Diameter Routing Message Priority
draft-ietf-dime-drmp-01

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (dime WG)
Last updated 2015-10-12
Replaces draft-donovan-dime-drmp
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state WG Document (wg milestone: Mar 2016 - Submit I-D 'Diameter... )
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Diameter Maintenance and Extensions (DIME)                    S. Donovan
Internet-Draft                                                    Oracle
Intended status: Standards Track                        October 12, 2015
Expires: April 14, 2016

                   Diameter Routing Message Priority
                      draft-ietf-dime-drmp-01.txt

Abstract

   When making routing and resource allocation decisions, Diameter nodes
   currently have no generic mechanism to determine the relative
   priority of Diameter messages.  This document addresses this by
   defining a mechanism to allow Diameter endpoints to indicate the
   relative priority of Diameter transactions.  With this information
   Diameter nodes can factor that priority into routing, resource
   allocation and overload abatement decisions.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted 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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 14, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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
   (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

Donovan                  Expires April 14, 2016                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                    DOIC                      October 2015

   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.1.  First Responder Related Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.2.  Emergency Call Related Signaling  . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.3.  Differentiated Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.4.  Application Specific Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Normative Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   8.  Attribute Value Pairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     8.1.  DRMP AVP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     8.2.  Attribute Value Pair flag rules . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     9.1.  AVP codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     9.2.  New registries  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   11. Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   12. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     12.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     12.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Appendix A.  Design Considerations and Questions  . . . . . . . .  14
     A.1.  Relationship with SIP Resource Priority . . . . . . . . .  14
     A.2.  Priority Encoding Method  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     A.3.  Base Protocol versus Application Extension  . . . . . . .  15
     A.4.  Scope of Priority Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

1.  Introduction

   The DOIC solution [I-D.ietf-dime-ovli] for Diameter overload control
   introduces scenarios where Diameter routing decisions made by
   Diameter nodes can be influenced by the overload state of other
   Diameter nodes.  This includes the scenarios where Diameter endpoints
   and Diameter agents can throttle requests as a result of the target
   for the request being overloaded.

   With currently available mechanisms these Diameter nodes do not have
   a mechanism to differentiate request message priorities when making
   these throttling decisions.  As such, all requests are treated the
Show full document text