Subject: RE: [Dime] Diameter QoS Strawman Proposal (UNCLASSIFIED)

From: "Nguyen, An P CIV NCS NC2" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:25:23 -0400

Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED 
Caveats: NONE
 
Hannes,
 
Just a question: RFC 4412 defines  SIP header fields for communications
resource priority. This RFC deals with different namespaces (e.g.,
ets.x, wps.x, etc.). How does your Diameter QoS draft take these
namespaces into account when it comes to authentication and
authorization? 
 
The reason I am interested in this draft is that the Cx and Dx
interfaces of the IMS architecture specifies DIAMETER.
 
Thanks,
 
An

-----Original Message-----
From: Tschofenig, Hannes [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 8:07 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Dime] Diameter QoS Strawman Proposal

Hi all, 

based on the thoughts by Avi about the Diameter QoS work, we (Mayutan
Arumaithurai, Alan McNamee and myself) have produced a strawman
proposal. I would like to particularly thank Mayutan since he had todo
most of the work. Please find the draft at:

<http://www.tschofenig.priv.at/svn/draft-tschofenig-dime-diameter-qos/diamet
er-qos-strawman-00.txt>
http://www.tschofenig.priv.at/svn/draft-tschofenig-dime-diameter-qos/diamete
r-qos-strawman-00.txt 

This strawman proposal takes a lot of text from the previous draft
version (draft-tschofenig-dime-diameter-qos-00.txt) and allows the QoS
mechanisms to work with NASREQ, EAP and DCC. 

This document is meant to be input for discussion. Hence, there is no
plan to submit it. 

Ciao 
Hannes 

Classification:  UNCLASSIFIED 
Caveats: NONE
_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

---

From: "Nguyen, An P CIV NCS NC2" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 11:06:30 -0400

Sorry I meant IMS-based NGN architecture that has Cx and Dx interfaces.
 
An

-----Original Message-----
From: Nguyen, An P CIV NCS NC2 
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 10:25 AM
To: 'Tschofenig, Hannes'
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Dime] Diameter QoS Strawman Proposal (UNCLASSIFIED)

Caveats: NONE

Hannes,

 
Thanks,
 
An

-----Original Message-----
From: Tschofenig, Hannes [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 8:07 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Dime] Diameter QoS Strawman Proposal

Hi all, 

Ciao 
Hannes 

Caveats: NONE

---

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 13:59:31 +0200

Hi An, 
 
the work on the Diameter QoS environment is still very much in progress.
Currently, the following procedure is specified and I try to describe it
in an abstract way without going into the detail of encoding. 
 
The client receives a request with a specific resource priority value
(e.g., using RSVP or NSIS). Both RSVP and NSIS define the respective
mechanisms. 

For example, the QSPEC template draft (see
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-09.txt) can
carry different  <Priority> values inside the QoS Desired when carried
with the QoS NSLP. 
 
In RSVP the priority parameters might be signaled as defined in RFC 3181
or the more recent work in
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lefaucheur-emergency-rsvp-01.t
xt
 
A particular RSVP or NSIS router would not be able todo a lot with the
received parameters. In fact, an end host could just state everything
and the router would have no means to verify some of these parameters.
If someone is able to give them a meaning then the AAA server. 

Hence, QoS reservation request (along with the priority parameters) is
forwarded to the AAA server and processed there. A response is generated
that is sent back to the AAA client that performs processing according
to the result indicated in the response. 

What do you think? Does this make sense to you? 
 
Ciao
Hannes

________________________________

	Von: Nguyen, An P CIV NCS NC2 [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Gesendet: Mittwoch, 21. Juni 2006 16:25
	An: Tschofenig, Hannes
	Cc: [email-masked]
	Betreff: RE: [Dime] Diameter QoS Strawman Proposal
(UNCLASSIFIED)

	Caveats: NONE

		Hannes,
	 
	Just a question: RFC 4412 defines  SIP header fields for
communications resource priority. This RFC deals with different
namespaces (e.g., ets.x, wps.x, etc.). How does your Diameter QoS draft
take these namespaces into account when it comes to authentication and
authorization? 

	Thanks,
	 
	An

		-----Original Message-----
		From: Tschofenig, Hannes
[mailto:[email-masked]]
		Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 8:07 AM
		To: [email-masked]
		Subject: [Dime] Diameter QoS Strawman Proposal

		Hi all, 

		based on the thoughts by Avi about the Diameter QoS
work, we (Mayutan Arumaithurai, Alan McNamee and myself) have produced a
strawman proposal. I would like to particularly thank Mayutan since he
had todo most of the work. Please find the draft at:

		This strawman proposal takes a lot of text from the
previous draft version (draft-tschofenig-dime-diameter-qos-00.txt) and
allows the QoS mechanisms to work with NASREQ, EAP and DCC. 

		This document is meant to be input for discussion.
Hence, there is no plan to submit it. 

		Ciao 
		Hannes 

	Caveats: NONE