idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-rap-pr-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 1 longer page, the longest (page 1) being 1569 lines Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** There are 300 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 4 characters in excess of 72. == There are 2 instances of lines with non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses in the document. If these are example addresses, they should be changed. ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. RFC 2119 keyword, line 489: '... new PRC. The PEP SHOULD ignore these...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 490: '...RI. However, it MAY return and error ...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 508: '... Consequently, an ASN.1 value MUST be...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 512: '...tribute, the PDP MUST send either an A...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 515: '... deprecated SHOULD substitute a d...' (20 more instances...) Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year == Line 367 has weird spacing: '... the clie...' == Line 516 has weird spacing: '...stitute it MU...' -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (October 22, 1999) is 8950 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) -- Missing reference section? 'RAP-FRAMEWORK' on line 114 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'COPS' on line 1213 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'COPS-RSVP' on line 133 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'PIB' on line 1247 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RAP' on line 1217 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'BER' on line 1237 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'ASN1' on line 1231 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'V2SMI' on line 1252 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'SNMP-SMI' on line 562 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'E2E' on line 1221 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RSVP' on line 1226 looks like a reference -- Missing reference section? 'RFC2475' on line 1243 looks like a reference Summary: 5 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 14 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Internet Draft Francis Reichmeyer 2 Expiration: June 2000 Shai Herzog 3 File: draft-ietf-rap-pr-01.txt IPHighway 4 Kwok Ho Chan 5 John Seligson 6 Nortel Networks 7 David Durham 8 Raj Yavatkar 9 Intel 10 Silvano Gai 11 Keith McCloghrie 12 Cisco Systems 13 Andrew Smith 14 Extreme Networks 16 COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning 18 October 22, 1999 20 Status of this Memo 22 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 23 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 25 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 26 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 27 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 28 Drafts. 30 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 31 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other 32 documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts 33 as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in 34 progress." 36 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 37 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 39 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 40 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 42 Distribution of this memo is unlimited. 44 Copyright Notice 46 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998). All Rights Reserved. 48 Internet Draft COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning 22-Oct-99 50 Abstract 52 This document introduces a new client type for the COPS protocol to 53 support policy provisioning. Use of this new client type is 54 independent of the type of policy being managed and it assumes a 55 data model that is based on the concept of named policy information 56 as found in a Policy Information Base, or PIB. 58 2 59 Shai Herzog Expires June 2000 61 Internet Draft COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning 22-Oct-99 63 Table of Contents 65 Abstract..............................................................2 67 Table of Contents.....................................................3 68 Glossary..............................................................4 69 1. Introduction.....................................................4 70 1.1. Why not SNMP? ..................................................5 71 1.2. Interaction between the PEP and PDP ............................6 72 2. Policy Information Base (PIB)....................................7 73 2.1. PIB Syntax .....................................................8 74 2.2. PIB Example ....................................................8 75 2.3. Rules for Modifying and Extending PIBs ........................10 76 2.3.1.Adding PRCs to, or deprecating from, a PIB ....................10 77 2.3.2.Adding or Deprecating Attributes of a PRC .....................11 78 2.3.3.Augmenting a PRC with another PRC .............................12 79 2.4. COPS Operations Supported for a Policy Rule Instance ..........12 80 3. Message Content.................................................13 81 3.1. Request (REQ) PEP -> PDP .....................................13 82 3.2. Decision (DEC) PDP -> PEP ....................................14 83 3.3. Report State (RPT) PEP -> PDP ................................15 84 4. COPS-PR Protocol Objects........................................15 85 4.1. Binding Count (BC) ............................................16 86 4.2. Policy Rule Identifier (PRID) .................................16 87 4.2.1.Complete PRID .................................................16 88 4.2.2.Prefix PRID ...................................................17 89 4.3. BER Encoded Policy Instance Data (BPD) ........................18 90 4.4. Provisioning Error Object (PERR) ..............................19 91 5. COPS-PR Client-Specific Data Formats............................20 92 5.1. Named Decision Data ...........................................20 93 5.2. ClientSI Request Data .........................................21 94 5.3. Policy Provisioning Report Data ...............................21 95 6. Common Operations...............................................21 96 7. Fault Tolerance.................................................23 97 7.1. Security Considerations .......................................24 98 8. References......................................................25 99 9. Author Information..............................................26 100 10. Full Copyright Notice...........................................27 102 3 103 Shai Herzog Expires June 2000 105 Internet Draft COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning 22-Oct-99 107 Glossary 109 PRC Policy Rule Class. A type of policy data. 110 PRI Policy Rule Instance. An instance of a PRC. 111 PIB Policy Information Base. The database of policy 112 information. 113 PDP Policy Decision Point. See [RAP-FRAMEWORK]. 114 PEP Policy Enforcement Point. See [RAP-FRAMEWORK]. 115 PRID Policy Rule Instance Identifier. Uniquely identifies an 116 instance of a a PRC. 118 1. Introduction 120 The IETF RSVP Admission Policy (RAP) WG has defined the COPS 121 (Common Open Policy Service) protocol [COPS] as a scalable 122 protocol that allows policy servers (PDPs) to communicate policy 123 decisions to network devices (PEP). COPS was designed to support 124 multiple types of policy clients. 126 COPS is a query/response protocol that supports two common models 127 for policy control: Outsourcing and Provisioning. 129 The Outsourcing model addresses the kind of events at the PEP that 130 require instantaneous policy decision (authorization). The PEP, 131 being aware that it must perform a policy decision. However, being 132 unable to carry the task itself, the PEP delegates responsibility 133 to an external policy server (PDP). For example, in [COPS-RSVP] 134 when a reservation message arrives, the PEP is aware that it must 135 decide whether to admit or reject the request. It sends a specific 136 query to the PDP, and in most case, waits for a decision before 137 admitting the outstanding reservation. 139 The Provisioning model, on the other hand, makes no assumptions of 140 such direct 1:1 correlation between PEP events and PDP decisions. 141 The PDP may proactively provision the PEP reacting to external 142 events (such as user input), PEP events, and any combination 143 thereof (N:M correlation). Provisioning may be performed in bulk 144 (e.g., entire router QoS configuration) or in portions (e.g., 145 updating a DiffServ marking filter). 147 Network resources are provisioned based on relatively static SLAs 148 (Service Level Agreements) at network boundaries. While the 149 Outsourcing model is dynamically paced by the PEP in real-time, 150 the Provisioning model is paced by the PDP in somewhat flexible 151 timing over a wide range of configurable aspects of the PEP. 153 4 154 Shai Herzog Expires June 2000 156 Internet Draft COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning 22-Oct-99 158 Edge Device Policy Server 159 +--------------+ +-----------+ +-----------+ 160 | | | | | External | 161 | | COPS | | | Events | 162 | +-----+ | REQ() | +-----+ | +---+-------+ 163 | | |----|----------|->| | | | 164 | | PEP | | | | PDD<|--|---------+ 165 | | |<---|----------|--| | | 166 | +-----+ | COPS | +-----+ | 167 | | DEC() | | 168 +--------------+ +-----------+ 170 Figure 1: COPS Provisioning Model 172 In COPS-PR, policy requests describe the PEP and its configurable 173 parameters (rather than an operational event). If a change occurs 174 in these basic parameters, an updated request is sent. Hence, 175 requests are issued quite infrequently. Decisions cannot be mapped 176 directly to requests, and are issued mostly when the PDP responds 177 to external events or PDP events (policy/SLA updates). 179 This draft describes a new client type ("Provisioning") for COPS 180 to support policy provisioning. This new client type is 181 independent of the type of policy (QoS, VPNs, Security, etc.) and 182 it is based on the concept of PIBs (Policy Information Bases 183 [PIB]). 185 The Examples used in this document are biased toward QoS Policy 186 Provisioning in a Differentiated Services (DiffServ) environment. 187 However, the COPS-PR client type can be used for other types of 188 provisioning policies under the same framework. 190 1.1. Why not SNMP? 192 SNMP is a very popular network management protocol. One may 193 question using COPS-PR, rather than extending SNMP for policy 194 provisioning. 196 There are several aspects intrinsic to SNMP that prevents it from 197 being a successful policy protocol. 199 SNMP uses a transactional model, and does not support the concept 200 of long term Client/Server connection. As a by product, servers 201 may not know that devices failed and vice versa. A hello polling 202 may be a cumbersome replacement, however it may not solve the 203 problem if a device may reboot in between polling messages. 205 The SNMP transactional model allows multiple servers to 206 simultaneously modify state of a network device. Given that SNMP 207 does not have resource locking facilities, a policy server would 209 5 210 Shai Herzog Expires June 2000 212 Internet Draft COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning 22-Oct-99 214 have to constantly poll and verify that no other networking 215 management software or humans changed ANY of the configured 216 resources. 218 SNMP is based on UDP and is thus unreliable. The lack of 219 reliability is unacceptable for a policy protocol [RAP]. 220 Provisioning policy is assumed quite large and diverse. It is 221 desired that a provisioning protocol would be based on state 222 sharing between client and server such that only differential 223 updates are sent. Such state sharing requires a reliable transport 224 mechanism. 226 Last, SNMP was not designed as a real-time operations protocol. 227 Its trap mechanism is inefficient and cumbersome and there is no 228 performance guarantees. 230 COPS was designed to overcome these shortcomings, based on the 231 requirements defined in [RAP]. It has a single connection between 232 client and server, it guarantees only one server updates the 233 policy configuration at any given time (and these are locked, even 234 from console configuration, while COPS is connected to a server). 235 COPS uses reliable TCP transport and thus uses a state 236 sharing/synchronization mechanism and exchanges differential 237 updates only. If either the server or client are rebooted (or 238 restarted) the other would know about it quickly. Last, it is 239 defined as high priority (real-time) mechanism for the PEP device. 241 The COPS protocol is already used for policy control over RSVP. It 242 is highly desirable to use a single policy control protocol for 243 Quality of Service (QoS) mechanisms (if possible), rather than 244 invent a new one for each type of policy problem. 246 At the same time, useful mechanisms from SNMP were adopted. COPS- 247 PR uses a named Policy Information Base (PIB) which the model of 248 SMI and MIB and BER [BER] data encoding. This allows reuse of 249 experience, knowledge, tools and some code from the SNMP world. 251 1.2. Interaction between the PEP and PDP 253 When a device boots, it opens a COPS connection to its Primary 254 PDP. When the connection is established, the PEP sends information 255 about itself to the PDP in the form of a configuration request. 256 This information includes client specific information (e.g., 257 hardware type, software release, configuration information). 258 During this phase the client may also specify the maximum COPS-PR 259 message size supported. 261 In response, the PDP downloads all provisioned policies which are 262 currently relevant to that device. On receiving the provisioned 263 policies, the device maps them into its local QoS mechanisms, and 265 6 266 Shai Herzog Expires June 2000 268 Internet Draft COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning 22-Oct-99 270 installs them. If conditions change at the PDP such that the PDP 271 detects that changes are required in the provisioned policies 272 currently in effect, then the PDP sends the changes (installs 273 and/or deletes) in policy to the PEP, and the PEP updates its 274 local QoS mechanisms appropriately. 276 If, subsequently, the configuration of the device changes (board 277 removed, board added, new software installed, etc.) in ways not 278 covered by policies already known to the PEP, then the PEP sends 279 this unsolicited new information to the PDP. On receiving this new 280 information, the PDP sends to the PEP any additional provisioned 281 policies now needed by the PEP. 283 2. Policy Information Base (PIB) 285 The data carried by COPS-PR is a set of policy rules. The protocol 286 uses a named data structure, known as a Policy Information Base 287 (PIB), to identify the type and purpose of unsolicited policy 288 information that is "pushed" from the PDP to the PEP for 289 provisioning policy. The PIB name space is common to both the PEP 290 and the PDP and names within this space are unique within the 291 scope of a given PDP/PEP/ClientType communication channel. Note 292 that a give device might implement multiple PEPs or multiple 293 ClientTypes and the name space then only has uniqueness within 294 each separate channel. 296 The PIB can be described as a conceptual tree data structure where 297 the branches of the tree represent types of rules or Policy Rule 298 Classes (PRCs), while the leaves represent the contents of Policy 299 Rule Instances (PRIs). There may be multiple instances of rules 300 (PRIs) for any given rule type (PRC). For example, if one wanted 301 to install multiple access control filters, the PRC might 302 represent a generic access control filter type and each PRI might 303 represent an individual access control filter to be applied. The 304 tree might be represented as follows: 306 -------+-------+----------+---PRC--+--PRI 307 | | | +--PRI 308 | | | 309 | | +---PRC-----PRI 310 | | 311 | +---PRC--+--PRI 312 | +--PRI 313 | +--PRI 314 | +--PRI 315 | +--PRI 316 | 317 +---PRC---PRI 319 Figure 2: The PIB Tree 321 7 322 Shai Herzog Expires June 2000 324 Internet Draft COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning 22-Oct-99 326 Instances of the policy rules (PRIs) are each identified by a 327 Policy Rule Identifier (PRID). A PRID is a name, carried in a COPS 328 object, which identifies a particular instance of 329 a rule. 331 2.1. PIB Syntax 333 The provisioning PIB syntax is based on SMI and MIBs, based on the 334 ASN.1 data definition language [ASN1]. The decision to use this 335 format as a basis opens-up the possibility of leveraging SNMP SMI 336 and MIB knowledge, experience and tools. In order to simplify the 337 implementation and allow re-use of SNMP encoding/decoding code, 338 the wire representation of the policy information (PRIDs and BPDs) 339 in the COPS protocol objects follows the Basic Encoding Rules 340 (BER) [BER] - the object syntax definitions appear in section 4. 342 PRCs and their PRIs are identified by PRIDs, which are unique 343 within the scope of a given PDP/PEP/ClientType channel. PRIDs have 344 a hierarchical structure of the form a.b.c.d (e.g. 1.3.4.7), where 345 a prefix identifies the PRC (e.g., 1.3 or 1.3.4) and the last 346 component identifies the individual instance (e.g. 7). 348 Note that the instance values do not have to be consecutive 349 although they must be unique to this PDP/PEP/ClientType 350 communication. The actual values for the indices may be chosen by 351 the PDP and they may or may not have significance to the PDP as 352 real values; they have no significance to the PEP other than as 353 instance identifiers. Note also the intentional similarity to 354 SNMP's SMI syntax and semantics [V2SMI]. There is no need for a 355 "context" mechanism, such as that in SNMP, to disambiguate 356 different PRIs containing the same data: the instance numbers are 357 chosen by the PDP and the semantics of contexts can, therefore, be 358 encoded in the PRC definitions themselves. 360 Given that most provisioning operations require multiple 361 attributes, COPS-PR does not support operations on individual 362 attributes within a PRC (e.g. filterSrcPort above). Updates and 363 deletions are performed on a granularity of per-PRC only. 365 The policy tree names all the policy rule classes and instances 366 and this creates a common view of the policy organization between 367 the client (PEP) and the server (PDP). The PIB data on its own 368 is self- descriptive such that the receiving PEP understands the 369 required provisioning. 371 2.2. PIB Example 373 Consider the following simple example of a set of policy rule 374 class to represent filters for marking IP traffic with a certain 376 8 377 Shai Herzog Expires June 2000 379 Internet Draft COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning 22-Oct-99 381 diff-serv code point (DSCP). Each filter has the following 382 attributes: Protocol number, source address, source port, 383 destination address, destination port, and DSCP value to set. This 384 might be represented by the following class definition: 386 filterTable OBJECT-TYPE 387 SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF FilterEntry 388 POLICY-ACCESS install 389 STATUS current 390 DESCRIPTION 391 "Filter PRC." 392 ::= { pib 1 } 394 filterEntry OBJECT-TYPE 395 SYNTAX FilterEntry 396 STATUS current 397 DESCRIPTION 398 "An instance of the filter class." 399 INDEX { filterIndex } 400 ::= { filterTable 1 } 402 FilterEntry ::= SEQUENCE { 403 filterIndex INTEGER, -- arbitrary index 404 filterProtocol INTEGER, 406 filterSrcAddr IpAddress, 407 filterSrcPort INTEGER, 408 filterDstAddr IpAddress, 409 filterDstL4Port INTEGER, 410 filterDscp Integer32 411 } 412 etc. 414 Let us assume that the base "pib" has a prefix in the policy tree 415 of 1.2.3. So, the first filter instance might have a PRID of 416 pib.filterTable.filterEntry.10, or 1.2.3.1.1.10. The next filter 417 instance might then get the PRID 1.2.3.1.1.99. This PIB segment 418 might be shown diagramatically as: 420 9 421 Shai Herzog Expires June 2000 423 Internet Draft COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning 22-Oct-99 425 (1.2.3) (1.2.3.1) (1.2.3.1.1) (1.2.3.1.1.10) 426 pib---+-filterTable-+-filterEntry-+-----10-------+-filterProtocol 427 | | | 428 | | +-filterSrcAddr 429 etc. | | 430 | +-filterSrcPort 431 | | 432 | etc. 433 | 434 |(1.2.3.1.1.99) 435 +-----99-------+-filterIndex 436 | | 437 | +-filterProtocol 438 etc. | 439 etc. 440 {_______________________________} {___________} 442 \/ \/ 443 PRC branches PRI leaves 445 Figure 3: A PIB Example for a DiffServ Filter 447 The numbers in parentheses represent the location of the PRC or 448 PRI in the tree. Note that the last digit of the PRCs (which in 449 SMI would describe the individual class attributes) is dropped 450 from the PRID since COPS-PR only supports operations on complete 451 classes, not on individual attributes. 453 2.3. Rules for Modifying and Extending PIBs 455 As experience is gained with policy management, and as new 456 requirements arise, it will be necessary to make changes to PIBs. 457 Changes to an existing PIB can be made in several ways. 459 (1) Additional PRCs can be added to a PIB or existing one 460 deprecated. 462 (2) Attributes can be added to, or deprecated from an existing 463 PRC. 465 (3) An existing PRC can be extended by "augmenting" it with a new 466 PRC defined in another (perhaps enterprise specific) PIB. 468 The rules for each of these extension mechanisms is described in 469 this sub-section. All of these mechanisms for modifying a PIB 470 allow for interoperability between PDPs and PEPs even when one 471 party is using a new version of the PIB while the other is using 472 an old version. 474 2.3.1. Adding PRCs to, or deprecating from, a PIB 476 10 477 Shai Herzog Expires June 2000 479 Internet Draft COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning 22-Oct-99 481 A published PIB can be extended with new PRCs by simply revising 482 the document and adding additional PRCs. These additional PRCs 483 are easily identified with new OIDs under the module OID. 485 In the event that a PEP implementing the new PIB is being 486 configured by a PDP implementing the old PIB, the PEP will simply 487 not receive any instances of the new PRC. In the event that the 488 PEP is implementing the old PIB and the PDP the new one, the PEP 489 may receive PRIs for the new PRC. The PEP SHOULD ignore these 490 unsupported PRI. However, it MAY return and error to the PDP. In 491 the latter case, the PDP must restructure its policy decisions to 492 exclude the unsupported PRCs. 494 Similarly, existing PRCs can be deprecated from a PIB. In this 495 case, the PEP ignores any PRIs sent it by a PDP implementing the 496 old (non- deprecated) version of the PIB. A PDP implementing the 497 new version of the PIB simply does not send any instances of the 498 deprecated class. 500 2.3.2. Adding or Deprecating Attributes of a PRC 502 A PIB can be modified to deprecate existing attributes of a PRC or 503 add new ones. 505 When deprecating the attributes of a PRC, it must be remembered 506 that, with the COPS-PR protocol, the attributes of the PRC are 507 identified by their order in the sequence rather than an explicit 508 label (or attribute OID). Consequently, an ASN.1 value MUST be 509 sent even for deprecated attributes so that a PDP and PEP 510 implementing different versions of the PIB are inter-operable. 512 For a deprecated attribute, the PDP MUST send either an ASN.1 513 value of the correct type, or it may send an ASN.1 NULL value. A 514 PEP that receives an ASN.1 NULL for an attribute that is not 515 deprecated SHOULD substitute a default value. If it has no 516 default value to substitute it MUST return an error to the PDP. 518 When adding new attributes to a PIB, these new attributes must be 519 added in sequence after the existing ones. A PEP that receives a 520 PRI with more attributes than it is expecting MUST ignore the 521 additional attributes. It MAY send a warning back to the PDP. 523 A PEP that receives a PRI with fewer attributes than it is 524 expecting SHOULD assume default values for the missing attributes. 525 It MAY send a warning back to the PDP. If the missing attributes 526 are required and there is no suitable default, the PEP MUST send 527 and error back to the PDP. In all cases the missing attributes 528 are assumed to correspond to the last attributes of the PRC. 530 11 531 Shai Herzog Expires June 2000 533 Internet Draft COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning 22-Oct-99 535 2.3.3. Augmenting a PRC with another PRC 537 Rather than extending a PRC by modifying the PIB and adding 538 attributes to that PRC, a new PRC can be defined, perhaps in a 539 different PIB module to augment an existing PRC. This is 540 especially useful for independent enterprises to independently 541 augment an existing class. 543 An augmenting PRC has its own OID. However, an instance of this 544 PRC can only be created if there is a corresponding instance (with 545 the same instance ID) of the base PRC. The base PRC, on the other 546 hand, can be configured by a PDP without the PDP also configuring 547 the augmenting PRC (or PRCs). In this case, the PEP MUST asume 548 some default values for the attributes of the augmenting PRC. 550 When the PDP deletes an instance of a base PRC, the instances of 551 the corresponding augmented PRCs are also deleted. 553 Augmenting standard PIB attributes with enterprise specific 554 extensions introduces interoperability issues regarding policy 555 servers that are unaware of the proprietary additions. Under this 556 scenario, the DEFVAL clause SHOULD be used to provide default values 557 for the proprietary attributes. All attribute definitions in a class 558 the augments a base class SHOULD include a DEFVAL clause specifying 559 a reasonable default value. This helps to ensure that a PDP may 560 adequately provision a PEP based solely on standard PIB attributes. 561 Rules governing the usage and specification of the DEFVAL clause are 562 defined in the SMIv2 [SNMP-SMI]. 564 2.4. COPS Operations Supported for a Policy Rule Instance 566 A Policy Rule Instance (PRI) may contain multiple leaf attributes 567 and is identified uniquely, within the scope of a given COPS 568 ClientType on a PEP, by a Policy Rule Identifier (PRID). The 569 following COPS operations are supported on a PRI: 571 o Install _ This operation creates or updates a named instance of 572 a PRC. It includes two parameters: a PRID object to name the PRI 573 and a BER-encoded Policy Instance Data (BPD) object with the 574 new/updated values. The PRID value MUST uniquely identify a 575 single PRI (i.e. PRID/PRC prefix values are illegal). 577 o Remove - This operation is used to delete an instance of a PRC. 578 It includes one parameter, a PRID object, which names either the 579 individual PRI to be deleted or a PRID prefix naming one or more 580 complete classes of PRIs. Prefix-based deletion supports 581 efficient bulk policy removal. 583 12 584 Shai Herzog Expires June 2000 586 Internet Draft COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning 22-Oct-99 588 3. Message Content 590 The COPS protocol provides for different COPS clients to define 591 their own "named", i.e. client-specific, information for various 592 messages. This section describes the messages exchanged between a 593 COPS server (PDP) and COPS Policy Provisioning clients (PEP) that 594 carry client-specific data objects. 596 3.1. Request (REQ) PEP -> PDP 598 The REQ message is sent by policy provisioning clients to issue a 599 'config request' to the PDP. The Client Handle associated with the 600 REQ message originated by a provisioning client must be unique for 601 that client but otherwise has no protocol significance at this 602 time. 604 The config request message serves as a request from the PEP to the 605 PDP for provisioning policy data which the PDP may have for the 606 PEP, such as access control lists, etc. This includes policy the 607 PDP may have at the time the REQ is received as well as any future 608 policy data or updates. 610 The config request message should include provisioning client 611 information to provide the PDP with client-specific configuration 612 or capability information about the PEP. The information provided 613 by the PEP should include client resource (e.g. queuing 614 capabilities) and default policy configuration (e.g. default role 615 combinations) information as well as existing policy (i.e. PIB) 616 incarnation data. This information typically does not include 617 state previously installed by a PDP. This information from the 618 client assists the server in deciding what types of policy the PEP 619 can install and enforce. The format of the Provisioning ClientSI 620 data is described in the policy information base (see section 5). 622 Note that the config request message is regenerated and sent to 623 the PDP in response to the receipt of a Synchronize State Request 624 (SSQ) message. 626 The policy information supplied by the PDP must be consistent with 627 the named decision data defined for the policy provisioning 628 client. The PDP responds to the config request with a DEC message 629 containing any available provisioning policy data. 631 The REQ message has the following format: 633 ::= 634 635 636 [] 637 [] 639 13 640 Shai Herzog Expires June 2000 642 Internet Draft COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning 22-Oct-99 644 Note that the COPS objects IN-Int, OUT-Int and LDPDecisions are 645 not included in a COPS-PR Request. 647 3.2. Decision (DEC) PDP -> PEP 649 The DEC message is sent from the PDP to a policy provisioning 650 client in response to the REQ message received from the PEP. The 651 Client Handle must be the same Handle that was received in the REQ 652 message. 654 The DEC message is sent as an immediate response to a config 655 request with the solicited decision flag set. Subsequent DEC 656 messages may also be sent at any time after the original DEC 657 message to supply the PEP with additional/updated policy 658 information. Updated policy data carried in DEC message is 659 correlated with the previous DEC by matching the policy ID 660 information in the provisioning client decision data. 662 Each DEC message may contain multiple decisions. This means a 663 single message can install some policies and delete others. In 664 general a COPS-PR decision message should contain at most one or 665 more deletes followed by one or more install decisions. This is 666 used to solve a precedence issue, not a timing issue: the delete 667 decision deletes what it specifies, except those items that are 668 installed in the same message. 670 A COPS-PR DEC message contains a single "transaction", i.e. either 671 all the decisions in a DEC message succeed or they all fail. This 672 allows the PDP to delete some policies only if other policies can 673 be installed in their place. The DEC message has the following 674 format: 676 ::= 677 678 []+ | 679 [] 681 ::= 682 683 [] 685 Note that only Named Decision Data (Provisioning) is included in a 686 COPS-PR Decision. Other types of COPS decision data (e.g. 687 Stateless, Replacement) are not supported. 689 For each decision on the DEC message, the PEP performs the 690 operation specified in the Flags field on the Named decision data. 691 For the policy provisioning clients, the format for this data is 693 14 694 Shai Herzog Expires June 2000 696 Internet Draft COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning 22-Oct-99 698 defined in the context of the Policy Information Base (see section 699 5). In response to a DEC message, the policy provisioning client 700 sends a RPT message back to the PDP to inform the PDP of the 701 action taken. 703 3.3. Report State (RPT) PEP -> PDP 705 The RPT message is sent from the policy provisioning clients to 706 the PDP to report accounting information associated with the 707 provisioned policy, or to notify the PDP of changes in the PEP 708 (Report-Type = 'Accounting') related the provisioning client. 710 RPT is also used as a mechanism to inform the PDP about the action 711 taken at the PEP, in response to a DEC message. For example, in 712 response to an 'Install' decision, the PEP informs the PDP if the 713 policy data is installed (Report-Type = 'Installed') or not 714 (Report-Type = 'Not Installed'). 716 The RPT message may contain provisioning client information such 717 as accounting parameters or errors/warnings related to a decision. 718 The data format for this information is defined in the context of 719 the policy information base (see section 5). The RPT message has 720 the following format: 722 ::= 723 724 725 [] 726 [] 728 4. COPS-PR Protocol Objects 730 We define a new COPS client type for the policy provisioning 731 client: 733 Client Type = 2; Policy Provisioning Client 735 COPS messages sent between a Policy Provisioning client and a COPS 736 server contain a COPS Common Header with this Policy Provisioning 737 Client type specified: 739 0 1 2 3 740 +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 741 | Version| Flag | Op Code | Client Type = 0x02 | 742 +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 743 | Message Length | 744 +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 746 15 747 Shai Herzog Expires June 2000 749 Internet Draft COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning 22-Oct-99 751 The COPS Policy Provisioning client uses several new COPS protocol 752 objects that carry named client-specific information. This section 753 defines those new objects. 755 COPS-PR classifies policy data according to "bindings", where a 756 binding consists of a Policy Rule Identifier and the Policy Rule 757 Instance data, encoded within the context of the provisioning 758 policy information base (see next section). 760 The format for these new objects is as follows: 762 0 1 2 3 763 +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 764 | Length | S-Num = BC | S-Type = 1 | 765 +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 766 | 32 bit unsigned integer | 767 +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 769 S-Num and S-Type are similar to the C-Num and C-Type used in the 770 base COPS objects. The difference is that S-Num and S-Type are 771 used only for ClientSI specific objects. 773 Length is a two-octet value that describes the number of octets 774 (including the header) that compose the object. If the length in 775 octets does not fall on a 32-bit word boundary, padding must be 776 added to the end of the object so that it is aligned to the next 777 32-bit boundary before the object can be sent on the wire. On the 778 receiving side, a subsequent object boundary can be found by 779 simply rounding up the previous stated object length to the next 780 32-bit boundary. 782 4.1. Binding Count (BC) 784 S-Num = 1, S-Type = 1, Length = 8. 786 This object specifies the number of Bindings that are contained in 787 the message. 789 0 1 2 3 790 +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 791 | Length | S-Num = BC | S-Type = 1 | 792 +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 793 | 32 bit unsigned integer | 794 +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 796 4.2. Policy Rule Identifier (PRID) 798 4.2.1. Complete PRID 800 16 801 Shai Herzog Expires June 2000 803 Internet Draft COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning 22-Oct-99 805 S-Num = 2, S-Type = 1 (Complete PRID), Length = variable. 807 This object is used to carry the identifier, or PRID, of a Policy 808 Rule Instance. The identifier is encoded following the rules that 809 have been defined for encoding SNMP Object Identifier (OID) 810 values. Specifically, PRID values are encoded using the 811 Type/Length/Value (TLV) format and initial sub-identifier packing 812 that is specified by the binary encoding rules [BER] used for 814 Object Identifiers in an SNMP PDU. 816 0 1 2 3 817 +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 818 | Length | S-Num = PRID | S-Type = 1 | 819 +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 820 ... ... 821 | Policy Rule Identifier | 822 ... ... 823 +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 825 For example, a (fictitious) PRID equal to 1.3.6.1.2.2.8.1 would be 826 encoded as follows (values in hex): 828 06 07 2B 06 01 02 02 08 01 830 The entire PRID object would be encoded as follows: 832 00 0D - Length 833 02 - S-Num 834 01 - S-Type (Complete PRID) 835 06 07 2B 06 01 02 02 08 01 - Encoded PRID 836 00 00 00 - Padding 838 4.2.2. Prefix PRID 840 Certain operations, such as decision removal, can be optimized by 841 specifying a PRID prefix with the intent that the requested 842 operation be applied to all PRIs matching the prefix. PRID prefix 843 objects MUST only be used in the COPS protocol 845 operation where it may be more optimal to perform bulk decision 846 removal using class prefixes instead of a sequence of individual 847 operations. Other COPS operations, e.g. operations always require individual PRID specification. 850 The specification of a prefix is performed using the Policy Rule 851 Identifier object with an S-Type equal to 2 (Prefix PRID). 853 17 854 Shai Herzog Expires June 2000 856 Internet Draft COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning 22-Oct-99 858 S-Num = 2, S-Type = 2 (Prefix PRID), Length = variable. 860 0 1 2 3 861 +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 862 | Length | S-Num = PRID | S-Type = 2 | 863 +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 864 ... ... 865 | Prefix PRID | 866 ... ... 867 +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 869 Continuing with the previous example, a PRC prefix that is 870 equal 871 to 1.3.6.1.2.2 would be encoded as follows (values in hex): 873 06 05 2B 06 01 02 02 875 The entire PRID object would be encoded as follows: 877 00 0B - Length 878 02 - S-Num = PRID 879 02 - S-Type = Prefix PRID 880 06 05 2B 06 01 02 02 - Encoded Prefix 881 00 - Padding 883 4.3. BER Encoded Policy Instance Data (BPD) 885 S-Num = 3, S-Type = 1, Length = variable. 887 This object is used to carry the BER encoded value of a Policy 888 Data Instance. This object is used to carry the BER encoded value 889 of a Policy Rule Instance. The PRI value, which contains all of 890 the individual values of the attributes that comprise the class, 891 is encoded as a series of TLV sub-components. Each sub-component 892 represents the value of a single attribute and is encoded 893 following the BER. 895 0 1 2 3 896 +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 897 | Length | S-Num = BPD | S-Type = 1 | 898 +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 899 ... ... 900 | BER Encoded PRI Value | 901 ... ... 902 +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 904 As an example, an instance of the qosIpAce class, defined in the 905 QoS Policy IP PIB [PIB], would be encoded as follows: 907 18 908 Shai Herzog Expires June 2000 910 Internet Draft COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning 22-Oct-99 912 02 01 08 :qosIpAceIndex/INTEGER/Value = 8 913 40 04 C0 39 01 05 :qosIpAceDstAddr/IpAddress/Value = 914 192.57.1.5 915 40 04 FF FF FF FF :qosIpAceDstMask/IpAddress/Value = 916 255.255.255.255 917 40 04 00 00 00 00 :qosIpAceSrcAddr/IpAddress/Value = 0.0.0.0 918 40 04 00 00 00 00 :qosIpAceSrcMask/IpAddress/Value = 0.0.0.0 919 02 01 FF :qosIpAceDscp/Integer32/Value = -1 (not used) 920 02 01 06 :qosIpAceProtocol/INTEGER/Value = 6 (TCP) 921 05 00 :qosIpAceDstL4PortMin/NULL/not supported 922 05 00 :qosIpAceDstL4PortMax/NULL/not supported 923 05 00 :qosIpAceSrcL4PortMin/NULL/not supported 924 05 00 :qosIpAceSrcL4PortMax/NULL/not supported 925 02 01 01 :qosIpAcePermit/TruthValue/Value = 1 (true) 927 The entire BPD object would be encoded as follows: 929 00 30 - Length 930 03 - S-Num = BPD 931 01 - S-Type 932 02 01 08 - qosIpAceIndex 933 40 04 C0 39 01 05 - qosIpAceDstAddr 934 40 04 FF FF FF FF - qosIpAceDstMask 935 40 04 00 00 00 00 - qosIpAceSrcAddr 936 40 04 00 00 00 00 - qosIpAceSrcMask 937 02 01 FF - qosIpAceDscp 938 02 01 06 - qosIpAceProtocol 939 05 00 - qosIpAceDstL4PortMin 940 05 00 - qosIpAceDstL4PortMax 941 05 00 - qosIpAceSrcL4PortMin 942 05 00 - qosIpAceSrcL4PortMax 943 02 01 01 - qosIpAcePermit 945 Note that attributes not supported within a class are still 946 returned in the BPD for a PRI. By convention, a NULL value is 947 returned for attributes that are not supported. In the previous 948 example, source and destination port number attributes are not 949 supported. 951 4.4. Provisioning Error Object (PERR) 953 19 954 Shai Herzog Expires June 2000 956 Internet Draft COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning 22-Oct-99 958 S-Num = 4, S-Type = 1, Length = 8. 960 0 1 2 3 961 +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 962 | Length | S-Num = PERR | S-Type = 1 | 963 +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 964 | Error-Code | Error Sub-code | 965 +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 967 The provisioning error object has the same format as the Error 968 object in COPS [COPS], except with C-Num and C-Type replaced by 969 the S-Num and S-Type values shown. 971 The policy provisioning client also adds the following error code: 973 Error Code 14 = Provisioning Error 975 5. COPS-PR Client-Specific Data Formats 977 This section describes the format of the named client specific 978 information for the COPS policy provisioning client. ClientSI 979 formats are defined for named decision data, request data and 980 report data. The actual content of the data is defined by the 981 policy information base for the provisioning client type (see 982 below). 984 5.1. Named Decision Data 986 The Named Decision Data for the policy provisioning client 987 consists of two types of decisions: Install and Remove, used with 988 the 'Install' and 'Remove' Command-Code, respectively, in the COPS 989 Decision Object. The data, in general, is composed of one or more 990 bindings. Each binding associates a PRID object and a BPD object. 991 The PRID object is always present in both install and remove 992 decisions, the BPD object MUST be present in the case of an 993 install decision and MUST NOT be present in the case of a remove 994 decision. 996 The format for the provisioning client named decision data is as 997 follows: 999 < Decision: Named Data> ::= | 1000 1002 ::= [ ]+ 1004 ::= []+ 1006 20 1007 Shai Herzog Expires June 2000 1009 Internet Draft COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning 22-Oct-99 1011 Note that PRID objects in a Remove Decision may specify PRID 1012 prefix values. Explicit and implicit deletion of installed 1013 policies is supported by a client. Install Decision data MUST be 1014 explicit (i.e., PRID prefix values are illegal and MUST be 1015 rejected by a client). 1017 5.2. ClientSI Request Data 1019 The provisioning client request data will use same bindings as 1020 described above. The format for this data is as follows: 1022 ::= [ ]+ 1024 5.3. Policy Provisioning Report Data 1026 The provisioning client report data is used in the RPT message in 1027 conjunction with the accompanying COPS Report Type object. Report 1028 types can be 'Commit' or 'No-Commit' indicating to the PDP that a 1029 particular set of provisioning policies has been either 1030 successfully or unsuccessfully installed/removed on the PEP. The 1031 provisioning report data consists of the bindings described above 1032 and global and specific error/warning information. 1034 Specific errors are associated with a particular policy rule. In a 1035 'Commit' RPT message, a specific error is an indication of a 1036 warning related to a specific policy that has been installed, but 1037 that is not fully implemented (e.g., its parameters have been 1038 approximated). In a 'No Commit' RPT message, this is an error code 1039 specific to a binding. 1041 Global errors are not tied to a specific PRID. In a 'Commit' RPT 1042 message, a global error is an indication of a general warning at 1043 the PEP level (e.g., memory low). In a 'No Commit' RPT message, 1044 this is an indication of a general error at the PEP level (e.g., 1045 memory exhausted). 1047 In the case of a 'No Commit' the PEP MUST report at least the 1048 first error and should report as many errors as possible. 1050 ::= [] [report]+ 1052 ::= 1054 ::= 1055 [[[]+]] 1057 ::= 1059 6. Common Operations 1061 21 1062 Shai Herzog Expires June 2000 1064 Internet Draft COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning 22-Oct-99 1066 This section describes, in general, typical exchanges between a 1067 PDP and Policy Provisioning COPS client. 1069 First, a TCP connection is established between the client and 1070 server and the PEP sends a Client-Open message with the Client- 1071 Type = 2, Policy Provisioning client. If the PDP supports the 1072 provisioning client type, the PDP responds with a Client-Accept 1073 (CAT) message. If the client type is not supported, a Client-Close 1074 (CC) message is returned by the PDP to the PEP, possibly 1075 identifying an alternate server that is known to support the 1076 policy for the provisioning client type. 1078 After receiving the CAT message, the PEP can send requests to the 1079 server. The REQ from a policy provisioning client contains a COPS 1080 'Configuration Request' context object with and, optionally, any 1081 relevant client specific information for the PEP. The information 1082 provided by the PEP should include client resource (e.g., 1083 supported classes/attributes) and default policy configuration 1084 information as well as existing policy (i.e., PIB) incarnation 1085 data. The config request message from a provisioning client serves 1086 two purposes. First, it is a request to the PDP for any 1087 provisioning configuration data which the PDP may currently have 1088 that is suitable for the PEP, such as access control filters, etc. 1090 Also, the config request is a request to asynchronously send 1091 policy data to the PEP, as the PDP decides is necessary. This 1092 asynchronous data may be new policy data or an update to policy 1093 data sent previously. 1095 The PDP has Policy Provisioning policy configuration information 1096 for the client, that information is returned to the client in a 1097 DEC message containing the Policy Provisioning client policy data 1098 within the COPS Decision object. If no filters are defined, the 1099 DEC message will simply specify that there are no filters using 1100 the "NULL Decision" Decision Flags object. The PEP MUST specify a 1101 client handle in the request message. The PDP MUST process the 1102 client handle and copy it in the decision message. This is to 1103 prevent the PEP from timing out the REQ and deleting the Client 1104 Handle. 1106 The PDP can then add new policy data or update existing state by 1107 sending subsequent DEC message(s) to the PEP, with the same Client 1108 Handle. The PEP is responsible for removing the Client handle when 1109 it is no longer needed, for example when the interface goes down, 1110 and informing the PDP that the handle is to be deleted. 1112 For Policy Provisioning purposes, access state, and access 1113 requests to the policy server can be initiated by other sources 1114 besides the PEP. Examples of other sources include attached users 1115 requesting network services via a web interface into a central 1117 22 1118 Shai Herzog Expires June 2000 1120 Internet Draft COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning 22-Oct-99 1122 management application, or H.323 servers requesting resources on 1123 behalf of a user for a video conferencing application. When such a 1124 request is accepted, the edge device affected by the decision (the 1125 point where the flow is to enter the network) must be informed of 1126 the decision. Since the PEP in the edge device did not initiate 1127 the request, the specifics of the request, e.g. flowspec, packet 1128 filter, and PHB to apply, must be communicated to the PEP by the 1129 PDP. This information is sent to the PEP using the Decision 1130 message containing Policy Provisioning client specific data 1131 objects in the COPS Decision object as specified. Any updates to 1132 the state information, for example in the case of a policy change 1133 or call tear down, is communicated to the PEP by subsequent DEC 1134 messages containing the same Client Handle and the updated Policy 1135 Provisioning request state. Updates can specify that policy data 1136 is to be deleted or installed. 1138 The PEP acknowledges the DEC message and action taken by sending a 1139 RPT message with a "Commit" or "No-Commit" Report-Type object. 1140 This serves as an indication to the PDP that the requestor (e.g. 1141 H.323 server) can be notified that the request has been accepted 1142 by the network. If the PEP needs to reject the DEC operation for 1143 any reason, a RPT message is sent with a Report-Type of value "No- 1144 Commit" and optionally a Client Specific Information object 1145 specifying the policy data that was rejected. The PDP can then 1146 respond to the requestor accordingly. 1148 The PEP can report to the PDP the local status of any installed 1149 request state when appropriate. This information is sent in a 1150 Report-State (RPT) message with the "Accounting" flag set. The 1151 state being reported on is referenced by the Client Handle 1152 associated with the request state and the client specific data 1153 identifier. 1155 Finally, Client-Close (CC) messages are used to cancel the 1156 corresponding Client-Open message. The CC message informs the 1157 other side that the client type specified is no longer supported. 1159 7. Fault Tolerance 1161 When communication is lost between PEP and PDP, the PEP attempts 1162 to re-establish the TCP connection with the PDP it was last 1163 connected to. If that server cannot be reached, then the PEP 1164 attempts to connect to a secondary PDP, assumed at this time to be 1165 manually configured at the PEP. 1167 When a connection is finally re-established with a PDP, the PEP 1168 sends a OPN message with a object providing the 1169 address of the most recent PDP for which it is still caching 1170 decisions. If no decisions are being cached on the PEP (due to 1171 reboot or TTL timeout of state) the PEP must not included the last 1172 PDP address information. Based on this information, the PDP may 1174 23 1175 Shai Herzog Expires June 2000 1177 Internet Draft COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning 22-Oct-99 1179 request the PEP to re-synch its current state information (SSQ 1180 message). If, after re-connecting, the PDP does not request the 1181 synchronization, the client can assume the server recognizes it 1182 and the current state at the PEP is correct. Any state changes 1183 which occurred at the PEP while the connection was lost must be 1184 reported to the PDP in a RPT message. If re-synchronization is 1185 requested, the PEP MUST reissue any REQ messages it generated 1186 during initial connection establishment and the PDP MUST issue DEC 1187 messages to delete either individual PRIDs or prefixes as 1188 appropriate to ensure a consistent known state at the PEP. 1190 While the PEP is disconnected from the PDP, the request state at 1191 the PEP is to be used for policy decisions. If the PEP cannot re- 1192 connect in some pre-specified period of time (TTL: Time To Live, 1193 see Section 3.3), the request state is to be deleted and the 1194 associated Handles removed. The same holds true for the PDP; upon 1195 detecting a failed TCP connection, the time-out timer is started 1196 for the request state associated with the PEP and the state is 1197 removed after the specified period without a connection. 1199 7.1. Security Considerations 1201 The use of COPS for Policy Provisioning introduces no new security 1202 issues over the base COPS protocol [COPS]. The security mechanism 1203 described in that document should be deployed in a COPS-PR 1204 environment. 1206 24 1207 Shai Herzog Expires June 2000 1209 Internet Draft COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning 22-Oct-99 1211 8. References 1213 [COPS] Boyle, J., Cohen, R., Durham, D., Herzog, S., Raja, R., 1214 Sastry, A., "The COPS (Common Open Policy Service) 1215 Protocol", IETF , August 1999. 1217 [RAP] Yavatkar, R., et al., "A Framework for Policy Based 1218 Admission Control",IETF , 1219 April 1999. 1221 [E2E] Bernet, Y., Yavatkar R., Ford, P., Baker, F., Nichols, K., 1222 Speer, M., "A Framework for End-to-End QoS Combining 1223 RSVP/Intserv and Differentiated Services", IETF , November 1998. 1226 [RSVP] Braden, R., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and Jamin, 1227 S., "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Version 1 1228 Functional Specification", IETF RFC 2205, Proposed 1229 Standard, September 1997. 1231 [ASN1] Information processing systems - Open Systems 1232 Interconnection, "Specification of Abstract Syntax Notation 1233 One (ASN.1)", International Organization for 1234 Standardization, International Standard 8824, December 1235 1987. 1237 [BER] Information processing systems - Open Systems 1238 Interconnection - Specification of Basic Encoding Rules for 1239 Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1), International 1240 Organization for Standardization. International Standard 1241 8825, (December, 1987). 1243 [RFC2475] S. Blake, D. Black, M. Carlson, E. Davies, Z. Wang, W. 1244 Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated Service," RFC 1245 2475, December 1998. 1247 [PIB] M. Fine, K. McCloghrie, S. Hahn, K. Chan, A. Smith, "An 1248 Initial Quality of Service Policy Information Base for 1249 COPS-PR Clients and Servers", draft-mfine-cops-pib-02.txt, 1250 October 1999. 1252 [V2SMI] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., 1253 Rose, M. and S. Waldbusser, "Structure of Management 1254 Information Version 2(SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578, April 1255 1999. 1257 25 1258 Shai Herzog Expires June 2000 1260 Internet Draft COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning 22-Oct-99 1262 9. Author Information 1264 Francis Reichmeyer IPHighway Inc. 1265 Phone: (201) 585-0800 Parker Plaza, 16th Floor 1266 Email: FranR@iphighway.com 400 Kelby St. 1267 Fort-Lee, NJ 07024 1268 Shai Herzog 1269 Phone: (201) 585-0800 1270 Email: Herzog@iphighway.com 1272 Kwok Ho Chan Nortel Networks, Inc. 1273 Phone: (978) 916-8175 600 Technology Park Drive 1274 Email: kchan@nortelnetworks.com Billerica, MA 01821 1276 David Durham Intel 1277 Phone: (503) 264-6232 2111 NE 25th Avenue 1278 Email: david.durham@intel.com Hillsboro, OR 97124 1280 Raj Yavatkar 1281 Phone: (503) 264-9077 1282 Email: raj.yavatkar@intel.com 1284 Silvano Gai Cisco Systems, Inc. 1285 Phone: (408) 527-2690 170 Tasman Dr. 1286 Email: sgai@cisco.com San Jose, CA 95134-1706 1288 Keith McCloghrie 1290 Phone: (408) 526-5260 1291 Email: kzm@cisco.com 1293 Andrew Smith Extreme Networks 1294 Phone: +1 408 579 2821 3585 Monroe St. 1295 Email: andrew@extremenetworks.com Santa Clara CA 95051 1296 USA 1298 John Seligson Nortel Networks, Inc. 1299 Phone: (408) 495-2992 4401 Great America Parkway 1300 Email:jseligso@nortelnetworks.com Santa Clara, CA 95054 1302 26 1303 Shai Herzog Expires June 2000 1305 Internet Draft COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning 22-Oct-99 1307 10. Full Copyright Notice 1309 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1997). All Rights Reserved. 1311 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 1312 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 1313 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 1314 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 1315 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 1316 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 1317 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 1318 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 1319 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 1320 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 1321 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 1322 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 1323 English. 1325 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 1326 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 1328 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 1329 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 1330 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 1331 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 1333 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 1334 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 1336 27 1337 Shai Herzog Expires June 2000