[Search] [txt|pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 rfc3198                                        
 Policy Framework Working Group                          A. Westerinen
 INTERNET-DRAFT                                          J. Schnizlein
 Category: Informational                                  J. Strassner
                                                         Cisco Systems
                                                        Mark Scherling
                                                              Bank One
                                                             Bob Quinn
                                                        Celox Networks
                                                             Jay Perry
                                                                CPlane
                                                           Shai Herzog
                                                            IP Highway
                                                           An-Ni Huynh
                                                   Lucent Technologies
                                                          Mark Carlson
                                                      Sun Microsystems
                                                             July 2000
 
 
 
 
                            Policy Terminology
 
                  <draft-ietf-policy-terminology-00.txt>
                      Friday, July 14, 2000, 12:10 AM
 
 Status of this Memo
 
  This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
  all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
 
  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
 
 Copyright Notice
 
  Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000).  All Rights Reserved.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Westerinen, et al.    Expires: Jul 2000 + 6 months           [Page 1]


 Internet Draft             Policy Terminology               July 2000
 
 Abstract
 
  This document is a glossary of policy-related terms.  It provides
  abbreviations, explanations, and recommendations for use of these
  terms.  The document takes the approach and format of RFC2828
  [R2828], which defines an Internet Security Glossary.  The intent is
  to improve the comprehensibility and consistency of writing that
  deals with network policy, particularly Internet Standards documents
  (ISDs).
 
 
 
 Table of Contents
 
  1. Introduction....................................................3
  2. Explanation of Paragraph Markings...............................4
  3. Terms...........................................................4
  4. Intellectual Property..........................................15
  5. Acknowledgements...............................................15
  6. Security Considerations........................................16
  7. References.....................................................16
  8. Authors' Addresses.............................................18
  9. Full Copyright Statement.......................................19
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Westerinen, et al.    Expires: Jul 2000 + 6 months           [Page 2]


 Internet Draft             Policy Terminology               July 2000
 
 
 1. Introduction
 
  This document provides abbreviations, definitions, and explanations
  of terms related to network policy. All definitions are provided in
  Section 3, with the terms listed in alphabetical order.
 
  The intent is to improve the comprehensibility and consistency of
  Internet Standards documents (ISDs)--i.e., RFCs, Internet-Drafts, and
  other material produced as part of the Internet Standards Process
  [R2026]. Benefits across the ISDs are well-stated in the Introduction
  to RFC2828 [R2828]:
 
   o "Clear, Concise, and Easily Understood Documentation" - Requires
     that the set of terms and definitions be consistent, self-
     supporting and uniform across all ISDs.
 
   o Technical Excellence - Where all ISDs use terminology accurately,
     precisely, and unambiguously.
 
   o Prior Implementation and Testing - Requires that terms are used in
     their plainest form, that private and "made-up" terms are avoided
     in ISDs, and that new definitions are not created that conflict
     with established ones.
 
   o "Openness, Fairness, and Timeliness" - Where ISDs avoid terms that
     are proprietary or otherwise favor a particular vendor, or that
     create a bias toward a particular technology or mechanism.
 
 Common and/or controversial policy terms are defined in this draft.
 These terms are directly related and specific to network policy.
 This is a "living" document that is expected to grow over the next
 several months, as the current terms are reviewed and additional
 words suggested for inclusion.
 
 Wherever possible, this draft takes definitions from existing ISDs.
 It should be noted that:
 
   o Expired Internet-Drafts are not referenced, nor are their
     terminology and definitions used in this document.
 
   o Multiple definitions may exist across the ISDs.  Each definition
     will be listed, with its source.
 
 Where definitions are contradictory, the recommendations of the draft
 editors are presented.  The draft editors will work with other ISD
 authors to remove contradictions.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Westerinen, et al.    Expires: Jul 2000 + 6 months           [Page 3]


 Internet Draft             Policy Terminology               July 2000
 
 
 2. Explanation of Paragraph Markings
 
  Section 3 marks terms and definitions as follows:
 
   o Capitalization: Only terms that are proper nouns are capitalized.
 
   o Paragraph Marking: Definitions and explanations are stated in
     paragraphs that are marked as follows:
 
      - "P" identifies basic policy-related terms.
 
      - "M" identifies various mechanisms to create or convey policy-
        related information in a network.  For example, COPS and an
        "Information Model" are two mechanisms for communicating and
        describing policy-related data.
 
      - "A" identifies specific Work Groups and general "areas of use"
        of policy.  For example, AAA and QoS are two "areas of use"
        where policy concepts are extremely important to their
        function and operation.
 
 
 3. Terms
 
  Note:  In providing policy definitions, other "technology specific"
  terms (for example, related to Differentiated Services) may be used
  and referenced.  These non-policy terms will not be defined in this
  document, and the reader is requested to go to the referenced ISD
  for additional detail.
 
  $ AAA
     See "Authentication, Authorization, Accounting."
 
  $ abstraction levels
     See "policy abstraction."
 
  $ action
     See "policy action."
 
  $ Authentication, Authorization, Accounting (AAA)
     (A) AAA efforts in the IETF have focused on the most widely
       deployed use of authentication: Remote Authentication Dial In
       User Service (RADIUS). Referencing the RADIUS RFC (R2138), a
       network access server sends dial-user credentials to a AAA
       server, and receives authentication that the user is who he/she
       claims along with a set of attribute-value pairs authorizing
       various service features for that user. Policy is implied in
       both the authentication, which can be restricted by time of day,
       number of sessions, calling number, etc., and the attribute-
       values authorized.  The AAA Working Group is also completing its
       requirements for a general-purpose AAA protocol expanding beyond
 
 
 Westerinen, et al.    Expires: Jul 2000 + 6 months           [Page 4]


 Internet Draft             Policy Terminology               July 2000
 
       RADIUS.  The only protocol proposed thus far is Diameter
       ("radius" pun - not an acronym) [DIAMETER].  And, the
       Authentication Authorization Accounting ARCHitecture Research
       Group (AAAARCH) was formed as a new area of research within the
       IRTF, with the goal of coordination "with the Policy Framework
       WG and others."
 
  $ CIM
     See "Common Information Model."
 
  $ Common Information Model (CIM)
     (M) An object-oriented information model published by the DMTF
       (Distributed Management Task Force) [DMTF]. It consists of a
       Specification detailing the abstract modeling constructs and
       principles of the Information Model, and a language definition
       to represent the Model. CIM includes a set of files, written in
       the language specified in the Specification. These are known as
       the Core and Common Models, and define an information model for
       the "enterprise" - addressing systems, devices, users, software
       distribution, the physical environment, networks and policy.
       (See also "information model.")
 
  $ Common Open Policy System (COPS)
     (M) A simple query and response TCP-based protocol that can be
       used to exchange policy information between a Policy Decision
       Point (PDP) and its clients (Policy Enforcement Points, PEPs).
       [RFC 2748] (See also "Policy Decision Point" and "Policy
       Enforcement Point.")
 
  $ condition
     See "policy condition."
 
  $ configuration
     (P) The set of parameters in network elements and other systems
       that determine their function and operation. Some parameters
       are static, such as packet queue assignment and can be
       predefined and downloaded to a network element.  Others are
       more dynamic, such as the actions taken by a network device
       upon the occurrence of some event.   The distinction between
       static (predefined) "configuration" and the dynamic state of
       network elements blurs as setting parameters becomes more
       responsive, and signaling controls greater degrees of a
       network device's behavior.
 
  $ COPS
     See "Common Open Policy System."
 
  $ data model
     (M) A mapping of the contents of an information model into a form
       that is specific to a particular type of data store or
       repository.  A "data model" is basically the rendering of an
 
 
 
 Westerinen, et al.    Expires: Jul 2000 + 6 months           [Page 5]


 Internet Draft             Policy Terminology               July 2000
 
       information model according to a specific set of mechanisms for
       representing, organizing, storing and handling data.  It has
       three parts [DecSupp]:
       - A collection of data structures such as lists, tables,
          relations, etc.
       - A collection of operations that can be applied to the
          structures such as retrieval, update, summation, etc.
       - A collection of integrity rules that define the legal states
          (set of values) or changes of state (operations on values).
       (See also "information model.")
 
  $ DEN
     See "Directory Enabled Networks."
 
  $ Differentiated Services (DS)
     (M) The IP header field, called the DS-field. In IPv4, it defines
       the layout of the ToS (Type of Service) octet; in IPv6, it is
       the Traffic Class octet. [R2474, DSTERMS]
     (A) "Differentiated Services" is also an "area of use" for QoS
       policies. It requires policy to define the correspondence
       between codepoints in the packet's DS-field and individual per-
       hop behaviors (to achieve a specified per-domain behavior).
       (See also "Quality of Service.")
 
  $ diffserv
     See "Differentiated Services."
 
  $ Directory Enabled Networks (DEN)
     (M) A data model that is the LDAP mapping of CIM (the Common
       Information Model). Its goals are to enable the deployment and
       use of policy by starting with common service and user concepts
       (defined in the information model), specifying their
       mapping/storage in an LDAP-based repository, and using these
       concepts in vendor/device-independent policy rules. [DMTF] (See
       also "Common Information Model" and "data model.")
 
  $ domain
     See "policy domain."
 
  $ DS
     See "Differentiated Services."
 
  $ filter
     (M) A set of terms and/or criteria used for the purpose of
       separating or categorizing. "Filters" are often manipulated and
       used in network policy.
       - Packet filters are defined in [PIB].  They specify the
          criteria for matching a pattern (for example, IP or 802
          traffic criteria) to appear in packets belonging to flows,
          e.g. microflows or behavior aggregates.  Associated with
          each filter is a permit/deny flag.
 
 
 
 Westerinen, et al.    Expires: Jul 2000 + 6 months           [Page 6]


 Internet Draft             Policy Terminology               July 2000
 
  $ goal
     See "policy goal."
 
  $ information model
     (M) An abstraction and representation of the entities in a managed
       environment, their properties, attributes and operations, and
       the way that they relate to each other. It is independent of
       any specific repository, application, protocol, or platform.
 
  $ Internet Protocol Security Policy (IPSP)
     (A) An IETF Working Group chartered to define a standard data
       model, specification language and exchange protocol for
       supporting IP Security Policies that are compatible with the
       existing IPsec architecture [RFC 2401] and IKE [RFC 2409],
       complementing the standards work achieved by the IPsec Working
       Group.
 
  $ IPSP
     See "Internet Protocol Security Policy."
 
  $ MPLS
     See "Multiprotocol Label Switching."
 
  $ Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)
     (M) Integrates a label swapping framework with network layer
       routing [R2702]. The basic idea involves assigning short fixed
       length labels to packets at the ingress to an MPLS cloud.
       Throughout the interior of the MPLS domain, the labels attached
       to packets are used to make forwarding decisions (usually
       without recourse to the original packet headers).
 
  $ outsourced policy
     (P) An execution model where a policy enforcement device issues a
       query to delegate a decision for a specific policy event to
       another component, external to it. For example, in RSVP, the
       arrival of a new RSVP message to a PEP requires a fast policy
       decision (not to delay the end-to-end setup). The PEP may use
       COPS-RSVP to send a query to the PDP, asking for a policy
       decision. [R2205, R2748] "Outsourced policy" is contrasted with
       "provisioned policy", but they are not mutually exclusive and
       operational systems may combine the two.
 
  $ PDP
     See "Policy Decision Point."
 
  $ PEP
     See "Policy Enforcement Point."
 
  $ PIB
     See "Policy Information Base."
 
 
 
 
 Westerinen, et al.    Expires: Jul 2000 + 6 months           [Page 7]


 Internet Draft             Policy Terminology               July 2000
 
  $ policy
     (P) "Policy" can be defined from two perspectives:
       - A definite goal, course or method of action to guide and
          determine present and future decisions.  "Policies" are
          implemented or executed within a particular context (such
          as policies defined within a business unit).
       - Policies as a set of rules to administer, manage, and
          control access to network resources. [PCIM]
       Note that these two views are not contradictory since
       individual rules may be defined in support of business goals.
       (See also "policy goal", "policy abstraction" and "policy
       rule.")
 
  $ policy abstraction
     (P) Policy can be represented at different levels, ranging from
       business goals to device-specific configuration parameters.
       Translation between different levels of "abstraction" may
       require information, other than policy, such as network and
       host parameter configuration and capabilities. (See also
       "configuration" and "policy translation.")
 
  $ policy action
     (P) Definition of what is to be done to enforce a policy rule,
       when the conditions of the rule are met.  Policy actions may
       result in the execution of one or more operations to affect
       and/or configure network traffic and network resources.
       - In [PCIM], a rule's actions may be ordered.
 
  $ policy condition
     (P) An expression used to determine whether a policy rule's
       actions should be performed.  When the set of conditions
       associated with a policy rule evaluates to TRUE, then the rule
       should be enforced. A condition may be defined as the occurrence
       of an event, or a computed expression typically consisting of
       three elements: a variable, an operator and another variable or
       constant. [QoSModel]  Some of these elements may be implicit in
       an implementation or protocol.
       - In [PCIM], a rule's conditions can be expressed as either an
          ORed set of ANDed sets of statements (disjunctive normal
          form), or an ANDed set of ORed sets of statements
          (conjunctive normal form).  Individual condition statements
          can also be negated.
 
  $ policy conflict
     (P) Occurs when the actions of two rules (that are both satisfied
       simultaneously) contradict each other. The entity implementing
       the policy would not be able to determine which action to
       perform. The implementers of policy systems must provide
       conflict detection and avoidance or resolution mechanisms to
       prevent this situation.  "Policy conflict" is contrasted with
       "policy error."
 
 
 
 Westerinen, et al.    Expires: Jul 2000 + 6 months           [Page 8]


 Internet Draft             Policy Terminology               July 2000
 
  $ policy conversion
     See "policy translation."
 
  $ policy decision
     (P) Two perspectives of "policy decision" exist:
       - A "process" perspective that deals with the evaluation of a
          policy rule's conditions
       - A "result" perspective that deals with the actions for
          enforcement, when the conditions of a policy rule are TRUE
 
  $ Policy Decision Point (PDP)
     (P) A logical entity that makes policy decisions for itself or for
       other network elements that request such decisions. [R2753]
       (See also "policy decision.")
 
  $ policy domain
     (P) A contiguous portion of an Internet over which a consistent
       set of [..] policies are administered in a coordinated fashion.
       [R2474] This definition of a policy domain does not preclude
       multiple sources of policy creation within an organization, but
       does require that the resultant policies be coordinated.  The
       definition given in RFC 2474 for Differentiated Services is
       very close to that of a security domain, defined in [SPSL]. In
       [SPSL], it is stated:  "A security domain is defined as a
       connected set of network entities that are protected by policy
       enforcement points (PEP) placed on every communication path
       going through the perimeter of the domain.  Every policy
       enforcement point of the domain works to enforce the common set
       of security policies associated with the domain."
 
  $ policy enforcement
     (P) The execution of a policy decision.
 
  $ Policy Enforcement Point (PEP)
     (P) A logical entity that enforces policy decisions. [R2753] (See
       also "policy enforcement.")
 
  $ policy error
     (P) "Policy errors" occur when attempts to enforce policy actions
       fail, whether due to temporary state or permanent mismatch
       between the policy actions and the device enforcement
       capabilities.  This is contrasted with "policy conflict."
 
  $ policy goal
     (P) Goals are the business objectives or conditions/states
       intended to be maintained by a policy system. At the highest
       level of abstraction of policy, "goals" are most directly
       related to business rather than technical terms. For example, a
       "goal" might be that a particular application receives network
       behavior equivalent to having its own dedicated network,
       despite using a shared infrastructure. (See also "policy
       abstraction.")
 
 
 Westerinen, et al.    Expires: Jul 2000 + 6 months           [Page 9]


 Internet Draft             Policy Terminology               July 2000
 
  $ Policy Information Base (PIB)
     (M) Collections of related policy rule classes (PRCs), defined as
       a module. [PIB]
 
  $ policy negotiation
     (P) Exposing the desired or appropriate part of a policy to
       another domain. This is necessary to support partial
       interconnection between domains, which are operating with
       different sets of policies.  The need for "policy negotiation"
       is described in the IPsec Policy Working Group charter [IPSP]:
       "4) adopt or develop a policy exchange and negotiation
       protocol. The protocol must be capable of: i) discovering
       policy servers, ii) distributing and negotiating security
       policies, and; iii) resolving policy conflicts in both
       intra/inter domain environments."
 
  $ policy repository
     (P) "Policy repository" can be defined from three perspectives:
       - A specific data store that holds policy rules, their
          conditions and actions, and related policy data.  A
          directory would be an example of such a store.
       - A logical container representing the administrative scope and
          naming of policy rules, their conditions and actions, and
          related policy data. A QoS policy domain would be an example
          of such a container. [QoSModel]
       - In [PCIM], a more restrictive definition than the prior one
          exists. PolicyRepository is a model abstraction representing
          an administratively defined, logical container for reusable
          policy conditions and policy actions.
 
  $ policy request
     (P) Sent by a PEP to a PDP, it is more accurately qualified as a
       "policy decision request." [R2753] (See also "policy
       decision.")
 
  $ Policy Retrieval Point (PRP)
     (P) A client of a policy repository. [AAA]
       - Outside of [AAA], this term is not used, since policy
          retrieval is a necessary function of a policy-based
          system. For example, a PDP includes both policy retrieval
          and decision making functionality.
 
  $ policy rule
     (P) A basic building block of a policy-based system. It is the
       binding of a set of actions to a set of conditions - where the
       conditions are evaluated to determine whether the actions are
       performed. [PCIM]
 
  $ Policy Rule Class (PRC)
     (M) An ordered set of scalar attributes, defined in a PIB. "Policy
       Rule Classes" are arranged in a hierarchical structure similar
       to tables in SNMP's SMIv2. [R2578, PIB]
 
 
 Westerinen, et al.    Expires: Jul 2000 + 6 months          [Page 10]


 Internet Draft             Policy Terminology               July 2000
 
  $ policy server
     (P) A marketing term whose definition is imprecise.  Originally,
       [R2753] referenced a "policy server."  As the RFC evolved, this
       term became more precise and known as the Policy Decision Point
       (PDP).  Today, the term is used in marketing and other
       literature to refer specifically to a PDP, or for any entity
       that uses/services policy.
 
  $ policy translation
     (P) The transformation of a policy from a representation and/or
       level of abstraction, to another representation or level of
       abstraction.  For example, it may be necessary to convert PIB
       data to a command line format. This is also known as "policy
       conversion."
 
  $ PolicyGroup
     (M) An abstraction in the Policy Core Information Model [PCIM]. It
       is a class representing a container, aggregating either policy
       rules or other policy groups. It allows the grouping of rules
       into a Policy, and the refinement of high-level Policies to
       lower-level or different (i.e., converted or translated) peer
       groups.
 
  $ PolicyRepository
     (M) An abstraction in the Policy Core Information Model [PCIM].
       It is a class representing an administratively defined, logical
       container for reusable policy conditions and policy actions.
       (See also "policy repository.")
 
  $ PRC
     See "Policy Rule Class."
 
  $ provisioned policy
     (P) An execution model where network elements are pre-configured,
       based on policy, prior to processing events.  Configuration is
       pushed to the network device, e.g., based on time of day or at
       initial booting of the device.  The focus of this model is on
       the distribution of configuration information, and is
       exemplified by Differentiated Services [R2475].  Based on
       events received, devices use downloaded (pre-provisioned)
       mechanisms to implement policy. "Provisioned policy" is
       contrasted with "outsourced policy."
 
  $ PRP
     See "Policy Retrieval Point."
 
  $ QoS
     See "Quality of Service."
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Westerinen, et al.    Expires: Jul 2000 + 6 months          [Page 11]


 Internet Draft             Policy Terminology               July 2000
 
  $ Quality of Service (QoS)
     (A) At a high level of abstraction, "Quality of Service" refers
       to the ability to deliver network services according to the
       parameters specified in a Service Level Agreement.  "Quality"
       is characterized by service availability, delay, jitter,
       throughput and packet loss ratio.  At a network resource level,
       "Quality of Service" refers to a set of capabilities that allow
       a service provider to prioritize traffic, control bandwidth,
       and network latency.  There are two different approaches to
       "Quality of Service" on IP networks: Integrated Services
       [R1633], and Differentiated Service [R2475]. Integrated
       Services require policy control over the creation of signaled
       reservations, which provide specific quantitative end-to-end
       behavior for a (set of) flow(s). In contrast, Differentiated
       Services require policy to define the correspondence between
       codepoints in the packet's DS-field and individual per-hop
       behaviors (to achieve a specified per-domain behavior).  A
       maximum of 64 per-hop behaviors limit the number of classes of
       service traffic that can be marked at any point in a domain.
       These classes of service signal the treatment of the packets
       with respect to various QoS aspects, such as flow priority and
       packet drop precedence.  Policy controls the set of
       configuration parameters for each class in Differentiated
       Service, and the admission conditions for reservations in
       Integrated Services. (See also "policy abstraction" and
       "Service Level Agreement.")
 
  $ Resource reSerVation Protocol (RSVP)
     (M) A setup protocol designed for an Integrated Services Internet,
       to reserve network resources for a path. [R2205]  And, a
       signaling mechanism for managing application traffic's QoS in a
       Differentiated Service network. [DCLASS]
 
  $ role
     (P) "Role" is defined from four perspectives:
       - A business position or function, to which people and logical
          entities are assigned [X.500]
       - The labeled endpoints of a UML (Unified Modeling Language)
          association.  Quoting from [UML], "When a class participates
          in an association, it has a specific role that it plays in
          that relationship; a role is just the face the class at the
          near end of the association presents to the class at the
          other end of the association."  The Policy Core Information
          Model [PCIM] uses UML to depict its class hierarchy.
          Relationships/associations are significant in the model.
       - An abstract characteristic assigned to a network element that
          expresses a notion, such as a political, financial, legal,
          geographical, or architectural attribute, typically not
          directly derivable from information stored on the system
          [SNMPCONF]
       - A string characterizing a particular function of a network
          element or interface, that can be used to identify particular
          behavior associated with that element.  It is a selector for
 
 Westerinen, et al.    Expires: Jul 2000 + 6 months          [Page 12]


 Internet Draft             Policy Terminology               July 2000
 
          policy rules, to determine the applicability of the rule to a
          particular network element. "Roles" abstract the capabilities
          and/or use of network devices and resources. [PCIM, PIB]
       Only the latter two definitions are directly related to network
       policy.  The last is the preferred and recommended definition.
       The use of the term in [SNMPCONF] contradicts the established
       usage in references [PCIM] and [PIB].
 
  $ role combination
     (P) An unordered set of roles.  Two interpretations of "role
       combination" currently exist:
       - The set of roles in a "role combination" must be identical to
          the set of the roles of the network element or interface
          [PIB]
       - The selection process for a "role-combination" chooses
          policies associated with the combination itself, policies
          associated with each of its sub-combinations, and policies
          associated with each of the individual roles in the
          combination [PCIM]
       These two interpretations are contradictory and require
       alignment to prevent confusion across the ISDs.
 
  $ RSVP
     See "Resource reSerVation Protocol."
 
  $ rule
     See "policy rule."
 
  $ schema
     (M) Two different perspectives of schema are defined:
       - A set of rules that determines what data can be stored in a
          database or directory service [DirServs]
       - A collection of data models that are each bound to the same
          type of repository.
       The latter is the preferred and recommended one for ISDs. (See
       also "data model.")
 
  $ Security Policy Specification Language (SPSL)
     (M) A language designed to express security policies, security
       domains, and the entities that manage those policies and
       domains. It supports policies for packet   filtering, IP
       Security (IPsec), and IKE exchanges, but may be extended to
       express other types of policies. [SPSL]
 
  $ service
     (P) The behavior or functionality of a network element or host
       [DMTF, R2216]. Quoting from RFC 2216 [R2216], in order to
       completely specify a "service", one must define the "functions
       to be performed à, the information required à to perform these
       functions, and the information made available by the element to
       other elements of the system."  Policy can be used to configure
       a "service" on a network element or host, invoke its
 
 
 Westerinen, et al.    Expires: Jul 2000 + 6 months          [Page 13]


 Internet Draft             Policy Terminology               July 2000
 
       functionality, and/or coordinate services in an interdomain or
       end-to-end environment.
 
  $ Service Level Agreement (SLA)
     (P) The documented result of a negotiation between a
       customer/consumer and a provider of a service, that specifies
       the levels of availability, serviceability, performance,
       operation or other attributes of the service. (See also
       "Service Level Objective.")
 
  $ Service Level Objective (SLO)
     (P) Partitions an SLA into individual metrics and operational
       information to enforce and/or monitor the SLA.  "Service Level
       Objectives" may be defined as part of an SLA, or in a separate
       document. It is a set of parameters and their values. The
       actions of enforcing and reporting monitored compliance can be
       implemented as one or more policies. (See also "Service Level
       Agreement.")
 
  $ Service Level Specification (SLS)
     (P) Specifies handling of customer's traffic by a network
       provider. It is negotiated between a customer and the provider,
       and defines DiffServ parameters (such as specific Code Points
       and the Per-Hop-Behavior, profile characteristics and treatment
       of the traffic for those Code Points). An SLS is a combination
       of an SLA (a negotiated agreement) and its SLOs (the individual
       metrics and operational data to enforce).  [DSTERMS] (See also
       "Service Level Agreement" and "Service Level Objective.")
 
  $ SLA
     See "Service Level Agreement."
 
  $ SLO
     See "Service Level Objective."
 
  $ SLS
     See "Service Level Specification."
 
  $ SMIv2
     See "Structure of Management Information."
 
  $ SPPI
     See "Structure of Policy Provisioning Information."
 
  $ SPSL
     See "Security Policy Specification Language."
 
  $ Structure of Policy Provisioning Information (SPPI)
     (M) An adapted subset of SNMP's Structure of Management
       Information (SMIv2) that is used to encode collections of
       related Policy Rule Classes as a PIB. [R2578, SPPI]
 
 
 
 Westerinen, et al.    Expires: Jul 2000 + 6 months          [Page 14]


 Internet Draft             Policy Terminology               July 2000
 
  $ Structure of Management Information, version 2 (SMIv2)
     (M) An adapted subset of OSI's Abstract Syntax Notation One,
       ASN.1 (1988) used to encode collections of related objects as
       SNMP Management Information Base (MIB) modules. [R2578]
 
  $ subject
     (P) An entity, or collection of entities, which originates a
       request, and is verified as authorized/not authorized to
       perform that request.
 
  $ target
     (P) An entity, or collection of entities, which is affected by a
       policy. For example, the "targets" of a policy to reconfigure a
       network device are the individual services that are updated and
       configured.
 
 4. Intellectual Property
 
  The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
  intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
  pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
  this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
  might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
  has made any effort to identify any such rights.  Information on the
  IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
  standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11.
 
  Copies of claims of rights made available for publication 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 Secretariat.
 
  The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
  copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
  rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
  this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF Executive
  Director.
 
 
 5. Acknowledgements
 
  This document builds on the work of previous terminology drafts.  The
  authors of these drafts were Fran Reichmeyer, Dan Grossman, John
  Strassner, Ed Ellesson and Matthew Condell.  Also, definitions for
  the general concepts of policy and policy rule include input from
  Predrag Spasic.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Westerinen, et al.    Expires: Jul 2000 + 6 months          [Page 15]


 Internet Draft             Policy Terminology               July 2000
 
 6. Security Considerations
 
  This document only defines policy-related terms. It does not describe
  in detail the vulnerabilities of, threats to, or mechanisms that
  protect specific policy implementations or policy-related Internet
  protocols.
 
 
 7. References
 
  [AAA] AAA Authorization Framework.  Internet Draft, draft-ietf-aaa-
     authz-arch-00.txt, J. Vollbrecht, P. Calhoun, S. Farrell, L.
     Gommans, G. Gross, B. de Bruijn, C. de Laat, M. Holdrege, and D.
     Spence.  October 1999.
 
  [DCLASS] Format of the RSVP DCLASS Object.  Internet Draft, draft-
     ietf-issll-dclass-01.txt, Y. Bernet.  October 1999.
 
  [DecSupp] Building Effective Decision Support Systems.  R. Sprague,
     and E. Carleson.  Prentice Hall, 1982.
 
  [DIAMETER] DIAMETER Framework Document.  Internet Draft, draft-
     calhoun-diameter-framework-08.txt, P. Calhoun, G. Zorn, P. Pan,
     and H. Akhtar.  June 2000.
 
  [DirServs] Understanding and Deploying LDAP Directory Services.  T.
     Howes, M. Smith, and G. Good.  MacMillan Technical Publications,
     1999.
 
  [DMTF] Common Information Model (CIM) Schema, version 2.4.
     Distributed Management Task Force, Inc. July, 2000.  The
     components of the CIM v2.4 schema are available via links on the
     following DMTF web page:
     http://www.dmtf.org/spec/cim_schema_v24.html.
 
  [DSTERMS] New Terminology for Diffserv.  Internet Draft, draft-ietf-
     diffserv-new-terms-02.txt>, D. Grossman.  November 1999.
 
  [IPSP] IP Security Policy (ipsp) Working Group Charter.  February
     2000. http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ipsp-charter.html.
 
  [PCIM] Policy Core Information Model - Version 1 Specification.
     Internet Draft, draft-ietf-policy-core-info-model-07.txt, B.
     Moore, E. Ellison, J. Strassner, and A. Westerinen.  July 2000.
 
  [PIB] Quality of Service Policy Information Base.  Internet Draft,
     draft-mfine-cops-pib-02.txt, M. Fine, K. McCloughrie, J.
     Seligson, K. Chan, S. Hahn, and A. Smith.  October 1999.
 
  [QoSModel] Policy Framework QoS Information Model.  Internet Draft,
     draft-ietf-policy-qos-info-model-01.txt, Y. Snir, Y. Ramberg, J.
     Strassner, and R. Cohen. April 2000.
 
 
 Westerinen, et al.    Expires: Jul 2000 + 6 months          [Page 16]


 Internet Draft             Policy Terminology               July 2000
 
 
  [R1633] Integrated Services in the Internet Architecture: An
     Overview.  R. Braden, D. Clark, and S. Shenker.  June 1994.
 
  [R2026] The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3.  S. Bradner.
     October 1996.
 
  [R2138] Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS).  C.
     Rigney, A. Rubens, W. Simpson, and S. Willens.  April 1997.
 
  [R2205] Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional
     Specification.  R. Braden, L. Zhang, S. Berson, S. Herzog, and S.
     Jamin. September 1997.
 
  [R2401] Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol.  S. Kent,
     and R. Atkinson.  November 1998.
 
  [R2409] The Internet Key Exchange (IKE).  D. Harkins, and D. Carrel.
     November 1998.
 
  [R2474] Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field)
     in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers.  K. Nichols, S. Blake, F. Baker,
     and D. Black.  December 1998.
 
  [R2475] An Architecture for Differentiated Service.  S. Blake, D.
     Black, M. Carlson, E. Davies, Z. Wang, and W. Weiss.  December
     1998.
 
  [R2578] Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2).  K.
     McGloughrie, D. Perkins, J. Schoenwaelder, J. Case, M. Rose, and
     S. Waldbusser.  April 1999.
 
  [R2702] Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS.  D. Awduche,
     J. Malcolm, J. Agogbua, M. O'Dell, and J. McManus.  September
     1999.
 
  [R2748] The COPS (Common Open Policy Service) Protocol.  D. Durham,
     J. Boyle, R. Cohen, S. Herzog, R. Rajan, and A. Sastry.  January
     2000.
 
  [R2753] A Framework for Policy-based Admission Control.  R.
     Yavatkar, D. Pendarakis, and R. Guerin.  January 2000.
 
  [R2828] Internet Security Glossary.  R. Shirey.  May 2000.
 
  [SNMPCONF] Policy Based Management MIB.  Internet Draft, draft-ietf-
     snmpconf-pm-01.txt, S. Waldbusser, J. Saperia and T. Hongal.  May
     2000.
 
  [SPPI] Structure of Policy Provisioning Information (SPPI).
     Internet Draft, draft-ietf-rap-sppi-00.txt, K. McCloughrie, M.
 
 
 
 Westerinen, et al.    Expires: Jul 2000 + 6 months          [Page 17]


 Internet Draft             Policy Terminology               July 2000
 
     Fine, J. Seligson, K. Chan, S. Chan, A. Smith, and F. Reichmeyer.
     March 2000.
 
  [SPSL] Security Policy Specification Language.  Internet Draft,
     draft-ietf-ipsp-spsl-00.txt, M. Condell, C. Lynn, and J. Zao.
     March 2000.
 
  [UML] The Unified Modeling Language User Guide.  G. Booch, J.
     Rumbaugh, and I. Jacobson.  Addison-Wesley, 1999.
 
  [X.500] Data Communications Networks Directory, Recommendations
     X.500-X.521, Volume VIII - Fascicle VIII.8.  CCITT, IXth Plenary
     Assembly, Melbourne.  November 1988.
 
 8. Authors' Addresses
 
   Andrea Westerinen
       Cisco Systems, Bldg 15
       170 West Tasman Drive
       San Jose, CA 95134
       E-mail:  andreaw@cisco.com
 
   John Schnizlein
       Cisco Systems
       9123 Loughran Road
       Fort Washington, MD  20744
       E-mail:  john.schnizlein@cisco.com
 
   John Strassner
       Cisco Systems, Bldg 15
       170 West Tasman Drive
       San Jose, CA 95134
       E-mail:  johns@cisco.com
 
   Mark Scherling
       Bank One International
       62 Beaufort Drive
       Kanata, Ontario, Canada
       K2L 2G3
       E-mail:  marks@m3p.ca
 
   Bob Quinn
       Celox Networks
       One Cabot Road
       Hudson, MA  01749
       E-mail:  bquinn@celoxnetworks.com
 
   Jay Perry
       CPlane, Inc.
       5150 El Camino Real - B-31
       Los Altos, CA 94022
       E-mail:  jay@cplane.com
 
 
 Westerinen, et al.    Expires: Jul 2000 + 6 months          [Page 18]


 Internet Draft             Policy Terminology               July 2000
 
 
   Shai Herzog
       IPHighway
       55 New York Avenue
       Framingham, MA  01701
       E-mail:  herzog@iphighway.com
 
   An-Ni Huynh
       Lucent Technologies
       2139 Route 35
       Holmdel, NJ 07733
       E-mail:  ahuynh@lucent.com
 
   Mark Carlson
       Sun Microsystems
       2990 Center Green Court South
       Boulder, CO 80301
       Email:  mark.carlson@sun.com
 
 
 9. Full Copyright Statement
 
  Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000).  All Rights Reserved.
 
  This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
  others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
  or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
  and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
  kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
  are included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
  document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
  the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
  Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
  developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
  copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
  followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
  English.
 
  The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
  revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
 
  This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
  "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
  TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Westerinen, et al.    Expires: Jul 2000 + 6 months          [Page 19]