draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-06.txt   rfc6735.txt 
Diameter Maintenance and K. Carlberg, Ed. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) K. Carlberg, Ed.
Extensions (DIME) G11 Request for Comments: 6735 G11
Internet-Draft T. Taylor Category: Standards Track T. Taylor
Intended status: Standards Track PT Taylor Consulting ISSN: 2070-1721 PT Taylor Consulting
June 28, 2012 October 2012
Diameter Priority Attribute Value Pairs Diameter Priority Attribute-Value Pairs
draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-06.txt
Status of this Memo Abstract
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the This document defines Attribute-Value Pair (AVP) containers for
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. various priority parameters for use with Diameter and the
Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) framework. The
parameters themselves are defined in several different protocols that
operate at either the network or application layer.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Status of This Memo
Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working
documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at
http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This is an Internet Standards Track document.
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
or to cite them other than as "work in progress." (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by
the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further
information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of
RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6735.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 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
Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with publication of this document. Please review these documents
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, Contributions published or made publicly available before November
2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
translate it into languages other than English. it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Abstract
This document defines Attribute-Value Pair (AVP) containers for various
priority parameters for use with Diameter and the AAA framework. The
parameters themselves are defined in several different protocols that
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
be used within the Diameter protocol [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis] to can be used within the Diameter protocol [RFC6733] to convey a
convey a specific set of priority parameters. These parameters are specific set of priority parameters. These parameters are specified
specified in other documents, but are briefly described below. The 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 extensions to those
defined in [RFC5866]. We note that all the priority fields associated defined in [RFC5866]. We note that all the priority fields
with the AVPs defined in this document are extensible and allow for associated with the AVPs defined in this document are extensible and
additional values beyond what may have already been defined or allow for additional values beyond what may have already been defined
registered with IANA. or registered with IANA.
Priority influences the distribution of resources, and in turn the QoS Priority influences the distribution of resources and, in turn, the
associated with that resource. This influence may be probabilistic, QoS associated with that resource. This influence may be
ranging between (but not including) 0% and 100%, or it may be in the probabilistic, ranging between (but not including) 0% and 100%, or it
form of a guarantee to either receive or not receive the resource. may be in the form of a guarantee to either receive or not receive
the resource.
Another example of how prioritization can be realized is articulated in Another example of how prioritization can be realized is articulated
Appendix A.3 (the priority by-pass model) of [RFC6401]. In this case, in Appendix A.3 (the Priority Bypass Model) of [RFC6401]. In this
prioritized flows may gain access to resources that are never shared case, prioritized flows may gain access to resources that are never
with non-prioritized flows. shared with non-prioritized flows.
1.1 Other Priority-Related AVPs 1.1. Other Priority-Related AVPs
3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) has defined several Diameter The 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) has defined several
AVPs that support prioritization of sessions. The following AVPs are Diameter AVPs that support prioritization of sessions. The following
intended to be used for priority services (e.g., Multimedia Priority AVPs are intended to be used for priority services (e.g., Multimedia
Service): Priority 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
AVP) as defined in [3GPPb] Priority AVP) as defined in [3GPPb]
- Session-Priority AVP as defined in [3GPPc][3GPPd] - Session-Priority AVP as defined in [3GPPc] and [3GPPd]
Both the Reservation-Priority AVP and the Priority-Level AVP can carry Both the Reservation-Priority AVP and the Priority-Level AVP can
priority levels associated with a session initiated by a user. We note carry priority levels associated with a session initiated by a user.
that these AVPs are defined from the allotment set aside for 3GPP for We note that these AVPs are defined from the allotment set aside for
Diameter-based interfaces and are particularly aimed at IP Multimedia 3GPP for Diameter-based interfaces, and they are particularly aimed
Subsystem (IMS) deployment environments. The above AVPs defined by 3GPP at IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) deployment environments. The above
are to be viewed as private implementations operating within a walled AVPs defined by 3GPP are to be viewed as private implementations
garden. In contrast, the priority related AVPs defined below in Section operating within a walled garden. In contrast, the priority-related
3 are not constrained to IMS environments. The potential applicability AVPs defined below in Section 3 are not constrained to IMS
or use case scenarios that involve coexistance between the above 3GPP environments. The potential applicability or use-case scenarios that
defined priority related AVPs and those defined below in Section 3 is involve coexistence between the above 3GPP-defined priority-related
for further study. 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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
3. Priority Parameter Encoding 3. Priority Parameter Encoding
This section defines a set of AVPs that correlate to priority fields This section defines a set of AVPs that correlates to priority fields
defined in other protocols. This set of priority related AVPs is for defined in other protocols. This set of priority-related AVPs is for
use with the DIAMETER QoS application [RFC5866] and represents a use 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 [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis]. We note that the notation used is that of [RFC6733]. We note that the following
following subsections describe the prioritization field of a given subsections describe the prioritization field of a given protocol as
protocol as well as the structure of the AVP corresponding to that well as the structure of the AVP corresponding to that field.
field.
We stress that neither the priority related AVPs, nor the Diameter We stress that neither the priority-related AVPs, nor the Diameter
protocol, perform or realize QoS for a session or flow of packets. protocol, perform or realize the QoS for a session or flow of
Rather, these AVPs are part of a mechanism to determine validation of packets. Rather, these AVPs are part of a mechanism to determine
the priority value. 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 (AVP Code 608) is a grouped AVP consisting of
Preemption-Priority and the Defending-Priority AVP. These AVPs are two AVPs, the Preemption-Priority and the Defending-Priority AVP.
derived from the corresponding priority fields specified in the Signaled These AVPs are derived from the corresponding priority fields
Preemption Priority Policy Element [RFC3181] of RSVP [RFC2205]. specified in the "Signaled Preemption Priority Policy Element"
[RFC3181] of RSVP [RFC2205].
In [RFC3181], the Defending-Priority value is set when the reservation In [RFC3181], the Defending-Priority value is set when the
has been admitted by the RSVP protocol. The Preemption-Priority field reservation has been admitted by the RSVP protocol. The Preemption-
in [RFC3181] of a newly requested reservation is compared with the Priority field (described in [RFC3181]) of a newly requested
Defending-Priority value of a previously admitted flow. The actions reservation is compared with the Defending-Priority value of a
taken based upon the result of this comparison are a function of local previously admitted flow. The actions taken based upon the result of
policy. this comparison are a function of local policy.
Dual-Priority ::= < AVP Header: TBD > Dual-Priority ::= < AVP Header: 608 >
{ 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 609) 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
is the same as the preemption priority value that would be encoded in AVP is the same as the preemption-priority value that would be
the signaled preemption priority policy element. encoded in 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 610) is of type Unsigned16.
values represent higher priority. The value encoded in this AVP is the Higher values represent higher priority. The value encoded in this
same as the defending priority value that would be encoded in the AVP is the same as the defending-priority value that would be encoded
signaled preemption priority policy element. in the signaled preemption priority policy element.
3.2. Admission-Priority AVP 3.2. Admission-Priority AVP
The Admission-Priority AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned8. The The Admission-Priority AVP (AVP Code 611) is of type Unsigned8. The
admission priority associated with an RSVP flow is used to increase the admission priority associated with an RSVP flow is used to increase
probability of session establishment for selected RSVP flows. Higher the probability of session establishment for selected RSVP flows.
values represent higher priority. A given admission priority is encoded Higher values represent higher priority. A given admission priority
in this information element using the same value as when encoded in the is encoded in this information element using the same value as when
admission priority parameter defined in Section 5.1 of [RFC6401]. encoded in the admission-priority parameter defined in Section 5.1 of
[RFC6401].
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 (AVP Code 612) is a grouped AVP
the SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace and the SIP-Resource- Priority-Value consisting of two AVPs, the SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace and the
AVP, which are derived from the corresponding optional header fields in SIP-Resource-Priority-Value AVP, which are derived from the
[rfc4412]. corresponding optional header fields in [RFC4412].
SIP-Resource-Priority ::= < AVP Header: TBD > SIP-Resource-Priority ::= < AVP Header: 612 >
{ SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace } { SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace }
{ SIP-Resource-Priority-Value } { SIP-Resource-Priority-Value }
3.3.1. SIP-Resource-Priority-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 613) is of type
UTF8String. This AVP contains a string that identifies a unique ordered UTF8String. This AVP contains a string that identifies a unique
set of priority values as described in [rfc4412]. 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 614) 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)
identifies a member of a set of priority values unique to the Namespace. that identifies a member of a set of priority values unique to the
Examples of Namespaces and corresponding sets of priority values are namespace. Examples of namespaces and corresponding sets of priority
found in [rfc4412]. values 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 (AVP Code 615) is
consisting of two AVPs, the ALRP-Namespace AVP and the ALRP-Value AVP. a grouped 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: 615 >
{ 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
[RFC4412] and in [RFC6401]. The registry set up by [RFC4412] provided in [RFC4412] and in [RFC6401]. The registry set up by [RFC4412]
string values for both the priority namespace and the priority values provides string values for both the priority namespace and the
associated with that namespace. [RFC6401] modifies that registry to priority values associated with that namespace. [RFC6401] modifies
assign numerical values to both the namespace identifiers and the that registry to assign numerical values to both the namespace
priority values within them. Consequently, SIP-Resource-Priority and identifiers and the priority values within them. Consequently, SIP-
Application-Level-Resource-Priority AVPs convey the same priority Resource-Priority and Application-Level-Resource-Priority AVPs convey
semantics, but with differing syntax. In the former case, an the same priority semantics, but with differing syntax. In the
alpha-numeric encoding is used, while the latter case is constrained to former case, an alpha-numeric encoding is used, while the latter case
a numeric-only value. 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 Unsigned16. This AVP The ALRP-Namespace AVP (AVP Code 616) is of type Unsigned16. This
contains a numerical value identifying the namespace of the AVP contains a numerical value identifying the namespace of the
application-level resource priority as described in [RFC6401]. application-level resource priority as described in [RFC6401].
3.4.2. ALRP-Value AVP 3.4.2. ALRP-Value AVP
The ALRP-Value AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned8. This AVP The ALRP-Value AVP (AVP Code 617) 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
[RFC6401]. in [RFC6401].
4. Examples of Usage 4. Examples of Usage
Usage of the Dual-Priority, Admission-Priority, and Usage of the Dual-Priority, Admission-Priority, and Application-
Application-Level-Resource-Priority AVPs can all be illustrated by the Level-Resource-Priority AVPs can all be illustrated by the same
same simple network scenario, although they would not all typically be simple network scenario, although they would not all typically be
used in the same network. The scenario is as follows: used in the same network. The scenario is as follows:
An user with special authorization is authenticated by a Network Access A user with special authorization is authenticated by a Network
Server (NAS), which acts as a client to a Diameter Server supporting the Access Server (NAS), which acts as a client to a Diameter Server
user's desired application. Once the user has authenticated, the supporting the user's desired application. Once the user has
Diameter Server provides the NAS with information on the user's authenticated, the Diameter Server provides the NAS with information
authorized QoS, including instances of the Dual-Priority, on the user's authorized QoS, including instances of the Dual-
Admission-Priority, and/or Application-Level-Resource-Priority AVPs. Priority, Admission-Priority, and/or Application-Level-Resource-
Priority AVPs.
Local policy governs the usage of the values conveyed by these AVPs at Local policy governs the usage of the values conveyed by these AVPs
the NAS to decide whether the flow associated with the user's at the NAS to decide whether the flow associated with the user's
application can be admitted. If the decision is positive, the NAS application can be admitted. If the decision is positive, the NAS
forwards the authorized QoS values as objects in RSVP signalling. In forwards the authorized QoS values as objects in RSVP signaling. In
particular, the values in the Dual-Priority AVP would be carried in the particular, the values in the Dual-Priority AVP would be carried in
Signaled Preemption Priority Policy Element defined in [RFC3181], and so the "Signaled Preemption Priority Policy Element" defined in
on. Each subsequent node would make its own decision taking account of [RFC3181], and the values contained in the Admission-Priority and
the authorized QoS objects including the priority-related objects, again Application-Level-Resource-Priority AVPs would be carried in the
governed by local policy. The example assumes that the user session corresponding policy objects defined in [RFC6401]. Each subsequent
terminates on a host or server in the same administrative domain as the node would make its own decision taking account of the authorized QoS
NAS, to avoid complications due to the restricted applicability of objects including the priority-related objects, again governed by
[RFC3181] and [RFC6401]. 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: Local policy might for example indicate:
- which value to take if both Admission-Priority and Application-Level- - which value to take if both Admission-Priority and Application-
Resource-Priority are present; Level-Resource-Priority are present;
- what namespace or namespaces are recognized for use in - which namespace or namespaces are recognized for use in
Application-Level-Resource-Priority; Application-Level-Resource-Priority;
- which resources are subject to pre-emption if the values in - which resources are subject to preemption if the values in
Dual-Priority are high enough to allow it. Dual-Priority are high enough to allow it.
A scenario for the use of the SIP-Resource-Priority AVP will differ 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 slightly from the previous one, in that the initial decision point
typically be a SIP proxy receiving a session initiation request would typically be a SIP proxy receiving a session initiation request
containing a Resource-Priority header field and deciding whether to containing a Resource-Priority header field and deciding whether to
admit the session to the domain. Like the NAS, the SIP proxy would serve admit the session to the domain. Like the NAS, the SIP proxy would
as client to a Diameter Server during the process of user serve as client to a Diameter Server during the process of user
authentication, and upon successful authentication would receive back authentication, and upon successful authentication would receive back
from the Diameter Server AVPs indicating authorized QoS. Among these from the Diameter Server AVPs indicating authorized QoS. Among these
might be the SIP-Resource-Priority AVP, the contents of which would be might be the SIP-Resource-Priority AVP, the contents of which would
compared with the contents of the Resource-Priority header field. Again, be compared with the contents of the Resource-Priority header field.
local policy would determine which namespaces would be accepted and what Again, local policy would determine which namespaces to accept and
the effect of a given priority level would be on the admission decision. the effect of a given priority level on the admission decision.
For the sake of our example, suppose now that the SIP proxy signals 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 using RSVP to the border router that will be admitting the media
associated with the session. (This, of course, makes a few assumptions flows associated with the session. (This, of course, makes a few
on routing and knowledge of that routing at the proxy.) The SIP proxy assumptions on routing and knowledge of that routing at the proxy.)
can indicate authorized QoS using various objects. In particular, it can The SIP proxy can indicate authorized QoS using various objects. In
map the values from the Resource-Priority header field to the particular, it can map the values from the Resource-Priority header
corresponding numeric values as defined by [RFC6401], and send it using field to the corresponding numeric values as defined by [RFC6401] and
the Application-Level Resource Priority Policy Element. send it using the Application-Level Resource Priority Policy Element.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
5.1. AVP Codes 5.1. AVP Codes
IANA is requested to allocate AVP codes for the following AVPs that are IANA has allocated AVP codes for the following AVPs that are defined
defined in this document. 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 608 3.1 Grouped |
|Preemption-Priority TBD 3.1.1 Unsigned16 | |Preemption-Priority 609 3.1.1 Unsigned16 |
|Defending-Priority TBD 3.1.2 Unsigned16 | |Defending-Priority 610 3.1.2 Unsigned16 |
|Admission-Priority TBD 3.2 Unsigned8 | |Admission-Priority 611 3.2 Unsigned8 |
|SIP-Resource-Priority TBD 3.3 Grouped | |SIP-Resource-Priority 612 3.3 Grouped |
|SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace TBD 3.3.1 UTF8String | |SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace 613 3.3.1 UTF8String |
|SIP-Resource-Priority-Value TBD 3.3.2 UTF8String | |SIP-Resource-Priority-Value 614 3.3.2 UTF8String |
|Application-Level-Resource-Priority TBD 3.4 Grouped | |Application-Level-Resource-Priority 615 3.4 Grouped |
|ALRP-Namespace TBD 3.4.1 Unsigned32 | |ALRP-Namespace 616 3.4.1 Unsigned32 |
|ALRP-Value TBD 3.4.2 Unsigned32 | |ALRP-Value 617 3.4.2 Unsigned32 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+ +------------------------------------------------------------------+
5.2. QoS Profile 5.2. QoS Profile
IANA is requested to allocate a new value from the Authentication, IANA has allocated a new value from the "QoS Profiles" subregistry of
Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Parameters/QoS Profile registry the "Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Parameters"
defined in [RFC5624] for the QoS profile defined in this document. The defined in [RFC5624] for the QoS profile defined in this document.
name of the profile is "Resource priority parameters". The name of the profile is "Resource priority parameters" (1).
6. 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
the Diameter QoS Application [RFC5866]. The values placed in the AVPs of the Diameter QoS Application [RFC5866]. The values placed in the
are not changed by this draft, nor are they changed in the Diameter QoS AVPs are not changed by this document, nor are they changed in the
application. We recommend the use of mechanisms to ensure integrity Diameter QoS application. We recommend the use of mechanisms to
when exchanging information from one protocol to an associated DIAMETER ensure integrity when exchanging information from one protocol to an
AVP. Examples of these integrity mechanisms would be use of S/MIME with associated DIAMETER AVP. Examples of these integrity mechanisms
SIP RPH, or an INTEGRITY object within a POLICY_DATA object within the would be use of S/MIME with the SIP Resource Priority Header (RPH),
context of RSVP. The consequences of changing values in the Priority or an INTEGRITY object within a POLICY_DATA object within the context
AVPs may result in an allocation of additional or less resources. of RSVP. The consequences of changing values in the Priority AVPs
may result in an allocation of additional or less resources.
Changes in integrity protected values SHOULD NOT be ignored, and Changes in integrity-protected values SHOULD NOT be ignored, and
appropriate protocol specific error messages SHOULD be sent back appropriate protocol-specific error messages SHOULD be sent back
upstream. Note that we do not use the term "MUST NOT be ignored" upstream. Note that we do not use the term "MUST NOT be ignored"
because local policy of an administrative domain associated with other because the local policy of an administrative domain associated with
protocols acts as the final arbiter. In addition, some protocols other protocols acts as the final arbiter. In addition, some
associated with the AVPs defined in this document may be deployed within protocols associated with the AVPs defined in this document may be
a single administrative domain or "walled garden", and thus possible deployed within a single administrative domain or "walled garden";
changes in values would reflect policies of that administrative domain. 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
in [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis]. Use of the AVPs defined in this document discussed in [RFC6733]. 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
Diameter base protocol. the Diameter base protocol.
The authors also recommend that readers should familiarize themselves The authors also recommend that readers familiarize themselves with
with the security considerations of the various protocols listed in the 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
in this draft are set/changed by other protocols. defined in this document are set/changed by other protocols.
7. Acknowledgements 7. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Lionel Morand, Janet Gunn, Piers O'Hanlon, Lars We would like to thank Lionel Morand, Janet Gunn, Piers O'Hanlon,
Eggert, Jan Engelhardt, Francois LeFaucheur, John Loughney, An Nguyen, Lars Eggert, Jan Engelhardt, Francois LeFaucheur, John Loughney, An
Dave Oran, James Polk, Martin Stiemerling, and Magnus Westerlund, David Nguyen, Dave Oran, James Polk, Martin Stiemerling, Magnus Westerlund,
Harrington, Robert Sparks, and Dan Romascanu for their review and/or David Harrington, Robert Sparks, and Dan Romascanu for their review
comments on previous versions of the draft. and/or comments on previous draft versions of this document.
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis] 8.1. Normative References
Fajardo, V., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn,
"Diameter Base Protocol", draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-26
(work in progress), January 2011.
[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, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
-- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
1997 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.
[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
RFC 4412, February 2006. 4412, February 2006.
[RFC5624] Korhonen, J., Tschofenig, H., and E. Davies, "Quality of [RFC5624] Korhonen, J., Ed., Tschofenig, H., and E. Davies, "Quality
Service Parameters for Usage with Diameter", RFC 5624, of Service Parameters for Usage with Diameter", RFC 5624,
Aug 2009. August 2009.
[RFC5866] Sun, D., et. al., "Diameter Quality-of-Service [RFC5866] Sun, D., Ed., McCann, P., Tschofenig, H., Tsou, T., Doria,
Application", RFC 5866, May 2010. A., and G. Zorn, Ed., "Diameter Quality-of-Service
Application", RFC 5866, May 2010.
[RFC6401] Faucheur, F., Polk, J., and K. Carlberg, "Resource [RFC6401] Le Faucheur, F., Polk, J., and K. Carlberg, "RSVP
ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) Extensions for Emergency Extensions for Admission Priority", RFC 6401, October
Services", RFC 6401, Oct 2011. 2011.
[RFC6733] Fajardo, V., Ed., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn,
Ed., "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 6733, October 2012.
8.2. Informative References 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
[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)
G11 PT Taylor Consulting G11
1601 Clarendon Dr 1852 Lorraine Ave 1601 Clarendon Dr
Arlington, VA 22209 Ottawa Arlington, VA 22209
United States Canada United States
Email: carlberg@g11.org.uk Email: tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com EMail: carlberg@g11.org.uk
Tom Taylor
PT Taylor Consulting
1852 Lorraine Ave
Ottawa
Canada
EMail: tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com
 End of changes. 73 change blocks. 
276 lines changed or deleted 288 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/