Diameter Maintenance and K. Carlberg, Ed. Extensions (DIME) G11 Internet-Draft T. Taylor Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies June 11, 2010 Diameter Priority Attribute Value Pairs draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-01.txt Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Carlberg & Taylor Expires Dec 11, 2010 [Page 1] Internet Drafts Resource Priority AVPs June 11, 2010 Abstract This document defines Attribute-Value Pair (AVP) containers for various priority parameters for use with Diameter and the AAA framework. The parameters themselves are defined in several different protocols that operate at either the network or application layer. 1. Introduction This document defines a number of Attribute-Value Pairs (AVPs) that can be used within the Diameter protocol [RFC3588] to convey a specific set of priority parameters. The parameters themselves are specified in other documents, but are described briefly below. Priority influences the distribution of resources. This influence may be probabilistic, ranging between (but not including) 0% and 100%, or it may be in the form of a guarantee to either receive or not receive the resource. The influence attributed to prioritization may also affect QoS, but it is not to be confused with QoS. As an example, if packets of two or more flows are contending for the same shared resources, prioritization helps determine which packet receives the resource. However, this allocation of resource does not correlate directly to any specific delay or loss bounds that have been associated with the packet. Another example of how prioritization can be realized is articulated in Appendix A.3 (the priority by-pass model) of [I-D.ietf-tsvwg- emergency-rsvp]. In this case, prioritized flows may gain access to resources that are never shared with non-prioritized flows. 2. Terminology and Abbreviations The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [RFC2119]. 3. Priority Parameter Encoding This section defines a set of priority AVPs. This set is for use with the DIAMETER QoS application [RFC5866] and represents a continuation of the list of AVPs defined in [RFC5624]. The syntax notation used is that of [RFC3588]. Carlberg & Taylor Expires Dec 11, 2010 [Page 2] Internet Drafts Resource Priority AVPs June 11, 2010 3.1. Dual-Priority AVP The Dual-Priority AVP is a grouped AVP consisting of two AVPs; the Preemption-Priority and the Defending-Priority AVP. These AVPs are derived from the corresponding priority fields in the Signaled Preemption Priority Policy Element [RFC3181] of RSVP [RFC2205]. The Defending-Priority is set when the reservation has been admitted. The Preemption-Priority of a newly requested reservation is compared with the Defending Priority of a previously admitted flow. The actions taken based upon the result of this comparison are a function of local policy. Dual-Priority ::= < AVP Header: TBD > { Preemption-Priority } { Defending-Priority } 3.1.1. Preemption-Priority AVP The Preemption-Priority AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32. Higher values represent higher priority. The value encoded in this AVP is the same as the preemption priority value that would be encoded in the signaled preemption priority policy element. 3.1.2. Defending-Priority AVP The Defending-Priority AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32. Higher values represent higher priority. The value encoded in this AVP is the same as the defending priority value that would be encoded in the signaled preemption priority policy element. 3.2. Admission-Priority AVP The Admission-Priority AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32. The admission priority of the flow is used to increase the probability of session establishment for selected flows. Higher values represent higher priority. A given admission priority is encoded in this information element using the same value as when encoded in the admission priority parameter defined in Section 5.1 of [I-D.ietf- tsvwg-emergency-rsvp]. 3.3. SIP-RPH AVP The SIP-RPH AVP is a grouped AVP consisting of two AVPs, the SIP- RPH-Namespace and the SIP-RPH-Value AVP, which are derived from the corresponding optional header fields in [rfc4412]. The SIP-RPH- Carlberg & Taylor Expires Dec 11, 2010 [Page 3] Internet Drafts Resource Priority AVPs June 11, 2010 Namespace identifies a particular ordered set of priority values. The SIP-RPH-Value identifies a specific priority value within the set identified by the SIP-RPH-Namespace. SIP-RPH ::= < AVP Header: TBD > { SIP-RPH-Namespace } { SIP-RPH-Value } 3.3.1. SIP-Namespace AVP The SIP-RPH-Namespace AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type UTF8String. 3.3.2 SIP-RPH-Value AVP The SIP-RPH-Value AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type UTF8String. 3.4. App-Level-Resource-Priority AVP The App-Level-Resource-Priority (ALRP) AVP is a grouped AVP consisting of two AVPs, the ALRP-Namespace AVP and the ALRP-Priority AVP. A description of the semantics of the parameter values can be found in [RFC4412] and in [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp]. The registry set up by [RFC4412] provided string values for both the priority namespace and the priority values associated with that namespace. [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp] modifies that registry to assign numerical values to both the namespace identifiers and the priority values within them. Consequently, SIP-RPH and App-Level-Resource- Priority AVPs convey the same priority semantics, but with differing syntax. The coding for parameters is as follows: Eventhough [RFC4412] and [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp] refer to the same information (ie, namespace and value), the actual encodings of each are defined in different forms. In the former case, an alpha- numeric encoding is used while the latter is constrained to a numeric-only value. This difference is reflected in the in the defined structures of Section 3.3 and 3.4 of this document. App-Level-Resource-Priority ::= < AVP Header: TBD > { ALRP-Namespace } { ALRP-Priority } 3.4.1. ALRP-Namespace AVP The ALRP-Namespace AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32. 3.4.2. ALRP-Priority AVP Carlberg & Taylor Expires Dec 11, 2010 [Page 4] Internet Drafts Resource Priority AVPs June 11, 2010 The ALRP-Priority AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32. 4. IANA Considerations 4.1. AVP Codes IANA is requested to allocate AVP codes for the following AVPs that are defined in this document. +------------------------------------------------------------------+ | AVP Section | |AVP Name Code Defined Data Type | +------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Dual-Priority TBD 3.1 Grouped | |Preemption-Priority TBD 3.1.1 Unsigned32 | |Defending-Priority TBD 3.1.2 Unsigned32 | |Admission-Priority TBD 3.2 Unsigned32 | |SIP-RPH TBD 3.3 Grouped | |SIP-Namespace TBD 3.3.1 UTF8String | |SIP-Value TBD 3.3.2 UTF8String | |App-Level-Resource-Priority TBD 3.4 Grouped | |ALRP-Namespace TBD 3.4.1 Unsigned32 | |ALRP-Priority TBD 3.4.2 Unsigned32 | +------------------------------------------------------------------+ 4.2. QoS Profile IANA is requested to allocate a new value from the Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Parameters/QoS Profile registry defined in [RFC5624] for the QoS profile defined in this document. The name of the profile is "Resource priority parameters". The reference is [RFCXXXX] (this document). 5. Security Considerations TBD 6. Acknowledgements We would like to thank Lars Eggert, Jan Engelhardt, Francois LeFaucheur, John Loughney, An Nguyen, Dave Oran, James Polk, Martin Stiemerling, and Magnus Westerlund for their help with resolving problems regarding the Admission Priority and the ALRP parameter. Additionally, we would like to thank Martin Dolly and Viqar Shaikh Carlberg & Taylor Expires Dec 11, 2010 [Page 5] Internet Drafts Resource Priority AVPs June 11, 2010 for their feedback on previous discussion related to the topic of prioritization. 7. References 7.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp] Faucheur, F., Polk, J., and K. Carlberg, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) Extensions for Emergency Services", draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp-14 (work in progress), Nov 2009. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC3181] Herzog, S., "Signaled Preemption Priority Policy Element", RFC 3181, October 2001. [RFC3588] Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J. Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, September 2003. [RFC4124] Le Faucheur, F., "Protocol Extensions for Support of Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 4124, June 2005. [RFC4412] Schulzrinne, H. and J. Polk, "Communications Resource Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4412, February 2006. [RFC5624] Korhonen, J., Tschofenig, H., and E. Davies, "Quality of Service Parameters for Usage with Diameter", RFC 5624, Aug 2009. [RFC5866] Sun, D., et. al., "Diameter Quality-of-Service Application", RFC 5866, May 2010. 7.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-nsis-qspec] Bader, A., Kappler, C., and D. Oran, "QoS NSLP QSPEC Template", draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-21 (work in progress), Carlberg & Taylor Expires Dec 11, 2010 [Page 6] Internet Drafts Resource Priority AVPs June 11, 2010 November 2008. [RFC3564] Le Faucheur, F. and W. Lai, "Requirements for Support of Differentiated Services-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering", RFC 3564, July 2003. Authors' Addresses Ken Carlberg (editor) Tom Taylor G11 Huawei Technologies 1601 Clarendon Dr 1852 Lorraine Ave Arlington, VA 22209 Ottawa United States Canada Email: carlberg@g11.org.uk Email: tom111.taylor@bell.net Carlberg & Taylor Expires Dec 11, 2010 [Page 7]