draft-ietf-rap-feedback-frwk-04.txt   rfc3483.txt 
Internet Draft Diana Rawlins Network Working Group D. Rawlins
Expiration: May 2003 WorldCom Request for Comments: 3483 WorldCom
File: draft-ietf-rap-feedback-frwk-04.txt Amol Kulkarni Category: Informational A. Kulkarni
Intel Intel
Martin Bokaemper M. Bokaemper
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
Kwok Ho Chan K. Chan
Nortel Networks Nortel Networks
March 2003
Framework for Policy Usage Feedback for Common Open Policy Service Framework for Policy Usage Feedback for Common Open Policy Service
with Policy Provisioning (COPS-PR) with Policy Provisioning (COPS-PR)
Last Updated December 19, 2002
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- memo is unlimited.
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six Copyright Notice
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts
as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in
progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at Abstract
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Common Open Policy Services (COPS) Protocol (RFC 2748), defines the
capability of reporting information to the Policy Decision Point
(PDP). The types of report information are success, failure and
accounting of an installed state. This document focuses on the COPS
Report Type of Accounting and the necessary framework for the
monitoring and reporting of usage feedback for an installed state.
Conventions used in this document Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL"
in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Abstract The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
Common Open Policy Services (COPS) Protocol (RFC2748), defined the "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
capability of reporting information to the PDP. The types of document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
report information are success, failure and accounting of an
installed state. This document focuses on the COPS Report Type of
Accounting and the necessary framework for the monitoring and
reporting of usage feedback for an installed state.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
Glossary.........................................................3 Glossary........................................................... 2
1 Introduction...................................................3 1 Introduction.................................................... 2
2 Overview.......................................................3 2 Overview........................................................ 3
3 Requirements for Normal Operations.............................4 3 Requirements for Normal Operations.............................. 3
4 Periodic Nature of Policy Usage Feedback.......................4 4 Periodic Nature of Policy Usage Feedback........................ 4
4.1 Reporting Intervals..........................................4 4.1 Reporting Intervals......................................... 4
5 Suspension, Resumption and Halting of Usage Monitoring and 5 Suspension, Resumption and Halting of Usage Monitoring and
Reporting........................................................5 Reporting....................................................... 5
6 Solicited Feedback.............................................5 6 Solicited Feedback.............................................. 5
7 Usage reports on shared objects................................6 7 Usage reports on shared objects................................. 5
8 Context........................................................6 8 Context......................................................... 6
9 Delete Request States..........................................7 9 Delete Request States........................................... 7
10 Failover......................................................7 10 Failover........................................................ 7
11 Security Considerations.......................................7 11 Security Considerations......................................... 7
12 Authors' Addresses............................................7 12 References...................................................... 8
13 References....................................................8 12.1 Normative References....................................... 8
13.1 Normative References........................................8 12.2 Informative References..................................... 8
13.2 Informative References......................................8 13 Authors' Addresses.............................................. 9
14 Full Copyright Statement........................................10
Glossary Glossary
COPS - Common Open Policy Service. See [RFC2748]. COPS - Common Open Policy Service. See [RFC2748].
COPS-PR - COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning. See [RFC3084]. COPS-PR - COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning. See [RFC3084].
PDP - Policy Decision Point. See [RFC2753]. PDP - Policy Decision Point. See [RFC2753].
PEP - Policy Enforcement Point. See [RFC2753]. PEP - Policy Enforcement Point. See [RFC2753].
PIB - Policy Information Base. The database of policy information. PIB - Policy Information Base. The database of policy information.
PRC - Provisioning Class. A type of policy data. PRC - Provisioning Class. A type of policy data.
PRI - Provisioning Instance. An instance of a PRC. PRI - Provisioning Instance. An instance of a PRC.
QoS - Quality of Service. QoS - Quality of Service.
1 Introduction 1 Introduction
skipping to change at page 3, line 15 skipping to change at page 2, line 39
COPS - Common Open Policy Service. See [RFC2748]. COPS - Common Open Policy Service. See [RFC2748].
COPS-PR - COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning. See [RFC3084]. COPS-PR - COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning. See [RFC3084].
PDP - Policy Decision Point. See [RFC2753]. PDP - Policy Decision Point. See [RFC2753].
PEP - Policy Enforcement Point. See [RFC2753]. PEP - Policy Enforcement Point. See [RFC2753].
PIB - Policy Information Base. The database of policy information. PIB - Policy Information Base. The database of policy information.
PRC - Provisioning Class. A type of policy data. PRC - Provisioning Class. A type of policy data.
PRI - Provisioning Instance. An instance of a PRC. PRI - Provisioning Instance. An instance of a PRC.
QoS - Quality of Service. QoS - Quality of Service.
1 Introduction 1 Introduction
Policy usage reported by the PEP makes a richer set of information Policy usage reported by the PEP makes a richer set of information
available to the PDP for decision-making. This feedback on policy available to the PDP for decision-making. This feedback on policy
usage can impact future decisions made by the PDP and the usage can impact future decisions made by the PDP and the resulting
resulting policy installed by the PDP at the PEP. For example, a policy installed by the PDP at the PEP. For example, a PDP making
PDP making policy for a SIP signaled multimedia session may need policy for a SIP signaled multimedia session may need to base the
to base the decision in part on usage information related to decision in part on usage information related to previously installed
previously installed QoS policy decisions. Furthermore, the PDP QoS policy decisions. Furthermore, the PDP may coordinate this usage
may coordinate this usage information with other external systems information with other external systems to determine the future
to determine the future policy such as the case with the PDP policy such as the case with the PDP coordinating multimedia session
coordinating multimedia session QoS and clearinghouse QoS and clearinghouse authorizations [SIP-AAA-QOS].
authorizations [SIP-AAA-QOS.]
The scope of this document is to describe the framework for policy The scope of this document is to describe the framework for policy
usage monitored and reported by the PEP and collected at the PDP. usage monitored and reported by the PEP and collected at the PDP.
The charging, rating and billing models as well as other The charging, rating and billing models, as well as other accounting
accounting or statistics gathering events detectable by the PDP or statistics gathering events, detectable by the PDP are beyond the
are beyond the scope of this framework. scope of this framework.
2 Overview 2 Overview
There are three main aspects to define policies for usage There are three main aspects to define policies for usage feedback:
feedback:
- which objects are monitored - which objects are monitored
- the metrics to be monitored and reported for these objects - the metrics to be monitored and reported for these objects
- when the reports are delivered - when the reports are delivered
In the framework a selection criteria policy specifies one or more In the framework, a selection criteria policy specifies one or more
objects that should be monitored for example a dropper or the objects that should be monitored (e.g., a dropper or the instances of
instances of an IP Filter for all its interfaces. an IP Filter for all its interfaces).
A usage feedback class is used to specify which metrics are to be A usage feedback class is used to specify which metrics are to be
collected for a set of objects - instances of the specified class collected for a set of objects - instances of the specified class
carry the usage information when it is reported. carry the usage information when it is reported. The valid
The valid combinations of monitored object classes and usage combinations of monitored object classes and usage feedback classes
feedback classes are reported by the PEP as capabilities. are reported by the PEP as capabilities.
Finally selection criteria policy and usage feedback class are Finally, selection criteria policy and usage feedback class are bound
bound together in a linkage policy, which also contains the together in a linkage policy, which also contains the information of
information when reports are generated. Reports are usually sent when reports are generated. Reports are usually sent periodically,
periodically but more restrictions can be placed on the generation but more restrictions can be placed on the generation of reports,
of reports, like thresholds or a change in the data. like thresholds or a change in the data.
3 Requirements for Normal Operations 3 Requirements for Normal Operations
Per COPS [RFC2748], the PDP specifies the minimum feedback Per COPS [RFC2748], the PDP specifies the minimum feedback interval
interval in the Accounting Timer object that is included in the in the Accounting Timer object that is included in the Client Accept
Client Accept message during connection establishment. This message during connection establishment. This specifies the maximum
specifies the maximum frequency with which the PEP issues frequency with which the PEP issues unsolicited accounting type
unsolicited accounting type report messages. The purpose of this report messages. The purpose of this interval is to pace the number
interval is to pace the number of report messages sent to the PDP. of report messages sent to the PDP. It is not the goal of the
It is not the goal of the interval defined by the ACCT Timer value interval defined by the ACCT Timer value to provide precision
to provide precision synchronization or timing. synchronization or timing.
The selection and the associated usage criteria and intervals for The selection and the associated usage criteria and intervals for
feedback reporting are defined by the PDP. Feedback policies, feedback reporting are defined by the PDP. Feedback policies, which
which define the necessary selection and linkages to usage define the necessary selection and linkages to usage feedback
feedback criteria, are included by the PDP in a Decision message criteria, are included by the PDP in a Decision message to the PEP.
to the PEP. The usage feedback is then periodically reported by The usage feedback is then periodically reported by the PEP, at
the PEP at intervals defined in the linkage policies at a rate no intervals defined in the linkage policies at a rate no more
more frequently than specified in the Accounting Timer object. frequently than specified in the Accounting Timer object. Note that
Note that there are exceptions where reports containing feedback there are exceptions where reports containing feedback are provided
are provided prior the Accounting Timer interval (see section 6). prior to the Accounting Timer interval (see section 6). The PDP may
The PDP may also solicit usage feedback which is to be reported also solicit usage feedback which is to be reported back immediately
back immediately by the PEP. Usage information may be cleared upon by the PEP. Usage information may be cleared upon reporting. This
reporting. This is specified in the usage policy criteria. is specified in the usage policy criteria.
The PEP monitors and tracks the usage feedback information. The The PEP monitors and tracks the usage feedback information. The PDP
PDP is the collection point for the policy usage feedback is the collection point for the policy usage feedback information
information reported by the PEP clients within the administrative reported by the PEP clients within the administrative domain. The
domain. The PDP may also collect other accounting event PDP may also collect other accounting event information that is
information that is outside the scope of this document. outside the scope of this document.
4 Periodic Nature of Policy Usage Feedback 4 Periodic Nature of Policy Usage Feedback
Generally the policy usage feedback is periodic in nature and the Generally the policy usage feedback is periodic in nature and the
reporting is unsolicited. The unsolicited reports are supplied per reporting is unsolicited. The unsolicited reports are supplied per
the interval defined by the PDP. The periodic unsolicited reports the interval defined by the PDP. The periodic unsolicited reports
are dictated by timer intervals and use a deterministic amount of are dictated by timer intervals and use a deterministic amount of
network resources. network resources.
The PDP informs the PEP of the minimal feedback interval during The PDP informs the PEP of the minimal feedback interval during
client connection establishment with the Accounting Timer object. client connection establishment with the Accounting Timer object.
The PDP may specify feedback intervals in the specific usage The PDP may specify feedback intervals in the specific usage feedback
feedback policies as well. The unsolicited monitoring and policies as well. The unsolicited monitoring and reporting by the
reporting by the PEP may be suspended and resumed at the direction PEP may be suspended and resumed at the direction of the PDP.
of the PDP.
4.1 Reporting Intervals 4.1 Reporting Intervals
The generation of usage feedback by the PEP to the PDP is done The generation of usage feedback by the PEP to the PDP is done under
under different conditions that include feedback on demand, different conditions that include feedback on demand, periodic
periodic feedback or feedback when a defined threshold is reached. feedback or feedback when a defined threshold is reached.
The periodic feedback for a usage policy can be further defined in The periodic feedback for a usage policy can be further defined in
terms of providing feedback if there is a change or providing terms of providing feedback if there is a change or providing
feedback periodically regardless of a change in value. feedback periodically regardless of a change in value.
The periodic interval is defined in terms of the Accounting The periodic interval is defined in terms of the Accounting Object,
Object, ACCT Timer value. A single interval is equal to the number ACCT Timer value. A single interval is equal to the number of
of seconds specified by the ACCT Timer value. The PDP may define a seconds specified by the ACCT Timer value. The PDP may define a
specific number of intervals, which are to pass before the PEP specific number of intervals, which are to pass before the PEP
provides the usage feedback for a specific policy in a report. provides the usage feedback for a specific policy in a report. When
When the ACCT Timer value is equal to zero there is no unsolicited the ACCT Timer value is equal to zero there is no unsolicited usage
usage feedback provided by the PEP. However, the PEP still feedback provided by the PEP. However, the PEP still monitors and
monitors and tracks the usage per the PDP policy and reports it tracks the usage per the PDP policy and reports it when the PDP
when the PDP solicits the feedback. solicits the feedback.
Reporting may be based on a defined threshold value in the usage Reporting may be based on reaching a defined threshold value in the
PRC that is reached. usage PRC.
The PDP may solicit usage feedback in the middle of an interval by The PDP may solicit usage feedback in the middle of an interval by
sending a COPS decision message. The exact contents of the message sending a COPS decision message. The exact contents of the message
are out of the scope of this framework document and need to be are out of the scope of this framework document and need to be
defined in a document that actually implements usage feedback defined in a document that actually implements usage feedback using
using this framework. this framework.
The PEP, on receiving a solicit decision from the PDP, shall The PEP, upon receiving a solicit decision from the PDP, shall
provide the requested usage information and clear the usage provide the requested usage information and clear the usage
information if the usage policy requires that the attribute be information if the usage policy requires that the attribute be
cleared after reporting. The PEP should continue to maintain the cleared after reporting. The PEP should continue to maintain the
same interval schedule as defined by the PDP in the Accounting same interval schedule as defined by the PDP in the Accounting Timer
Timer object and established at client connection acceptance. object and established at client connection acceptance.
5 Suspension, Resumption and Halting of Usage Monitoring and Reporting 5 Suspension, Resumption and Halting of Usage Monitoring and Reporting
The PDP may direct the PEP to suspend usage feedback report The PDP may direct the PEP to suspend usage feedback report messages
messages and then at a later time instruct the PEP to resume the and then at a later time instruct the PEP to resume the reporting of
reporting of feedback. The PDP may also instruct the PEP to feedback. The PDP may also instruct the PEP to suspend the
suspend the monitoring and tracking of usage which also results in monitoring and tracking of usage which also results in the
the suppression of the feedback reports until the PDP later tells suppression of the feedback reports until the PDP later tells the PEP
the PEP to resume the monitoring (and reporting). When the PDP to resume the monitoring (and reporting). When the PDP suspends
suspends monitoring or suspends reporting, it also specifies monitoring or suspends reporting, it also specifies whether the PEP
whether the PEP is to provide an unsolicited feedback report of is to provide an unsolicited feedback report of the current monitored
the current monitored usage of the affected usage policy. The PDP usage of the affected usage policy. The PDP may suspend and resume
may suspend and resume monitoring and reporting for specific usage monitoring and reporting for specific usage policies or for all of
policies or for all of the usage feedback policies. the usage feedback policies.
6 Solicited Feedback 6 Solicited Feedback
There may be instances when it is useful for the PDP to control There may be instances when it is useful for the PDP to control the
the feedback per an on-demand basis rather than a periodic basis. feedback per an on-demand basis rather than a periodic basis. The
The PDP may solicit the PEP for usage feedback with a Decision. PDP may solicit the PEP for usage feedback with a Decision. The PDP
The PDP may solicit usage feedback at any time during the may solicit usage feedback at any time during the accounting interval
accounting interval defined by the ACCT Timer. The PEP responds defined by the ACCT Timer. The PEP responds immediately and reports
immediately and reports the appropriate usage policies and should the appropriate usage policies and should continue to follow the
continue to follow the usage feedback interval schedule usage feedback interval schedule established during connection
established during connection acceptance. acceptance.
7 Usage reports on shared objects 7 Usage reports on shared objects
While some objects in a context's namespace directly represent While some objects in a context's namespace directly represent unique
unique objects of the PEP's configuration, other COPS objects can objects of the PEP's configuration, other COPS objects can be shared
be shared between multiple actual assignments in the PEP. between multiple actual assignments in the PEP.
Whenever the PEP creates multiple actual configuration instances Whenever the PEP creates multiple actual configuration instances from
from the same COPS objects, these assignments can potentially the same COPS objects, these assignments can potentially collect
collect their own statistics independently. Since the individual their own statistics independently. Since the individual assignments
assignments do not have a direct representation as COPS objects, do not have a direct representation as COPS objects, additional
additional information must be provided to uniquely identify the information must be provided to uniquely identify the assignment that
assignment that generates the usage information. As an example, if generates the usage information. As an example, if the PEP needs to
the PEP needs to create multiple usage objects for an IP address, create multiple usage objects for an IP address, it may use the port
it may use the port number to uniquely identify each object i.e. number to uniquely identify each object, i.e., the (IP address, port
the (IP address, port number) combination is now the unique number) combination is now the unique identifier of the object.
identify of the object.
The feedback framework allows this information to be distributed The feedback framework allows this information to be distributed
between a selection criteria PRC and the corresponding usage between a selection criteria PRC and the corresponding usage feedback
feedback PRC, however both PRCs together always must contain PRC, however both PRCs together always must contain sufficient
sufficient information for the finest granularity of usage information for the finest granularity of usage collection supported
collection supported by the PEP. by the PEP.
If all the additional information is not part of the selection If all the additional information is not part of the selection
criteria PRC, all matching assignments are selected to collect criteria PRC, all matching assignments are selected to collect usage
usage information. The necessary data to differentiate these information. The necessary data to differentiate these assignments
assignments is part of the usage feedback PRC. is part of the usage feedback PRC.
Implementations based on the feedback framework should always Implementations based on the feedback framework should always provide
provide a selection criteria PRC that contains a complete set of a selection criteria PRC that contains a complete set of information
information to select a unique assignment, while underspecified to select a unique assignment, while underspecified selection
selection criteria PRCs (together with extended usage feedback criteria PRCs (together with extended usage feedback PRCs) are
PRCs) are optional. optional.
8 Context 8 Context
COPS-PR [RFC3084] allows multiple, independent, disjoint instances COPS-PR [RFC3084] allows multiple, independent, disjoint instances of
of policies to be configured on the PEP. Each instance is known as policies to be configured on the PEP. Each instance is known as a
a context, and only one context can be active at any given moment. context, and only one context can be active at any given moment. The
The PDP directs the PEP to switch between contexts using a single PDP directs the PEP to switch between contexts using a single
decision message. decision message.
The monitoring and recording of usage policies is subject to The monitoring and recording of usage policies is subject to context
context switches in a manner similar to that of the enforcement switches in a manner similar to that of the enforcement policy.
policy. Usage policy is monitored, recorded and reported while the Usage policy is monitored, recorded and reported while the associated
associated policy information context is active. When the context policy information context is active. When the context is
is deactivated a report message containing the usage feedback deactivated, a report message containing the usage feedback policies
policies for that context is provided to the PDP. The PEP does not for that context is provided to the PDP. The PEP does not perform
perform any monitoring, tracking or reporting of policy usage for any monitoring, tracking or reporting of policy usage for a given
a given context while the context is inactive. context while the context is inactive.
9 Delete Request States 9 Delete Request States
The PEP MUST send any outstanding usage feedback data monitored The PEP MUST send any outstanding usage feedback data monitored
during the feedback interval to the PDP via an unsolicited report during the feedback interval to the PDP via an unsolicited report
message immediately prior to issuing a Delete Request State. This message immediately prior to issuing a Delete Request State. This is
is also the case when the PDP initiates the Delete Request State. also the case when the PDP initiates the Delete Request State.
10 Failover 10 Failover
In the event the connection is lost between the PEP and PDP, the In the event the connection is lost between the PEP and PDP, the PEP
PEP continues to track usage feedback information as long as it continues to track usage feedback information as long as it continues
continues to enforce installed (cached) policy. When the locally to enforce installed (cached) policy. When the locally installed
installed policy at the PEP expires, the usage feedback policy policy at the PEP expires, the usage feedback policy data also
data also expires and is no longer monitored. expires and is no longer monitored.
Upon successful reconnection where the PEP is still caching Upon successful reconnection, where the PEP is still caching policy,
policy, the PDP indicates deterministically to the PEP that the the PDP indicates deterministically to the PEP that the PEP may
PEP may resume usage feedback reporting. The PEP reports all resume usage feedback reporting. The PEP reports all cached usage
cached usage and resumes periodic reporting making any needed and resumes periodic reporting, making any needed adjustment to the
adjustment to the interval schedule as specified in the interval schedule as specified in the reconnection acceptance ACCT
reconnection acceptance ACCT Timer. Timer.
11 Security Considerations 11 Security Considerations
This document provides a framework for policy usage feedback, This document provides a framework for policy usage feedback, using
using COPS-PR as the transport mechanism. As feedback information COPS-PR as the transport mechanism. As feedback information is
is sensitive, it MUST be transported in a secured manner. COPS sensitive, it MUST be transported in a secured manner. COPS
[RFC2748] and COPS-PR [RFC3084] provide for such secured [RFC2748] and COPS-PR [RFC3084] provide for such secured transport,
transport, with mandatory and suggested security mechanisms. with mandatory and suggested security mechanisms.
The usage feedback information themselves MUST be secured, with The usage feedback information themselves MUST be secured, with their
their security requirement specified in their respective security requirement specified in their respective documents.
documents.
12 Authors' Addresses 12 References
12.1 Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words to use in the RFCs", BCP 14,
RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2748] Boyle, J., Cohen, R., Durham, D., Herzog, S., Rajan, R.
and A. Sastry, "The COPS (Common Open Policy Service)
Protocol", RFC 2748, January 2000.
[RFC2753] Yavatkar, R., Pendarakis, D. and R. Guerin, "A
Framework for Policy-based Admission Control", RFC
2753, January 2000.
[RFC3084] Chan, K., Durham, D., Gai, S., Herzog, S., McCloghrie,
K., Reichmeyer, F., Seligson, J., Smith, A. and R.
Yavatkar, "COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning (COPS-
PR)", RFC 3084, March 2001.
12.2 Informative References
[SIP-AAA-QOS] Gross, G., Sinnreich, H. Rawlins D. and T. Havinis,
"QoS and AAA Usage with SIP Based IP Communications",
Work in Progress.
13 Authors' Addresses
Diana Rawlins Diana Rawlins
WorldCom WorldCom
901 International Parkway 901 International Parkway
Richardson, Texas 75081 Richardson, Texas 75081
Phone: 972-729-1044
Email: Diana.Rawlins@wcom.com Phone: 972-729-4071
EMail: Diana.Rawlins@wcom.com
Amol Kulkarni Amol Kulkarni
JF3-206 JF3-206
2111 NE 25th Ave 2111 NE 25th Ave
Hillsboro, Oregon 97124 Hillsboro, Oregon 97124
Phone: 503-712-1168 Phone: 503-712-1168
Email: amol.kulkarni@intel.com EMail: amol.kulkarni@intel.com
Kwok Ho Chan Kwok Ho Chan
Nortel Networks, Inc. Nortel Networks, Inc.
600 Technology Park Drive 600 Technology Park Drive
Billerica, MA 01821 USA Billerica, MA 01821 USA
Phone: 978-288-8175 Phone: 978-288-8175
Email: khchan@nortelnetworks.com EMail: khchan@nortelnetworks.com
Martin Bokaemper Martin Bokaemper
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
700 Silver Seven Road 700 Silver Seven Road
Kanata, ON, K2V 1C3, Canada Kanata, ON, K2V 1C3, Canada
Phone: 613-591-2735
Email: mbokaemper@juniper.net"
13 References Phone: 613-591-2735
EMail: mbokaemper@juniper.net
13.1 Normative References
[RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words to use in the RFCs", RFC 2119. Mar 14 Full Copyright Statement
1997.
[RFC2748] Boyle, J., Cohen, R., Durham, D., Herzog, S., Rajan, R., Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
and A. Sastry, "The COPS (Common Open Policy Service) Protocol",
RFC 2748, January 2000.
[RFC2753] Yavatkar, R., Pendarakis, D. and R. Guerin, "A Framework This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
for Policy Based Admission Control", RFC 2753, January 2000. others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
[RFC3084] K. Chan, D. Durham, S. Gai, S. Herzog, K. McCloghrie, F. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
Reichmeyer, J. Seligson, A. Smith, R. Yavatkar, "COPS Usage for revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
Policy Provisioning," RFC 3084, March 2001.
13.2 Informative References This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
[SIP-AAA-QOS] Gross, G., Sinnreich, H. Rawlins D., Havinis, T. Acknowledgement
"QoS and AAA Usage with SIP Based IP Communications" draft-gross-
sipaq-00.txt, November 2000.
[COPS-TLS], Walker, J., Kulkarni, A.,"COPS Over TLS", draft-ietf- Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
rap-cops-tls-02.txt, October 2001. Internet Society.
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.25, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/