Diameter Priority Attribute-Value Pairs
draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps-06

[Ballot comment]
1) I agree with other comments about the confusion surrouding integrity-protected values.

2) The second paragraph of section 5 says "Use .. MUST take into consideration ..." I think this is an incorrect usage for MUST; MUST is for implementers. (Since an operator might choose to NOT consider the issues and security of Diameter base, this document should warn users what vulnerabilities might exist in their network if another operator ignores these issues.)

3) In acknowledgements, you credit a number of people with resolving the "problems", but don't mention what problems those were.

[Ballot discuss]
1) The Introduction says "The influence attributed to prioritization may also affect QoS, but it
  is not to be confused with QoS." but section 4 records this in the IANA QoS Profile registry, and section 5 says this documents describes an extension for conveying QoS information. Doesn't this confuse prioritization with QoS?

2) I am unclear on the relation between 3GPP-defined AVPs and the AVPs defined here. The last paragraph of 1.1 says the 3GPP work is not relevant to the current document; then why mention it? I think it is relevant in that it impacts prioritization, but the 3GPP prioritization is limited to within a walled garden. You don't say so, but I assume this means the AVPs defined in this document do NOT operate in a walled garden. Do the ETSI AVPs also operate in a walled garden? I suggest that this should be made clearer by specifying more clearly the intended scope of the ETSI, 3GPP, and IETF AVPs.

3) I think an important missing element here is the impact these different scopes have on operational considerations. What does an operator need to know about the prioritization caused by these AVPs from different SDOs, and how do they interact if multiple types of prioritization is present? Which ones take precedence, assuming comparable values of prioritization?

4) The 3GPP is supposed to be for use in a walled garden; what happens if it "escapes into the wild"? Is there anything an operator can/should do to make sure this doesn't happen, such as configuring a firewall to prevent the AVPs from crossing network boundaries?

5) prioritization might affect QoS. What sort of operational impact might this have, if some traffic prioritized by, for example, a diffserv codepoint is overridden by an AVP? Are there certain types of traffic that operators should make sure AVPs do not override the protocol-defined QoS?

6) What is the persistence of these AVP settings? Do these AVPs only affect the current session, and the AVP-driven prioritization is removed when the authorized session ends, or does the AVP-driven prioritization continue after the current session closes?

7) in 3.1, passive vocie is used to state "Defending-priority is set when the reservation has been admitted." That is a bit ambiguous to me. Do I understand correctly that the defending-priority AVP is **set** by the client in the request message  before admission, but the prioritization is only **set** by the NAS in its internal enforcement calculations when the session is admitted? Can the text clarify who the actors are, and when and what each of them sets?

8) in 3.1.1, "value that would be encoded in the signaled ... element." encoded in what message?
where is this policy element encoded? Can you provide a reference?

9) in 3.2, "The admission priority of the flow is used to increase the probability of
  session establishment for selected flows." I don't understand the relationship between "the flow" and "selected flows", and the relationship between these flows and AAA sessions. Is "the flow" the AAA-authorized session flow? Are the "selected flows" in the same authorized session? or does this AVP afffect flows in other AAA-sessions? Is the admission priority of the flow refering to the admission-prioirty-AVP, or the admission-priority parameter that the AVP models?

[Ballot discuss]
The first paragraph of the Security Considerations section is unclear. It appears to instruct elements (not clear which elements) to ignore integrity protected values. Does it mean integrity protected values that fail integrity check? It indicates that protocol specific error messages should be sent when these values are ignored - which protocol(s)?  Is the paragraph trying to say something more than "local policy can override the policy requested by protocol messages"?

[Ballot comment]
s3.4 includes the following:

  Consequently, SIP-Resource-Priority and
  Application-Level-Resource-Priority AVPs convey the same priority
  semantics, but with differing syntax.

Should guidance be given about what happens when the two conflict (i.e., where high =11, one says high and the other says 10)?

Also should some guidance be given as to when to use one or the other?

[Ballot comment]
- The document assumes I already know what a "priority
parameter" is, I don't, and that's a problem for the
reader. I think at least a reference to where this is
defined would be good. If there's no single definition
then just explaining why a bunch of new AVPs are
needed would be fine.

- is the title of 3.3.1 correct? The other
sections are named for the AVP but this isn't. Maybe a
typo? The AVP in 4.1 matches the section title
but not the AVP name in the body of 3.3.1. 3.4.2
seems to have the same problem.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two
IANA actions which need to be completed.

First, in the AVP Codes registry located in the Authentication,
Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Parameters registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/aaa-parameters/aaa-parameters.xml#aaa-parameters-1

a series of new registrations will be made as follows:

AVP Code  Attribute Name                            Reference
=========  ======================================    =============
tbd1      Dual-Priority                            [ RFC-to-be ]
tbd2      Preemption-Priority                      [ RFC-to-be ]
tbd3      Defending-Priority                        [ RFC-to-be ]
tbd4      Admission-Priority                        [ RFC-to-be ]
tbd5      SIP-Resource-Priority                    [ RFC-to-be ]
tbd6      SIP-Namespace                            [ RFC-to-be ]
tbd7      SIP-Value                                [ RFC-to-be ]
tbd8      Application-Level-Resource-Priority      [ RFC-to-be ]
tbd9      ALRP-Namespace                            [ RFC-to-be ]
tbd10      ALRP-Value                                [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, First, in the QoS Profiles registry located in the
Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Parameters registry
located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/aaa-parameters/aaa-parameters.xml#aaa-parameters-1

a new QoS profile will be registered as follows:

Value:  tbd11
Name: Resource priority parameters
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands that these two actions are the only ones required upon
approval of this document.

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Diameter Priority Attribute Value Pairs) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Diameter Maintenance and
Extensions WG (dime) to consider the following document:
- 'Diameter Priority Attribute Value Pairs'
  as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-07-20. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

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.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dime-priority-avps/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the

Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the

document and, in particular, does he or she believe this

version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?



--

Lionel Morand (lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com)

is the Document Shepherd, Dime co-chair. He has done a review

on the document and believes it is ready to be forwarded to

IESG for publication.



(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members

and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have

any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that

have been performed?



--

The document has had an extensive review by the DIME WG. This

document has been also reviewed and discussed by people from
3GPP.

The lastest version is the result of the consensus reached

after discussion.



The shepherd has reviewed the document himself and has no

issue with it. Nor the shepherd has issues with the reviews

done by others.



(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document

needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,

e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with

AAA, internationalization or XML?



--

No.





(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or

issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director

and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he

or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or

has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any

event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated

that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those

concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document

been filed? If so, please include a reference to the

disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on

this issue.



--

No.





(1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it

represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with

others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and

agree with it?



--

There is Dime WG consensus behind the document.





(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme

discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in

separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It

should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is

entered into the ID Tracker.)



--

No.



(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the

document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts
Checklist

and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are


not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document

met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB

Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?



--

The shepherd has checked the document with the idnits tool and

found no critical issues. However several lines exceed the
maximum

length of 72 characters.



The document does not need MIB doctor review.

The document does not contain any media and URI types.



(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and

informative? Are there normative references to documents that

are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear

state? If such normative references exist, what is the

strategy for their completion? Are there normative references

that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If

so, list these downward references to support the Area

Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].



--

References are split accordingly. There is a normative
reference

to a draft (draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp-14) but this draft
is already

in the RFC ed queue. There are no other references to documents
with

unclear status or are in progress.



(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA

consideration section exists and is consistent with the body

of the document? If the document specifies protocol

extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA

registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If

the document creates a new registry, does it define the

proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation

procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a

reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the

document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd

conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG

can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?



--

This document defines 10 new Diameter AVP codes and requests
IANA for

code value assignment in an existing registry.



This document defines several new Diameter AVPs.

IANA is requested to allocate values for the AVP codes.

No new registry is defined..





(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the

document that are written in a formal language, such as XML

code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in

an automated checker?



--

Yes. Note that the ABNF used in this document follows the

modified ABNF syntax defined in RFC3588.





(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document

Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document

Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the

"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval

announcement contains the following sections:



Technical Summary



--



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.





Working Group Summary



---

The document was discussed for more than one year in the WG and


the document captures the results of the collaborative WG work.



Document Quality



---

The document is complete, straightforward, simple and
well-written.