Internet Draft T.M.T. Nguyen
Expires December 2001 G. Pujolle
University of Paris 6
N. Boukhatem
ENST Paris
June 2001
COPS Usage for SLS negotiation (COPS-SLS)
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 [RFC-2026].
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
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Abstract
This document describes the use of the Common Open Policy Service
(COPS) protocol for supporting Service Level Specification (SLS)
negotiation. The [SLS-FRW-TEQ] document has presented the need of a
Service Level Specification (SLS). Different works [SLS-TEQ], [SLS-
AQU], [SLS-INTER] have defined some SLSs for CPE-PE interface and
inter-domain QoS negotiation. The COPS protocol [COPS] has been
defined by the IETF Resource Allocation Protocol (RAP) WG [RAP] and
will be used in this memo to communicate SLS information from the
client to the network provider.
Nguyen, et al. Expires December 2001 [Page 1]
Internet Draft COPS-SLS June 2001
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].
Table of Contents
Glossary........................................................... 2
1. Introduction.................................................... 3
2. COPS-SLS Model.................................................. 4
3. Message Content................................................. 5
3.1. Request message (REQ) PEP -> PDP.............................. 5
3.2. Decision message (DEC) PDP -> PEP............................. 5
3.3. Report State message (RPT) PEP -> PDP......................... 6
4. COPS-SLS protocol objects and Client-Specific data format....... 6
4.1. COPS-SLS protocol objects..................................... 7
4.2. Client-Specific data format................................... 7
5. Common Operation and example.................................... 7
6. COPS-SLS PIB Module example.....................................11
7. Security Considerations.........................................14
8. Acknowledgements................................................14
9. References......................................................15
10. Authors' Addresses.............................................16
11. Full Copyright Statement.......................................16
Glossary
ClientSI Client Specific Information. See [COPS]
COPS Common Open Policy Service. See [COPS]
CPE Customer Premise Edge. See [SLS-TEQ]
CPERR PRC Class Provisioning Error. See [COPS-PR]
EPD Encoded Provisioning Instance. See [COPS-PR]
ErrorPRID Error PRID. See [COPS-PR]
GPERR Global Provisioning Error Object. See [COPS-PR]
ISP Internet Service Provider.
LAN Local Area Network.
PDP Policy Decision Point. See [RAP]
PE Provider Edge. See [SLS-TEQ]
PEP Policy Enforcement Point. See [RAP].
PIB Policy Information Base. See [COPS-PR]
PPRID Prefix PRID. See [COPS-PR]
PRID Provisioning Instance Identifier. See [COPS-PR]
RAP Resource Allocation Protocol. See [RAP]
SLS Service Level Specification. See [DS-TERM]
Nguyen, et al. Expires December 2001 [Page 2]
Internet Draft COPS-SLS June 2001
1. Introduction
While the focus of many early systems for policy-based networking has
been the control of edge devices such as edge routers, firewalls, and
VPN gateways, future systems should have to account for end-user
hosts as policy enforcement points. In fact it is necessary to look
at these computers as PEPs, both to provide finer-grained
classification of traffic and to deal with traffic classification
problems that can arise when traffic from the user terminal is
encrypted. Problems with network congestion and QoS adaptation will
be solved by enforcing policies at the desktop, requiring the host
computer to be well aware with regards to the network traffic it
generates.
This document describes the use of the Common Open Policy Service
(COPS) protocol [COPS] for supporting Service Level Specification
(SLS)negotiation. In [SLS-FRW-TEQ], the author has presented the need
of a Service Level Specification (SLS). Different works, [SLS-TEQ],
[SLS-AQU], [SLS-INTER], have defined some SLSs for CPE-PE interface
and inter-domain QoS negotiation. The COPS protocol has been defined
by the IETF Resource Allocation Protocol (RAP) WG [RAP] and will be
used in this memo to communicate the SLS information from the client
to the network provider.
Many protocols for supporting SLS negotiation could be envisaged
[SLS-FRW-TEQ]. This memo uses COPS protocol for the following
reasons:
- COPS is a flexible protocol which may support multiple client-
types. The definition of COPS based SLS negotiation protocol needs
only the specification of appropriate objects corresponding to the
new client-type (COPS-SLS).
- The client-handle object defined by COPS protocol gives a mechanism
for handling various requests in a single PEP. This capability will
be used to handle many SLS negotiations in a single PEP. See more
information in sections 3 and 5.
- If the core network uses COPS to configure network devices, the use
of the same protocol for SLS negotiation may facilitate the network
configuration process in the core network.
Nguyen, et al. Expires December 2001 [Page 3]
Internet Draft COPS-SLS June 2001
2. COPS-SLS Model
SLS Policy Client SLS Policy Server
+--------------+ +-----------+
| | | |
| +-----+ | REQ() | +-----+ |
| | SLS |----|--------------|->| SLS | |
| | PEP |<---|--------------|--| PDP |--|--------->
| +-----+ | DEC() | +-----+ |
| | | |
+--------------+ +-----------+
Figure 1: COPS-SLS Model
Figure 1 shows the COPS-SLS model.
The SLS Policy Client is the customer of an Internet Service
Provider (ISP). Here are some examples of the SLS Policy Client:
- A host connected directly to an ISP (via a modem).
- A gateway of a subnet (a LAN), which is connected to the ISP.
- An ISP who wants to guarantee an end-to-end service level for its
customers(the case of inter-domain SLS negotiation).
When the SLS-PEP module is activated, the PEP will connect to its
primary SLS-PDP. The COPS-SLS connection permits the PEP to request
the desired service level from the PDP. (Figure 1)
The SLS-PDP is a server who manages all SLSs of an administrative
domain. The SLS-PDP gets to its Policy Repository to retrieve the
policy. The SLS policy helps the SLS-PDP to accept or reject the
requested SLS. The SLS-PDP MAY also suggest another SLS to be applied
to the PEP.
Once a SLS-PDP accepts a SLS, this SLS-PDP MAY interact with other
entities (e.g., the COPS-PR PDP or the entity managing the Policy
Repository of the COPS-PR PDP) so that the network could be properly
configured. The interaction between the SLS-PDP and the other
entities is outside the scope of this document.
The COPS-SLS uses two common models supported by COPS protocol:
Outsourcing model and Configuration model [COPS-PR]. Thus, there are
two information types carried by COPS-SLS: configuration information
and signalling information. Configuration information defines how
the PEP can negotiate a SLS (e.g., the negotiation mode, the time
interval before which the PEP cannot send a new request to modify the
negotiated SLS,...). Signalling information defines a specific
SLS. At first, the PDP sends configuration information to the PEP
using the Configuration mode. After receiving and installing the
configuration sent by the PDP, the PEP can request a SLS using the
Outsourcing model. (See more information in section 5)
Nguyen, et al. Expires December 2001 [Page 4]
Internet Draft COPS-SLS June 2001
3. Message Content
3.1. Request message (REQ)
PEP -> PDP
The REQ message is sent by the SLS-PEP to the SLS-PDP with the
following format:
<Request> ::= <Common Header>
<Client Handle>
<Context>
*(<Named ClientSI>)
*(<Signaled ClientSI>)
[<Integrity>]
Note that *(<entity>) means zero or more <entity>(s). The COPS
objects IN-Int, OUT-Int and LPDPDecisions are not included in a COPS-
SLS Request.
The Named ClientSI object is included in the REQ message when the
Context object specifies a 'configuration request' (Configuration
model). This object is used to inform the PDP about the PEP
negotiation capabilities and all predefined SLS available in the PEP.
The Signaled ClientSI object is included in the REQ message when the
Context object specifies a 'resource allocation request' (Outsourcing
model). This object is used to transport the SLS requested by the
PEP.
3.2. Decision message (DEC) PDP -> PEP
The DEC message is sent by the SLS-PDP to the SLS-PEP with the
following format:
<Decision Message> ::= <Common Header>
<Client Handle>
*(<Decision>) | <Error>
[<Integrity>]
<Decision> ::= <Context>
<Decision Flags>
*(<Named Decision Data>)
*(<Client Specific Decision Data>)
A solicited DEC message is sent from the PDP to answer a REQ message
sent by the PEP. Unsolicited DEC messages may be sent by the PDP
to transport the updated policy information. The Client-Handle value
identifies the request that the PDP wants to send its decision.
The Context object specifies the context of the decision
('configuration' or 'resource allocation').
Nguyen, et al. Expires December 2001 [Page 5]
Internet Draft COPS-SLS June 2001
The Named Decision Data object is included in the DEC message when
the Context object specifies a 'configuration' decision. This object
is used to transport the negotiation configuration (e.g., negotiation
mode, predefined SLSs, ...) which the PDP wants to install/remove
in/from the PEP. The action 'install' or 'remove' is specified in the
Decision Flags object.
If the Context object specifies a 'resource allocation' decision, the
Client Specific Decision Data object is included in the DEC message
only when the PDP suggests another SLS. The Decision Flags object
will specify the action of 'install' in this case. When the PDP does
not suggest another SLS, the Client Specific Decision Data object
MUST NOT be included in the DEC message because the Decision Flags
object is sufficient to accept/reject the SLS requested by the PEP.
3.3. Report State message (RPT)
PEP -> PDP
The RPT message is sent by the SLS-PEP to the SLS-PDP with the
following format:
<Report State> ::= <Common Header>
<Client Handle>
<Report Type>
*(<Named ClientSI>)
*(<Signaled ClientSI>)
[<Integrity>]
A solicited RPT message MUST be sent by the PEP upon receipt of a DEC
message from the PDP. The Client-Handle object contains the same
value as the Client-Handle value in the DEC message to which the PEP
wants to make a report.
The Report-Type object is used to specify the action (success/fail)
taken by the PEP. The ClientSI objects are eventually included in
the RPT message to transport error/accounting information.
4. COPS-SLS protocol objects and Client-Specific data formats:
When designing a SLS negotiation protocol, it is difficult to define
a built-in message format adapted to all desired negotiation
parameters of all providers. Using a named data structure, a.k.a. a
PIB, to transport the SLS information seems suitable for SLS
negotiation. This memo supposes that the data carried by COPS-SLS has
the structure defined in the SLS-NEGOTIATION-PIB and maybe in other
future SLS-PIBs.
Nguyen, et al. Expires December 2001 [Page 6]
Internet Draft COPS-SLS June 2001
4.1 COPS-SLS protocol objects:
The COPS-SLS protocol objects follow the same object formats defined
in [COPS-PR]. More precisely, six objects (PRID object, PPRID object,
EPD object, GPERR object, CPERR object and ErrorPRID object) are
defined in section 4 of [COPS-PR].
Beside three Error objects defined by COPS-PR, this document defines
a new Error object for COPS-SLS:
S-Num = (tbd) (SLSERR), S-Type = 1 (BER), Length = 8.
0 1 2 3
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Length | S-Num = SLSERR | S-Type = BER |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Error-Code | Error Sub-code |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
Only the following error code is defined in this document:
slsNonAccepted(1) : the PEP does not accept the suggested SLS.
4.2 Client-Specific data format:
The Named ClientSI object and the Signaled ClientSI object used in
the REQ message have the same format as the ClientSI Request Data
defined in section 5.2 of [COPS-PR].
The Named Decision Data object and the Client Specific Decision Data
object used in the DEC have the same format as the Named Decision
Data defined in section 5.1 of [COPS-PR].
The Named ClientSI object used in the RPT message has the same format
as the Policy Provisioning Report Data defined in section 5.3 of
[COPS-PR].
The Signaled ClientSI object used in the RPT message has the same
format as the Policy Provisioning Report Data defined in section 5.3
of [COPS-PR], but in the case of a 'Failure' Report-Type due to the
reject of the PDP suggested SLS, the PEP MUST send a report with the
SLSERR Error object indicating the Error-code of 'slsNonAccepted'.
5. Common Operation and example:
To illustrate the operation of COPS-SLS, an example of COPS-SLS is
shown in Figure 2:
Nguyen, et al. Expires December 2001 [Page 7]
Internet Draft COPS-SLS June 2001
COPS-SLS-PEP COPS-SLS-PDP
| |
| |
|--------------------------------------------------->|(step 1)
| OPN : |
| Common Header : |
| Client-type = COPS-SLS (tbd) |
| PEPID : |
| PEPID = PEP_1 |
| |
|<---------------------------------------------------|(step 2)
| CAT : |
| Common Header : |
| Client-type = COPS-SLS |
| KA Timer : |
| KATimer = 50 |
| |
|--------------------------------------------------->|(step 3)
| REQ : |
| Common Header : |
| Client-type = COPS-SLS |
| Client-Handle : |
| Handle = config_req_A |
| Context : |
| R-Type = 0x08 (Configuration request) |
| Named ClientSI : |
| frwkPrcCapsTable |
| slsNegoCapsTable |
| slsSlsTable (not defined in this document) |
| |
|<---------------------------------------------------|(step 4)
| DEC : |
| Common Header : |
| Flags = 0x1 (solicited message) |
| Client-type = COPS-SLS |
| Client-Handle : |
| Handle = config_req_A |
| Context : |
| R-Type = 0x08 (configuration) |
| Decision : |
| Decision Flag : |
| Command Code = Install |
| Named Decision Data : |
| slsNegoTable |
| (slsNegoMode = predefined SLSs |
| slsNegoMaxInt = 120) |
| slsSlsTable (not defined in this document)|
| |
Nguyen, et al. Expires December 2001 [Page 8]
Internet Draft COPS-SLS June 2001
|--------------------------------------------------->|(step 5)
| RPT : |
| Common Header: |
| Flags = 0x1 (solicited message) |
| Client-Type = COPS-SLS |
| Client-Handle : |
| Handle = config_req_A |
| Report-Type : |
| Report-type = Success |
| |
|--------------------------------------------------->|(step 6)
| REQ : |
| Common Header : |
| Flags = 0 |
| Client-Type = COPS-SLS |
| Client-Handle : |
| Handle = res_req_B |
| Context : |
| R-Type = 0x02 (Resource-Allocation request) |
| Signaled ClientSI : |
| slsSlsTable (not defined in this document) |
| |
|<---------------------------------------------------|(step 7)
| DEC : |
| Common Header : |
| Flags = 0x01 (solicited message) |
| Client-Type = COPS-SLS |
| Client-Handle : |
| Handle = res_req_B |
| Context : |
| R-Type = 0x02 (Resource-Allocation) |
| Decision Flags: |
| Commande Code = install |
| |
|--------------------------------------------------->|(step 8)
| RPT : |
| Common Header : |
| Flags = 0x01 (solicited massage) |
| Client-Type = COPS-SLS |
| Client-Handle : |
| Handle = res_req_B |
| Report-Type : |
| Report-Type = Success |
Figure 2: Example of COPS-SLS operation
The next section describes the Common Operation on the COPS-SLS
connection between the PEP and the PDP.
Nguyen, et al. Expires December 2001 [Page 9]
Internet Draft COPS-SLS June 2001
When the SLS-PEP module is activated, the PEP connects to its
primary SLS-PDP and sends the OPN message with a Client-Type=COPS-
SLS (Figure 2 - step 1).
If the PDP accepts this PEP, it sends to the PEP a CAT message
(Figure 2 - step 2). Otherwise, it sends a CC message.
When the COPS-SLS connection is successfully established, the PEP
sends the first REQ with a Context='configuration request'. The
Named ClientSI object is used in this request to inform the PDP about
the capabilities of the PEP (e.g, the PRCs the PEP understands, the
negotiation mode the PEP supports, ...) and all existing predefined
SLS (Figure 2 - step 3).
The predefined SLS is defined in [SLS-AQU] as a SLS with predefined
values (or a range of values) for a subset of the parameters in the
generic SLS.
In predefined SLS mode, the PDP installs all predefined SLS in
the PEP. The PEP CAN only request a SLS conforming to one of
these predefined SLSs. The PEP MUST NOT request a SLS outside these
predefined SLSs.
In non-predefined SLS mode, the PEP CAN request a SLS with any
parameter values.
Upon receipt of the REQ message, the PDP sends a solicited DEC
message with a Context='configuration' and installs the configuration
information at the PEP (Figure 2 - step 4).
After receiving the DEC message, the PEP installs the configuration
sent by the PDP and sends a RPT message to the PDP to report the
installation result (Figure 2 - step 5).
If the configuration is successfully installed, the PEP CAN now send
a REQ message with a Context='resource-allocation' to request the
desired SLS (Figure 2 - step 6).
In response to the REQ message, the PDP sends a DEC message with the
same context (i.e., resource-allocation). The PDP can accept the
requested SLS, or reject the requested SLS, or suggest another SLS.
To accept the requested SLS, the PDP sends a DEC message with a
Decision-Flags='Install' (Figure 2 - step 7). To reject the requested
SLS, the PDP sends a DEC message with a Decision-Flags='Remove'. To
suggest another SLS, the PDP sends a DEC message with a Decision-
Flags='install' and includes the suggested SLS in the Client Specific
Decision Data object.
Nguyen, et al. Expires December 2001 [Page 10]
Internet Draft COPS-SLS June 2001
If the PEP receives a DEC message accepting/rejecting the requested
SLS, it installs the decision and sends a 'success' report to the PDP
(Figure 2 - step 8). If the PEP cannot install the decision,
it sends a 'failure' report to the PDP including the corresponding
Error object. If the PEP receives a DEC message suggesting another
SLS, it can accept the suggestion by sending a RPT message with a
Report-Type=Success or reject the suggested SLS by sending a RPT
message with a Report-Type=Failure.
If the PEP wants to modify some parameters of a negotiated SLS, it
sends a REQ message using the Client-Handle value identifying the SLS
and includes in the Signaled ClientSI object the SLS with its new
parameter values.
To delete a requested SLS, the PEP sends a DRQ message using the
Client-Handle value identifying the SLS to be deleted.
At any time, the PDP CAN send an unsolicited DEC message to supply
the PEP with the updated policy information or to degrade some
negotiated SLS.
If the PEP receives a SSQ message, it reissues all requested SLSs and
finishes the synchronization period by the SSC message.
6. COPS-SLS PIB Module example:
SLS-NEGOTIATION-PIB PIB-DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
IMPORTS
Unsigned32, InstanceId, MODULE-IDENTITY, OBJECT-TYPE
FROM COPS-PR-SPPI
slsPolicyPib MODULE-IDENTITY
SUBJECT-CATEGORIES { tbd - COPS-SLS Client Type }
LAST-UPDATED "200106111200Z"
ORGANIZATION "University of Paris 6 and ENST Paris"
CONTACT-INFO "
Thi Mai Trang Nguyen
INFRES-ENST
46 Rue Barrault
75013 Paris - France
Phone: +33 -0 1 45 81 74 61
Email: trnguyen@enst.fr
Guy Pujolle
RP-LIP6-UPMC
8 Rue du Capitaine Scott
75015 Paris - France
Nguyen, et al. Expires December 2001 [Page 11]
Internet Draft COPS-SLS June 2001
Phone: +33 รป0 1 44 27 75 14
Email: Guy.Pujolle@lip6.fr
Nadia Boukhatem
INFRES-ENST
46 Rue Barrault
75013 Paris - France
Phone: +33 -0 1 45 81 82 16
Email: Nadia.BouKhatem@enst.fr"
DESCRIPTION
"The PIB module contains a set of classes
describing the policies in the SLS negotiation"
::= { tbd }
slsCapabilityClasses OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { slsPolicyPib 1 }
slsPolicyClasses OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { slsPolicyPib 2 }
slsNegoCapsTable OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF SlsCapsEntry
PIB-ACCESS notify STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"SLS negotiation capabilities supported by the client"
::= { slsCapabilityClasses 1}
slsNegoCapsEntry OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX SlsNegoCapsEntry
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"An instance of this class describes the SLS negotiation
capabilities of a client"
::= { slsNegoCapsTable 1 }
PIB-INDEX { slsNegoCapsPrid }
SlsNegoCapsEntry ::= SEQUENCE {
slsNegoCapsPrid InstanceId
slsNegoCapsNegoMode BITS
slsNegoCapsNegoInt Unsigned32
slsNegoCapsMaxPredefSls Unsigned32
}
slsNegoCapsPrid OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX InstanceId
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"An arbitrary integer index that uniquely identifies an
instance of the class"
::= { slsNegoCapsEntry 1 }
Nguyen, et al. Expires December 2001 [Page 12]
Internet Draft COPS-SLS June 2001
slsNegoCapsNegoMode OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX BITS {
predefSls(1)
-- the ability to support predefined SLS mode
non-predefinedSls (2)
-- the ability to support non-predefined SLS mode"
}
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The SLS negotiation mode supported by the PEP
(1) - predefined SLS mode
(2) - non-predefined SLS mode"
::= { slsNegoCapsEntry 2 }
slsNegoCapsNegoInt OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX Unsigned32
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The desired interval before which the client could
send another REQ message to modify a
negotiated SLS"
::= { slsNegoCapsEntry 3 }
slsNegoCapsMaxPredefSls OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX Unsigned32
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The maximum number of predefined SLSs that the PDP can
install at the client device. If the client does not
support the predefined SLS negotiation mode, this value
MUST be 0"
::= { slsNegoCapsEntry 4 }
slsNegoTable OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX SEQUENCE OF SlsNegoEntry
PIB-ACCESS install
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"SLS negotiation policies to be installed by the PDP"
::= { slsPolicyClasses 2 }
slsNegoEntry OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX SlsNegoEntry
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"An instance of this class describes the policies about
SLS negotiation that the PDP installs at the PEP"
PIB-INDEX { slsNegoPrid }
::= { slsNegoTable 1 }
Nguyen, et al. Expires December 2001 [Page 13]
Internet Draft COPS-SLS June 2001
SlsNegoEntry ::= SEQUENCE {
slsNegoPrid InstanceId
slsNegoMode Unsigned32
slsNegoMaxInt Unsigned32
}
slsNegoPrid OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX InstanceId
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"An arbitrary integer index that uniquely identifies an
instance of the class"
::= { slsNegoEntry 1 }
slsNegoMode OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX Unsigned32
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The negotiation mode used by the client. The value of 1
indicates the predefined SLS mode. The value of 2
indicates the non-predefined SLS mode"
::= { slsNegoEntry 2 }
slsNegoMaxInt OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX Unsigned32
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The maximum interval during which the client cannot issue
a REQ message to change a negotiated SLS or to request a
new SLS"
::= { slsNegoEntry 3 }
END
This SLS-NEGOTIATION-PIB is not yet in a final version. It is only a
PIB example for this document. Classes and attributes can be added or
modified in the future. For example, the slsNegoRole class which
indicates the role of the SLS client (e.g., DS domain, subnet
gateway, end host...) is under study.
7. Security Considerations
COPS-SLS follows the security considerations for COPS protocol [COPS]
8. Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge ours friends from LIP6 or INFRES-ENST
for their comments and discussions during the preparation of this
document.
Nguyen, et al. Expires December 2001 [Page 14]
Internet Draft COPS-SLS June 2001
9. References
[COPS] J. Boyle, R. Cohen, D. Durham, S. Herzog, R. Raja, A.
Sastry, "The COPS (Common Open Policy Service)
Protocol", RFC 2748, January 2000.
[COPS-PR] K. Chan, J. Seligson, D. Durham, S. Gai, K. McCloghrie,
S. Herzog, F. Reichmeyer, R. Yavatkar, A. Smith, "COPS
Usage for Policy Provisioning (COPS-PR)", RFC 3084,
March 2001.
[DS-TERM] D. Grossman, "New Terminology for Diffserv", draft-
ietf-diffserv-new-terms-04.txt, March 2001, Work in
progress.
[RAP] Yavatkar, R., Pendarakis, D. and R. Guerin, "A
Framework for Policy Based Admission Control", RFC
2753, January 2000.
[RFC-2026] S. Bradner, " The Internet Standards Process --
Revision 3", RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC-2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[SLS-AQU] S. Salsano, F. Ricciato, M. Winter, G. Eichler, A.
Thomas, F. Fuenfstueck, T. Ziegler, C. Brandauer,
"Definition and usage of SLSs in the AQUILA
consortium", draft-salsano-aquila-sls-00.txt, November
2000, Work in pogress.
[SLS-FRW-TEQ] Y. T'Joens, D. Goderis, R. Rajan, S. Salsano, C.
Jacquenet, G. Mamanios, G. Pavlou, R. Egan, D. Griffin,
P. Vanheuven, P. Georgatsos, L. Georgiadis, "Service
Level Specification and Usage", draft-manyfolks-sls-
framework-00.txt, October 2000, Work in progress.
[SLS-INTER] R. Rajan, E. Celenti, S. Dutta, "Service Level
Specification for Inter-domain QoS Negotiation", draft-
somefolks-sls-00.txt, November 2000, Work in progress.
[SLS-TEQ] D. Goderis, Y. T'Joens, C. Jacquenet, G. Memenios, G.
Pavlou, R. Egan, D. Griffin, P. Georgatsos, L.
Georgiadis, P.V. Heuven, "Service Level Specification
Semantics and parameters", draft-tequila-sls-00.txt,
November 2000, Work in progress.
Nguyen, et al. Expires December 2001 [Page 15]
Internet Draft COPS-SLS June 2001
[SPPI] K. McCloghrie, M. Fine, J. Seligson, K. Chan, S. Hahn,
R. Sahita, A. Smith, F. Reichmeyer, "Structure of
Policy Provisioning Information SPPI", draft-ietf-rap-
sppi-07.txt, May 2001, Work in Progress.
10. Authors' Addresses
Thi Mai Trang Nguyen
Ecole Nationale Superieure des Telecommunications
Departement Informatique-Reseaux
46 Rue Barrault
74013 Paris - FRANCE
Phone: (+33) (-0)1 45 81 74 61
Email: trnguyen@enst.fr
Guy Pujolle
University of Pierre et Marrie Curie
Laboratoire d'Informatique de Paris 6
Theme Reseaux-Performances
8 Rue du Capitaine Scotte
75015 Paris - FRANCE
Phone: (+33) (-0)1 44 27 75 14
Email: Guy.Pujolle@lip6.fr
Nadia Boukhatem
Ecole Nationale Superieure des Telecommunications
Departement Informatique-Reseaux
46 Rue Barrault
74013 Paris - FRANCE
Phone: (+33) (-0)1 45 81 82 16
Email: Nadia.Boukhatem@enst.fr
11. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). 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
Nguyen, et al. Expires December 2001 [Page 16]
Internet Draft COPS-SLS June 2001
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.
Nguyen, et al. Expires December 2001 [Page 17]