idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-03.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (You're using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b License Notice from 12 Feb 2009 rather than one of the newer Notices. See https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/.) No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There are 57 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 4 characters in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- Couldn't find a document date in the document -- date freshness check skipped. Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp-14 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3588 (Obsoleted by RFC 6733) Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Diameter Maintenance and K. Carlberg, Ed. 3 Extensions (DIME) G11 4 Internet-Draft T. Taylor 5 Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies 6 October, 2010 8 Diameter Priority Attribute Value Pairs 9 draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-03.txt 11 Status of this Memo 13 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the 14 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 16 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task 17 Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working 18 documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at 19 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 21 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 22 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 23 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material 24 or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 26 Copyright Notice 28 Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document 29 authors. All rights reserved. 31 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions 32 Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of publication of this 33 document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). Please review these 34 documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with 35 respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document 36 must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 37 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 38 described in the Simplified BSD License. 40 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions 41 Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in 42 effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these 43 documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with 44 respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document 45 must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 46 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 47 described in the Simplified BSD License. 49 Abstract 51 This document defines Attribute-Value Pair (AVP) containers for various 52 priority parameters for use with Diameter and the AAA framework. The 53 parameters themselves are defined in several different protocols that 54 operate at either the network or application layer. 56 1. Introduction 58 This document defines a number of Attribute-Value Pairs (AVP) that can 59 be used within the Diameter protocol [RFC3588] to convey a specific set 60 of priority parameters. These parameters are specified in other 61 documents, but are briefly described below. The corresponding AVPs 62 defined in Section 3 are an extension to those defined in [RFC5866]. 64 Priority influences the distribution of resources. This influence may 65 be probabilistic, ranging between (but not including) 0% and 100%, or it 66 may be in the form of a guarantee to either receive or not receive the 67 resource. 69 The influence attributed to prioritization may also affect QoS, but it 70 is not to be confused with QoS. As an example, if packets of two or more 71 flows are contending for the same shared resources, prioritization helps 72 determine which packet receives the resource. However, this allocation 73 of resource does not correlate directly to any specific delay or loss 74 bounds that have been associated with the packet. 76 Another example of how prioritization can be realized is articulated in 77 Appendix A.3 (the priority by-pass model) of 78 [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp]. In this case, prioritized flows may 79 gain access to resources that are never shared with non-prioritized 80 flows. 82 1.1 Other Priority-Related AVPs 84 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) has defined several Diameter 85 AVPs that support prioritization of sessions. The following AVPs are 86 intended to be used for priority services (e.g., Multimedia Priority 87 Service): 89 - Reservation-Priority AVP as defined in [ETSI] 90 - AF-Application-Identifier AVP as defined in [3GPPa] 91 - Priority-Level AVP (as part of the Allocation Retention Priority AVP) 92 as defined in [3GPPb] 93 - Session-Priority AVP as defined in [3GPPc][3GPPd] 95 Both the Reservation-Priority AVP and the Priority-Level AVP can carry a 96 priority level associated with a session initiated by a user. We note 97 that these AVPs are defined from the allotment set aside for 3GPP for 98 Diameter-based interfaces. 3GPP has also defined other priority 99 information for use on non-Diameter based interfaces. However, this 100 work is not relevant to the present document. The AVPs defined by 3GPP 101 are to be viewed as private implementations operating within a walled 102 garden. 104 2. Terminology and Abbreviations 106 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 107 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 108 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [RFC2119]. 110 3. Priority Parameter Encoding 112 This section defines a set of priority AVPs. This set is for use with 113 the DIAMETER QoS application [RFC5866] and represents a continuation of 114 the list of AVPs defined in [RFC5624]. The syntax notation used is that 115 of [RFC3588]. 117 3.1. Dual-Priority AVP 119 The Dual-Priority AVP is a grouped AVP consisting of two AVPs; the 120 Preemption-Priority and the Defending-Priority AVP. These AVPs are 121 derived from the corresponding priority fields specified in the Signaled 122 Preemption Priority Policy Element [RFC3181] of RSVP [RFC2205]. The 123 Defending-Priority is set when the reservation has been admitted. The 124 Preemption-Priority of a newly requested reservation is compared with 125 the Defending Priority of a previously admitted flow. The actions taken 126 based upon the result of this comparison are a function of local policy. 128 Dual-Priority ::= < AVP Header: TBD > 129 { Preemption-Priority } 130 { Defending-Priority } 132 3.1.1. Preemption-Priority AVP 134 The Preemption-Priority AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32. 135 Higher values represent higher priority. The value encoded in this AVP 136 is the same as the preemption priority value that would be encoded in 137 the signaled preemption priority policy element. 139 3.1.2. Defending-Priority AVP 141 The Defending-Priority AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32. Higher 142 values represent higher priority. The value encoded in this AVP is the 143 same as the defending priority value that would be encoded in the 144 signaled preemption priority policy element. 146 3.2. Admission-Priority AVP 148 The Admission-Priority AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32. The 149 admission priority of the flow is used to increase the probability of 150 session establishment for selected flows. Higher values represent 151 higher priority. A given admission priority is encoded in this 152 information element using the same value as when encoded in the 153 admission priority parameter defined in Section 5.1 of 154 [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp]. 156 3.3. SIP-Resource-Priority AVP 158 The SIP-Resource-Priority AVP is a grouped AVP consisting of two AVPs, 159 the SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace and the SIP-Resource- Priority-Value 160 AVP, which are derived from the corresponding optional header fields in 161 [rfc4412]. 163 SIP-Resource-Priority ::= < AVP Header: TBD > 164 { SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace } 165 { SIP-Resource-Priority-Value } 167 3.3.1. SIP-Namespace AVP 169 The SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type 170 UTF8String. This AVP contains a string that identifies a unique ordered 171 set of priority values as described in [rfc4412]. 173 3.3.2 SIP-Resource-Priority-Value AVP 175 The SIP-Resource-Priority-Value AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type 176 UTF8String. This AVP contains a string that identifies a specific 177 priority value within the set identified by the 178 SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace AVP, as described in [rfc4412]. 180 3.4. Application-Level-Resource-Priority AVP 182 The Application-Level-Resource-Priority (ALRP) AVP is a grouped AVP 183 consisting of two AVPs, the ALRP-Namespace AVP and the ALRP-Value AVP. 185 Application-Level-Resource-Priority ::= < AVP Header: TBD > 186 { ALRP-Namespace } 187 { ALRP-Value } 189 A description of the semantics of the parameter values can be found in 190 [RFC4412] and in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp]. The registry set up 191 by [RFC4412] provided string values for both the priority namespace and 192 the priority values associated with that namespace. 193 [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp] modifies that registry to assign 194 numerical values to both the namespace identifiers and the priority 195 values within them. Consequently, SIP-Resource-Priority and 196 Application-Level-Resource-Priority AVPs convey the same priority 197 semantics, but with differing syntax. In the former case, an 198 alpha-numeric encoding is used, while the latter case is constrained to 199 a numeric-only value. 201 3.4.1. ALRP-Namespace AVP 203 The ALRP-Namespace AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32. This AVP 204 contains a numerical value identifying the namespace of the 205 application-level resource priority as described in 206 [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp]. 208 3.4.2. ALRP-Value AVP 210 The ALRP-Priority AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32. This AVP 211 contains the priority value within the ALRP-Namespace, as described in 212 [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp]. 214 4. IANA Considerations 216 4.1. AVP Codes 218 IANA is requested to allocate AVP codes for the following AVPs that are 219 defined in this document. 221 +------------------------------------------------------------------+ 222 | AVP Section | 223 |AVP Name Code Defined Data Type | 224 +------------------------------------------------------------------+ 225 |Dual-Priority TBD 3.1 Grouped | 226 |Preemption-Priority TBD 3.1.1 Unsigned32 | 227 |Defending-Priority TBD 3.1.2 Unsigned32 | 228 |Admission-Priority TBD 3.2 Unsigned32 | 229 |SIP-Resource-Priority TBD 3.3 Grouped | 230 |SIP-Namespace TBD 3.3.1 UTF8String | 231 |SIP-Value TBD 3.3.2 UTF8String | 232 |Application-Level-Resource-Priority TBD 3.4 Grouped | 233 |ALRP-Namespace TBD 3.4.1 Unsigned32 | 234 |ALRP-Value TBD 3.4.2 Unsigned32 | 235 +------------------------------------------------------------------+ 237 4.2. QoS Profile 239 IANA is requested to allocate a new value from the Authentication, 240 Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Parameters/QoS Profile registry 241 defined in [RFC5624] for the QoS profile defined in this document. The 242 name of the profile is "Resource priority parameters". 244 5. Security Considerations 246 This document describes the extension of Diameter for conveying Quality 247 of Service information. The security considerations of the Diameter 248 protocol itself have been discussed in RFC 3588 [RFC3588]. Use of the 249 AVPs defined in this document MUST take into consideration the security 250 issues and requirements of the Diameter base protocol. 252 6. Acknowledgements 254 We would like to thank Lionel Morand, Janet Gunn, Piers O'Hanlon for the 255 comments on the draft, and Lars Eggert, Jan Engelhardt, Francois 256 LeFaucheur, John Loughney, An Nguyen, Dave Oran, James Polk, Martin 257 Stiemerling, and Magnus Westerlund for their help with resolving 258 problems regarding the Admission Priority and the ALRP parameter. 260 7. References 262 7.1. Normative References 264 [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp] 265 Faucheur, F., Polk, J., and K. Carlberg, "Resource 266 ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) Extensions for Emergency 267 Services", draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp-14 (work in 268 progress), Nov 2009. 270 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 271 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 273 [RFC2205] Braden, B., et. al., "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) 274 -- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 275 1997 277 [RFC3181] Herzog, S., "Signaled Preemption Priority Policy Element", 278 RFC 3181, October 2001. 280 [RFC3588] Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J. 281 Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, September 2003. 283 [RFC4412] Schulzrinne, H. and J. Polk, "Communications Resource 284 Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", 285 RFC 4412, February 2006. 287 [RFC5624] Korhonen, J., Tschofenig, H., and E. Davies, "Quality of 288 Service Parameters for Usage with Diameter", RFC 5624, 289 Aug 2009. 291 [RFC5866] Sun, D., et. al., "Diameter Quality-of-Service 292 Application", RFC 5866, May 2010. 294 7.2. Informative References 296 [3GPPa] "TS 29.214: Policy and charging control over Rx reference 297 point", 3GPP, October, 2010 299 [3GPPb] "TS 29.212: Policy and charging control over Gx reference 300 point", 3GPP, October, 2010 302 [3GPPc] "TS 29.229: Cx and Dx interfaces based on the Diameter 303 protocol; Protocol details", 3GPP, September, 2010 305 [3GPPd] "TS 29.329: Sh interface based on the Diameter protocol; 306 Protocol details", 3GPP, September, 2010 308 [ETSI] "TS 183 017: Telecommunications and Internet Converged 309 Services and Protocols for Advanced Networking (TISPAN); 310 Resource and Admission Control", ETSI 312 Authors' Addresses 314 Ken Carlberg (editor) Tom Taylor 315 G11 Huawei Technologies 316 1601 Clarendon Dr 1852 Lorraine Ave 317 Arlington, VA 22209 Ottawa 318 United States Canada 320 Email: carlberg@g11.org.uk Email: tom111.taylor@bell.net