would be accepted and what
the effect of a given priority level would be on the admission decision.
For the sake of our example, suppose now that the SIP proxy signals
using RSVP to the border router that will be admitting the media flows
associated with the session. (This, of course, makes a few assumptions
on routing and knowledge of that routing at the proxy.) The SIP proxy
can indicate authorized QoS using various objects. In particular, it can
map the values from the Resource-Priority header field to the
corresponding numeric values as defined by [RFC6401], and send it using
the Application-Level Resource Priority Policy Element.
5. IANA Considerations
5.1. 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.
+------------------------------------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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 Unsigned16 |
|Defending-Priority TBD 3.1.2 Unsigned32 | |Defending-Priority TBD 3.1.2 Unsigned16 |
|Admission-Priority TBD 3.2 Unsigned32 | |Admission-Priority TBD 3.2 Unsigned8 |
|SIP-Resource-Priority TBD 3.3 Grouped | |SIP-Resource-Priority TBD 3.3 Grouped |
|SIP-Namespace TBD 3.3.1 UTF8String | |SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace TBD 3.3.1 UTF8String |
|SIP-Value TBD 3.3.2 UTF8String | |SIP-Resource-Priority-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 5.2. 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. 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 6. Security Considerations
This document describes an extension for conveying Quality of Service This document describes an extension for conveying Quality of Service
information, and therefore follows the same security considerations of information, and therefore follows the same security considerations of
the Diameter QoS Application [RFC5866]. The values placed in the AVPs the Diameter QoS Application [RFC5866]. The values placed in the AVPs
are not changed by this draft, nor are they changed in the Diameter QoS are not changed by this draft, nor are they changed in the Diameter QoS
application. The consequences of changing values in the Priority application. We recommend the use of mechanisms to ensure integrity
AVPs may result in an allocation of additional or less resources. If local when exchanging information from one protocol to an associated DIAMETER
policy exists and values placed in the AVPs do not have integrity protection AVP. Examples of these integrity mechanisms would be use of S/MIME with
(e.g., the use of S/MIME with the SIP RPH, or an INTEGRITY object within SIP RPH, or an INTEGRITY object within a POLICY_DATA object within the
a POLICY_DATA object), then changes and their consequences may occur. context of RSVP. The consequences of changing values in the Priority
Otherwise, integrity protected values SHOULD be ignored with appropriate AVPs may result in an allocation of additional or less resources.
protocol specific error messages sent back upstream. Note that we do not
use the term "MUST be ignored" because local policy of an administrative Changes in integrity protected values SHOULD NOT be ignored, and
domain associated with other protocols acts as the final arbiter. appropriate protocol specific error messages SHOULD be sent back
upstream. Note that we do not use the term "MUST NOT be ignored"
because local policy of an administrative domain associated with other
protocols acts as the final arbiter. In addition, some protocols
associated with the AVPs defined in this document may be deployed within
a single administrative domain or "walled garden", and thus possible
changes in values would reflect policies of that administrative domain.
The security considerations of the Diameter protocol itself are discussed The security considerations of the Diameter protocol itself are discussed
in [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis]. Use of the AVPs defined in this document in [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis]. Use of the AVPs defined in this document
MUST take into consideration the security issues and requirements of the MUST take into consideration the security issues and requirements of the
Diameter base protocol. Diameter base protocol.
The authors also recommend that readers should familiarize themselves The authors also recommend that readers should familiarize themselves
with the security considerations of the various protocols listed in the with the security considerations of the various protocols listed in the
Normative References. This is because values placed in the AVPs defined Normative References. This is because values placed in the AVPs defined
in this draft are set/changed by other protocols. in this draft are set/changed by other protocols.
6. Acknowledgements 7. 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, Lars
commenst on the draft, and Lars Eggert, Jan Engelhardt, Francois Eggert, Jan Engelhardt, Francois LeFaucheur, John Loughney, An Nguyen,
LeFaucheur, John Loughney, An Nguyen, Dave Oran, James Polk, Martin Dave Oran, James Polk, Martin Stiemerling, and Magnus Westerlund, David
Stiemerling, and Magnus Westerlund for their help with resolving Harrington, Robert Sparks, and Dan Romascanu for their review and/or
problems regarding the Admission Priority and the ALRP parameter. comments on previous versions of the draft.
7. References 8. References
7.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis] [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis]
Fajardo, V., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn, Fajardo, V., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn,
"Diameter Base Protocol", draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-26 "Diameter Base Protocol", draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-26
(work in progress), January 2011. (work in progress), January 2011.
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp]
Faucheur, F., Polk, J., and K. Carlberg, "Resource
ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) Extensions for Emergency
Services", draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp-14 (work in
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.
skipping to change at page 7, line 32 skipping to change at page 9, line 9
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 [RFC6401] Faucheur, F., Polk, J., and K. Carlberg, "Resource
ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) Extensions for Emergency
Services", RFC 6401, Oct 2011.
8.2. 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, March, 2011 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
skipping to change at page 8, line 4 skipping to change at page 9, line 32
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
[ETSI] "TS 183 017: Telecommunications and Internet Converged [ETSI] "TS 183 017: Telecommunications and Internet Converged
Services and Protocols for Advanced Networking (TISPAN); Services and Protocols for Advanced Networking (TISPAN);
Resource and Admission Control", ETSI Resource and Admission Control", ETSI
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Ken Carlberg (editor) Tom Taylor Ken Carlberg (editor) Tom Taylor
G11 Huawei Technologies G11 PT Taylor Consulting
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: tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com
 End of changes. 32 change blocks. 
88 lines changed or deleted 157 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/