idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-04.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 -- The document date (July 5, 2011) is 4671 days in the past. Is this intentional? 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-34) exists of draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-26 == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp-14 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).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 July 5, 2011 8 Diameter Priority Attribute Value Pairs 9 draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-04.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) 2011 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 [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis] to 60 convey a specific set of priority parameters. These parameters are 61 specified in other documents, but are briefly described below. The 62 corresponding AVPs defined in Section 3 are an extension to those 63 defined in [RFC5866]. We note that all the priority fields associated 64 with the AVPs defined in this document are extensible and allow for 65 additional values beyond what may have already been defined or 66 registered with IANA. 68 Priority influences the distribution of resources. This influence may 69 be probabilistic, ranging between (but not including) 0% and 100%, or it 70 may be in the form of a guarantee to either receive or not receive the 71 resource. 73 The influence attributed to prioritization may also affect QoS, but it 74 is not to be confused with QoS. As an example, if packets of two or more 75 flows are contending for the same shared resources, prioritization helps 76 determine which packet receives the resource. However, this allocation 77 of resource does not correlate directly to any specific delay or loss 78 bounds that have been associated with the packet. 80 Another example of how prioritization can be realized is articulated in 81 Appendix A.3 (the priority by-pass model) of 82 [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp]. In this case, prioritized flows may 83 gain access to resources that are never shared with non-prioritized 84 flows. 86 1.1 Other Priority-Related AVPs 88 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) has defined several Diameter 89 AVPs that support prioritization of sessions. The following AVPs are 90 intended to be used for priority services (e.g., Multimedia Priority 91 Service): 93 - Reservation-Priority AVP as defined in [ETSI] 94 - MPS-Identifier AVP as defined in [3GPPa] 95 - Priority-Level AVP (as part of the Allocation Retention Priority 96 AVP) as defined in [3GPPb] 98 - Session-Priority AVP as defined in [3GPPc][3GPPd] 100 Both the Reservation-Priority AVP and the Priority-Level AVP can carry 101 priority levels associated with a session initiated by a user. We note 102 that these AVPs are defined from the allotment set aside for 3GPP for 103 Diameter-based interfaces. 3GPP has also defined other priority 104 information for use on non-Diameter based interfaces. However, this 105 work is not relevant to the present document. The AVPs defined by 3GPP 106 are to be viewed as private implementations operating within a walled 107 garden. 109 2. Terminology and Abbreviations 111 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 112 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 113 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [RFC2119]. 115 3. Priority Parameter Encoding 117 This section defines a set of priority AVPs. This set is for use with 118 the DIAMETER QoS application [RFC5866] and represents a continuation of 119 the list of AVPs defined in [RFC5624]. The syntax notation used is that 120 of [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis]. 122 3.1. Dual-Priority AVP 124 The Dual-Priority AVP is a grouped AVP consisting of two AVPs; the 125 Preemption-Priority and the Defending-Priority AVP. These AVPs are 126 derived from the corresponding priority fields specified in the Signaled 127 Preemption Priority Policy Element [RFC3181] of RSVP [RFC2205]. The 128 Defending-Priority is set when the reservation has been admitted. The 129 Preemption-Priority of a newly requested reservation is compared with 130 the Defending Priority of a previously admitted flow. The actions taken 131 based upon the result of this comparison are a function of local policy. 133 Dual-Priority ::= < AVP Header: TBD > 134 { Preemption-Priority } 135 { Defending-Priority } 137 3.1.1. Preemption-Priority AVP 139 The Preemption-Priority AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned16. 140 Higher values represent higher priority. The value encoded in this AVP 141 is the same as the preemption priority value that would be encoded in 142 the signaled preemption priority policy element. 144 3.1.2. Defending-Priority AVP 145 The Defending-Priority AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned16. Higher 146 values represent higher priority. The value encoded in this AVP is the 147 same as the defending priority value that would be encoded in the 148 signaled preemption priority policy element. 150 3.2. Admission-Priority AVP 152 The Admission-Priority AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned8. The 153 admission priority of the flow is used to increase the probability of 154 session establishment for selected flows. Higher values represent 155 higher priority. A given admission priority is encoded in this 156 information element using the same value as when encoded in the 157 admission priority parameter defined in Section 5.1 of 158 [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp]. 160 3.3. SIP-Resource-Priority AVP 162 The SIP-Resource-Priority AVP is a grouped AVP consisting of two AVPs, 163 the SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace and the SIP-Resource- Priority-Value 164 AVP, which are derived from the corresponding optional header fields in 165 [rfc4412]. 167 SIP-Resource-Priority ::= < AVP Header: TBD > 168 { SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace } 169 { SIP-Resource-Priority-Value } 171 3.3.1. SIP-Namespace AVP 173 The SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type 174 UTF8String. This AVP contains a string that identifies a unique ordered 175 set of priority values as described in [rfc4412]. 177 3.3.2 SIP-Resource-Priority-Value AVP 179 The SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type 180 UTF8String. This AVP contains a string (i.e., a Namespace entry) that 181 identifies a set of priority values unique to the Namespace. Examples 182 of Namespaces and corresponding sets of priorities are found in 183 [rfc4412]. 185 3.4. Application-Level-Resource-Priority AVP 187 The Application-Level-Resource-Priority (ALRP) AVP is a grouped AVP 188 consisting of two AVPs, the ALRP-Namespace AVP and the ALRP-Value AVP. 190 Application-Level-Resource-Priority ::= < AVP Header: TBD > 191 { ALRP-Namespace } 192 { ALRP-Value } 194 A description of the semantics of the parameter values can be found in 195 [RFC4412] and in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp]. The registry set up 196 by [RFC4412] provided string values for both the priority namespace and 197 the priority values associated with that namespace. 198 [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp] modifies that registry to assign 199 numerical values to both the namespace identifiers and the priority 200 values within them. Consequently, SIP-Resource-Priority and 201 Application-Level-Resource-Priority AVPs convey the same priority 202 semantics, but with differing syntax. In the former case, an 203 alpha-numeric encoding is used, while the latter case is constrained to 204 a numeric-only value. 206 3.4.1. ALRP-Namespace AVP 208 The ALRP-Namespace AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned16. This AVP 209 contains a numerical value identifying the namespace of the 210 application-level resource priority as described in 211 [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp]. 213 3.4.2. ALRP-Value AVP 215 The ALRP-Priority AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned8. This AVP 216 contains the priority value within the ALRP-Namespace, as described in 217 [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp]. 219 4. IANA Considerations 221 4.1. AVP Codes 223 IANA is requested to allocate AVP codes for the following AVPs that are 224 defined in this document. 226 +------------------------------------------------------------------+ 227 | AVP Section | 228 |AVP Name Code Defined Data Type | 229 +------------------------------------------------------------------+ 230 |Dual-Priority TBD 3.1 Grouped | 231 |Preemption-Priority TBD 3.1.1 Unsigned32 | 232 |Defending-Priority TBD 3.1.2 Unsigned32 | 233 |Admission-Priority TBD 3.2 Unsigned32 | 234 |SIP-Resource-Priority TBD 3.3 Grouped | 235 |SIP-Namespace TBD 3.3.1 UTF8String | 236 |SIP-Value TBD 3.3.2 UTF8String | 237 |Application-Level-Resource-Priority TBD 3.4 Grouped | 238 |ALRP-Namespace TBD 3.4.1 Unsigned32 | 239 |ALRP-Value TBD 3.4.2 Unsigned32 | 240 +------------------------------------------------------------------+ 242 4.2. QoS Profile 244 IANA is requested to allocate a new value from the Authentication, 245 Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Parameters/QoS Profile registry 246 defined in [RFC5624] for the QoS profile defined in this document. The 247 name of the profile is "Resource priority parameters". 249 5. Security Considerations 251 This document describes the extension of Diameter for conveying Quality 252 of Service information. The security considerations of the Diameter 253 protocol itself have been discussed in [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis]. Use 254 of the AVPs defined in this document MUST take into consideration the 255 security issues and requirements of the Diameter base protocol. 257 The authors also recommend that readers should familiarize themselves 258 with the security considerations of the various protocols listed in 259 the Normative References listed below. 261 6. Acknowledgements 263 We would like to thank Lionel Morand, Janet Gunn, Piers O'Hanlon for the 264 commenst on the draft, and Lars Eggert, Jan Engelhardt, Francois 265 LeFaucheur, John Loughney, An Nguyen, Dave Oran, James Polk, Martin 266 Stiemerling, and Magnus Westerlund for their help with resolving 267 problems regarding the Admission Priority and the ALRP parameter. 269 7. References 270 7.1. Normative References 272 [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis] 273 Fajardo, V., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn, 274 "Diameter Base Protocol", draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-26 275 (work in progress), January 2011. 277 [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp] 278 Faucheur, F., Polk, J., and K. Carlberg, "Resource 279 ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) Extensions for Emergency 280 Services", draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp-14 (work in 281 progress), Nov 2009. 283 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 284 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 286 [RFC2205] Braden, B., et. al., "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) 287 -- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 288 1997 290 [RFC3181] Herzog, S., "Signaled Preemption Priority Policy Element", 291 RFC 3181, October 2001. 293 [RFC4412] Schulzrinne, H. and J. Polk, "Communications Resource 294 Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", 295 RFC 4412, February 2006. 297 [RFC5624] Korhonen, J., Tschofenig, H., and E. Davies, "Quality of 298 Service Parameters for Usage with Diameter", RFC 5624, 299 Aug 2009. 301 [RFC5866] Sun, D., et. al., "Diameter Quality-of-Service 302 Application", RFC 5866, May 2010. 304 7.2. Informative References 306 [3GPPa] "TS 29.214: Policy and charging control over Rx reference 307 point", 3GPP, March, 2011 309 [3GPPb] "TS 29.212: Policy and charging control over Gx reference 310 point", 3GPP, October, 2010 312 [3GPPc] "TS 29.229: Cx and Dx interfaces based on the Diameter 313 protocol; Protocol details", 3GPP, September, 2010 315 [3GPPd] "TS 29.329: Sh interface based on the Diameter protocol; 316 Protocol details", 3GPP, September, 2010 318 [ETSI] "TS 183 017: Telecommunications and Internet Converged 319 Services and Protocols for Advanced Networking (TISPAN); 320 Resource and Admission Control", ETSI 322 Authors' Addresses 324 Ken Carlberg (editor) Tom Taylor 325 G11 Huawei Technologies 326 1601 Clarendon Dr 1852 Lorraine Ave 327 Arlington, VA 22209 Ottawa 328 United States Canada 330 Email: carlberg@g11.org.uk Email: tom111.taylor@bell.net