IETF Internet Draft NSIS Working Group Jerry Ash Internet Draft AT&T Attila Bader Expiration Date: November 2005 Ericsson Cornelia Kappler Siemens AG May 2005 QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. 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." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 26, 2005. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). Abstract The QoS NSLP protocol is used to signal QoS reservations and is independent of a specific QoS model (QOSM) such as IntServ or DiffServ. Rather, all information specific to a QOSM is encapsulated in a separate object, the QSPEC. This draft defines a template for the QSPEC, which contains both the QoS description and QSPEC control information. The QSPEC format is defined, as are a number of QSPEC parameters. The QSPEC parameters provide a common language to be re-used in several QOSMs. To a certain extent QSPEC parameters Ash, et. al. [Page 1] Internet Draft QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template May 2005 ensure interoperability of QOSMs. Optional QSPEC parameters aim to ensure the extensibility of QoS NSLP to other QOSMs in the future. The node initiating the NSIS signaling adds an Initiator QSPEC that must not be removed, thereby ensuring the intention of the NSIS initiator is preserved along the signaling path. Table of Contents 1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. QSPEC Parameters, Processing, & Extensibility . . . . . . . . . 5 4.1 QSPEC Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.2 QSPEC Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.3 Example of NSLP QSPEC Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.4 Treatment of QSPEC Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.4.1 Mandatory & Optional QSPEC Parameters . . . . . . . . 11 4.4.2 Read-only and Read-write QSPEC Parameters . . . . . . 11 4.5 QSPEC Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5. QSPEC Format Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.1 QSPEC Control Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.2 QoS Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.2.1 QoS Desired . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.2.2 QoS Available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.2.3 QoS Reserved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.2.4 Minimum QoS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6. QSPEC Functional Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 6.1 General QSPEC Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6.2 Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6.3 & Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6.4 Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6.5 Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6.5.1 Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6.5.2 Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 6.5.3 Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 6.6 Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 6.6.1 & Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 6.6.2 Parameter . . . . . . . . . . 23 6.7 Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 6.8 Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6.9 Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6.10 Parameters . . . . . . . . . . 26 6.11 , , , , , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 7. QSPEC Procedures & Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 7.1 QSPEC Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 7.1.1 Sender-Initiated Reservations . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 7.1.2 Receiver-Initiated Reservations . . . . . . . . . . . 30 7.1.3 Setting Optional Parameter Flags . . . . . . . . . . 31 7.2 QOSM & QSPEC Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 7.2.1 QOSM & QSPEC for DiffServ Admission Control . . . . . 31 7.2.2 QOSM & QSPEC for IntServ Controlled Load Service . . 33 Ash, et. al. [Page 2] Internet Draft QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template May 2005 7.2.3 QOSM & QSPEC for IntServ Guaranteed Services . . . . 33 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 11. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 12. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 13. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Appendix A QoS Models and QSPECs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Appendix B Mapping of QoS Desired, QoS Available, and QoS Reserved of NSIS onto AdSpec, TSpec, and RSpec of RSVP IntServ . . 38 Intellectual Property Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Full Copyright Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Disclaimer of Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 1. Conventions Used in This Document 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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 2. Introduction The QoS NSLP establishes and maintains state at nodes along the path of a data flow for the purpose of providing forwarding resources (QoS) for that flow [QoS-SIG]. The design of QoS NSLP is conceptually similar to RSVP [RFC2205], and meets the requirements of [RFC3726]. A QoS-enabled domain supports a particular QoS model (QOSM), which is a method to achieve QoS for a traffic flow. A QOSM incorporates QoS provisioning methods and a QoS architecture. It defines the behavior of the resource management function (RMF), including inputs and outputs, and how QSPEC information is interpreted on traffic description, resources required, resources available, and control information required by the RMF. A QOSM also specifies a set of mandatory and optional QSPEC parameters that describe the QoS and how resources will be managed by the RMF. QoS NSLP can support signaling for different QOSMs, such as for IntServ, DiffServ admission control, and those specified in [Y.1541-QOSM, INTSERV-QOSM, RMD-QOSM]. For more information on QOSMs see Section 7.2 and Appendix A. One of the major differences between RSVP and QoS-NSLP is that QoS-NSLP supports signaling for different QOSMs along the data path, all with one signaling message. For example, the data path may start in a domain supporting DiffServ and end in a domain supporting Y.1541. However, because some typical QoS parameters are standardized and can be reused in different QOSMs, some degree of interoperability between QOSMs exists. The QSPEC travels in QoS-NSLP messages and is opaque to the QoS NSLP. The content of the QSPEC is QOSM specific. Since QoS-NSLP signaling operation can be different for different QOSMs, Ash, et. al. [Page 3] Internet Draft QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template May 2005 the QSPEC contains two kinds of information, QSPEC control information and QoS description. QSPEC control information contains parameters that governs the RMF. An example of QSPEC control information is how the excess traffic is treated in the RMF queuing functions. The QoS description is composed of QSPEC objects loosely corresponding to the TSpec, RSpec and AdSpec objects specified in RSVP. This is, the QSPEC may contain a description of QoS desired and QoS reserved. It can also collect information about available resources. Going beyond RSVP functionality, the QoS description also allows indicating a range of acceptable QoS by defining a QSPEC object denoting minimum QoS. Usage of these QSPEC objects is not bound to particular message types thus allowing for flexibility. A QSPEC object collecting information about available resources MAY travel in any QoS-NSLP message, for example a QUERY message or a RESERVE message. 3. Terminology Mandatory QSPEC parameter: QSPEC parameter that a QNI SHOULD populate if applicable to the underlying QOSM and a QNE MUST interpret, if populated. Minimum QoS: Minimum QoS is a QSPEC object that MAY be supported by any QNE. Together with a description of QoS Desired or QoS Available, it allows the QNI to specify a QoS range, i.e. an upper and lower bound. If the QoS Desired cannot be reserved, QNEs are going to decrease the reservation until the minimum QoS is hit. Optional QSPEC parameter: QSPEC parameter that a QNI SHOULD populate if applicable to the underlying QOSM, and a QNE SHOULD interpret if populated and applicable to the QOSM(s) supported by the QNE. (A QNE MAY ignore if it does not support a QOSM needing the optional QSPEC parameter). QNE: QoS NSIS Entity, a node supporting QoS NSLP. QNI: QoS NSIS Initiator, a node initiating QoS-NSLP signaling. QNR: QoS NSIS Receiver, a node terminating QoS-NSLP signaling. QoS Description: Describes the actual QoS in QSPEC objects QoS Desired, QoS Available, QoS Reserved, and Minimum QoS. These QSPEC objects are input or output parameters of the RMF. In a valid QSPEC, at least one QSPEC object of the type QoS Desired, QoS Available or QoS Reserved MUST be included. QoS Available: QSPEC object containing parameters describing the available resources. They are used to collect information along a Ash, et. al. [Page 4] Internet Draft QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template May 2005 reservation path. QoS Desired: QSPEC object containing parameters describing the desired QoS for which the sender requests reservation. QoS Model (QOSM): A method to achieve QoS for a traffic flow, e.g., IntServ Controlled Load. A QOSM specifies a set of mandatory and optional QSPEC parameters that describe the QoS and how resources will be managed by the RMF. It furthermore specifies how to use QoS NSLP to signal for this QOSM. QoS Reserved: QSPEC object containing parameters describing the reserved resources and related QoS parameters, for example, bandwidth. QSPEC Control Information: Control information that is specific to a QSPEC, and contains parameters that govern the RMF. QSPEC: QSPEC is the object of QoS-NSLP containing all QOSM-specific information. QSPEC parameter: Any parameter appearing in a QSPEC; includes both QoS description and QSPEC control information parameters, for example, bandwidth, token bucket, and excess treatment parameters. QSPEC Object: Main building blocks of QoS Description containing a parameter set that is input or output of an RMF operation. Resource Management Function (RMF): Functions that are related to resource management, specific to a QOSM. It processes the QoS description parameters and QSPEC control parameters. Read-only Parameter: Parameter that is set by initiating or responding QNE and is not changed during the processing of the QSPEC along the path. Read-write Parameter: Parameter that can be changed during the processing of the QSPEC by any QNE along the path. 4. QSPEC Parameters, Processing, & Extensibility 4.1 QSPEC Parameters The definition of a QOSM includes the specification of how the requested QoS resources will be described and how they will be managed by the RMF. For this purpose, the QOSM specifies a set of QSPEC parameters that describe the QoS and QoS resource control in the RMF. A given QOSM defines which of the mandatory and optional QSPEC parameters it uses, and it MAY define additional optional QSPEC parameters. Mandatory and optional QSPEC parameters provide a common language for QOSM developers to build their QSPECs and are likely to Ash, et. al. [Page 5] Internet Draft QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template May 2005 be re-used in several QOSMs. Mandatory and optional QSPEC parameters are defined in this document, and additional optional QSPEC parameters can be defined in separate documents. Specification of additional optional QSPEC parameters requires standards action, as defined in Section 4.5. 4.2 QSPEC Processing The QSPEC is opaque to the QoS-NSLP processing. The QSPEC control information and the QoS description are interpreted and MAY be modified by the RMF in a QNE (see description in [QoS-SIG]). A QoS-enabled domain supports a particular QOSM, e.g. DiffServ admission control. If this domain supports QoS-NSLP signaling, its QNEs MUST support the DiffServ admission control QOSM. The QNEs MAY also support additional QOSMs. A QoS NSLP message can contain a stack of 2 or more QSPECs (note: it is an open issue in QoS-NSLP if more than 2 QSPECs are allowed in the stack). The first on the stack is the Initiator QSPEC. This is a QSPEC provided by the QNI, which travels end-to-end, and therefore the stack always has at least depth 1. QSPEC parameters MUST NOT be deleted from or added to the Initiator QSPEC. In addition, the stack MAY contain a Local QSPEC stacked on top of the Initiator QSPEC. A QNE only considers the topmost QSPEC. At the ingress edge of a local QoS domain, a Local QSPEC MAY be pushed on the stack in order to describe the requested resources in a domain-specific manner. Also, the Local QSPEC is popped from the stack at the egress edge of the local QoS domain. This draft provides a template for the QSPEC, which is needed in order to help define individual QOSMs and in order to promote interoperability between QOSMs. Figure 1 illustrates how the QSPEC is composed of QSPEC control information and QoS description. QoS description in turn is composed of up to four QSPEC objects (not all of them need to be present), namely QoS desired, QoS available, QoS reserved and Minimum QoS. Each of these QSPEC objects, as well as QSPEC control information, consists of a number of mandatory and optional QSPEC parameters. Ash, et. al. [Page 6] Internet Draft QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template May 2005 +-------------+---------------------------------------+ |QSPEC Control| QoS | | Information | Description | +-------------+---------------------------------------+ \________________ ______________________/ V +----------+----------+---------+-------+ \ |QoS Desir.|QoS Avail.|QoS Rsrv.|Min QoS| > QSPEC +----------+----------+---------+-------+ / Objects \_______ ____/\____ ____/\___ _____/\___ ____/\__ ___/ V V V V V +-------------+... +-------------+... |QSPEC Para. 1| |QSPEC Para. n| +-------------+... +-------------+... Figure 1: Structure of the QSPEC The internal structure of each QSPEC object and the QSPEC control information, with mandatory and optional parameters, is illustrated in Figure 2. +------------------+-----------------+---------------+ |QSPEC Parameter ID| Mandatory QSPEC |Optional QSPEC | | | Parameters | Parameters | +------------------+-----------------+---------------+ Figure 2: Structure of QSPEC Objects & Control Information Ash, et. al. [Page 7] Internet Draft QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template May 2005 4.3 Example of NSLP/QSPEC Operation This Section illustrates the operation and use of the QSPEC within the NSLP. The example configuration in shown in Figure 3. +----------+ /-------\ /--------\ /--------\ | Laptop | | Home | | Cable | | DiffServ | | Computer |-----| Network |-----| Network |-----| Network |----+ +----------+ | No QOSM | |DQOS QOSM | | RMD QOSM | | \-------/ \--------/ \--------/ | | +-----------------------------------------------+ | | /--------\ +----------+ | | "X"G | | Handheld | +---| Wireless |-----| Device | | XG QOSM | +----------+ \--------/ Figure 3: Example Configuration to Illustrate QoS-NSLP/QSPEC Operation In this configuration, a laptop computer and a handheld wireless device are the endpoints for some application that has QoS requirements. Assume initially that the two endpoints are stationary during the application session, later we consider mobile endpoints. For this session, the laptop computer is connected to a home network that has no QoS support. The home network is connected to a CableLabs-type cable access network with dynamic QoS (DQOS) support, such as specified in the 'CMS to CMS Signaling Specification' [CMSS] for cable access networks. That network is connected to a DiffServ core network that uses the RMD QOSM [RMD-QOSM]. On the other side of the DiffServ core is a wireless access network built on generation "X" technology with QoS support as defined by generation "X". And finally the handheld endpoint is connected to the wireless access network. We assume that the Laptop is the QNI and handheld device is the QNR. The QNI will populate an Initiator QSPEC to achieve the QoS desired on the path. In this example we consider two different ways to signal for QoS: Case 1) The QNI sets , and possibly QSPEC objects in the Initiator QSPEC, and initializes to . Since this is a reservation in a heterogenic network with different QOSMs supported in different domains, each QNE on the path reads and interprets those parameters in the Initiator QSPEC that it needs to implement the QOSM within its domain (as described below). Each QNE along the path checks to see if resources can be reserved, and if not, the QNE Ash, et. al. [Page 8] Internet Draft QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template May 2005 reduces the parameter values in and reserves these values. The minimum parameter values are given in , if populated, otherwise zero if is not included. If the fails to satisfy one or more of the objectives, the QNE notifies the QNI and the reservation is aborted. Otherwise, the QNR notifies the QNI of the for the reservation. Case 2) The QNI populated the Initiator QSPEC with . Since this is a reservation in a heterogenic network with different QOSMs supported in different domains, each QNE on the path reads and interprets those parameters in the Initiator QSPEC that it needs to implement the QOSM within its domain (as described below). If a QNE cannot reserve resources, the reservation fails. In both cases, the QNI populates mandatory and optional QSPEC to ensure correct treatment of its traffic in domains down the path. Since the QNI does not know the QOSM used in downstream domains, it includes values for those mandatory and optional QSPEC parameters it cares about. Let us assume the QNI wants to achieve IntServ-like QoS guarantees, and also is interested in what path latency it can achieve. The QNI therefore includes in the QSPEC the QOSM ID for IntServ Controlled Load Service. The QSPEC objects are populated with all parameters necessary for IntServ Controlled Load and additionally to enable the QoS Class parameter to be derived, as follows: = = In both cases, each QNE on the path reads and interprets those parameters in the Initiator QSPEC that it needs to implement the QOSM within its domain. It may need additional parameters for its QOSM, which are not specified in the Initiator QSPEC. These parameters must be inferred from those that are present according to rules defined in the QOSM implemented by this QNE. There are two possibilities when a RESERVE message is received at a QNE at a domain border (we illustrate both possibilities in the example): - the QNE can stack a local QSPEC on top of the Initiator QSPEC (this is new in QoS NSLP, RSVP does not do this). - the QNE can tunnel the RESERVE message through its domain and issue its own RESERVE message. For this new RESERVE message, the QNE acts as the QNI, and the QSPEC in the domain is an Initiator QSPEC. This procedure is also used by RSVP in making aggregate reservations, in which case there is not a new intra-domain (aggregate) RESERVE for each newly arriving interdomain (per-flow) RESERVE, but the aggregate reservation is updated by the border QNE (QNI) as need be. This is also how RMD works [RMD-QOSM]. Ash, et. al. [Page 9] Internet Draft QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template May 2005 For example, at the RMD domain, a local RESERVE with its own RMD Initiator QSPEC corresponding to the RMD-QOSM is generated based on the original Initiator QSPEC according to the procedures described in Section 4.5 of [QoS-SIG] and in [RMD-QOSM]. That is, the ingress QNE to the RMD domain must map the QSPEC parameters contained in the original Initiator QSPEC into the RMD QSPEC. The RMD QSPEC for example needs and . is generated from the parameter. Information on , however, is not provided. According to the rules laid out in the RMD QOSM, the ingress QNE infers from the fact that an IntServ Controlled Load QOSM was signaled that the EF PHB is appropriate to set the parameter. These RMD QSPEC parameters are populated in the RMD Initiator QSPEC generated within the RMD domain. Furthermore, the node at the egress to the RMD domain updates on behalf of the entire RMD domain. It must have the knowledge to update the mandatory parameters and . If it happens to additionally support the optional parameter , it also updates it. Otherwise it sets a parameter specific to the parameter warning the QNR that the final value in is a lower bound. In the XG domain, the Initiator QSPEC is translated into a Local QSPEC using a similar procedure as described above. The Local QSPEC becomes the current QSPEC used within the XG domain, that is, the translated Initiator QSPEC becomes the first (Local) QSPEC, and the Initiator QSPEC is second. This saves the QNEs within the XG domain the trouble of re-translating the Initiator QSPEC. At the egress edge of the XG domain, the translated Local QSPEC is popped, and the Initiator QSPEC returns to the number one position. If the reservation was successful, eventually the RESERVE request arrives at the QNR (otherwise the QNE at which the reservation failed would have aborted the RESERVE and sent an error RESPONSE back to the QNI). The QNR generates a positive RESPONSE with QSPEC objects - and for case 1 - additionally . The parameters appearing in are the same as in , with values copied from in case 1, and with the original values from in case 2. The QSPEC object is copied from the RESERVE message except that the parameters that also appear in are deleted because they are redundant. That is, it is not necessary to transport the object back to the QNI since the QNI knows what it signaled originally, and the information is not useful for QNEs in the reverse direction. The object should transport all necessary information, although the and objects may end up transporting some of the same information. Hence, the QNR populates the following QSPEC objects: Ash, et. al. [Page 10] Internet Draft QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template May 2005 = = If the handheld device on the right of Figure 3 is mobile, and moves through different "XG" wireless networks, then the QoS might change on the path since different XG wireless networks might support different QOSMs. As a result, QoS-NSLP/QSPEC processing will have to renegotiate the on the path. From a QSPEC perspective, this is like a new reservation on the new section of the path and is basically the same as any other rerouting event - to the QNEs on the new path it looks like a new reservation. That is, in this mobile scenario, the new segment may support a different QOSM than the old segment, and the QNI would now signal a new reservation (explicitly, or implicitly with the next refreshing RESERVE message) to account for the different QOSM in the XG wireless domain. Further details on rerouting are specified in [QoS-SIG]. 4.4 Treatment of QSPEC Parameters 4.4.1 Mandatory and Optional QSPEC Parameters Mandatory and optional QSPEC parameters are defined in this document and are applicable to a number of QOSMs. Mandatory QSPEC parameters are treated as follows: o A QNI SHOULD populate mandatory QSPEC parameters if applicable to the underlying QOSM. o QNEs MUST interpret mandatory QSPEC parameters, if populated. Optional QSPEC parameters are treated as follows: o A QNI SHOULD populate optional QSPEC parameters if applicable to the QOSM for which it is signaling. o QNEs SHOULD interpret optional QSPEC parameters, if populated and applicable to the QOSM(s) supported by the QNE. (A QNE MAY ignore the optional QSPEC parameter if it does not support a QOSM needing the optional QSPEC parameter). 4.4.2 Read-only and Read-write QSPEC Parameters Both mandatory and optional QSPEC parameters can be read-only or read-write. Read-write parameters can be changed by any QNE, whereas read-only parameters are fixed by the QNI and/or QNR. For example in a RESERVE message, all parameters in are read-write parameters, which are updated by intermediate QNEs. Read-only parameters are, for example, all parameters in as sent by the QNI. QoS description parameters can be both read-only or read-write, depending on which QSPEC object, and which message, they appear in. Ash, et. al. [Page 11] Internet Draft QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template May 2005 In particular, all parameters in and are read-only for all messages. Parameters in are read-write in a RESERVE and QUERY message, and they are read-only in a RESPONSE or NOTIFY message. Parameters in are read-write in a RESERVE message, and read-only in a response message. If it needs to be ensured that read-only parameters are indeed not changed along the path, it is possible to apply selective protection of these parameters only. The verification is based on cryptographic procedures. Future versions of this draft will contain more details. In the QSPEC Control Information Object, the property of being read-write or read-only is parameter specific. 4.5 QSPEC Extensibility Additional optional QSPEC parameters MAY need to be defined in the future. Additional optional QSPEC parameters are defined in separate Informational documents specific to a given QOSM. For example, optional QSPEC parameters are defined in [RMD-QOSM] and [Y.1541-QOSM]. 5. QSPEC Format Overview QSPEC = As described above, the QSPEC contains the actual resource description (QoS description) as well as QSPEC control information. Note that all QSPEC parameters defined in the following Sections are mandatory QSPEC parameters unless specifically designated as optional QSPEC parameters. Each optional QSPEC parameter has an associated flag. If such a flag is set, at least one QNE along the data transmission path between the QNI and QNR can not support the specified optional parameter. A QSPEC object ID identifies whether the object is or . As described below, the , , , and objects. A QSPEC parameter ID is assigned to identify each QSPEC parameter defined below. A QOSM ID is included in the QSPEC and tells a QNE which parameters to expect. This may simplify processing and error analysis. Furthermore, it may be helpful for a QNE or a domain supporting more than one QOSM to learn which QOSM the QNI would like to have in order to use the most suitable QOSM. Note that the QSPEC parameters do not uniquely define the QNI QOSM since more parameters than required by the QNI QOSM can be included by the QNI. Ash, et. al. [Page 12] Internet Draft QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template May 2005 5.1. QSPEC Control Information QSPEC control information is used for signaling QOSM RMF functions not defined in QoS-NSLP. It enables building new RMF functions required by a QOSM within a QoS-NSLP signaling framework, such as specified, for example, in [RMD-QOSM] and [Y.1541-QOSM]. = Note that and are read-write parameters and is a read-only parameter. The parameter indicates the number of QoS-NSLP peers along the path that support the relevant QOSM specification, and if it does not it MUST correctly set the flag parameter. The composition rule for this parameter is to increment the counter by one at each QOSM-aware hop. This quantity, when composed from the QNI to QNR, informs the QNR (or QNI in a RESPONSE message) of the number of QOSM-aware QNEs traversed along the path. In a local QSPEC, and refer to the QoS-NSLP peers of the local QOSM domain. is a flag bit telling the QNR (or QNI in a RESPONSE message) whether or not a particular QOSM is supported by each QNE in the path between the QNI and QNR. If the QNR finds this bit set, at least one QNE along the data transmission path between the QNI and QNR can not support the specified QOSM. The parameter describes how the QNE will process excess traffic, that is, out-of-profile traffic. Excess traffic MAY be dropped, shaped and/or remarked. The excess treatment parameter is initially set by the QNI and is read-only. 5.2 QoS Description The QoS Description is broken down into the following QSPEC objects: = Of these QSPEC objects, QoS desired, QoS available and QoS reserved MUST be supported by QNEs. Minimum QoS MAY be supported. 5.2.1 QoS Desired = These parameters describe the resources the QNI desires to reserve and hence this is a read-only QSPEC object. includes a description of the traffic the QNI is going to inject into the network. Ash, et. al. [Page 13] Internet Draft QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template May 2005 = = link bandwidth needed by flow [RFC 2212, RFC 2215] =

[RFC 2210] Note that the parameters, such as , MAY be used separately or in combination. = An application MAY like to reserve resources for packets with a particular QoS class, e.g. a DiffServ per-hop behavior (PHB) [RFC2475], or DiffServ-enabled MPLS traffic engineering (DSTE) class type [RFC3564]. = is an essential way to differentiate flows for emergency services, ETS, E911, etc., and assign them a higher admission priority than normal priority flows and best-effort priority flows. is the priority of the new flow compared with the defending priority of previously admitted flows. Once a flow is admitted, the preemption priority becomes irrelevant. is used to compare with the preemption priority of new flows. For any specific flow, its preemption priority MUST always be less than or equal to the defending priority. Appropriate security measures need to be taken to prevent abuse of the parameters, see Section 8 on Security Considerations. , and are optional parameters describing the desired path latency, path jitter and path bit error rate respectively. Since these parameters are cumulative, an individual QNE cannot decide whether the desired path latency, etc., is available, and hence they cannot decide whether a reservation fails. Rather, when these parameters are included in , the QNI SHOULD also include corresponding parameters in a QSPEC object in order to facilitate collecting this information. 5.2.2 = , , , , , , Ash, et. al. [Page 14] Internet Draft QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template May 2005 and are optional QSPEC parameters. As such, each of these optional QSPEC parameters has an associated flag, that is, , , , , , , and . If these flags are set, then at least one QNE along the data transmission path between the QNI and QNR can not support the specified optional parameter. This means the value collected in the corresponding parameter is a lower bound to the "real" value. A QNE MUST be able to set the optional parameter flag if it does not support the optional parameter, and as such the optional parameter flags are mandatory QSPEC parameters. The parameters describe the resources currently available on the path and hence the QSPEC object is read-write. Each QNE MUST inspect this QSPEC object, and if resources available to this QNE are less than what says currently, the QNE MUST adapt it accordingly. Hence when the message arrives at the recipient of the message, reflects the bottleneck of the resources currently available on a path. It can be used in a QUERY message, for example, to collect the available resources along a data path. The parameters and provide information, for example, about the bandwidth available along the path followed by a data flow. The local parameter is an estimate of the bandwidth the QNE has available for packets following the path. Computation of the value of this parameter SHOULD take into account all information available to the QNE about the path, taking into consideration administrative and policy controls on bandwidth, as well as physical resources. The composition rule for this parameter is the MIN function. The composed value is the minimum of the QNE's value and the previously composed value. This quantity, when composed end-to-end, informs the QNR (or QNI in a RESPONSE message) of the minimal bandwidth link along the path from QNI to QNR. The parameter accumulates the latency of the packet forwarding process associated with each QNE, where the latency is defined to be the smallest possible packet delay added by each QNE. This delay results from speed-of-light propagation delay, from packet processing limitations, or both. It does not include any variable queuing delay which may be present. Each QNE MUST add the propagation delay of its outgoing link, which includes the QNR adding the associated delay for the egress link. Furthermore, the QNI MUST add the propagation delay of the ingress link. The composition rule for the parameter is summation with a clamp of (2**32 - 1) on the maximum value. This quantity, when composed end-to-end, informs the QNR (or QNI in a RESPONSE message) of the minimal packet delay along the path from QNI to QNR. The purpose of this parameter is to provide a minimum path latency for use with services which provide estimates or bounds on additional path delay [RFC 2212]. Together with the queuing delay bound, this parameter gives the application knowledge of both the minimum and maximum Ash, et. al. [Page 15] Internet Draft QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template May 2005 packet delivery delay. Knowing both the minimum and maximum latency experienced by data packets allows the receiving application to know the bound on delay variation and de-jitter buffer requirements. The parameter accumulates the jitter of the packet forwarding process associated with each QNE, where the jitter is defined to be the nominal jitter added by each QNE. IP packet jitter, or delay variation, is defined in RFC 3393 [RFC3393], Section 4.6 (Type-P-One-way-peak-to-peak-ipdv), where the suggested evaluation interval is 1 minute. Note that the method to estimate peak-to-peak IP delay variation without active measurements requires more study. This jitter results from packet processing limitations, and includes any variable queuing delay which may be present. Each QNE MUST add the jitter of its outgoing link, which includes the QNR adding the associated jitter for the egress link. Furthermore, the QNI MUST add the jitter of the ingress link. The composition rule for the parameter is summation of a large percentage of the peak-to-peak variation with a clamp on the maximum value (note that the methods of accumulation and estimation of nominal QNE jitter are under study). This quantity, when composed end-to-end, informs the QNR (or QNI in a RESPONSE message) of the nominal packet jitter along the path from QNI to QNR. The purpose of this parameter is to provide a nominal path jitter for use with services that provide estimates or bounds on additional path delay [RFC 2212]. Together with the and the queuing delay bound, this parameter gives the application knowledge of the typical packet delivery delay variation. The parameter accumulates the bit error rate (BER) of the packet forwarding process associated with each QNE, where the BER is defined to be the smallest possible BER added by each QNE. Each QNE MUST add the BER of its outgoing link, which includes the QNR adding the associated BER for the egress link. Furthermore, the QNI MUST add the BER of the ingress link. The composition rule for the parameter is summation with a clamp on the maximum value (this assumes sufficiently low BER values such that summation error is not significant). This quantity, when composed end-to-end, informs the QNR (or QNI in a RESPONSE message) of the minimal packet BER along the path from QNI to QNR. As with , the method to estimate requires more study. , , , : Error terms C and D represent how the element's implementation of the guaranteed service deviates from the fluid model. These two parameters have an additive composition rule. The error term C is the rate-dependent error term. It represents the delay a datagram in the flow might experience due to the rate parameters of the flow. The error term D is the rate-independent, per-element error term and represents the worst case non-rate-based transit time variation through the service element. If the composition function is applied along the entire path to compute the end-to-end sums of C and D ( and ) and the resulting Ash, et. al. [Page 16] Internet Draft QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template May 2005 values are then provided to the QNR (or QNI in a RESPONSE message). and are the sums of the parameters C and D between the last reshaping point and the current reshaping point. 5.2.3 = These parameters describe the QoS reserved by the QNEs along the data path, and hence the QoS reserved QSPEC object is read-write. , and are defined above. = slack term, which is the difference between desired delay and delay obtained by using bandwidth reservation, and which is used to reduce the resource reservation for a flow [RFC 2212]. This is an optional parameter. 5.2.4 = does not have an equivalent in RSVP. It allows the QNI to define a range of acceptable QoS levels by including both the desired QoS value and the minimum acceptable QoS in the same message. It is a read-only QSPEC object. The desired QoS is included with a and/or a QSPEC object seeded to the desired QoS value. The minimum acceptable QoS value MAY be coded in the QSPEC object. As the message travels towards the QNR, is updated by QNEs on the path. If its value drops below the value of the reservation fails and is aborted. When this method is employed, the QNR SHOULD signal back to the QNI the value of attained in the end, because the reservation MAY need to be adapted accordingly. Future versions of this document will describe how can be used by the QNI to send a discrete set of desired parameters. 6. QSPEC Functional Specification This Section defines the encodings of the QSPEC parameters and QSPEC control information defined in Section 5. We first give the general QSPEC formats and then the formats of the QSPEC objects and parameters. Note that all QoS Description parameters can be either read-write or read-only, depending on which object and which message they appear in. Ash, et. al. [Page 17] Internet Draft QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template May 2005 6.1 General QSPEC Formats: Note: This section is in a draft state and further work is needed to define exact formats of objects. Type: QSPEC Length: Variable Value: This object contains a 2 byte QOSM ID and variable length QSPEC information, which is QOSM specific. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | QOSM ID | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Object ID | Parameter ID | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // Parameter Values // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Object ID | Parameter ID | Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ // Parameter Values // +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Object ID: 0: control information 1: QoS Desired 2: QoS Available 3: QoS Reserved 4: Min QoS 6.2 Parameter Object ID = 0 Parameter ID = 0 Length = 8 bits Mandatory QSPEC Parameter Parameter Values: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Excess | | Treatment | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Excess Treatment: Indicates how the QNE SHOULD process out-of-profile traffic. Allowed values are as follows: 0: drop 1: shape 2: remark Ash, et. al. [Page 18] Internet Draft QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template May 2005 The excess treatment parameter is set by the QNI. 6.3 & Parameters [RFC 2212, RFC 2215] The parameter MUST be nonnegative and is measured in bytes per second and has the same range and suggested representation as the bucket and peak rates of the . can be represented using single-precision IEEE floating point. The representation MUST be able to express values ranging from 1 byte per second to 40 terabytes per second. For values of this parameter only valid non-negative floating point numbers are allowed. Negative numbers (including "negative zero"), infinities, and NAN's are not allowed. A QNE MAY export a local value of zero for this parameter. A network element or application receiving a composed value of zero for this parameter MUST assume that the actual bandwidth available is unknown. Object ID = 1-4 Bandwidth Parameter ID = 1 Slack Term Parameter ID = 2 Length = 32 bits Bandwidth is Mandatory QSPEC Parameter Slack Term is Optional QSPEC Parameter Parameter Values: +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Bandwidth (32-bit IEEE floating point number) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Slack Term [S] (32-bit integer) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Slack term S MUST be nonnegative and is measured in microseconds. The Slack term, S, can be represented as a 32-bit integer. Its value can range from 0 to (2**32)-1 microseconds. 6.4 Parameters [RFC 2215] The parameters are represented by three floating point numbers in single-precision IEEE floating point format followed by two 32-bit integers in network byte order. The first floating point value is the rate (r), the second floating point value is the bucket size (b), the third floating point is the peak rate (p), the first integer is the minimum policed unit (m), and the second integer is the maximum datagram size (MTU). Note that the parameters, such as , MAY be used separately or in combination. Object ID = 1-4 Ash, et. al. [Page 19] Internet Draft QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template May 2005 Token Bucket Rate [r] Parameter ID = 3 Token Bucket Size [b] Parameter ID = 4 Peak Data Rate [p] Parameter ID = 5 Minimum Policed Unit [m] Parameter ID = 6 Maximum Packet Size [M] Parameter ID = 7 Length = 32 bits Mandatory QSPEC Parameters Parameter Values: +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Token Bucket Rate [r] (32-bit IEEE floating point number) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Token Bucket Size [b] (32-bit IEEE floating point number) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Peak Data Rate [p] (32-bit IEEE floating point number) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Minimum Policed Unit [m] (32-bit integer) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Maximum Packet Size [MTU] (32-bit integer) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ When r, b, p, and R terms are represented as IEEE floating point values, the sign bit MUST be zero (all values MUST be non-negative). Exponents less than 127 (i.e., 0) are prohibited. Exponents greater than 162 (i.e., positive 35) are discouraged, except for specifying a peak rate of infinity. Infinity is represented with an exponent of all ones (255) and a sign bit and mantissa of all zeroes. 6.5 Parameters 6.5.1 Parameter [RFC 3170] As prescribed in RFC 3170, the encoding for a single PHB is the recommended DSCP value for that PHB, left-justified in the 16 bit field, with bits 6 through 15 set to zero. Object ID = 1-4 PHB Class Parameter ID = 9 Length = 16 bits Mandatory QSPEC Parameter Ash, et. al. [Page 20] Internet Draft QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template May 2005 Parameter Values: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | DSCP | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ The registries needed to use RFC 3140 already exist, see [DSCP- REGISTRY, PHBID-CODES-REGISTRY]. Hence, no new registry needs to be created for this purpose. 6.5.2 Parameter [Y.1541] Y.1541 QoS classes are defined as follows: Object ID = 1-4 Y.1541 QoS Class Parameter ID = 10 Length = 8 bits Mandatory QSPEC Parameter Parameter Values: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Y.1541 | | QoS Class | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Y.1541 QoS Class: Indicates the Y.1541 QoS Class. Values currently allowed are 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Class 0: Mean delay <= 100 ms, delay variation <= 50 ms, loss ratio <= 10^-3. Real-time, highly interactive applications, sensitive to jitter. Application examples include VoIP, Video Teleconference. Class 1: Mean delay <= 400 ms, delay variation <= 50 ms, loss ratio <= 10^-3. Real-time, interactive applications, sensitive to jitter. Application examples include VoIP, Video Teleconference. Class 2: Mean delay <= 100 ms, delay variation unspecified, loss ratio <= 10^-3. Highly interactive transaction data. Application examples include signaling. Class 3: Mean delay <= 400 ms, delay variation unspecified, loss ratio <= 10^-3. Interactive transaction data. Application examples include signaling. Ash, et. al. [Page 21] Internet Draft QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template May 2005 Class 4: Mean delay <= 1 sec, delay variation unspecified, loss ratio <= 10^-3. Low Loss Only applications. Application examples include short transactions, bulk data, video streaming. Class 5: Mean delay unspecified, delay variation unspecified, loss ratio unspecified. Unspecified applications. Application examples include traditional applications of default IP networks. 6.5.3 Parameter [RFC3564] DSTE class type is defined as follows: Object ID = 1-4 DSTE Class Type Parameter ID = 11 Length = 8 bits Mandatory QSPEC Parameter Parameter Values: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | DSTE | | Class Type | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ DSTE Class Type: Indicates the DSTE class type. Values currently allowed are 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. 6.6 Priority Parameters 6.6.1 & Parameters [RFC 3181] Object ID = 1-4 Preemption Priority Parameter ID = 12 Defending Priority Parameter ID = 13 Length = 16 bits (unsigned) Mandatory QSPEC Parameter Parameter Values: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Preemption Priority | Defending Priority | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Preemption Priority: The priority of the new flow compared with the Ash, et. al. [Page 22] Internet Draft QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template May 2005 defending priority of previously admitted flows. Higher values represent higher priority. Defending Priority: 6.6.2 Parameter [SIP-PRIORITY] Object ID = 1-4 Reservation Priority Parameter ID = 14 Length = 16 bits Mandatory QSPEC Parameter Parameter Values 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reservation | Reservation | | Priority | Priority | | Namespace | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ High priority flows, normal priority flows, and best-effort priority flows can have access to resources depending on their {"Namespace", "Reservation Priority"} combination as follows: Reservation Priority Namespace: 8 bits 0 - dsn high priority 1 - drsn high priority 2 - q735 high priority 3 - ets high priority 4 - wps high priority 5 - normal priority 6 - best-effort priority Reservation Priority: 8 bits Each namespace has a finite list of relative priority-values. Each is listed here in the order of lowest priority to highest priority: 4 - dsn.routine 3 - dsn.priority 2 - dsn.immediate 1 - dsn.flash 0 - dsn.flash-override 5 - drsn.routine 4 - drsn.priority 3 - drsn.immediate 2 - drsn.flash 1 - drsn.flash-override 0 - drsn.flash-override-override Ash, et. al. [Page 23] Internet Draft QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template May 2005 4 - q735.4 3 - q735.3 2 - q735.2 1 - q735.1 0 - q735.0 4 - ets.4 3 - ets.3 2 - ets.2 1 - ets.1 0 - ets.0 4 - wps.4 3 - wps.3 2 - wps.2 1 - wps.1 0 - wps.0 0 - normal.0 0 - best.effort.0 Note that additional work is needed to communicate these flow priority values to bearer-level network elements [VERTICAL-INTERFACE]. 6.7 Parameter [RFC 2210, 2215] Object ID = 1-4 Path Latency Parameter ID = 15 Length = 32 bits Optional QSPEC Parameter Parameter Values: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Path Latency (32-bit integer) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The composition rule for the parameter is summation with a clamp of (2**32 - 1) on the maximum value. The latencies are reported in units of one microsecond. An individual QNE can advertise a latency value between 1 and 2**28 (somewhat over two minutes) and the total latency added across all QNEs can range as high as (2**32)-2. If the sum of the different elements delays exceeds (2**32)-2, the end-to-end advertised delay SHOULD be reported as indeterminate. A QNE that cannot accurately predict the latency of packets it is processing MUST raise the Path Latency Flag and either Ash, et. al. [Page 24] Internet Draft QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template May 2005 leave the value of Path Latency as is, or add its best estimate of its lower bound. A raised Path Latency Flag indicates the value of Path Latency is a lower bound of the real Path Latency. The distinguished value (2**32)-1 is taken to mean indeterminate latency because the composition function limits the composed sum to this value, it indicates the range of the composition calculation was exceeded. 6.8 Parameter Object ID = 1-4 Path Jitter Parameter ID = 16 Length = 32 bits Optional QSPEC Parameter Parameter Values: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Path Jitter (32-bit integer) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The composition rule for the parameter is summation with a clamp of (2**32 - 1) on the maximum value. The jitters are reported in units of one microsecond. An individual QNE can advertise a jitter value between 1 and 2**28 (somewhat over two minutes) and the total jitter added across all QNEs can range as high as (2**32)-2. If the sum of the different elements delays exceeds (2**32)-2, the end-to-end advertised jitter SHOULD be reported as indeterminate. A QNE that cannot accurately predict the jitter of packets it is processing MUST raise the Path Jitter Flag and either leave the value of Path Jitter as is, or add its best estimate of its lower bound. A raised Path Jitter Flag indicates the value of Path Jitter is a lower bound of the real Path Jitter. The distinguished value (2**32)-1 is taken to mean indeterminate jitter. A QNE which cannot accurately predict the jitter of packets it is processing SHOULD set its local parameter to this value. Because the composition function limits the composed sum to this value, receipt of this value at a network element or application indicates that the true path jitter is not known. This MAY happen because one or more network elements could not supply a value, or because the range of the composition calculation was exceeded. 6.9 Parameter Object ID = 1-4 Path BER Parameter ID = 17 Length = 32 bits Optional QSPEC Parameter Ash, et. al. [Page 25] Internet Draft QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template May 2005 Parameter Values: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Path Bit Error Rate (32-bit integer) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ The composition rule for the parameter is summation with a clamp of 10^-2 on the maximum value. The BERs are reported in units of 10^-11. An individual QNE can advertise a BER value between 1 and 2**28 and the total BER added across all QNEs can range as high as (2**32)-2. If the sum of the different elements delays exceeds (2**32)-2, the end-to-end advertised BER SHOULD be reported as indeterminate. A QNE that cannot accurately predict the BER of packets it is processing MUST raise the Path BER Flag and either leave the value of Path BER as is, or add its best estimate of its lower bound. A raised Path BER Flag indicates the value of Path BER is a lower bound of the real Path BER. The distinguished value (2**32)-1 is taken to mean indeterminate BER. A QNE which cannot accurately predict the BER of packets it is processing SHOULD set its local parameter to this value. Because the composition function limits the composed sum to this value, receipt of this value at a network element or application indicates that the true path BER is not known. This MAY happen because one or more network elements could not supply a value, or because the range of the composition calculation was exceeded. 6.10 Parameters [RFC 2210, 2212, 2215] Object ID = 1-4 Ctot Parameter ID = 18 Dtot Parameter ID = 19 Csum Parameter ID = 20 Dsum Parameter ID = 21 Length = 32 bits Optional QSPEC Parameters Parameter Values: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | End-to-end composed value for C [Ctot] (32-bit integer) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | End-to-end composed value for D [Dtot] (32-bit integer) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Since-last-reshaping point composed C [Csum] (32-bit integer) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Since-last-reshaping point composed D [Dsum] (32-bit integer) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Ash, et. al. [Page 26] Internet Draft QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template May 2005 The error term C is measured in units of bytes. An individual QNE can advertise a C value between 1 and 2**28 (a little over 250 megabytes) and the total added over all QNEs can range as high as (2**32)-1. Should the sum of the different QNEs delay exceed (2**32)-1, the end-to-end error term MUST be set to (2**32)-1. The error term D is measured in units of one microsecond. An individual QNE can advertise a delay value between 1 and 2**28 (somewhat over two minutes) and the total delay added over all QNEs can range as high as (2**32)-1. Should the sum of the different QNEs delay exceed (2**32)-1, the end-to-end delay MUST be set to (2**32)-1. 6.11 , , , , , , Object ID = 1-4 Path Latency Flag Parameter ID = 22 Path Latency Flag Parameter ID = 23 Path Latency Flag Parameter ID = 24 Ctot Flag Parameter ID = 25 Dtot Flag Parameter ID = 26 Csum Flag Parameter ID = 27 Dsum Flag Parameter ID = 28 Slack Term Flag Parameter ID = 29 Length = 8 bits Mandatory QSPEC Parameters 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Path Latency | | Flag | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Path Latency Flag: This field is set to 1 if a QNE is encountered that does not support the parameter on the path from the QNI to the QNR. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Path Jitter | | Flag | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Path Jitter Flag: This field is set to 1 if a QNE is encountered that does not support the parameter on the path from the QNI to the QNR. Ash, et. al. [Page 27] Internet Draft QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template May 2005 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Path BER Flag | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Path BER Flag: This field is set to 1 if a QNE is encountered that does not support the parameter on the path from the QNI to the QNR. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Path Ctot | | Flag | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Path Ctot Flag: This field is set to 1 if a QNE is encountered that does not support the parameter on the path from the QNI to the QNR. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Path Dtot | | Flag | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Path Dtot Flag: This field is set to 1 if a QNE is encountered that does not support the parameter on the path from the QNI to the QNR. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Path Csum | | Flag | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Path Csum Flag: This field is set to 1 if a QNE is encountered that does not support the parameter on the path from the QNI to the QNR. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Path Dsum | | Flag | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Path Dsum Flag: This field is set to 1 if a QNE is encountered that does not support the parameter on the path from the QNI to the QNR. Ash, et. al. [Page 28] Internet Draft QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template May 2005 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Slack Term | | Flag | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Slack Term Flag: This field is set to 1 if a QNE is encountered that does not support the parameter on the path from the QNI to the QNR. 7. QSPEC Procedures & Examples 7.1 QSPEC Procedures While the QSPEC template aims to put minimal restrictions on usage of QSPEC objects in , interoperability between QNEs and between QOSMs must be ensured. We therefore give below an exhaustive list of QSPEC object combinations for the message sequences described in QoS NSLP [QOS-SIG]. A specific QOSM may impose more restrictions on the QNI or QNR freedom. 7.1.1 Sender-Initiated Reservations Here the QNI issues a RESERVE, which is replied to by a RESPONSE. This response is generated either by the QNR or, in case the reservation was unsuccessful, by a QNE. The following possibilities for QSPEC object usage exist: | RESERVE | RESPONSE --------------------------------------------------------------- a.| QoS Desired | QoS Reserved b.| QoS Desired, QoS Avail. | QoS Reserved, QoS Avail. c.| QoS Desired, QoS Avail., Min. QoS | QoS Reserved, QoS Avail. a.) If only QoS Desired is included in the RESERVE, the implicit assumption is that exactly these resources must be reserved. If this is not possible the reservation fails. The parameters in QoS Reserved are copied from the parameters in QoS Desired. b.) When QoS Available is included in the RESERVE also, some parameters will appear only in QoS Available and not in QoS Desired. It is assumed that the value of these parameters is collected for informational purposes only (e.g. path latency). However, some parameters in QoS Available can be the same as in QoS Desired. For these parameters the implicit message is that the QNI would be satisfied by a reservation with lower parameter values than specified in QoS Desired. For these parameters, the QNI seeds the parameter values in QoS Available to those in QoS Desired. Each QNE adapts the parameters in QoS Available according to its current capabilities. Reservations in each QNE are hence based on current Ash, et. al. [Page 29] Internet Draft QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template May 2005 parameter values in QoS Available (and additionally those parameters that only appear in QoS Desired). The drawback of this approach is that, if the resulting resource reservation becomes gradually smaller towards the QNR, QNEs close to the QNI have an oversized reservation, possibly resulting in unnecessary costs for the user. Of course, in the RESPONSE the QNI learns what the actual reservation is (from the QoS RESERVED object) and can immediately issue a properly sized refreshing RESERVE. The advantage of the approach is that the reservation is performed in half-a-roundtrip time. The parameter types included in QoS Reserved in RESPONSE must be the same as those in QoS Desired in RESERVE. For those parameters that were also included in QoS Available in RESERVE, their value is copied into QoS Desired. For the other parameters, the value is copied from QoS Desired (the reservation would fail if the corresponding QoS could not be reserved). The parameters in the QoS Available QSPEC object in the RESPONSE are copied with their values from the QoS Available QSPEC object in the RESERVE. Note that the parameters in QoS Available are read-write in the RESERVE message, whereas they are read-only in the RESPONSE. c.) this case is handled as case (b), except that the reservation fails when QoS Available becomes less than Minimum QoS for one parameter. If a parameter appears in QoS Available but not in Minimum QoS it is assumed that the minimum value for this parameter is that given in QoS Desired. 7.1.2 Receiver-Initiated Reservations Here the QNI issues a QUERY which is replied to by the QNR with a RESERVE if the reservation was successful. The QNI in turn sends a RESPONSE to the QNR. QUERY | RESERVE | RESPONSE --------------------------------------------------------------------- a. QoS Des. | QoS Des. | QoS Res. b. QoS Des.,Min. QoS | QoS Des.,QoS Avl.,(Min QoS)| QoS Res.,QoS Avl. a.) and b.) The idea is that the sender (QNR in this scenario) needs to inform the receiver (QNI in this scenario) about the QoS it desires. To this end the sender sends a QUERY message to the receiver including a QoS Desired QSPEC object. If the QoS is negotiable it additionally includes a (possibly zero) Minimum QoS, as in Case b. The RESERVE message includes QoS Available if the sender signaled QoS is negotiable (i.e. it included Minimum QoS). If the Minimum QoS received from the sender is non-zero, the QNR also includes Minimum QoS. Ash, et. al. [Page 30] Internet Draft QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template May 2005 Note we do not yet cover here a model where the sender issues a QUERY with QoS Available to collect path properties, and the QoS Desired in the RESERVE issued by the receiver is populated from the parameter values in QoS Available from the QUERY message. This is in fact the model used in RSVP. The advantage of this model is that situation of over-reservation in QNEs close to the QNI as described above does not occur. On the other hand, the QUERY may find, for example, a particular bandwidth is not available. When the actual reservation is performed, however, the desired bandwidth may meanwhile have become free. That is, the 'RSVP model' may result in a worse reservation than necessary. What scenarios to include are TBD. Future versions of this draft will additionally contain procedures for bidirectional reservations and pure resource queries without subsequent reservations. 7.1.3 Setting Optional Parameter Flags An optional parameter is always accompanied by an optional parameter flag in all objects. For example, if the QNI populates an optional parameter in QoS Desired, it MUST also populate the optional parameter flag in . Hence, if a QNE wants to check for support of optional parameters, it MUST include a object and the optional parameter flags are only in that object. If a QNE does not support the optional parameter, it MUST set the optional parameter flag in the QoS Available object. Optional parameter flags SHOULD only travel in the object, and are generally not included in the QoS Desired, Minimum QoS and QoS Reserved objects. 7.2 QOSM & QSPEC Examples This Section provides the QOSM and QSPECs for DiffServ admission control and IntServ. Note that DiffServ and IntServ form the basis for the QSPEC template specification in this document. 7.2.1 QOSM & QSPEC for DiffServ Admission Control The QSPEC for DiffServ admission control is composed of the QSPEC objects and , as well as . Which QSPEC object is present in a particular QSPEC depends on the message type (RESERVE, QUERY etc) in which the QSPEC travels. Parameters in the QSPEC for DiffServ requesting bandwidths for different PHBs are as follows: For the DiffServ EF PHB [RFC3297]: = = = Ash, et. al. [Page 31] Internet Draft QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template May 2005 = = = = In general, the EF PHB is a property of the service that is NOT dependent on the input traffic characteristics. A server of rate R and latency E that is compliant with the EF PHB must deliver at least the configured service rate R with at most latency E for any traffic characterization. Therefore, strictly speaking, there is no specific traffic descriptor required to deliver the EF PHB (which by definition is a local per-hop characterization). However, in order to deliver a reasonable end-to-end delay, it is typically assumed that EF traffic is shaped at the ingress. A typical assumption is that input traffic at any ingress is constrained by a single rate token bucket. Therefore, a single rate token bucket is sufficient to signal in QoS-NSLP/QSPEC for the DiffServ-QOSM. For the DiffServ AFxy PHB [RFC2597]: = = = = = = = QNEs MUST process two sets of token bucket parameters to implement the DiffServ AF QOSM, one token bucket for the average (CBS) traffic and one token bucket for the burst (EBS) traffic. These 2 token buckets are sufficient to cover most of the ways in which one would distinguish among 3 levels of drop precedence at the queuing mechanics level, as described in the Appendix to [RFC2597]. QoS-NSLP/QSPEC can support signaling the parameters required for the DiffServ marker elements described in [RFC2697] and [RFC2698]. [RFC2697] defines a Single Rate Three Color Marker (srTCM), which can be used as component in a DiffServ traffic conditioner [RFC2475, RFC2474]. The srTCM meters a traffic stream and marks its packets according to three traffic parameters, Committed Information Rate (CIR), Committed Burst Size (CBS), and Excess Burst Size (EBS), to be either green, yellow, or red. A packet is marked green if it does not exceed the CBS, yellow if it does exceed the CBS, but not the EBS, and red otherwise. RFC 2697 and RFC 2698 provide specific procedures, where in essence, RFC 2697 is using two token buckets that run at the same rate. TBD: Text to explain how to use the two token buckets to carry the configuration information needed for RFC 2697 and 2698. Ash, et. al. [Page 32] Internet Draft QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template May 2005 7.2.2 QOSM & QSPEC for IntServ Controlled Load Service The QOSM for IntServ Controlled Load is defined in [RFC2211]. The QSPEC can be derived from usage of RSVP to signal for this QoS Model, as defined in [RFC2210] and [RFC2215]. The QSPEC for IntServ Controlled Load is composed of the QSPEC objects and , as well as . Which QSPEC object is present in a particular QSPEC depends on the message type (RESERVE, QUERY etc) in which the QSPEC travels. Parameters in the QSPEC are as follows: = = = = = An IntServ over DiffServ QSPEC is as follows: = = = = = 7.2.3 QOSM & QSPEC for IntServ Guaranteed Services The QOSM is defined in [RFC 2212]. The required parameters to achieve guarantied service with RSVP are specified in [RFC 2210] and [RFC 2215]. The QSPEC for guaranteed services is as follows: = = = This QSPEC object contains token bucket parameters defined in [RFC 2210], equivalent to TSPEC defined in RSVP. = These parameters are defined in [RFC 2212] and [RFC 2215]. This QSPEC object is equivalent to the ADSPEC of RSVP. = Requested Rate and Slack Term are defined in [RFC 2212], equivalent Ash, et. al. [Page 33] Internet Draft QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template May 2005 to RSPEC of RSVP. Note that the Guaranteed Services QoS Model only works with receiver initiated reservation signaling, because and are derived from parameters contained in , and MAY be updated on the return paths. 8. Security Considerations The priority parameter raises possibilities for Theft of Service Attacks because users could claim an emergency priority for their flows without real need, thereby effectively preventing serious emergency calls to get through. Several options exist for countering such attacks, for example - only some user groups (e.g. the police) are authorized to set the emergency priority bit - any user is authorized to employ the emergency priority bit for particular destination addresses (e.g. police) 9. IANA Considerations This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to the QSPEC template, in accordance with BCP 26 RFC 2434 [RFC2434]. [QoS-SIG] requires IANA to create a new registry for QoS Signaling Policy Identifiers. The QoS Signaling Policy Identifier (QOSM ID) is a 32 bit value carried in a QSPEC. The allocation policy for new QOSM IDs is TBD. This document also defines 29 objects and parameters for the QSPEC Template, as Detailed in Section 6. Values are to be assigned for them from the NTLP Object Type registry. 10. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank David Black, Anna Charny, Robert Hancock, Dave Oran, Tom Phelan, Hannes Tschofenig, and Sven van den Bosch, for their very helpful suggestions. 11. Normative References [DSCP-REGISTRY] http://www.iana.org/assignments/dscp-registry [PHBID-CODES-REGISTRY] http://www.iana.org/assignments/phbid-codes [QoS-SIG] S. Van den Bosch et. al., "NSLP for Quality-of-Service Signaling," work in progress. [RFC2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2205] B. Braden et. al., "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) Ash, et. al. [Page 34] Internet Draft QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template May 2005 -- Version 1 Functional Specification," RFC 2205, September 1997. [RFC2210] J. Wroclawski, "The Use of RSVP with IETF Integrated Services", RFC 2210, September 1997. [RFC2211] J. Wroclawski, "Specification of the Controlled-Load Network Element Service", RFC 2211, Sept. 1997. [RFC2212} Shenker, S., et. al., "Specification of Guaranteed Quality of Service," September 1997. [RFC2215] S. Shenker and J. Wroclawski, "General Characterization Parameters for Integrated Service Network Elements", RFC 2215, Sept. 1997. [RFC2474] Nichols, K., et. al., "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers," RFC 2474, December 1998. [RFC2475] S. Blake et. al., "An Architecture for Differentiated Services", RFC 2475, December 1998. [RFC2597] J. Heinanen, et. al., "Assured Forwarding PHB Group," RFC 2597, June 1999. [RFC2697] J. Heinanen, R. Guerin, "A Single Rate Three Color Marker," RFC 2697, September 1999. [RFC2698] J. Heinanen, R. Guerin, "A Two Rate Three Color Marker," RFC 2698, September 1999. [RFC3297] A. Charny, et. al., "Supplemental Information for the New Definition of the EF PHB (Expedited Forwarding Per-Hop Behavior)," RFC 3297, March 2002. 12. Informative References [CMSS] "PacketCable (TM) CMS to CMS Signaling Specification, PKT-SP-CMSS-103-040402, April 2004. [DIFFSERV-CLASS] Baker, F., et. al., "Configuration Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes," work in progress. [INTSERV-QOSM] C. Kappler, "A QoS Model for Signaling IntServ Controlled-Load Service with NSIS," work in progress. [Q.2630] ITU-T Recommendation Q.2630.3: "AAL Type 2 Signaling Protocol - Capability Set 3" Sep. 2003 [RFC1633] B. Braden et. al., "Integrated Services in the Internet Architecture: an Overview," RFC 1633, June 1994. [RFC3393] C. Demichelis, P. Chimento, "IP Packet Delay Variation Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM), RFC 3393, November 2002. [RFC3564] F. Le Faucheur et. al., Requirements for Support of Differentiated Services-aware MPLS Traffic Engineering, RFC 3564, July 2003 [RFC3726] M. Brunner et. al., "Requirements for Signaling Protocols", RFC 3726, April 2004. [RMD-QOSM] A. Bader, et. al., " RMD-QOSM: An NSIS QoS Signaling Policy Model for Networks Using Resource Management in DiffServ (RMD)," work in progress. [SIP-PRIORITY] H. Schulzrinne, J. Polk, "Communications Resource Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol(SIP)." work in progress. [VERTICAL-INTERFACE] M. Dolly, P. S. Tarapore, S. Sayers, Ash, et. al. [Page 35] Internet Draft QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template May 2005 "Discussion on Associating of Control Signaling Messages with Media Priority Levels," T1S1.7 & PRQC, October 2004. [Y.1541] ITU-T Recommendation Y.1541, "Network Performance Objectives for IP-Based Services," May 2002. [Y.1541-QOSM] J. Ash, et. al., "Y.1541-QOSM -- Y.1541 QoS Model for Networks Using Y.1541 QoS Classes," work in progress. 13. Authors' Addresses Jerry Ash AT&T Room MT D5-2A01 200 Laurel Avenue Middletown, NJ 07748, USA Phone: +1-(732)-420-4578 Fax: +1-(732)-368-8659 Email: gash@att.com Attila Bader Traffic Lab Ericsson Research Ericsson Hungary Ltd. Laborc u. 1 H-1037 Budapest Hungary EMail: Attila.Bader@ericsson.com Chuck Dvorak AT&T Room 2A37 180 Park Avenue, Building 2 Florham Park, NJ 07932 Phone: + 1 973-236-6700 Fax:+1 973-236-7453 E-mail: cdvorak@att.com Yacine El Mghazli Alcatel Route de Nozay 91460 Marcoussis cedex FRANCE Phone: +33 1 69 63 41 87 Email: yacine.el_mghazli@alcatel.fr Cornelia Kappler Siemens AG Siemensdamm 62 Berlin 13627 Germany Email: cornelia.kappler@siemens.com Ash, et. al. [Page 36] Internet Draft QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template May 2005 Georgios Karagiannis University of Twente P.O. BOX 217 7500 AE Enschede The Netherlands EMail: g.karagiannis@ewi.utwente.nl Andrew McDonald Siemens/Roke Manor Research Roke Manor Research Ltd. Romsey, Hants SO51 0ZN UK EMail: andrew.mcdonald@roke.co.uk Al Morton AT&T Room D3-3C06 200 S. Laurel Avenue Middletown, NJ 07748 Phone: + 1 732 420-1571 Fax: +.1 732 368-1192 E-mail: acmorton@att.com Percy Tarapore AT&T Room D1-33 200 S. Laurel Avenue Middletown, NJ 07748 Phone: + 1 732 420-4172 E-mail: tarapore@.att.com Lars Westberg Ericsson Research Torshamnsgatan 23 SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden EMail: Lars.Westberg@ericsson.com Appendix A: QoS Models and QSPECs This Appendix gives a description of QoS Models and QSPECs and explains what is the relation between them. Once these descriptions are contained in a stable form in the appropriate IDs this Appendix will be removed. QoS NSLP is a generic QoS signaling protocol that can signal for many QOSMs. A QOSM is a particular QoS provisioning method or QoS architecture such as IntServ Controlled Load or Guaranteed Service, DiffServ, or RMD for DiffServ. The definition of the QOSM is independent from the definition of QoS NSLP. Existing QOSMs do not specify how to use QoS NSLP to signal Ash, et. al. [Page 37] Internet Draft QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template May 2005 for them. Therefore, we need to define the QOSM specific signaling functions, as [RMD-QOSM], [INTSERV-QOSM], and [Y.1541-QOSM]. A QOSM SHOULD include the following information: - Role of QNEs in this QOSM: E.g. location, frequency, statefulness... - QSPEC Definition: A QOSM SHOULD specify the QSPEC, including QSPEC parameters. Furthermore it needs to explain how QSPEC parameters not used in this QOSM are mapped onto parameters defined therein. - Message Format QSPEC objects to be carried in RESERVE, QUERY RESPONSE and NOTIFY - State Management It describes how QSPEC info is treated and interpreted in the RMF and QOSM specific processing. E.g. admission control, scheduling, policy control, QoS parameter accumulation (e.g. delay). - Operation and Sequence of Events Usage of QoS-NSLP messages to signal the QOSM. Appendix B: Mapping of QoS Desired, QoS Available and QoS Reserved of NSIS onto AdSpec, TSpec and RSpec of RSVP IntServ The union of QoS Desired, QoS Available and QoS Reserved can provide all functionality of the objects specified in RSVP IntServ, however it is difficult to provide an exact mapping. In RSVP, the Sender TSpec specifies the traffic an application is going to send (e.g. token bucket). The AdSpec can collect path characteristics (e.g. delay). Both are issued by the sender. The receiver sends the FlowSpec which includes a Receiver TSpec describing the resources reserved using the same parameters as the Sender TSpec, as well as a RSpec which provides additional IntServ QoS Model specific parameters, e.g. Rate and Slack. The RSVP TSpec/AdSpec/RSpec seem quite tailored to receiver-initiated signaling employed by RSVP, and the IntServ QoS Model. E.g. to the knowledge of the authors it is not possible for the sender to specify a desired maximum delay except implicitly and mutably by seeding the AdSpec accordingly. Likewise, the RSpec is only meaningfully sent in the receiver-issued RSVP RESERVE message. For this reason our discussion at this point leads us to a slightly different mapping of necessary functionality to objects, which should result in more flexible signaling models. Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in Ash, et. al. [Page 38] Internet Draft QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template May 2005 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Disclaimer of Validity This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. Ash, et. al. [Page 39]