wdiff draft-ietf-rap-session-auth-03.txt draft-ietf-rap-session-auth-04.txt

RAP Working Group L-N. Hamer
Internet Draft B. Gage
Document: draft-ietf-rap-session-auth-03.txt Nortel Networks

Hugh Shieh
AT&T Wireless

Category: Informational February 2002

FrameworkA new Request for session set-up with media authorization

Status of this Memo

This document is an Internet-Draft and Comments is now available in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 [1].

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-
Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid online RFC libraries.

RFC 3521

Title: Framework 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
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet- Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

The distribution of this memo is unlimited. This memo is filed as
<draft-ietf-rap-session-auth-03.txt>, and expires August 31, 2002.
Please send comments to the authors.

Abstract Session Set-up with Media
Authorization
Author(s): L-N. Hamer, B. Gage, H. Shieh
Status: Informational
Date: April 2003
Mailbox: nhamer@nortelnetworks.com,
gageb@nortelnetworks.com, hugh.shieh@attws.com
Pages: 25
Characters: 59548
Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None

I-D Tag: draft-ietf-rap-session-auth-04.txt

URL: ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3521.txt

Establishing multimedia streams must take into account requirements
for end-to-end QoS, authorization of network resource usage and
accurate accounting for resources used. During session set up,
policies may be enforced to ensure that the media streams being
requested lie within the bounds of the service profile established
for the requesting host. Similarly, when a host requests resources
to provide a certain QoS for a packet flow, policies may be enforced
to ensure that the required resources lie within the bounds of the
resource profile established for the requesting host.

To prevent fraud and to ensure accurate billing, we describe this document
describes various scenarios and mechanisms that provide the linkage
required to verify that the resources being used to provide a
requested QoS are in-line with the media streams requested (and
authorized) for the session.

Framework for session set-up with media authorization
Framework for session set-up with media authorization

Contents

Status of this Memo................................................1
Abstract...........................................................1
Contents...........................................................3
1. Introduction....................................................4
2. Conventions used in this document...............................5
3. Definition of terms.............................................6
4. The Coupled Model...............................................8
4.1 Coupled Model Message Flows..................................8
4.2 Coupled Model Authorization Token...........................10
4.3 Coupled Model Protocol Impacts..............................10
5. The Associated Model <<using One Policy Server>>...............11
5.1 Associated Model Message Flows <<using One Policy Server>>..12
5.2 Associated Model Authorization Token <<using One PS>>.......13
5.3 Associated Model Protocol Impacts <<using One PS>>..........13
5.4 Associated Model Network Impacts <<using One PS>>...........14
6. The Associated Model <<using Two Policy Servers>>..............15
6.1 Associated Model Message Flows <<using Two PS>>.............16
6.2 Associated Model Authorization Token <<using Two PS>>.......17
6.3 Associated Model Protocol Impacts <<using Two PS>>..........18
7. The Non-Associated Model.......................................19
7.1 Non-Associated Model Call Flow..............................19
7.2 Non-Associated Model Authorization Token....................21
7.3 Non-Associated Model Protocol Impacts.......................21
8. Conclusions....................................................22
9. Security Considerations........................................23
References........................................................23
Acknowledgments...................................................24
Authors' Addresses................................................24
Full Copyright Statement..........................................25
Expiration Date...................................................25
Framework for session set-up with media authorization

1. Introduction

Mechanisms have been defined through which end hosts can use a
session control protocol (e.g. SIP [9]) to indicate that QoS
requirements must be met in order to successfully set up a session.
However, a separate protocol (e.g. RSVP [10]) is used to request the
resources required to meet the end-to-end QoS of the media stream.
To prevent fraud and to ensure accurate billing, some linkage is
required to verify that the resources being used to provide the
requested QoS are in-line with the media streams requested (and
authorized) for the session.

This document describes such a linkage through use of a "token" that
provides capabilities similar to that of a gate in [7] and of a
ticket in the push model of [2]. The token is generated by a policy
server (or a session manager) and is transparently relayed through
the end host to the edge router where it is used as part of the
policy-controlled flow admission process.

In some environments, authorization product of media streams can exploit the
fact that pre-established relationships exist between elements of
the network (e.g. session managers, edge routers, policy servers and
end hosts). In other environments, however, such pre-established
relationships may not exist either due to the complexity of creating
these associations a priori (e.g. in a network with many elements),
or due to the different business entities involved (e.g. service
provider and access provider), or due to the dynamic nature Resource Allocation Protocol Working
Group of these
associations (e.g. in a mobile environment).

In this document, we describe these various scenarios and the
mechanisms used for exchanging IETF.

This memo provides information between network elements
in order to authorize the use of resources for a service and to co-
ordinate actions between the session and resource management
entities. Specific extensions to session control protocols (e.g. SIP
[9], H.323), to resource reservation protocols (e.g. RSVP [6],
YESSIR) and to policy managements protocols (e.g. COPS-PR [12],
COPS-RSVP [5]) required to realize these scenarios and mechanisms
are beyond the scope of this document.

Framework for session set-up with media authorization

For clarity, this document will illustrate the media authorization
concepts using SIP for session signalling, RSVP for resource
reservation and COPS for interaction with the policy servers. Note,
however, that the framework could be applied to a multimedia
services scenario using different signalling protocols.

2. 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 RFC-2119 [1].

Framework for session set-up with media authorization

3. Definition of terms

Figure 1 introduces a generic model for session establishment, QoS
and policy enforcement.

+-------------------------------------+ +---+
| SCD - Service Control District | | |
| +-----------------------+ +--------+| | I |
| |Session management | |Policy || | n |
| |server | |Server || | t |
| | +---------+ +------+ | | +----+||<->| e |
| | |SIP Proxy| |PEP |<-|-|->|PDP ||| | r |
| | +---------+ +------+ | | +----+|| | - |
| +-----------------------+ +--------+| | c |
| | | o |
+-------------------------------------+ | n |
| n |
+-------------------------------------+ | e |
| RCD - Resource Control District | | c |
| | | t |
| | | i |
| +------------+ +-------------+ | | n |
+----------+ | |Edge Router | |Policy Server| | | g |
| End | | | | | | | | |
| Host | | |+----------+| |+----------+ | | | N |
|+--------+| | ||RSVP Agent|| ||PDP | | | | e |
||RSVP ||<->| |+----------+|<-->|+----------+ | |<->| t |
||Client || | |+----------+| | | | | w |
|+--------+| | || PEP || | | | | o |
||SIP User|| | |+----------+| | | | | r |
||Agent || | +------------+ +-------------+ | | k |
|+--------+| | | | |
+----------+ +-------------------------------------+ +---+

Figure 1: Generic media authorization network model

EH - End Host: The End Host is a device used by a subscriber to
access network services. The End Host includes a client for
requesting network services (e.g. through SIP) and a client for
requesting network resources (e.g. through RSVP).

ER - Edge Router: The Edge Router is a network element connecting
the end host to the rest of the Resource Control District. The Edge
Router contains a PEP to enforce policies related to resource usage
in the Resource Control District by the End Host. Internet community. It also contains a
signalling agent (e.g. for RSVP) for handling resource reservation
requests from the End Host.

Framework for session set-up with media authorization

PDP - Policy Decision Point: The PDP is a logical entity located in
the Policy Server that is responsible for authorizing or denying
access to services and/or resources.

PEP - Policy Enforcement Point: The PEP is a logical entity that
enforces policy decisions made by the PDP. Note that other PEPs may
reside in other network elements not shown in the model of Figure 1,
however they will does
not be discussed in this document.

PS - Policy Server: The Policy Server is a network element that
includes a PDP. Note that there may be a PS in the Service Control
District to control use of services and there may be a separate PS
in the Resource Control District to control use of resources along
the packet forwarding path. Note also that network topology may
require multiple Policy Servers within either district, however they
provide consistent policy decisions to offer the appearance of a
single PDP in each district.

RCD - Resource Control District: The Resource Control District is a
logical grouping of elements that provide connectivity along the
packet forwarding paths to and from specify an End Host. The RCD contains ER
and PS entities whose responsibilities include management of
resources along the packet forwarding paths.

SCD - Service Control District: The Service Control District is a
logical grouping of elements that offer applications and content to
subscribers of their services. The Session Management Server resides
in the SCD along with a PS.

SMS - Session Management Server: The Session Management Server is a
network element providing session management services (e.g.
telephony call control). The Session Management Server contains a
PEP to enforce policies related to use of services by the End Host.
It also contains a signalling agent or proxy (e.g. for SIP) for
handling service requests from the End Host.

Framework for session set-up with media authorization

4. The Coupled Model

In some environments, a pre-established trust relationship exists
between elements of the network (e.g. session managers, edge
routers, policy servers and end hosts). We refer to this as the
"coupled model", indicating the tight relationship between entities
that is presumed. The key aspects of this scenario are the
following:

- Policy decisions, including media authorization, are made by a
single Policy Server.

- The Edge Router, Session Manager and Policy Server involved in
establishing the session are known a priori. For example, the End
Host may be configured to use a Session Manager associated with
the Edge Router to which the EH is connected.

- There are pre-defined trust relationships between the SMS and the
PS and between the ER and the PS.

+--------+
+------+ | |
| | 1 +--------------------+ 2 | |
| |-------->| Session Management |----->| |
| |<--------| Server |<-----| |
| | 4 +--------------------+ 3 | |
| End | | Policy |
| Host | | Server |
| | | |
| | 5 +--------------------+ 6 | |
| |-------->| Edge |----->| |
| |<--------| Router |<-----| |
| | 8 +--------------------+ 7 | |
+------+ | |
+--------+

Figure 2: The Coupled Model

4.1 Coupled Model Message Flows

In this model, it is assumed that there is one Policy Server serving
both the Service Control and Resource Control districts and that
there are pre-defined trust relationships between the PS and SMS and
between the PS and ER. Communications between these entities are
then possible as described below. Only the originating side flows
are described for simplicity. The same concepts apply to the
terminating side.

Framework for session set-up with media authorization

1. The End Host issues a session set-up request (e.g. SIP INVITE) to
the Session Manager indicating, among other things, the media
streams to be used in the session. As part of this step, the End
Host may authenticate itself to the Session Manager.

2. The Session Manager, possibly after waiting for negotiation of
the media streams to be completed, sends a policy decision
request (e.g. COPS REQ) to the Policy Server in order to
determine if the session set-up request should be allowed to
proceed.

3. The Policy Server sends a decision (e.g. COPS DEC) to the Session
Manager, possibly after modifying the parameters of the media to
be used. Included in this response is a "token" that can
subsequently be used by the Policy Server to identify the session
and the media it has authorized.

4. The Session Manager sends a response to the End Host (e.g. SIP
200 or 183) indicating that session set-up is complete or is
progressing. Included in this response is a description of the
negotiated media along with the token from the Policy Server.

5. The End Host issues a request (e.g. RSVP PATH) to reserve the
resources necessary to provide the required QoS for the media
stream. Included in this request is the token from the Policy
Server provided via the Session Manager.

6. The Edge Router intercepts the reservation request and sends a
policy decision request (e.g. COPS REQ) to the Policy Server in
order to determine if the resource reservation request should be
allowed to proceed. Included in this request is the token from
the Policy Server provided by the End Host. The Policy Server
uses this token to correlate the request for resources with the
media authorization previously provided to the Session Manager.

7. The Policy Server sends a decision (e.g. COPS DEC) to the Edge
Router, possibly after modifying the parameters Internet standard of the resources
to be reserved.

8. The Edge Router, possibly after waiting for end-to-end
negotiation for resources to be completed, sends a response to
the End Host (e.g. RSVP RESV) indicating that resource
reservation is complete or is progressing.

Framework for session set-up with media authorization

4.2 Coupled Model Authorization Token

In the Coupled Model, the Policy Server is the only network entity
that needs to interpret the contents any kind. Distribution of the token. Therefore, in this model, the contents of the token are implementation dependent.
Since the End Host is assumed to be untrusted, the Policy Server
should take measures to ensure that the integrity of the token
memo is
preserved in transit; the exact mechanisms to be used are also
implementation dependent.

4.3 Coupled Model Protocol Impacts

The use of a media authorization token in the Coupled Model requires
the addition of new fields to several protocols:

- Resource reservation protocol. A new protocol field or object
must be added to the resource reservation protocol to
transparently transport the token from the End Host to the Edge
Router. The content and internal structure (if any) of this
object should be opaque to the resource reservation protocol. For
example, this unlimited.

This announcement is achieved in RSVP with the Policy Data object
defined in [11].

- Policy management protocol. A new protocol field or object must
be added to the policy management protocol to transparently
transport the token from the Policy Server sent to the Session
Management Server IETF list and from the Edge Router RFC-DIST list.
Requests to the Policy Server.
The content and internal structure (if any) of this object should
be opaque to the policy management protocol. For example, this is
achieved in COPS-RSVP with the Policy Data object defined in
[11].

- Session management protocol. A new protocol field or object must be added to the session management protocol to transparently
transport the media authorization token from the Session
Management Server to the End Host. The content and internal
structure (if any) of this object should be opaque to the session
management protocol.

Framework for session set-up with media authorization

5. The Associated Model <<using One Policy Server>>

In this scenario, there are multiple instances of the Session
Management Servers, Edge Routers and Policy Servers. This leads to a
network of sufficient complexity that it precludes distributing
knowledge of network topology to all network entities. The key
aspects of this scenario are the following:

- Policy decisions, including media authorization, are made by the
same Policy Server for both the Session Manager and the Edge
Router. However, the Policy Server may change on per-transaction
basis.

- The Edge Router, Session Manager and Policy Server involved in
establishing the session are not known a priori. For example, the
End Host may be dynamically configured to use one of a pool of
Session Managers and each of the Session Managers may be
statically configured to use one of a pool of Policy Servers.

In another example, the End Host may be mobile and continually
changing the Edge Router that its point of attachment uses to
communicate with the rest of the network.

- There are pre-defined trust relationships between the SMS and the
PS and between the ER and the PS.

+---------------------+ +---------+
| SMS 'n' |<-->| PS 'm' |
+---------------------+ +--------+ |
+------+ : : : | | |
| | 1 +--------------------+ 2 | | |
| |-------->| Session Management |----->| | |
| |<--------| Server 1 |<-----| | |
| | 4 +--------------------+ 3 | | |
| End | | Policy | |
| Host | +--------------------+ | Server | |
| | | ER 'n' | | 1 | |
| | 5 +-+------------------+ | | | |
| |-------->| Edge |-+ 6 | | |
| |<--------| Router |----->| | |
| | 8 +--------------------+ 7 | | |
+------+ <-----| |-+
+--------+

Figure 3: The Associated Model using One Policy Server
Framework for session set-up with media authorization

5.1 Associated Model Message Flows <<using One Policy Server>>

In this model, it is assumed that a Policy Server can make decisions
for both the Service Control and Resource Control districts and that
there are pre-defined trust relationships between the PS and SMS and
between the PS and ER. Communications between these entities are
then possible as described below. Only the originating side flows
are described for simplicity. The same concepts apply to the
terminating side.

6. The Edge Router intercepts the reservation request and inspects
the token to learn which Policy Server authorized the media. It
then sends a policy decision request to that Policy Server in
order to determine if the resource reservation request should be
allowed to proceed. Included in this request is the token from
the Policy Server provided by the End Host. The Policy Server
uses this token to correlate the request for resources with the
media authorization previously provided to the Session Manager.

7. The Policy Server sends a decision to the Edge Router, possibly
after modifying the parameters of the resources to be reserved.

Framework for session set-up with media authorization

5.2 Associated Model Authorization Token <<using One Policy Server>>

Since the ER does not know which SMS and PS are involved in session
establishment, the token must include:

- A correlation identifier. This is information that the Policy
Server can use to correlate the resource reservation request with
the media authorized during session set up. The Policy Server is
the only network entity that needs to interpret the contents of
the correlation identifier therefore, in this model, the contents
of the correlation identifier are implementation dependent. Since
the End Host is assumed to be untrusted, the Policy Server should
take measures to ensure that the integrity of the correlation
identifier is preserved in transit; the exact mechanisms to be
used are also implementation dependent.

- The identity of the authorizing entity. This information is used
by the Edge Router to determine which Policy Server should be
used to solicit resource policy decisions.

In some environments, an Edge Router may have no means for
determining if the identity refers to a legitimate Policy Server
within its domain. In order to protect against redirection of
authorization requests to a bogus authorizing entity, the token IETF distribution list
should also include:

- An authentication signature. This signature is calculated over
all other fields of the token using an agreed mechanism. The Edge
Router must be able sent to verify the signature using credentials of
the signer IETF-REQUEST@IETF.ORG. Requests to confirm a trust relationship. The mechanism used by
the Edge Router is beyond the scope of this document.

The detailed semantics of an example token are defined in [6].

5.3 Associated Model Protocol Impacts <<using One Policy Server>>

The use of a media authorization token in this version of the
Associated Model requires the addition of new fields to several
protocols:

Router. The content and internal structure of this object must be
specified so that the Edge Router can distinguish between the
elements of the token described in Section 5.2. For example, this
is achieved in RSVP with the Policy Data object defined in [11].

- Policy management protocol. A new protocol field or object must be
added to the policy management protocol to transparently
transport the token -- or at least the correlation identifier -- deleted from the Edge Router to the Policy Server. The content and
internal structure of this object should be opaque to the policy
management protocol. For example, this is achieved in COPS-RSVP
with the Policy Data object defined in [11].

- Session management protocol. A new protocol field or object must
be added to the session management protocol to transparently
transport the media authorization token from the Session
Management Server to the End Host. The content and internal
structure of this object RFC-DIST distribution list should
be opaque to the session
management protocol.

5.4 Associated Model Network Impacts <<using One Policy Server>>

The use of a media authorization token in this version of the
Associated Model requires that the Edge Router inspect the token to
learn which Policy Server authorized the media. In some
environments, it may not be possible for the Edge Router sent to perform
this function; in these cases, an Associated Model using Two Policy
Servers (section 6) is required.

This version of the Associated Model also requires that the Edge
Router interact with multiple Policy Servers. Policy decisions are
made by the same Policy Server for both the Session Manager and the
Edge Router, however the Policy Server may change RFC-DIST-REQUEST@RFC-EDITOR.ORG.

Details on per-transaction
basis. Note that COPS does not currently allow PEPs to change PDP on
a per-transaction basis. To use this model, a new framework and
protocol must be defined for policy decision outsourcing. This model
also implies that the Policy Servers are able to interact and/or
make decisions for the Edge Router in a consistent manner (e.g. as
though there is only a single RCD Policy Server). How this is
accomplished is beyond the scope of this document.

Framework for session set-up with media authorization

6. The Associated Model <<using Two Policy Servers>>

- Policy decisions, including media authorization, are made by
Policy Servers.

- There is a PS in the Resource Control District that is separate
from the PS in the Session Control District.

- The Edge Router, Session Manager and Policy Servers involved in
establishing the session are not known a priori. For example, the
End Host may be dynamically configured to use one of a pool of
Session Managers or the End Host may be mobile and continually
changing the Edge Router that it uses to communicate with the
rest of the network.

- There is a pre-defined trust relationship between the SMS and the
SCD PS.

- There is a pre-defined trust relationship between the ER and the
RCD PS.

- There is a pre-defined trust relationship between the RCD and SCD
Policy Servers.

+--------------------+ +--------+
+------+ | SMS �n� | | |
| | 1 +-+------------------+ | | SCD |
| |-------->| Session Management |-+ 2 | Policy |
| |<--------| Server |----->| Server |
| | 4 +--------------------+<-----| |
| End | 3 +--------+
| | 7 ^ |
| Host | +--------------------+ | v 8
| | | ER 'n' | +--------+
| | 5 +-+------------------+ | | |
| |-------->| Edge |-+ 6 | RCD |
| |<--------| Router |----->| Policy |
| | 10 +--------------------+<--- -| Server |
+------+ 9 | |
+--------+

Figure 4: The Associated Model using Two Policy Servers
Framework for session set-up with media authorization

6.1 Associated Model Message Flows <<using Two Policy Servers>>

In this model, it is assumed that there is one Policy Server for the
Service Control District and a different Policy Server for the
Resource Control District. There are pre-defined trust relationships
between the SCD PS and SMS, between the RCD PS and ER and between
the RCD and SCD Policy Servers. Communications between these
entities are then possible as described below. Only the originating
side flows are described for simplicity. The same concepts apply to
the terminating side.

2. The Session Manager, possibly after waiting for negotiation of
the media streams to be completed, sends a policy decision
request (e.g. COPS REQ) to the SCD Policy Server in order to
determine if the session set-up request should be allowed to
proceed.

3. The SCD Policy Server sends a decision (e.g. COPS DEC) to the
Session Manager, possibly after modifying the parameters of the
media to be used. Included in this response is a "token" that can
subsequently be used by the SCD Policy Server to identify the
session and the media it has authorized.

5. The End Host issues a request (e.g. RSVP PATH) to reserve the
resources necessary to provide the required QoS for the media
stream. Included in this request is the token from the SCD Policy
Server provided obtaining RFCs via the Session Manager.

6. The Edge Router intercepts the reservation request and sends a
policy decision request (e.g. COPS REQ) to the RCD Policy Server
in order to determine if the resource reservation request should
be allowed to proceed. Included in this request is the token from
the SCD Policy Server provided by the End Host.

7. The RCD Policy Server uses this token to learn which SCD Policy
Server authorized the media. It then sends an authorization
request [3] to that SCD Policy Server in order to determine if
the resource reservation request should be allowed to proceed.
Included in this request is the token from the SCD Policy Server
provided by the End Host.

Framework for session set-up with media authorization

8. The SCD Policy Server uses this token to correlate the request
for resources with the media authorization previously provided to
the Session Manager. The SCD Policy Server sends a decision [3]
to the RCD Policy Server on whether the requested resources are
within the bounds authorized by the SCD Policy Server.

9. The RCD Policy Server sends a decision (e.g. COPS DEC) to the
Edge Router, possibly after modifying the parameters of the
resources to be reserved.

10. The Edge Router, possibly after waiting for end-to-end
negotiation for resources to be completed, sends a response to
the End Host (e.g. RSVP RESV) indicating that resource
reservation is complete FTP or is progressing

6.2 Associated Model Authorization Token <<using Two Policy Servers>>

Since the RCD Policy Server does not know which SMS and SCD PS are
involved in session establishment, the token must include:

- A correlation identifier. This is information that the SCD Policy
Server can use to correlate the resource reservation request with
the media authorized during session set up. The SCD Policy Server
is the only network entity that needs to interpret the contents
of the correlation identifier therefore, in this model, the
contents of the correlation identifier are implementation
dependent. Since the End Host is assumed to be untrusted, the SCD
Policy Server should take measures to ensure that the integrity
of the correlation identifier is preserved in transit; the exact
mechanisms to be used are also implementation dependent.

- The identity of the authorizing entity. This information is used
by the RCD Policy Server to determine which SCD Policy Server
should be used to verify the contents of the resource reservation
request.

In some environments, an RCD Policy Server EMAIL may have no means for
determining if the identity refers to a legitimate SCD Policy
Server. In order to protect against redirection of authorization
requests to a bogus authorizing entity, the token should include:

- An authentication signature. This signature is calculated over
all other fields of the token using an agreed mechanism. The RCD
Policy Server must be able to verify the signature using
credentials of the signer to confirm a trust relationship. The
mechanism used obtained by the RCD Policy Server is beyond the scope of
this document.

Framework for session set-up with media authorization

Note that the information in this token is the same as that in
Section 5.2 for the "One Policy Server" scenario.

The detailed semantics of sending
an example token are defined in [6].

6.3 Associated Model Protocol Impacts <<using Two Policy Servers>>

The use of a media authorization token in this version of the
Associated Model requires the addition of new fields EMAIL message to several
protocols:

- Resource reservation protocol. A new protocol field or object
must be added to the resource reservation protocol to
transparently transport the token from the End Host to the Edge
Router. The content and internal structure of this object should
be opaque to the resource reservation protocol. For example, this
is achieved in RSVP rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG with the Policy Data object defined in [11].

- Policy management protocol. A new protocol field or object must
be added to the policy management protocol to transport the token
from the SCD Policy Server to the Session Management Server and
from the Edge Router to the RCD Policy Server. The content and
internal structure of this object must be specified so that the
Policy Servers can distinguish between the elements of the token
described in Section 6.2. message body
help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example, this is achieved in COPS-
RSVP with the Policy Data object defined in [11].

- Session management protocol. A new protocol field or object must
be added to the session management protocol to transparently
transport the media authorization token from the Session
Management Server to the End Host. The content and internal
structure of this object should be opaque to the session
management protocol.

Note that these impacts are the same as those discussed in Section
5.3 for the "One Policy Server" scenario. However the use of two
Policy Servers has one additional impact:

- Authorization protocol. A new protocol field or object must be
added to the authorization protocol to transport the token from
the RCD Policy Server to the SCD Policy Server. The content and
internal structure of this object must be specified so that the
Policy Servers can distinguish between the elements of the token
described in Section 6.2.

Framework example:

To: rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG
Subject: getting rfcs

help: ways_to_get_rfcs

Requests for session set-up with media authorization

7. The Non-Associated Model

In this scenario, the Session Management Servers and Edge Routers
are associated with different Policy Servers, the network entities
do not have a priori knowledge of the topology of the network and
there are no pre-established trust relationships between entities in
the Resource Control District and entities in the Service Control
District. The keys aspects of this scenario are the following:

- Policy decisions, including media authorization, are made by
Policy Servers.

- The PS in the Resource Control District is separate from the PS
in the Session Control District.

- There is a pre-defined trust relationship between the SMS and the
SCD PS.

- There is a pre-defined trust relationship between the ER and the
RCD PS.

- There are no pre-defined trust relationships between the ER and
SMS or between the RCD and SCD Policy Servers.

+--------+
+------+ | |
| | 1 +--------------------+ 2 | SCD |
| |-------->| Session Management |----->| Policy |
| |<--------| Server |<-----| Server |
| | 4 +--------------------+ 3 | |
| End | +--------+
| Host |
| | +--------+
| | 5 +--------------------+ 6 | |
| |-------->| Edge |----->| RCD |
| |<--------| Router |<-----| Policy |
| | 8 +--------------------+ 7 | Server |
+------+ | |
+--------+

Figure 5: The Non-Associated Model

7.1 Non-Associated Model Call Flow

In this model it is assumed that the policy servers make independent
decisions for their respective districts, obviating the need for
information exchange between policy servers. This model also enables
Framework for session set-up with media authorization

session authorization when communication between policy servers is
not possible for various reasons. It may also be used as a means to
speed up session setup and still ensure proper authorization is
performed.

This model does not preclude the possibility that the policy servers
may communicate at other times for other purposes (e.g. exchange of
accounting information).

Communications between network entities in this model is described
below. Only the originating side flows are described for simplicity.
The same concepts apply to the terminating side.

3. The SCD Policy Server sends a decision (e.g. COPS DEC) addressed to either the
Session Manager, possibly after modifying the parameters
author of the
media to be used. Included RFC in this response is a "token" that can
subsequently be used by the RCD Policy Server to determine what
media has been authorized.

4. The Session Manager sends a response to the End Host (e.g. SIP
200 question, or 183) indicating that session set-up is complete or is
progressing. Included in this response is a description of the
negotiated media along with the token from the SCD Policy Server.

7. The RCD Policy Server uses this token to extract information
about the media that was authorized by the SCD Policy Server. The
RCD Policy Server uses this information in making its decision RFC-Manager@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Unless
specifically noted otherwise on
whether the resource reservation should be allowed to proceed.

Framework for session set-up with media authorization

The Policy Server sends a decision (e.g. COPS DEC) to the Edge
Router, possibly after modifying the parameters of the resources
to be reserved.

7.2 Non-Associated Model Authorization Token

In this model, the token must contain sufficient information to
allow the RCD Policy Server to make resource policy decisions
autonomously from the SCD Policy Server. The token is created using
information about the session received by the SMS. The information
in the token must include:

- Calling party IP address and port number (e.g. from SDP "c="
parameter).

- Called party IP address and port number (e.g. from SDP "c="
parameter).

- The characteristics of (each of) the media stream(s) authorized
for this session (e.g. codecs, maximum bandwidth from SDP "m="
and/or "b=" parameters).

- The lifetime of (each of) the media stream(s) (e.g. from SDP "t="
parameter).

- The authorization lifetime (e.g. the token should be valid for
only a few seconds after the start time of the session).

- The identity of the authorizing entity to allow for validation of
the token.

- An authentication signature used to prevent tampering with the
token and to provide the credentials of the authorizing entity.
This signature is calculated over RFC itself, all other fields of the token
using an agreed mechanism. The RCD Policy Server must be able to
verify the signature using credentials of the signer to confirm a
trust relationship. The mechanism used by the RCD Policy Server
is beyond the scope of this document.

The detailed semantics of the token RFCs are defined in [6].

7.3 Non-Associated Model Protocol Impacts
Framework for session set-up with media authorization

The use of a media authorization token in the Non-Associated Model
requires the addition of new fields to several protocols:

- Resource reservation protocol. A new protocol field or object
must be added to the resource reservation protocol to
transparently transport the token from the End Host to the Edge
Router. The content and internal structure of this object should
be opaque to the resource reservation protocol. For example, this
is achieved in RSVP with the Policy Data object defined in [11].

- Policy management protocol. A new protocol field or object must
be added to the policy management protocol to transport the token
from the SCD Policy Server to the Session Management Server and
from the Edge Router to the RCD Policy Server. The content and
internal structure of this object must be specified so that the
Policy Servers can distinguish between the elements of the token
described in Section 7.2. For example, this is achieved in COPS-
RSVP with the Policy Data object defined in [11].

- Session management protocol. A new protocol field or object must
be added to the session management protocol to transparently
transport the media authorization token from the Session
Management Server to the End Host. The content and internal
structure of this object should be opaque to the session
management protocol.

8. Conclusions

In this document we have defined three models
unlimited distribution.echo
Submissions for authorizing media
during session establishment:

- The Coupled Model which assumes a priori knowledge of network
topology and where pre-established trust relationships exist
between network entities.

- The Associated Model where there are common or trusted policy
servers but knowledge of the network topology is not known a
priori.

- The Non-Associated Model where knowledge of the network topology
is not known a priori, where there are different policy servers
involved and where a trust relationship does not exist between
the policy servers.

The Associated Model is applicable to environments where the network
elements involved in establishing a session have a pre-determined
trust relationship but where their identities must be determined
dynamically during session set up. The Non-Associated Model is
applicable to environments where there is a complex network topology
Framework Requests for session set-up with media authorization

and/or where trust relationships between domains do not exist (e.g.
when they are different business entities).

In any given network, one or more of these models may be applicable.
Indeed, the model to be used may Comments should be chosen dynamically during
session establishment based on knowledge of the end points involved
in the call. In all cases, however, there is no need for the End
Host, the Edge Router or the Session Management Server to understand
or interpret the authorization token - to them it is an opaque
protocol element that is simply copied from one container protocol
to another.

Finally, the framework defined in this document is extensible sent to any
kind of session management protocol coupled to any one of a number
of resource reservation and/or policy management protocols.

9. Security Considerations

The purpose of this draft is to describe a mechanism for media
authorization to prevent theft of service. It does not cover other
possible security breaches such as IP spoofing.

This draft assumes that trust relationships exist between various
network entities, as described in each of the models. The means for
establishing these relationships are beyond the scope of this
document.

For the authorization token to be effective, its integrity must be
guaranteed as it passes through untrusted network entities such as
the End Host. This can be achieved by using digital signatures.

References

[1] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3",
BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

[2] J. Vollbrecht et al., "AAA Authorization Framework", RFC 2904,
August 2000.

[3] C. de Laat et al., "Generic AAA Architecture", RFC 2903, August
2000.

[4] D. Durham et al., "The COPS (Common Open Policy Service)
Protocol", RFC 2748, January 2000.

[5] S. Herzog et al., "COPS usage for RSVP", RFC 2749, January
2000.

Framework for session set-up with media authorization

[6] L. Hamer et al. "Session Authorization for RSVP", Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-rap-rsvp-authsession-02.txt, February 2002,
Work in progress.

[7] "PacketCable Dynamic Quality of Service Specification",
CableLabs, December 1999.
http://www.packetcable.com/specs/pkt-sp-dqos-I01-991201.pdf

[8] M. Handley and V. Jacobson, "SDP: session description
protocol," RFC 2327, Apr.1998.

[9] Handley, Schulzrinne, Schooler & Rosenberg, RFC 2543, "SIP:
Session Initiation Protocol", March 1999.

[10] R. Braden et al.,"Resource ReSerVation protocol (RSVP) --
version 1 functional specification," RFC 2205, Sept.1997.

[11] Herzog, S., "RSVP Extensions for Policy Control", RFC 2750,
January 2000.

[12] K. Chan et al., "COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning ( COPS-PR
)",
RFC-EDITOR@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Please consult RFC 3084, March 2001.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank 2223, Instructions to following people for their useful
comments and suggestions related to this draft: Kwok Ho Chan, Doug
Reeves, Sam Christie, Matt Broda, Yajun Liu, Brett Kosinski,
Francois Audet, Bill Marshall, Diana Rawlins.

Authors' Addresses

Louis-Nicolas Hamer
Nortel Networks
Ottawa, ON
CANADA
Email: nhamer@nortelnetworks.com

Bill Gage
Nortel Networks
Ottawa, ON
CANADA
Email: gageb@nortelnetworks.com

Hugh Shieh
AT&T Wireless
Redmond, WA
USA
Email: hugh.shieh@attws.com
Framework for session set-up with media authorization

Full Copyright Statement

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. This
document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
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 RFC
Authors, for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into.

Expiration Date

This memo is filed as <draft-ietf-rap-session-auth-03.txt>, and
expires August 31, 2002. further information.