Transport Working Group                                        F. Baker
Internet-Draft                                                  J. Polk
Updates: 4542,4594                                        Cisco Systems
(if approved)                                                  M. Dolly
Intended status: Standards Track                              AT&T Labs
Expires: June 4, Sept 8, 2010                                     March 8, 2010                                  December 4, 2009

                   DSCP for Capacity-Admitted Traffic


   This document requests one Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP)
   from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) for a class of
   traffic classes similar to voice conforming traffic.  This class conforms to the Expedited Forwarding
   Per Hop Behavior, and Behavior.  It is also admitted using a call admission CAC procedure
   involving authentication, authorization, and capacity admission.
   This document also recommends that certain classes of video differs from a real-time traffic
   described in RFC 4594 and which have similar requirements be changed class conforming to require the
   Expedited Forwarding Per Hop Behavior but not subject to capacity
   admission using a Call Admission Control (CAC) procedure
   involving authentication, authorization, and or subject to very coarse capacity admission.


   This documents and the information contained therein are provided on

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
   the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
   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

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on June 4, September 8, 2010.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   ( in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
   respect 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 described in the BSD License.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.2.  Problem   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   2.  Candidate Implementations of the Admitted Telephony
       Service Class   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.1.  Potential implementations of EF in this model . . . . . .  7
     2.2.  Capacity admission control  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9  8
     2.3.  Recommendations on implementation of an Admitted
           Telephony Service Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   3.  Summary: changes from RFC 4594  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

1.  Introduction

   This document requests one Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP)
   from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) for a class of
   real-time traffic.  This class conforms to the Expedited Forwarding
   [RFC3246] [RFC3247] Per Hop Behavior.  It is also admitted using a
   CAC procedure involving authentication, authorization, and capacity
   admission.  This differs from a real-time traffic class conforming
   to the Expedited Forwarding Per Hop Behavior but not subject to
   capacity admission or subject to very coarse capacity admission.

   It also recommends that certain classes of video described in
   [RFC4594] be treated as requiring capacity admission as well.

   These applications

   Real-time traffic flows have one or more potential congestion points
   between the endpoints.  Reserving capacity for them these flows is
   important to application performance.  All of these applications
   have low tolerance to jitter (aka delay variation) and loss, as
   summarized in Section 2, and most (except for multimedia
   conferencing) have inelastic flow behavior from Figure 1 of
   [RFC4594].  Inelastic flow behavior and low jitter/loss tolerance
   are the service characteristics that define the need for admission
   control behavior.

   One of the reasons behind this is the need for classes of traffic
   that are handled under special policies, such as the non-preemptive
   Emergency Telecommunication Service, the US Department of Defense's
   Assured policies.  Service (which is similar to Multi-Level Precedence and
   Preemption [ITU.MLPP.1990] procedure), or e-911, in addition to
   normal routine calls that use call admission.  It is possible to use
   control plane protocols to generally restrict session admission such
   that admitted traffic should receive the desired service, and the
   policy (e.g.  Routine, National Security or Emergency Preparedness
   [NS/EP] communications, e-911, etc) need not be signaled in a DSCP.
   However, service providers need to
   distinguish between special-policy traffic and other classes,
   particularly the existing VoIP services that perform no capacity
   admission or only very coarse capacity admission and can exceed
   their allocated resources.

   The requested DSCP applies to the Telephony Service Class described
   in [RFC4594].

   Since video classes have not had the history of mixing admitted and
   non-admitted traffic in the same Per-Hop Behavior (PHB) as has
   occurred for EF, an additional DSCP code point is not recommended. recommended
   within this document for video.  Instead, the recommended "best
   practice" is to perform admission control for all traffic in three
   of [RFC4594]'s video classes: the

   o  Interactive Real-Time Traffic (CS4, used for Video conferencing
      and Interactive gaming),

   o  Broadcast TV (CS3) for use in a video on demand context, and
   o  AF4 Multimedia Conferencing (video conferencing).

   Other video classes are believed to not have the current problem of
   confusion with unadmitted traffic and therefore would not benefit
   from the notion of a separate DSCP for admitted traffic.  Within an
   ISP and on inter-ISP links (i.e. within networks whose internal
   paths are uniform at hundreds of megabits per second or faster), one
   would expect all of this traffic to be carried in the Real Time Real-Time
   Traffic (RTP) Class described in [RFC5127].

1.1.  Definitions

   The following terms and acronyms are used in this document.

   PHB:  A Per-Hop-Behavior (PHB) is the externally observable
      forwarding behavior applied at a Differentiated Services
      compliant node to a DS behavior aggregate [RFC2475].  It may be
      thought of as a program configured on the interface of an
      Internet host or router, specified in terms of drop
      probabilities, queuing priorities or rates, and other handling
      characteristics for the traffic class.

   DSCP:  The Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP), as defined in
      [RFC2474], is a value which is encoded in the DS field, and which
      each DS Node MUST use to select the PHB which is to be
      experienced by each packet it forwards [RFC3260].  It is a 6-bit
      number embedded into the 8-bit TOS field of an IPv4 datagram or
      the Traffic Class field of an IPv6 datagram.

   CAC:  Call Admission Control includes concepts of authorization and
      capacity admission.  "Authorization" refers to any procedure that
      identifies a user, verifies the authenticity of the
      identification, and determines whether the user is authorized to
      use the service under the relevant policy.  "Capacity Admission"
      refers to any procedure that determines whether capacity exists
      supporting a session's requirements under some policy.

      In the Internet, these are separate functions, while in the PSTN
      they and call routing are carried out together.

   UNI:  A User/Network Interface (UNI) is the interface (often a
      physical link or its virtual equivalent) that connects two
      entities that do not trust each other, and in which one (the
      user) purchases connectivity services from the other (the

      Figure 1 shows two user networks connected by what appears to
      each of them to be a single network ("The Internet", access to
      which is provided by their service provider) that provides
      connectivity services to other users.

      UNIs tend to be the bottlenecks in the Internet, where users
      purchase relatively low amounts of bandwidth for cost or service
      reasons, and as a result are most subject to congestion issues
      and therefore issues requiring traffic conditioning and service

   NNI:  A Network/Network Interface (NNI) is the interface (often a
      physical link or its virtual equivalent) that connects two
      entities that trust each other within limits, and in which the
      two are seen as trading services for value.  Figure 1 shows three
      service networks that together provide the connectivity services
      that we call "the Internet".  They are different administrations
      and are very probably in competition, but exchange contracts for
      connectivity and capacity that enable them to offer specific
      services to their customers.

      NNIs may not be bottlenecks in the Internet if service providers
      contractually agree to provision excess capacity at them, as they
      commonly do.  However, NNI performance may differ by ISP, and the
      performance guarantee interval may range from a month to a much
      shorter period.  Furthermore, a peering point NNI may not have
      contractual performance guarantees or may become overloaded under
      certain conditions.  They are also policy-controlled interfaces,
      especially in BGP.  As a result, they may require traffic
      prioritization policy.

   Queue:  There are multiple ways to build a multi-queue scheduler.
      Weighted Round Robin (WRR) literally builds multiple lists and
      visits them in a specified order, while a calendar queue (often
      used to implement Weighted Fair Queuing, or WFQ) builds a list
      for each time interval and queues at most a stated amount of data
      in each such list for transmission during that time interval.
      While these differ dramatically in implementation, the external
      difference in behavior is generally negligible when they are
      properly configured.  Consistent with the definitions used in the
      Differentiated Services Architecture [RFC2475], these are treated
      as equivalent in this document, and the lists of WRR and the
      classes of a calendar queue will be referred to uniformly as

                                    ,-''           `--.
                                 ,-'                   `-.
           ,-------.           ,',-------.                `.
         ,'         `.       ,','         `.                `.
        /  User       \ UNI / /   Service   \                 \
       (    Network    +-----+    Network    )                 `.
        \             /  ;    \             /                    :
         `.         ,'   ;     `.         .+                     :
           '-------'    /        '-------'  \ NNI                 \
                       ;                     \                     :
                       ;     "The Internet"   \  ,-------.         :
                      ;                        +'         `.        :
        UNI: User/Network Interface           /   Service   \       |
                     |                       (    Network    )      |
        NNI: Network/Network Interface        \             /       |
                      :                        +.         ,'        ;
                       :                      /  '-------'         ;
                       :                     /                     ;
           ,-------.    \        ,-------.  / NNI                 /
         ,'         `.   :     ,'         `+                     ;
        /  User       \ UNI   /   Service   \                    ;
       (    Network    +-----+    Network    )                 ,'
        \             /     \ \             /                 /
         `.         ,'       `.`.         ,'                ,'
           '-------'           `.'-------'                ,'
                                 `-.                   ,-'
                                    `--.           _.-'

                     Figure 1: UNI and NNI interfaces

1.2.  Problem

   In short, the Telephony Service Class described in [RFC4594] permits
   the use of capacity admission in implementing the service, but
   present implementations either provide no capacity admission
   services or do so in a manner that depends on specific traffic
   engineering. In the context of the Internet backbone, the two are
   essentially equivalent; the edge network depends on specific
   engineering by the service provider that may might not be present,
   especially in a mobile environment.

   However, services are being requested of the network that would
   specifically make use of capacity admission, and would distinguish
   among users or the uses of available Voice-over-IP or Video-over-IP
   capacity in various ways.  Various agencies would like to provide
   services as described in section 2.6 of [RFC4504] or in [RFC4190].

   This requires the use of capacity admission to differentiate among
   users (which might be 911 call centers, other offices with
   preferential service contracts, or individual users gaining access
   with special credentials) to provide services to them that are not afforded to
   non-capacity admitted customer-to-customer IP telephony sessions.

2.  Candidate Implementations of the Admitted Telephony Service Class

2.1.  Potential implementations of EF in this model

   There are at least two possible ways to implement isolation between
   the Capacity Admitted PHB and the Expedited Forwarding PHB in this
   model.  They are to implement separate classes as a set of

   o  Multiple data plane traffic classes, each consisting of a policer
      and a queue, and the queues enjoying different priorities, or

   o  Multiple data plane traffic classes, each consisting of a policer
      but feeding into a common queue or multiple queues at the same

   We will explain the difference, and describe in what way they differ
   in operation.  The reason this is necessary is that there is current
   confusion in the industry.

   The multi-priority model is shown in Figure 2.  In this model,
   traffic from each service class is placed into a separate priority
   queue.  If data is present in more than one queue, traffic from one
   of them will always be selected for transmission.  This has the
   effect of transferring jitter from the higher priority queue to the
   lower priority queue, queues, and reordering traffic in a way that gives
   the higher priority traffic a smaller average queuing delay.  Each
   queue must have its own policer, however, to protect the network
   from errors and attacks; if a traffic class thinks it is carrying a
   certain data rate but an abuse sends significantly more, the effect
   of simple prioritization would not preserve the lower priorities of
   traffic, which could cause routing to fail or otherwise impact an

                     policers    priorities  |`.
             Admitted EF <=> ----------||----+  `.
                                         high|    `.
           Unadmitted EF <=> ----------||----+     .'-----------
                           .             medium  .'
              rate queues  |`.         +-----+ .' Priority
           AF1------>||----+  `.      /  low |'   Scheduler
                           |    `.   /
           AF2------>||----+     .'-+
                           |   .'
           CS0------>||----+ .' Rate Scheduler
                           |'   (WFQ, WRR, etc)

             Figure 2: Implementation as a data plane priority

   The multi-policer model is shown in Figure 3.  In this model,
   traffic from each service class is policed according to its SLA
   requirements, and then placed into a common priority queue.  Unlike
   the multi-priority model, the jitter experienced by the traffic
   classes in this case is the same, as there is only one queue, but
   the sum of the traffic in this higher priority queue experiences
   less average jitter than the elastic traffic in the lower priority.

                       policers    priorities  .
               Admitted EF <=> -------\        |`.
                                       --||----+  `.
             Unadmitted EF <=> -------/    high|    `.
                             .                 |     .'--------
                rate queues  |`.         +-----+   .'
             AF1------>||----+  `.      /  low | .' Priority
                             |    `.   /       |'   Scheduler
             AF2------>||----+     .'-+
                             |   .'
             CS0------>||----+ .' Rate Scheduler
                             |'   (WFQ, WRR, etc)

             Figure 3: Implementation as a data plane policer

   The difference between the two operationally is, as stated, the
   issues of loss due to policing and distribution of jitter.

   If the two traffic classes are, for example, voice and video,
   datagrams containing video data can be relatively large (often of
   variable sizes up to the path MTU) while datagrams containing voice
   are relatively small, on the order of only 40 to 200 bytes,
   depending on the codec.  On lower speed links (less than 10 MBPS),
   the jitter introduced by video to voice can be disruptive, while at
   higher speeds the jitter is nominal compared to the jitter
   requirements of voice.  At access network speeds, therefore,
   [RFC4594] recommends separation of video and voice into separate
   queues, while at optical speeds [RFC5127] recommends that they use a
   common queue.

   If, on the other hand, the two traffic classes are carrying the same
   type of application with the same jitter requirements, then giving
   one preference in this sense does not benefit the higher priority
   traffic and may harm the lower priority traffic.  In such a case,
   using separate policers and a common queue is a superior approach.

2.2.  Capacity admission control

   There are at least six major ways that capacity admission is done or
   has been proposed to be done for real-time applications.  Each will
   be described below, then Section 3 will judge which ones are likely
   to meet the requirements of the Admitted Telephony service class.
   These include:

   o  Drop Precedence used to force sessions to voluntarily exit,

   o  Capacity admission control by assumption or engineering,

   o  Capacity admission control by call counting,

   o  End-point capacity admission performed by probing the network,

   o  Centralized capacity admission control via bandwidth broker, and

   o  Distributed capacity admission control using protocols such as
      RSVP or NSIS.

   The problem with dropping traffic to force users to hang up is that
   it affects a broad class of users - if there is capacity for N calls
   and the N+1 calls are active, data is dropped randomly from all
   sessions to ensure that offered load doesn't exceed capacity.  On
   very fast links, that is acceptable, but on lower speed links it can
   seriously affect call quality. There is also a behavioral issue
   involved here, in which users who experience poor quality calls tend
   to hang up and call again, making the problem better - then worse.

   The problem with capacity admission by assumption, which is widely
   deployed in today's VoIP environment, is that it depends on the
   assumptions made.  One can do careful traffic engineering to ensure
   needed bandwidth, but this can also be painful, and has to be
   revisited when the network is changed or network usage changes.

   The problem with call counting based admission control is it gets
   exponentially worse the farther you get from the control point
   (e.g., it lacks sufficient scalability out into the network).

   There are two fundamental problems with depending on the endpoint to
   perform capacity admission; it may not be able to accurately measure
   the impact of the traffic it generates on the network, and it tends
   to be greedy (e.g., it doesn't care).  If the network operator is
   providing a service, he must be able to guarantee the service, which
   means that he cannot trust systems that are not controlled by his

   The problem with capacity controls via a bandwidth broker is
   centralized servers lack far away awareness, and also lack effective
   real-time reaction to dynamic changes in all part of the network
   at all instances of time.

   The problem with mechanisms that do not enable the association of a
   policy with the request is that they do not allow for multi-policy
   services, which are becoming important.

   The operator's choice of admission procedure MUST, for this DSCP,
   ensure the following:

   o  The actual links that a session uses have enough bandwidth to
      support it.

   o  New sessions are refused admission if there is inadequate
      bandwidth under the relevant policy.

   o  If multiple policies are in use in a network, that the user is
      identified and the correct policy applied.

   o  Under periods of network stress, the process of admission of new
      sessions does not disrupt existing sessions, unless the service
      explicitly allows for disruption of calls.

2.3.  Recommendations on implementation of an Admitted Telephony
      Service Class

   It is the belief of the authors that either PHB implementation
   described in Section 2.1, if

   When coupled with adequate AAA and capacity admission procedures as
   described in Section 2.2, are either of the two PHB implementations
   described in Section 2.1 is sufficient to provide the services
   required for an Admitted Telephony service class.  If preemption is
   required, as described in section of [RFC4542], this
   provides the tools for carrying out the preemption. If preemption is
   not in view, or if used in addition to preemptive services, the
   application of different thresholds depending on call precedence has
   the effect of improving the probability of call completion by
   admitting preferred calls at a time that other calls are being
   refused.  Routine and priority traffic can be admitted using the
   same DSCP value, as the choice of which calls are admitted is
   handled in the admission procedure executed in the control plane,
   not the policing of the data plane.

   On the point of what protocols and procedures are required for
   authentication, authorization, and capacity admission, we note that
   clear standards do not exist at this time for bandwidth brokers,
   NSIS has not been finalized at this time and in any event is limited
   to unicast sessions, and that RSVP has been standardized and has the
   relevant services.  We therefore recommend RECOMMEND the use of RSVP a protocol,
   such as RSVP, at the UNI.  Procedures at the NNI are business
   matters to be discussed between the relevant networks, and are recommended
 I RECOMMENDED but not required. NOT REQUIRED.

3.  Summary: changes from RFC 4594

   To summarize, there are two changes to [RFC4594] discussed in this

   Telephony class:  The Telephony Service Class in RFC 4594 does not
      involve capacity admission, but depends on application layer
      admission that only estimates capacity, and that through static
      engineering.  In addition to that class, a separate Admitted
      Telephony Class is added which performs capacity admission

   Video classes:  Capacity admission is added to three video classes.
      These are the Interactive Real-Time Traffic class, Broadcast TV
      class when used for video on demand, and the Multimedia
      Conferencing class.

4.  IANA Considerations

   This note requests that IANA assign a DSCP value to a second EF
   traffic class consistent with [RFC3246] and [RFC3247] in the
   "Differentiated Services Field Codepoints" registry.  It implements
   the Telephony Service Class described in [RFC4594] at lower speeds
   and is included in the Real Time Treatment Aggregate [RFC5127] at
   higher speeds.  The recommended code point value for should be from pool
   1 within the dscp-registry. This document RECOMMENDS retaining a
   parallel with the existing EF code point is 101100,
   paralleling (101110) by assigning a
   value for the EF code point, which is 101110. point of 101100 -- keeping the (left to right)
   first 4 binary values the same in both.  The code point described
   within this document should be referred to as VOICE-ADMIT.  Here is
   the recommended addition to the Pool 1 Codepoint registry:

   Sub-registry: Pool 1 Codepoints
   Reference: [RFC2474]
   Registration Procedures: Standards Action

      Name         Space    Reference
      ---------    -------  ---------
      VOICE-ADMIT  101100   [this document]

   This traffic class requires REQUIRES the use of capacity admission admission, such as
   RSVP services together with AAA services services, at the User/Network
   Interface (UNI); the use of such services at the NNI is at the
   option of the interconnected networks.

5.  Security Considerations

   A major requirement of this service is effective use of a signaling
   Protocol, such as RSVP, with the capabilities to identify its user
   either as an individual or as a member of some corporate entity, and
   assert a policy such as "normal", "routine" or some level of

   This capability, one has to believe, will be abused by script
   kiddies and others if the proof of identity is not adequately strong
   or if policies are written or implemented improperly by the
   carriers.  This goes without saying, but this section is here for it
   to be said...

   Much of the security considerations from RFC 3246 [RFC3246] applies
   to this document, as well as the security considerations in RFC
   2474 and RFC 4542. RFC 4230 [RFC4230] analyzes RSVP, providing some
   gap analysis to the NSIS WG as they started their work. Keep in mind
   that this document is advocating RSVP at the UNI only, while RFC
   4230 discusses (mostly) RSVP from a more complete point of view
   (i.e., e2e and edge2edge). When considering the RSVP aspect of this
   document, understanding Section 6 of RFC 4230 is a good source of

6.  Acknowledgements

   Kwok Ho Chan, Georgios Karagiannis, Dan Voce, and Bob Briscoe
   commented and offered text.  The impetus for including Video in the
   discussion, which initially only targeted voice, is from Dave

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2474]  Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
              "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
              Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
              December 1998.

   [RFC3246]  Davie, B., Charny, A., Bennet, J., Benson, K., Le Boudec,
              J., Courtney, W., Davari, S., Firoiu, V., and D.
              Stiliadis, "An Expedited Forwarding PHB (Per-Hop
              Behavior)", RFC 3246, March 2002.

   [RFC4594]  Babiarz, J., Chan, K., and F. Baker, "Configuration
              Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes", RFC 4594,
              August 2006.

7.2.  Informative References

              International Telecommunications Union, "Multilevel
              Precedence and Preemption Service", ITU-T Recommendation
              I.255.3, 1990.

   [RFC2475]  Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
              and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
              Services", RFC 2475, December 1998.

   [RFC3247]  Charny, A., Bennet, J., Benson, K., Boudec, J., Chiu, A.,
              Courtney, W., Davari, S., Firoiu, V., Kalmanek, C., and K.
              Ramakrishnan, "Supplemental Information for the New
              Definition of the EF PHB (Expedited Forwarding Per-Hop
              Behavior)", RFC 3247, March 2002.

   [RFC3260]  Grossman, D., "New Terminology and Clarifications for
              Diffserv", RFC 3260, April 2002.

   [RFC4190]  Carlberg, K., Brown, I., and C. Beard, "Framework for
              Supporting Emergency Telecommunications Service (ETS) in
              IP Telephony", RFC 4190, November 2005.

   [RFC4504]  Sinnreich, H., Lass, S., and C. Stredicke, "SIP Telephony
              Device Requirements and Configuration", RFC 4504,
              May 2006.

   [RFC4542]  Baker, F. and J. Polk, "Implementing an Emergency
              Telecommunications Service (ETS) for Real-Time Services
              in the Internet Protocol Suite", RFC 4542, May 2006.

   [RFC4594]  Babiarz, J., Chan, K., and F. Baker, "Configuration
              Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes", RFC 4594,
              August 2006.

   [RFC5127]  Chan, K., Babiarz, J., and F. Baker, "Aggregation of
              DiffServ Service Classes", RFC 5127, February 2008.

   [RFC4230]  H. Tschofenig, R. Graveman, "RSVP Security Properties",
              RFC4230, December 2005

Authors' Addresses

   Fred Baker
   Cisco Systems
   Santa Barbara, California  93117

   Phone: +1-408-526-4257

   James Polk
   Cisco Systems
   Richardson, Texas  75082

   Phone: +1-817-271-3552

   Martin Dolly
   AT&T Labs
   Middletown Township, New Jersey  07748

   Phone: +1-732-420-4574