idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-05.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (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 70 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 7 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 seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but was first submitted on or after 10 November 2008. The disclaimer is usually necessary only for documents that revise or obsolete older RFCs, and that take significant amounts of text from those RFCs. If you can contact all authors of the source material and they are willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, you can and should remove the disclaimer. Otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this comment. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (Oct 31, 2011) is 4559 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-34) exists of draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-26 == Outdated reference: A later version (-15) exists of draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp-14 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).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 Oct 31, 2011 8 Diameter Priority Attribute Value Pairs 9 draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-05.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 29 document authors. All rights reserved. 31 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions 32 Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in 33 effect on the date of publication of this document. 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 may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF 41 Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 42 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material 43 may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of 44 such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an 45 adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such 46 materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards 47 Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF 48 Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to 49 translate it into languages other than English. 51 Abstract 53 This document defines Attribute-Value Pair (AVP) containers for various 54 priority parameters for use with Diameter and the AAA framework. The 55 parameters themselves are defined in several different protocols that 56 operate at either the network or application layer. 58 1. Introduction 60 This document defines a number of Attribute-Value Pairs (AVP) that can 61 be used within the Diameter protocol [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis] to 62 convey a specific set of priority parameters. These parameters are 63 specified in other documents, but are briefly described below. The 64 corresponding AVPs defined in Section 3 are an extension to those 65 defined in [RFC5866]. We note that all the priority fields associated 66 with the AVPs defined in this document are extensible and allow for 67 additional values beyond what may have already been defined or 68 registered with IANA. 70 Priority influences the distribution of resources. This influence may 71 be probabilistic, ranging between (but not including) 0% and 100%, or it 72 may be in the form of a guarantee to either receive or not receive the 73 resource. 75 The influence attributed to prioritization may also affect QoS, but it 76 is not to be confused with QoS. As an example, if packets of two or more 77 flows are contending for the same shared resources, prioritization helps 78 determine which packet receives the resource. However, this allocation 79 of resource does not correlate directly to any specific delay or loss 80 bounds that have been associated with the packet. 82 Another example of how prioritization can be realized is articulated in 83 Appendix A.3 (the priority by-pass model) of 84 [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp]. In this case, prioritized flows may 85 gain access to resources that are never shared with non-prioritized 86 flows. 88 1.1 Other Priority-Related AVPs 90 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) has defined several Diameter 91 AVPs that support prioritization of sessions. The following AVPs are 92 intended to be used for priority services (e.g., Multimedia Priority 93 Service): 95 - Reservation-Priority AVP as defined in [ETSI] 96 - MPS-Identifier AVP as defined in [3GPPa] 97 - Priority-Level AVP (as part of the Allocation Retention Priority 98 AVP) as defined in [3GPPb] 100 - Session-Priority AVP as defined in [3GPPc][3GPPd] 102 Both the Reservation-Priority AVP and the Priority-Level AVP can carry 103 priority levels associated with a session initiated by a user. We note 104 that these AVPs are defined from the allotment set aside for 3GPP for 105 Diameter-based interfaces. 3GPP has also defined other priority 106 information for use on non-Diameter based interfaces. However, this 107 work is not relevant to the present document. The AVPs defined by 3GPP 108 are to be viewed as private implementations operating within a walled 109 garden. 111 2. Terminology and Abbreviations 113 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 114 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 115 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [RFC2119]. 117 3. Priority Parameter Encoding 119 This section defines a set of priority AVPs. This set is for use with 120 the DIAMETER QoS application [RFC5866] and represents a continuation of 121 the list of AVPs defined in [RFC5624]. The syntax notation used is that 122 of [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis]. 124 3.1. Dual-Priority AVP 126 The Dual-Priority AVP is a grouped AVP consisting of two AVPs; the 127 Preemption-Priority and the Defending-Priority AVP. These AVPs are 128 derived from the corresponding priority fields specified in the Signaled 129 Preemption Priority Policy Element [RFC3181] of RSVP [RFC2205]. The 130 Defending-Priority is set when the reservation has been admitted. The 131 Preemption-Priority of a newly requested reservation is compared with 132 the Defending Priority of a previously admitted flow. The actions taken 133 based upon the result of this comparison are a function of local policy. 135 Dual-Priority ::= < AVP Header: TBD > 136 { Preemption-Priority } 137 { Defending-Priority } 139 3.1.1. Preemption-Priority AVP 141 The Preemption-Priority AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned16. 142 Higher values represent higher priority. The value encoded in this AVP 143 is the same as the preemption priority value that would be encoded in 144 the signaled preemption priority policy element. 146 3.1.2. Defending-Priority AVP 148 The Defending-Priority AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned16. Higher 149 values represent higher priority. The value encoded in this AVP is the 150 same as the defending priority value that would be encoded in the 151 signaled preemption priority policy element. 153 3.2. Admission-Priority AVP 155 The Admission-Priority AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned8. The 156 admission priority of the flow is used to increase the probability of 157 session establishment for selected flows. Higher values represent 158 higher priority. A given admission priority is encoded in this 159 information element using the same value as when encoded in the 160 admission priority parameter defined in Section 5.1 of 161 [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp]. 163 3.3. SIP-Resource-Priority AVP 165 The SIP-Resource-Priority AVP is a grouped AVP consisting of two AVPs, 166 the SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace and the SIP-Resource- Priority-Value 167 AVP, which are derived from the corresponding optional header fields in 168 [rfc4412]. 170 SIP-Resource-Priority ::= < AVP Header: TBD > 171 { SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace } 172 { SIP-Resource-Priority-Value } 174 3.3.1. SIP-Namespace AVP 176 The SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type 177 UTF8String. This AVP contains a string that identifies a unique ordered 178 set of priority values as described in [rfc4412]. 180 3.3.2 SIP-Resource-Priority-Value AVP 182 The SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type 183 UTF8String. This AVP contains a string (i.e., a Namespace entry) that 184 identifies a set of priority values unique to the Namespace. Examples 185 of Namespaces and corresponding sets of priorities are found in 186 [rfc4412]. 188 3.4. Application-Level-Resource-Priority AVP 190 The Application-Level-Resource-Priority (ALRP) AVP is a grouped AVP 191 consisting of two AVPs, the ALRP-Namespace AVP and the ALRP-Value AVP. 193 Application-Level-Resource-Priority ::= < AVP Header: TBD > 194 { ALRP-Namespace } 195 { ALRP-Value } 197 A description of the semantics of the parameter values can be found in 198 [RFC4412] and in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp]. The registry set up 199 by [RFC4412] provided string values for both the priority namespace and 200 the priority values associated with that namespace. 201 [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp] modifies that registry to assign 202 numerical values to both the namespace identifiers and the priority 203 values within them. Consequently, SIP-Resource-Priority and 204 Application-Level-Resource-Priority AVPs convey the same priority 205 semantics, but with differing syntax. In the former case, an 206 alpha-numeric encoding is used, while the latter case is constrained to 207 a numeric-only value. 209 3.4.1. ALRP-Namespace AVP 211 The ALRP-Namespace AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned16. This AVP 212 contains a numerical value identifying the namespace of the 213 application-level resource priority as described in 214 [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp]. 216 3.4.2. ALRP-Value AVP 218 The ALRP-Priority AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned8. This AVP 219 contains the priority value within the ALRP-Namespace, as described in 220 [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp]. 222 4. IANA Considerations 223 4.1. AVP Codes 225 IANA is requested to allocate AVP codes for the following AVPs that are 226 defined in this document. 227 +------------------------------------------------------------------+ 228 | AVP Section | 229 |AVP Name Code Defined Data Type | 230 +------------------------------------------------------------------+ 231 |Dual-Priority TBD 3.1 Grouped | 232 |Preemption-Priority TBD 3.1.1 Unsigned32 | 233 |Defending-Priority TBD 3.1.2 Unsigned32 | 234 |Admission-Priority TBD 3.2 Unsigned32 | 235 |SIP-Resource-Priority TBD 3.3 Grouped | 236 |SIP-Namespace TBD 3.3.1 UTF8String | 237 |SIP-Value TBD 3.3.2 UTF8String | 238 |Application-Level-Resource-Priority TBD 3.4 Grouped | 239 |ALRP-Namespace TBD 3.4.1 Unsigned32 | 240 |ALRP-Value TBD 3.4.2 Unsigned32 | 241 +------------------------------------------------------------------+ 243 4.2. QoS Profile 245 IANA is requested to allocate a new value from the Authentication, 246 Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Parameters/QoS Profile registry 247 defined in [RFC5624] for the QoS profile defined in this document. The 248 name of the profile is "Resource priority parameters". 250 5. Security Considerations 252 This document describes an extension for conveying Quality of Service 253 information, and therefore follows the same security considerations of 254 the Diameter QoS Application [RFC5866]. The values placed in the AVPs 255 are not changed by this draft, nor are they changed in the Diameter QoS 256 application. The consequences of changing values in the Priority 257 AVPs may result in an allocation of additional or less resources. If local 258 policy exists and values placed in the AVPs do not have integrity protection 259 (e.g., the use of S/MIME with the SIP RPH, or an INTEGRITY object within 260 a POLICY_DATA object), then changes and their consequences may occur. 261 Otherwise, integrity protected values SHOULD be ignored with appropriate 262 protocol specific error messages sent back upstream. Note that we do not 263 use the term "MUST be ignored" because local policy of an administrative 264 domain associated with other protocols acts as the final arbiter. 266 The security considerations of the Diameter protocol itself are discussed 267 in [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis]. Use of the AVPs defined in this document 268 MUST take into consideration the security issues and requirements of the 269 Diameter base protocol. 271 The authors also recommend that readers should familiarize themselves 272 with the security considerations of the various protocols listed in the 273 Normative References. This is because values placed in the AVPs defined 274 in this draft are set/changed by other protocols. 276 6. Acknowledgements 278 We would like to thank Lionel Morand, Janet Gunn, Piers O'Hanlon for the 279 commenst on the draft, and Lars Eggert, Jan Engelhardt, Francois 280 LeFaucheur, John Loughney, An Nguyen, Dave Oran, James Polk, Martin 281 Stiemerling, and Magnus Westerlund for their help with resolving 282 problems regarding the Admission Priority and the ALRP parameter. 284 7. References 285 7.1. Normative References 287 [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis] 288 Fajardo, V., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn, 289 "Diameter Base Protocol", draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-26 290 (work in progress), January 2011. 292 [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp] 293 Faucheur, F., Polk, J., and K. Carlberg, "Resource 294 ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) Extensions for Emergency 295 Services", draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp-14 (work in 296 progress), Nov 2009. 298 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 299 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 301 [RFC2205] Braden, B., et. al., "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) 302 -- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 303 1997 305 [RFC3181] Herzog, S., "Signaled Preemption Priority Policy Element", 306 RFC 3181, October 2001. 308 [RFC4412] Schulzrinne, H. and J. Polk, "Communications Resource 309 Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", 310 RFC 4412, February 2006. 312 [RFC5624] Korhonen, J., Tschofenig, H., and E. Davies, "Quality of 313 Service Parameters for Usage with Diameter", RFC 5624, 314 Aug 2009. 316 [RFC5866] Sun, D., et. al., "Diameter Quality-of-Service 317 Application", RFC 5866, May 2010. 319 7.2. Informative References 321 [3GPPa] "TS 29.214: Policy and charging control over Rx reference 322 point", 3GPP, March, 2011 324 [3GPPb] "TS 29.212: Policy and charging control over Gx reference 325 point", 3GPP, October, 2010 327 [3GPPc] "TS 29.229: Cx and Dx interfaces based on the Diameter 328 protocol; Protocol details", 3GPP, September, 2010 330 [3GPPd] "TS 29.329: Sh interface based on the Diameter protocol; 331 Protocol details", 3GPP, September, 2010 333 [ETSI] "TS 183 017: Telecommunications and Internet Converged 334 Services and Protocols for Advanced Networking (TISPAN); 335 Resource and Admission Control", ETSI 337 Authors' Addresses 338 Ken Carlberg (editor) Tom Taylor 339 G11 Huawei Technologies 340 1601 Clarendon Dr 1852 Lorraine Ave 341 Arlington, VA 22209 Ottawa 342 United States Canada 344 Email: carlberg@g11.org.uk Email: tom111.taylor@bell.net