--- 1/draft-ietf-dime-qos-parameters-02.txt 2008-02-25 16:12:17.000000000 +0100 +++ 2/draft-ietf-dime-qos-parameters-03.txt 2008-02-25 16:12:17.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,19 +1,19 @@ Diameter Maintenance and J. Korhonen, Ed. Extensions (DIME) TeliaSonera Internet-Draft H. Tschofenig Intended status: Standards Track Nokia Siemens Networks Expires: August 28, 2008 February 25, 2008 Quality of Service Parameters for Usage with the AAA Framework - draft-ietf-dime-qos-parameters-02.txt + draft-ietf-dime-qos-parameters-03.txt Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that @@ -69,26 +69,25 @@ 4.10. Admission Priority Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.11. Application-Level Resource Priority (ALRP) Parameter . . . 10 4.12. Excess Treatment Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.13. PHB Class Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.14. DSTE Class Type Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.15. Y.1541 QoS Class Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6.1. QoS Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6.2. Parameter ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 - 6.3. Admission Priority Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 6.4. Excess Treatment Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 6.5. DSTE Class Type Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 6.6. Y.1541 QoS Class Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 + 6.3. Excess Treatment Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 6.4. DSTE Class Type Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 + 6.5. Y.1541 QoS Class Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 - 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 + 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 22 1. Introduction This document defines a number of Quality of Service (QoS) parameters that can be reused for conveying QoS information within RADIUS and @@ -402,49 +401,45 @@ Defending Priority: Once a flow is admitted, the preemption priority becomes irrelevant. Instead, its defending priority is used to compare with the preemption priority of new flows. As specified in [RFC3181], & are 16-bit integer values. They are represented in network byte order. 4.10. Admission Priority Parameter - A description of the semantic of the parameter values can be found in - [Y.1571]. The coding for the parameter is as - follows: + The coding for the parameter is as follows: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |M|r|r|r| 9 |r|r|r|r| 1 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Admis.Priority| (Reserved) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The 'Admis.Priority' field is a 8 bit unsigned integer in network byte order. - High priority flows, normal priority flows, and best-effort priority - flows can have access to resources depending on their admission - priority value as follows: - - Admission Priority: - - 0 - best-effort priority flow - 1 - normal priority flow - 2 - high priority flow - 255 - not used - - A reservation without an parameter (i.e., set to - 255) MUST be treated as a reservation with an = - 1. + The admission control priority of the flow, in terms of access to + network bandwidth in order to provide higher probability of call + completion to selected flows. Higher values represent higher + priority. A given Admission Priority is encoded in this information + element using the same value as when encoded in the Admission + Priority parameter defined in Section 6.2.9 of [I-D.ietf-nsis-qspec], + or in the Admission Priority parameter defined in Section 3.1 of + [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp]. In other words, a given value + inside the Admission Priority information element defined in the + present document, inside the [I-D.ietf-nsis-qspec] Admission Priority + parameter or inside the [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp] Admission + Priority parameter, refers to the same Admission Priority. 4.11. Application-Level Resource Priority (ALRP) Parameter A description of the semantic of the parameter values can be found in [RFC4412] and in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp]. The coding for parameter is as follows: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ @@ -738,32 +734,21 @@ (13): The allocation policies for further values are as follows: 14-127: Standards Action 128-255: Private/Experimental Use 255-4095: Specification Required A standards track document is required to depreciate, delete, or modify existing Parameter IDs. -6.3. Admission Priority Parameter - - The Admission Priority parameter refers to a 8 bit long field. - - The following values are allocated by this specification: - Admission Priority 0: best-effort priority flow - Admission Priority 1: normal priority flow - Admission Priority 2: high priority flow - Admission Priority 3-63: Standards Action - Admission Priority 64-255: Reserved - -6.4. Excess Treatment Parameter +6.3. Excess Treatment Parameter The Excess Treatment parameter refers to an 8 bit long field. The following values are allocated by this specification: Excess Treatment Value 0: drop Excess Treatment Value 1: shape Excess Treatment Value 2: remark Excess Treatment Value3: no metering or policing is permitted Excess Treatment Values 4-63: Standards Action Excess Treatment Value 64-255: Reserved @@ -762,42 +747,41 @@ The following values are allocated by this specification: Excess Treatment Value 0: drop Excess Treatment Value 1: shape Excess Treatment Value 2: remark Excess Treatment Value3: no metering or policing is permitted Excess Treatment Values 4-63: Standards Action Excess Treatment Value 64-255: Reserved The 8 bit Remark Value allocation policies are as follows: - 0-63: Specification Required 64-127: Private/Experimental Use 128-255: Reserved -6.5. DSTE Class Type Parameter +6.4. DSTE Class Type Parameter The DSTE Class Type parameter refers to an 8 bit long field. The following values are allocated by this specification: DSTE Class Type Value 0: DSTE Class Type 0 DSTE Class Type Value 1: DSTE Class Type 1 DSTE Class Type Value 2: DSTE Class Type 2 DSTE Class Type Value 3: DSTE Class Type 3 DSTE Class Type Value 4: DSTE Class Type 4 DSTE Class Type Value 5: DSTE Class Type 5 DSTE Class Type Value 6: DSTE Class Type 6 DSTE Class Type Value 7: DSTE Class Type 7 DSTE Class Type Values 8-63: Standards Action DSTE Class Type Values 64-255: Reserved -6.6. Y.1541 QoS Class Parameter +6.5. Y.1541 QoS Class Parameter The Y.1541 QoS Class parameter refers to an 8 bit long field. The following values are allocated by this specification: Y.1541 QoS Class Value 0: Y.1541 QoS Class 0 Y.1541 QoS Class Value 1: Y.1541 QoS Class 1 Y.1541 QoS Class Value 2: Y.1541 QoS Class 2 Y.1541 QoS Class Value 3: Y.1541 QoS Class 3 Y.1541 QoS Class Value 4: Y.1541 QoS Class 4 Y.1541 QoS Class Value 5: Y.1541 QoS Class 5 @@ -817,20 +801,25 @@ QoS parameters. 8. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the NSIS QSPEC [I-D.ietf-nsis-qspec] authors (Cornelia Kappler, Jerry Ash, Attila Bader, Dave Oran), the NSIS working group chairs (John Loughney and Martin Stiemerling) and the former Transport Area Directors (Allison Mankin, Jon Peterson) for their help. + We would like to thank Francois Le Faucheur, John Loughney, Martin + Stiemerling, Dave Oran, An Nguyen, Ken Carlberg, James Polk, Lars + Eggert, and Magnus Westerlund for their help with resolving problems + regarding the Admission Priority and the ALRP parameter. + 9. References 9.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp] Faucheur, F., "Resource ReSerVation Protovol (RSVP) Extensions for Emergency Services", draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp-05 (work in progress), January 2008.