Diameter Maintenance and K. Carlberg, Ed. Extensions (DIME) G11 Internet-Draft T. Taylor Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies July 8, 2010 Diameter Priority Attribute Value Pairs draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-02.txt 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). 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 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." Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 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 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). 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 Simplified BSD License. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in 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 Simplified BSD License. Carlberg & Taylor Expires Jan 8, 2010 [Page 1] Internet Drafts Resource Priority AVPs July 8, 2010 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 This document defines a number of Attribute-Value Pairs (AVP) that can be used within the Diameter protocol [RFC3588] to convey a specific set of priority parameters. These parameters are specified in other documents, but are briefly described below. The corresponding AVPs defined in Section 3 are an extension to to those defined in [RFC5866]. Priority influences the distribution of resources. This influence may be probabilistic, ranging between (but not including) 0% and 100%, or it may be in the form of a guarantee to either receive or not receive the resource. The influence attributed to prioritization may also affect QoS, but it is not to be confused with QoS. As an example, if packets of two or more flows are contending for the same shared resources, prioritization helps determine which packet receives the resource. However, this allocation of resource does not correlate directly to any specific delay or loss bounds that have been associated with the packet. Another example of how prioritization can be realized is articulated in Appendix A.3 (the priority by-pass model) of [I-D.ietf-tsvwg- emergency-rsvp]. In this case, prioritized flows may gain access to resources that are never shared with non-prioritized flows. 2. Terminology and Abbreviations 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 [RFC2119]. 3. Priority Parameter Encoding This section defines a set of priority AVPs. This set is for use with the DIAMETER QoS application [RFC5866] and represents a continuation of the list of AVPs defined in [RFC5624]. The syntax Carlberg & Taylor Expires Jan 8, 2010 [Page 2] Internet Drafts Resource Priority AVPs July 8, 2010 notation used is that of [RFC3588]. 3.1. Dual-Priority AVP The Dual-Priority AVP is a grouped AVP consisting of two AVPs; the Preemption-Priority and the Defending-Priority AVP. These AVPs are derived from the corresponding priority fields specified in the Signaled Preemption Priority Policy Element [RFC3181] of RSVP [RFC2205]. The Defending-Priority is set when the reservation has been admitted. The Preemption-Priority of a newly requested reservation is compared with the Defending Priority of a previously admitted flow. The actions taken based upon the result of this comparison are a function of local policy. Dual-Priority ::= < AVP Header: TBD > { Preemption-Priority } { Defending-Priority } 3.1.1. Preemption-Priority AVP The Preemption-Priority AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32. Higher values represent higher priority. The value encoded in this AVP is the same as the preemption priority value that would be encoded in the signaled preemption priority policy element. 3.1.2. Defending-Priority AVP The Defending-Priority AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32. Higher values represent higher priority. The value encoded in this AVP is the same as the defending priority value that would be encoded in the signaled preemption priority policy element. 3.2. Admission-Priority AVP The Admission-Priority AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32. The admission priority of the flow is used to increase the probability of session establishment for 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 5.1 of [I-D.ietf- tsvwg-emergency-rsvp]. 3.3. SIP-Resource-Priority AVP The SIP-Resource-Priority AVP is a grouped AVP consisting of two Carlberg & Taylor Expires Jan 8, 2010 [Page 3] Internet Drafts Resource Priority AVPs July 8, 2010 AVPs, the SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace and the SIP-Resource- Priority-Value AVP, which are derived from the corresponding optional header fields in [rfc4412]. The SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace identifies a particular ordered set of priority values. The SIP- Resource-Priority-Value identifies a specific priority value within the set identified by the SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace. SIP-Resource-Priority ::= < AVP Header: TBD > { SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace } { SIP-Resource-Priority-Value } 3.3.1. SIP-Namespace AVP The SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type UTF8String. 3.3.2 SIP-Resource-Priority-Value AVP The SIP-Resource-Priority-Value AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type UTF8String. 3.4. Application-Level-Resource-Priority AVP The Application-Level-Resource-Priority (ALRP) AVP is a grouped AVP consisting of two AVPs, the ALRP-Namespace AVP and the ALRP-Value AVP. A description of the semantics of the parameter values can be found in [RFC4412] and in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp]. The registry set up by [RFC4412] provided string values for both the priority namespace and the priority values associated with that namespace. [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp] modifies that registry to assign numerical values to both the namespace identifiers and the priority values within them. Consequently, SIP-Resource-Priority and Application-Level-Resource-Priority AVPs convey the same priority semantics, but with differing syntax. The coding for parameters is as follows: Eventhough [RFC4412] and [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp] refer to the same information (ie, namespace and value), the actual encodings of each are defined in different forms. In the former case, an alpha- numeric encoding is used while the latter is constrained to a numeric-only value. This difference is reflected in the in the defined structures of Section 3.3 and 3.4 of this document. Application-Level-Resource-Priority ::= < AVP Header: TBD > { ALRP-Namespace } { ALRP-Value } Carlberg & Taylor Expires Jan 8, 2010 [Page 4] Internet Drafts Resource Priority AVPs July 8, 2010 3.4.1. ALRP-Namespace AVP The ALRP-Namespace AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32. 3.4.2. ALRP-Value AVP The ALRP-Priority AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32. 4. IANA Considerations 4.1. AVP Codes IANA is requested to allocate AVP codes for the following AVPs that are defined in this document. +------------------------------------------------------------------+ | AVP Section | |AVP Name Code Defined Data Type | +------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Dual-Priority TBD 3.1 Grouped | |Preemption-Priority TBD 3.1.1 Unsigned32 | |Defending-Priority TBD 3.1.2 Unsigned32 | |Admission-Priority TBD 3.2 Unsigned32 | |SIP-Resource-Priority TBD 3.3 Grouped | |SIP-Namespace TBD 3.3.1 UTF8String | |SIP-Value TBD 3.3.2 UTF8String | |Application-Level-Resource-Priority TBD 3.4 Grouped | |ALRP-Namespace TBD 3.4.1 Unsigned32 | |ALRP-Value TBD 3.4.2 Unsigned32 | +------------------------------------------------------------------+ 4.2. QoS Profile IANA is requested to allocate a new value from the Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Parameters/QoS Profile registry defined in [RFC5624] for the QoS profile defined in this document. The name of the profile is "Resource priority parameters". The reference is [RFCXXXX] (this document). 5. Security Considerations This document describes the extension of Diameter for conveying Quality of Service information. The security considerations of the Diameter protocol itself have been discussed in RFC 3588 [RFC3588]. Use of the AVPs defined in this document MUST take into consideration the security issues and requirements of the Diameter base protocol. Carlberg & Taylor Expires Jan 8, 2010 [Page 5] Internet Drafts Resource Priority AVPs July 8, 2010 6. Acknowledgements We would like to thank Lionel Morand, Janet Gunn, Piers O'Hanlon for the commenst on the draft, and Lars Eggert, Jan Engelhardt, Francois LeFaucheur, John Loughney, An Nguyen, Dave Oran, James Polk, Martin Stiemerling, and Magnus Westerlund for their help with resolving problems regarding the Admission Priority and the ALRP parameter. 7. References 7.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp] Faucheur, F., Polk, J., and K. Carlberg, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) Extensions for Emergency Services", draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp-14 (work in progress), Nov 2009. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC3181] Herzog, S., "Signaled Preemption Priority Policy Element", RFC 3181, October 2001. [RFC3588] Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J. Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, September 2003. [RFC4124] Le Faucheur, F., "Protocol Extensions for Support of Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4124, June 2005. [RFC4412] Schulzrinne, H. and J. Polk, "Communications Resource Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4412, February 2006. [RFC5624] Korhonen, J., Tschofenig, H., and E. Davies, "Quality of Service Parameters for Usage with Diameter", RFC 5624, Aug 2009. [RFC5866] Sun, D., et. al., "Diameter Quality-of-Service Application", RFC 5866, May 2010. 7.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-nsis-qspec] Bader, A., Kappler, C., and D. Oran, "QoS NSLP QSPEC Carlberg & Taylor Expires Jan 8, 2010 [Page 6] Internet Drafts Resource Priority AVPs July 8, 2010 Template", draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-21 (work in progress), November 2008. [RFC3564] Le Faucheur, F. and W. Lai, "Requirements for Support of Differentiated Services-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 3564, July 2003. Authors' Addresses Ken Carlberg (editor) Tom Taylor G11 Huawei Technologies 1601 Clarendon Dr 1852 Lorraine Ave Arlington, VA 22209 Ottawa United States Canada Email: carlberg@g11.org.uk Email: tom111.taylor@bell.net Carlberg & Taylor Expires Jan 8, 2010 [Page 7]