Accounting Attributes and Record Formats
RFC 2924
| Document | Type | RFC - Informational (September 2000) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Alan W. Blount , Nevil Brownlee | ||
| Last updated | 2013-03-02 | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| IESG | Responsible AD | (None) | |
| Send notices to | (None) |
RFC 2924
Network Working Group N. Brownlee
Request for Comments: 2924 The University of Auckland
Category: Informational A. Blount
MetraTech Corp.
September 2000
Accounting Attributes and Record Formats
Status of this Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document summarises Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and
International Telecommunication Union (ITU-T) documents related to
Accounting. A classification scheme for the Accounting Attributes in
the summarised documents is presented. Exchange formats for
Accounting data records are discussed, as are advantages and
disadvantages of integrated versus separate record formats and
transport protocols. This document discusses service definition
independence, extensibility, and versioning. Compound service
definition capabilities are described.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology and Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Architecture Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. IETF Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. RADIUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1.1. RADIUS Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. DIAMETER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.1. DIAMETER Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. ROAMOPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4. RTFM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.4.1. RTFM Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.5. ISDN MIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.5.1. ISDN Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.6. AToMMIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.6.1. AToMMIB Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Brownlee & Blount Informational [Page 1]
RFC 2924 Accounting Attributes and Record Formats September 2000
4.7. QoS: RSVP and DIFFSERV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.7.1. QoS: RSVP and DIFFSERV Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. ITU-T Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1. Q.825: Call Detail Recording . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2. Q.825 Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Other Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.1. TIPHON: ETSI TS 101 321 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.2. MSIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7. Accounting File and Record Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.1. ASN.1 Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.1.1. RTFM and AToMMIB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.1.2. Q.825 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.2. Binary Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.2.1. RADIUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.2.2. DIAMETER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.3. Text Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.3.1. ROAMOPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8. AAA Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8.1. A Well-defined Set of Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8.2. A Simple Interchange Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
9. Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
9.1. Record Format vs. Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9.2. Tagged, Typed Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9.2.1. Standard Type Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9.3. Transaction Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9.4. Service Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9.4.1. Service Independence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
9.4.2. Versioned Service Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9.4.3. Relationships Among Usage Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9.4.4. Service Namespace Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
10. Encodings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
13. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
14. Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
1. Introduction
This document summarises IETF and ITU-T documents related to
Accounting. For those documents which describe Accounting Attributes
(i.e. quantities which can be measured and reported), an Attribute
Summary is given. Although several of the documents describe
Attributes which are similar, no attempt is made to identify those
which are the same in several documents. An extensible
classification scheme for AAA Accounting Attributes is proposed; it
is a superset of the attributes in all the documents summarised.
Brownlee & Blount Informational [Page 2]
RFC 2924 Accounting Attributes and Record Formats September 2000
Many existing accounting record formats and protocols [RAD-ACT]
[TIPHON] are of limited use due to their single-service descriptive
facilities and lack of extensibility. While some record formats and
protocols support extensible attributes [RAD-ACT], none provide
identification, type checking, or versioning support for defined
groupings of attributes (service definitions). This document makes a
case for well-defined services.
Advantages and disadvantages of integrated versus separate record
formats and transport protocols are discussed. This document
discusses service definition independence, extensibility, and
versioning. Compound service definition capabilities are described.
2. Terminology and Notation
The following terms are used throughout the document.
Accounting Server
A network element that accepts Usage Events from Service Elements.
It acts as an interface to back-end rating, billing, and
operations support systems.
Attribute-Value Pair (AVP)
A representation for a Usage Attribute consisting of the name of
the Attribute and a value.
Property
A component of a Usage Event. A Usage Event describing a phone
call, for instance, might have a "duration" Property.
Service
A type of task that is performed by a Service Element for a
Service Consumer.
Service Consumer
Client of a Service Element. End-user of a network service.
Service Definition
A specification for a particular service. It is composed of a
name or other identifier, versioning information, and a collection
of Properties.
Service Element
A network element that provides a service to Service Consumers.
Examples include RAS devices, voice and fax gateways, conference
bridges.
Brownlee & Blount Informational [Page 3]
RFC 2924 Accounting Attributes and Record Formats September 2000
Usage Attribute
A component of a Usage Event that describes some metric of service
usage.
Usage Event
The description of an instance of service usage.
3. Architecture Model
Service Elements provide Services to Service Consumers. Before,
while, and/or after services are provided, the Service Element
reports Usage Events to an Accounting Server. Alternately, the
Accounting Server may query the Service Element for Usage Events.
Usage events are sent singly or in bulk.
+------------+ +-----------+ +------------+
| Service |<----->| Service | Usage Events | Accounting |
| Consumer | +-->| Element |------------->| Server |
+------------+ | +-----------+ +------------+
|
+------------+ |
| Service |<--+
| Consumer |
+------------+
Accounting Servers may forward Usage Events to other systems,
possibly in other administrative domains. These transfers are not
addressed by this document.
4. IETF Documents
In March 1999 there were at least 19 Internet Drafts and 8 RFCs
concerned with Accounting. These are summarised (by working group)
in the following sections.
4.1. RADIUS
The RADIUS protocol [RAD-PROT] carries authentication, authorization
and configuration information between a Network Access Server (NAS)
and an authentication server. Requests and responses carried by the
protocol are expressed in terms of RADIUS attributes such as User-
Name, Service-Type, and so on. These attributes provide the
information needed by a RADIUS server to authenticate users and to
establish authorized network service for them.
The protocol was extended to carry accounting information between a
NAS and a shared accounting server. This was achieved by defining a
set of RADIUS accounting attributes [RAD-ACT].
Brownlee & Blount Informational [Page 4]
RFC 2924 Accounting Attributes and Record Formats September 2000
RADIUS packets have a short header containing the RADIUS packet type
and authenticator (sixteen octets) and length, followed by a sequence
of (Type, Length, Value) triples, one for each attribute.
RADIUS is very widely used, and a number of significant new
extensions to it have been proposed. For example [RAD-EXT] discusses
extensions to implement the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)
and the Apple Remote Access Protocol (ARAP). [RAD-TACC] discusses
extensions to permit RADIUS to interwork effectively with tunnels
using protocols such as PPTP and L2TP.
4.1.1. RADIUS Attributes
Each RADIUS attribute is identified by an 8-bit number, referred to
as the RADIUS Type field. Up-to-date values of this field are
specified in the most recent Assigned Numbers RFC [ASG-NBR], but the
current list is as follows:
RADIUS Attributes [RAD-PROT] 36 Login-LAT-Group
37 Framed-AppleTalk-Link
1 User-Name 38 Framed-AppleTalk-Network
2 User-Password 39 Framed-AppleTalk-Zone
3 CHAP-Password
4 NAS-IP-Address 60 CHAP-Challenge
5 NAS-Port 61 NAS-Port-Type
6 Service-Type 62 Port-Limit
7 Framed-Protocol 63 Login-LAT-Port
8 Framed-IP-Address
9 Framed-IP-Netmask RADIUS Accounting Attributes
10 Framed-Routing [RAD-ACT]
11 Filter-Id
12 Framed-MTU 40 Acct-Status-Type
13 Framed-Compression 41 Acct-Delay-Time
14 Login-IP-Host 42 Acct-Input-Octets
15 Login-Service 43 Acct-Output-Octets
16 Login-TCP-Port 44 Acct-Session-Id
17 (unassigned) 45 Acct-Authentic
18 Reply-Message 46 Acct-Session-Time
19 Callback-Number 47 Acct-Input-Packets
20 Callback-Id 48 Acct-Output-Packets
21 (unassigned) 49 Acct-Terminate-Cause
22 Framed-Route 50 Acct-Multi-Session-Id
23 Framed-IPX-Network 51 Acct-Link-Count
24 State
25 Class RADIUS Extension Attributes
26 Vendor-Specific [RAD-EXT]
27 Session-Timeout
28 Idle-Timeout 52 Acct-Input-Gigawords
Brownlee & Blount Informational [Page 5]
RFC 2924 Accounting Attributes and Record Formats September 2000
29 Termination-Action 53 Acct-Output-Gigawords
30 Called-Station-Id 54 Unused
31 Calling-Station-Id 55 Event-Timestamp
32 NAS-Identifier
33 Proxy-State 70 ARAP-Password
34 Login-LAT-Service 71 ARAP-Features
35 Login-LAT-Node 72 ARAP-Zone-Access
73 ARAP-Security
74 ARAP-Security-Data
75 Password-Retry
76 Prompt
77 Connect-Info
78 Configuration-Token
79 EAP-Message
80 Message-Authenticator
84 ARAP-Challenge-Response
85 Acct-Interim-Interval
87 NAS-Port-Id
88 Framed-Pool
RADIUS Tunneling Attributes
[RAD-TACC]
64 Tunnel-Type
65 Tunnel-Medium-Type
66 Tunnel-Client-Endpoint
67 Tunnel-Server-Endpoint
68 Acct-Tunnel-Connection
69 Tunnel-Password
81 Tunnel-Private-Group-ID
82 Tunnel-Assignment-ID
83 Tunnel-Preference
90 Tunnel-Client-Auth-ID
91 Tunnel-Server-Auth-ID
4.2. DIAMETER
The DIAMETER framework [DIAM-FRAM] defines a policy protocol used by
clients to perform Policy, AAA and Resource Control. This allows a
single server to handle policies for many services. The DIAMETER
protocol consists of a header followed by objects. Each object is
encapsulated in a header known as an Attribute-Value Pair (AVP).
Brownlee & Blount Informational [Page 6]
RFC 2924 Accounting Attributes and Record Formats September 2000
DIAMETER defines a base protocol that specifies the header formats,
security extensions and requirements as well as a small number of
mandatory commands and AVPs. A new service can extend DIAMETER by
extending the base protocol to support new functionality.
One key differentiator with DIAMETER is its inherent support for
Inter-Server communication. Although this can be achieved in a
variety of ways, the most useful feature is the ability to "proxy"
messages across a set of DIAMETER servers (known as a proxy chain).
The DIAMETER Accounting Extension document [DIAM-ACT] extends
DIAMETER by defining a protocol for securely transferring accounting
records over the DIAMETER base protocol. This includes the case
where accounting records may be passed through one or more
intermediate proxies, in accordance with the 'referral broker' model.
The DIAMETER accounting protocol [DIAM-ACT] defines DIAMETER records
for transferring an ADIF record (see below). It introduces five new
attributes (480..485) which specify the way in which accounting
information is to be delivered between DIAMETER servers.
4.2.1. DIAMETER Attributes
DIAMETER AVPs are identified by a 16-bit number defined in [DIAM-
AUTH]. Since most of the AVPs found in that document were copied
from the RADIUS protocol [RAD-PROT], it is possible to have both
RADIUS and DIAMETER servers read the same dictionary and users files.
The backward compatibility that DIAMETER offers is intended to
facilitate deployment. To this end, DIAMETER inherits the RADIUS
attributes, and adds only a few of its own.
In the list below attribute numbers which are used for RADIUS
attributes but not for DIAMETER are indicated with a star (*).
RADIUS attributes used by DIAMETER are not listed again here.
The DIAMETER attributes are:
4 (unassigned, *)
17 (unassigned)
21 (unassigned)
24 (unassigned, *)
25 (unassigned, *)
27 (unassigned, *)
32 (unassigned, *)
33 (unassigned, *)
280 Filter-Rule
281 Framed-Password-Policy
Brownlee & Blount Informational [Page 7]
RFC 2924 Accounting Attributes and Record Formats September 2000
480 Accounting-Record-Type
481 ADIF-Record
482 Accounting-Interim-Interval
483 Accounting-Delivery-Max-Batch
484 Accounting-Delivery-Max-Delay
485 Accounting-Record-Number
600 SIP-Sequence
601 SIP-Call-ID
602 SIP-To
603 SIP-From
4.3. ROAMOPS
[ROAM-IMPL] reviews the design and functionality of existing roaming
implementations. "Roaming capability" may be loosely defined as the
ability to use any one of multiple Internet service providers (ISPs),
while maintaining a formal customer-vendor relationship with only
one. One requirement for successful roaming is the provision of
effective accounting.
[ROAM-ADIF] proposes a standard accounting record format, the
Accounting Data Interchange Format (ADIF), which is designed to
compactly represent accounting data in a protocol-independent manner.
As a result, ADIF may be used to represent accounting data from any
protocol using attribute value pairs (AVPs) or variable bindings.
ADIF does not define accounting attributes of its own. Instead, it
gives examples of accounting records using the RADIUS accounting
attributes.
4.4. RTFM
The RTFM Architecture [RTFM-ARC] provides a general method of
measuring network traffic flows between "metered traffic groups".
Each RTFM flow has a set of "address" attributes, which define the
traffic groups at each of the flow's end-points.
As well as address attributes, each flow has traffic-related
attributes, e.g. times of first and last packets, counts for packets
and bytes in each direction.
RTFM flow measurements are made by RTFM meters [RTFM-MIB] and
collected by RTFM meter readers using SNMP. The MIB uses a
"DataPackage" convention, which specifies the attribute values to be
read from a flow table row. The meter returns the values for each
Brownlee & Blount Informational [Page 8]
RFC 2924 Accounting Attributes and Record Formats September 2000
required attribute within a BER-encoded sequence. This means there
is only one object identifier for the whole sequence, greatly
reducing the number of bytes required to retrieve the data.
4.4.1. RTFM Attributes
RTFM attributes are identified by a 16-bit attribute number.
The RTFM Attributes are:
0 Null
1 Flow Subscript Integer Flow table info
4 Source Interface Integer Source Address
5 Source Adjacent Type Integer
6 Source Adjacent Address String
7 Source Adjacent Mask String
8 Source Peer Type Integer
9 Source Peer Address String
10 Source Peer Mask String
11 Source Trans Type Integer
12 Source Trans Address String
13 Source Trans Mask String
14 Destination Interface Integer Destination Address
15 Destination Adjacent Type Integer
16 Destination Adjacent Address String
17 Destination AdjacentMask String
18 Destination PeerType Integer
19 Destination PeerAddress String
20 Destination PeerMask String
21 Destination TransType Integer
22 Destination TransAddress String
23 Destination TransMask String
26 Rule Set Number Integer Meter attribute
27 Forward Bytes Integer Source-to-Dest counters
28 Forward Packets Integer
29 Reverse Bytes Integer Dest-to-Source counters
30 Reverse Packets Integer
31 First Time Timestamp Activity times
32 Last Active Time Timestamp
33 Source Subscriber ID String Session attributes
34 Destination Subscriber ID String
35 Session ID String
Brownlee & Blount Informational [Page 9]
RFC 2924 Accounting Attributes and Record Formats September 2000
36 Source Class Integer "Computed" attributes
37 Destination Class Integer
38 Flow Class Integer
39 Source Kind Integer
40 Destination Kind Integer
41 Flow Kind Integer
50 MatchingStoD Integer PME variable
51 v1 Integer Meter Variables
52 v2 Integer
53 v3 Integer
54 v4 Integer
55 v5 Integer
65-127 "Extended" attributes
(to be defined by the RTFM working group)
4.5. ISDN MIB
The ISDN MIB [ISDN-MIB] defines a minimal set of managed objects for
SNMP-based management of ISDN terminal interfaces. It does not
explicitly define anything related to accounting, however it does
define isdnBearerChargedUnits as
The number of charged units for the current or last connection.
For incoming calls or if charging information is not supplied by
the switch, the value of this object is zero.
This allows for an ISDN switch to convert its traffic flow data (such
as Call Connect Time) into charging data.
4.5.1. ISDN Attributes
The relevant object in the MIB is the ISDN bearer table, which has
entries in the following form:
IsdnBearerEntry ::=
SEQUENCE {
isdnBearerChannelType INTEGER,
isdnBearerOperStatus INTEGER,
isdnBearerChannelNumber INTEGER,
isdnBearerPeerAddress DisplayString,
isdnBearerPeerSubAddress DisplayString,
isdnBearerCallOrigin INTEGER,
isdnBearerInfoType INTEGER,
isdnBearerMultirate TruthValue,
isdnBearerCallSetupTime TimeStamp,
Brownlee & Blount Informational [Page 10]
RFC 2924 Accounting Attributes and Record Formats September 2000
isdnBearerCallConnectTime TimeStamp,
isdnBearerChargedUnits Gauge32
}
4.6. AToMMIB
The "ATM Accounting Information MIB" document [ATM-ACT] describes a
large set of accounting objects for ATM connections. An
administrator may select objects from this set using a selector of
the form (subtree, list) where "subtree" specifies an object
identifier from the AToMMIB. For each subtree there is a table
holding values for each ATM connection. The required connections are
indicated by setting bits in "list", which is an octet string. For
example, the set containing the number of received cells for the
first eight ATM connections would be selected by
(atmAcctngReceivedCells, 0xFF).
The Connection-Oriented Accounting MIB document [ATM-COLL] defines a
MIB providing managed objects used for controlling the collection and
storage of accounting information for connection-oriented networks
such as ATM. The accounting data is collected into files for later
retrieval via a file transfer protocol. Records within an accounting
file are stored as BER strings [ASN1, BER].
4.6.1. AToMMIB Attributes
Accounting data objects within the AToMMBIB are identified by the
last integer in their object identifiers.
The ATM accounting data objects are:
1 atmAcctngConnectionType
2 atmAcctngCastType
3 atmAcctngIfName
4 atmAcctngIfAlias
5 atmAcctngVpi
6 atmAcctngVci
7 atmAcctngCallingParty
8 atmAcctngCalledParty
9 atmAcctngCallReference
10 atmAcctngStartTime
11 atmAcctngCollectionTime
12 atmAcctngCollectMode
13 atmAcctngReleaseCause
14 atmAcctngServiceCategory
15 atmAcctngTransmittedCells
16 atmAcctngTransmittedClp0Cells
17 atmAcctngReceivedCells
Brownlee & Blount Informational [Page 11]
RFC 2924 Accounting Attributes and Record Formats September 2000
18 atmAcctngReceivedClp0Cells
19 atmAcctngTransmitTrafficDescriptorType
20 atmAcctngTransmitTrafficDescriptorParam1
21 atmAcctngTransmitTrafficDescriptorParam2
22 atmAcctngTransmitTrafficDescriptorParam3
23 atmAcctngTransmitTrafficDescriptorParam4
24 atmAcctngTransmitTrafficDescriptorParam5
25 atmAcctngReceiveTrafficDescriptorType
26 atmAcctngReceiveTrafficDescriptorParam1
27 atmAcctngReceiveTrafficDescriptorParam2
28 atmAcctngReceiveTrafficDescriptorParam3
29 atmAcctngReceiveTrafficDescriptorParam4
30 atmAcctngReceiveTrafficDescriptorParam5
31 atmAcctngCallingPartySubAddress
32 atmAcctngCalledPartySubAddress
33 atmAcctngRecordCrc16
4.7. QoS: RSVP and DIFFSERV
As we move towards providing more than simple "best effort"
connectivity, there has been a tremendous surge of interest in (and
work on) protocols to provide managed Quality of Service for Internet
sessions. This is of particular interest for the provision of
"Integrated Services", i.e. the transport of audio, video, real-time,
and classical data traffic within a single network infrastructure.
Two approaches to this have emerged so far:
- the Integrated Services architecture (intserv) [IIS-ARC], with its
accompanying signaling protocol, RSVP [RSVP-ARC], and RSVP's
Common Open Policy Service protocol, COPS [RAP-COPS]
- the Differentiated Services architecture (diffserv) [DSRV-ARC]
RSVP is a signaling protocol that applications may use to request
resources from the network. The network responds by explicitly
admitting or rejecting RSVP requests. Certain applications that have
quantifiable resource requirements express these requirements using
intserv parameters [IIS-SPEC].
Diffserv networks classify packets into one of a small number of
aggregated flows or "classes", based on the diffserv codepoint (DSCP)
in the packet's IP header. At each diffserv router, packets are
subjected to a "per-hop behavior" (PHB), which is invoked by the
DSCP. Since RSVP is purely a requirements signalling protocol it can
also be used to request connections from a diffserv network [RS-DS-
OP].
Brownlee & Blount Informational [Page 12]
RFC 2924 Accounting Attributes and Record Formats September 2000
4.7.1. RSVP and DIFFSERV Attributes
A set of parameters for specifying a requested Quality of Service are
given in [IIS-SPEC]. These have been turned into accounting
attributes within RTFM [RTFM-NEWA] and within the RSVP MIB [RSVP-
MIB].
The RTFM QoS attributes are:
98 QoSService
99 QoSStyle
100 QoSRate
101 QoSSlackTerm
102 QoSTokenBucketRate
103 QoSTokenBucketSize
104 QoSPeakDataRate
105 QoSMinPolicedUnit
106 QoSMaxPolicedUnit
The RSVP MIB contains a large number of objects, arranged within the
following sections:
General Objects
Session Statistics Table
Session Sender Table
Reservation Requests Received Table
Reservation Requests Forwarded Table
RSVP Interface Attributes Table
RSVP Neighbor Table
The Session tables contain information such as the numbers of senders
and receivers for each session, while the Reservation Requests tables
contain details of requests handled by the RSVP router. There are
too many objects to list here, but many of them could be used for
accounting. In particular, RSVP Requests contain the specification
of the service parameters requested by a user; these, together with
the actual usage data for the connection make up an accounting record
for that usage.
5. ITU-T Documents
5.1. Q.825: Call Detail Recording
ITU-T Recommendation Q.825 specifies how CDRs (Call Detail Records)
are produced and managed in Network Elements for POTS, ISDN and IN
(Intelligent Networks).
Uses of Call Detail information for various purposes are discussed.
Brownlee & Blount Informational [Page 13]
RFC 2924 Accounting Attributes and Record Formats September 2000
Each call produces one or more records describing events that
occurred during the life of a call. Data may be produced in real
time (single CDRs), near real-time (blocks of CDRs), or as batch
files of CDRs.
The information model for Call Detail Recording is formally described
in terms of an Entity-Relationship model, and an object model
specified in terms of GDMO templates (Guidelines for the Definition
of Managed Objects). Note that this model includes the ways in which
CDRs are transported from the (NE) Network Element where they are
generated to the OS (Operations System) where they are used.
5.2. Q.825 Attributes
The following attributes are defined. The explanations given are
very brief summaries only, see [Q-825] for the complete text.
1 accessDelivery
Indicates that the call was delivered to the called subscriber
2 accountCodeInput
Account code (for billing), supplied by subscriber.
78 additionalParticipantInfo
(No details given)
5 b-PartyCategory
Subscriber category for called subscriber.
4 bearerService
Bearer capability information (only for ISDN calls).
13 cDRPurpose
Reason for triggering this Call Data Record.
70 callDetailDataId
Unique identifier for the CallDetailData object.
79 callDuration
Duration of call
6 callIdentificationNumber
Identification number for call; all records produced for this
call have the same callIdenfificationNumber.
73 callStatus
Identifies whether the call was answered or not.
Brownlee & Blount Informational [Page 14]
RFC 2924 Accounting Attributes and Record Formats September 2000
9 calledPartyNumber
Telephone number of the called subscriber (may be a
"diverted-to" or "translated" number.
7 callingPartyCategory
Calling subscriber category.
8 callingPartyNumber
Telephone number of the calling party.
10 callingPartyNumberNotScreened
An additional, user-provided (not screened) number to the
calling party.
11 callingPartyType
Calling subscriber type.
74 carrierId
Carrier ID to which the call is sent.
12 cause
Cause and location value for the termination of the call.
14 chargedDirectoryNumber
Charged directory number (where the charged participant
element can't indicate the number).
16 chargedParticipant
Participant to be charged for the usage.
15 chargingInformation
Charging information generated by a Network Element which is
capable of charging.
17 configurationMask
Time consumption, e.g. from B-answer to termination time,
between partial call records, etc.
18 conversationTime
Time consumption from B-answer to end of call.
19 creationTriggerList
List of trigger values which will create Call Detail data
objects.
75 dPC
Destination point code (for analysis purposes).
Brownlee & Blount Informational [Page 15]
RFC 2924 Accounting Attributes and Record Formats September 2000
20 dataValidity
Indicates that the NE is having problems, contents of the
generated Call Detail record is not reliable.
23 durationTimeACM
Time consumption from seizure until received ACM.
21 durationTimeB-Answer
Time consumption from seizure until B-answer.
22 durationTimeNoB-Answer
Time from seizure to termination when no B-answer was
received.
25 exchangeInfo
Identity of exchange where Call Detail record was generated.
26 fallbackBearerService
Fallback bearer capability information for a call.
27 glare
Indicates if a glare condition was encountered.
31 iNServiceInformationList
Contains information about the use of IN (Intelligent Network)
services.
32 iNSpecificInformation
Contains information about the use of one IN service.
33 iSUPPreferred
Indicate whether an ISUP preference was requested.
28 immediateNotificationForUsageMetering
Indicates that the Call Detail records requires
immediate data transfer to the Operations System.
34 maxBlockSize
Maximum number of Call Detail records in a block.
35 maxTimeInterval
Maximum latency allowable for near-real-time Call Detail
data delivery.
36 networkManagementControls
Indicates which Traffic Management Control has affected
the call.
Brownlee & Blount Informational [Page 16]
RFC 2924 Accounting Attributes and Record Formats September 2000
37 networkProviderId
Indicates the Network Provider for whom the CDR is generated.
76 oPC
Originating point code for a failed call (for analysis
purposes).
38 operatorSpecific1AdditionalNumber
40 operatorSpecific2AdditionalNumber
42 operatorSpecific3AdditionalNumber
Operator-defined additional participant information.
39 operatorSpecific1Number
41 operatorSpecific2Number
43 operatorSpecific3Number
Operator-defined participant information.
44 originalCalledNumber
Telephone number of the original called party.
45 partialGeneration
Included if the CDR (Call Detail record) output is partial.
Such CDRs have a field indicating their partial record number.
77 participantInfo
(No details given).
46 percentageToBeBilled
Percentage to be billed when normal billing rules are
not to be followed.
47 periodicTrigger
Defines the intervals at which the CDR file should be created.
48 personalUserId
Internationally unique personal User Identity (for UPT calls).
49 physicalLineCode
Identifies the call subscriber's physical line.
50 progress
Describes an event which occurred during the life of a call.
51 queueInfo
Used to record usage of queueing resources with IN calls.
Brownlee & Blount Informational [Page 17]
RFC 2924 Accounting Attributes and Record Formats September 2000
52 receivedDigits
The digits dialed by the subscriber. (Normally only included
for customer care purposes).
53 recordExtensions
Information elements added by network operators and/or
manufacturers in addition to the standard ones above.
6. Other Documents
6.1. TIPHON: ETSI TS 101 321
TIPHON [TIPHON] is an XML-based protocol, carried by HTTP, which
handles accounting and authorization requests and responses.
The following are elements selected from TIPHON's DTD that are used
for accounting.
<!ELEMENT Currency (#PCDATA)> <!ELEMENT Amount (#PCDATA)>
Identifies a numeric value. Expressed using the period (.) as a
decimal separator with no punctuation as the thousands separator.
<!ELEMENT CallId (#PCDATA)>
Contains a call's H.323 CallID value, and is thus used to
uniquely identify individual calls.
<!ELEMENT Currency (#PCDATA)>
Defines the financial currency in use for the parent element.
<!ELEMENT DestinationInfo type ( e164 | h323 | url | email |
transport | international |
national | network | subscriber |
abbreviated | e164prefix )
Gives the primary identification of the destination for a call.
<!ELEMENT Increment (#PCDATA)>
Indicates the number of units being accounted.
<!ELEMENT Service EMPTY>
Indicates a type of service being priced, authorized, or
reported. An empty Service element indicates basic Internet
telephony service, which is the only service type defined by
V1.4.2 of the specification. The specification notes that "Later
revisions of this standard are expected to specify more enhanced
service definitions to represent quality of service,
availability, payment methods, etc."
Brownlee & Blount Informational [Page 18]
RFC 2924 Accounting Attributes and Record Formats September 2000
<!ELEMENT DestinationInfo type ( e164 | h323 | url | email |
transport | international |
national | network | subscriber |
abbreviated | e164prefix)
Gives the primary identification of the source of a call.
<!ELEMENT Timestamp (#PCDATA)>
A restricted form of [ISO-DATE] that indicates the time at which
the component was generated.
<!ELEMENT TransactionId (#PCDATA)>
Contains an integer, decimal valued identifier assigned to a
specific authorized transaction.
<!ELEMENT Unit (#PCDATA)>
Indicates the units by which pricing is measured or usage
recorded. It shall contain one of the following values:
s seconds
p packets (datagrams)
byte bytes
<!Element UsageDetail ( Service, Amount, Increment, Unit ) >
Collects information describing the usage of a service.
6.2. MSIX
MSIX [MSIX-SPEC] is an XML-based protocol transported by HTTP that is
used to make accounting service definitions and transmit service
usage information. As its service definitions are parameterized and
dynamic, it makes no definition of services or attributes itself, but
allows implementors to make their own. It specifies only the base
data types that attributes may take: STRING, UNISTRING, INT32, FLOAT,
DOUBLE, BOOLEAN, TIMESTAMP.
7. Accounting File and Record Formats
7.1. ASN.1 Records
7.1.1. RTFM and AToMMIB
RTFM and AToMMIB use ASN.1 Basic Encoding Rules (BER) to encode lists
of attributes into accounting records. RTFM uses SNMP to retrieve
such records as BER strings, thus avoiding having to have an object
identifier for every object.
Brownlee & Blount Informational [Page 19]
RFC 2924 Accounting Attributes and Record Formats September 2000
AToMMIB carries this a stage further by defining an accounting file
format in ASN.1 and making it available for retrieval by a file
transfer protocol, thereby providing a more efficient alternative to
simply retrieving the records using SNMP.
7.1.2. Q.825
A Q.825 Call Record is an ASN.1 SET containing a specified group of
the Q.825 attributes. Call records would presumably be encoded as
BER strings before being collected for later processing.
7.2. Binary Records
7.2.1. RADIUS
Radius packets carry a sequence of attributes and their values, as
(Type, Length, Value) triples. The format of the value field is one
of four data types.
string 0-253 octets
address 32 bit value, most significant octet first.
integer 32 bit value, most significant octet first.
time 32 bit value, most significant octet first -- seconds
since 00:00:00 GMT, January 1, 1970. The standard
Attributes do not use this data type but it is presented
here for possible use within Vendor-Specific attributes.
7.2.2. DIAMETER
Each DIAMETER message consists of multiple AVP's that are 32-bit
aligned, with the following format:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AVP Code |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| AVP Length | Reserved |P|T|V|R|M|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Vendor ID (opt) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag (opt) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Brownlee & Blount Informational [Page 20]
RFC 2924 Accounting Attributes and Record Formats September 2000
Code
The AVP Code identifies the attribute uniquely. If the Vendor-
Specific bit is set, the AVP Code is allocated from the
vendor's private address space.
The first 256 AVP numbers are reserved for backward
compatibility with RADIUS and are to be interpreted as per
RADIUS [RAD-PROT]. AVP numbers 256 and above are used for
DIAMETER, which are allocated by IANA.
AVP Length
A 16-bit field contains the total object length in bytes.
Must always be a multiple of 4, and at least 8.
AVP Flags
P Protected bit
T Tag bit
V Vendor-ID bit
R Reserved (MUST be set to 0)
M Mandatory bit
7.3. Text Records
7.3.1. ROAMOPS
ADIF (Accounting Data Interchange Format [ROAM-ADIF]) presents a
general, text-based format for accounting data files, described in a
straightforward BNF grammar. Its file header contains a field
indicating the default protocol from which accounting attributes are
drawn. If an attribute from another protocol is to be used, it is
preceded by its protocol name, for example rtfm//27 would be RTFM's
"forward bytes" attribute. Comments in an ADIF file begin with a
cross-hatch.
Example: An ADIF file encoding RADIUS accounting data
version: 1
device: server3
description: Accounting Server 3
date: 02 Mar 1999 12:19:01 -0500
defaultProtocol: radius
rdate: 02 Mar 1999 12:20:17 -0500
#NAS-IP-Address
4: 204.45.34.12
#NAS-Port
5: 12
#NAS-Port-Type
Brownlee & Blount Informational [Page 21]
RFC 2924 Accounting Attributes and Record Formats September 2000
61: 2
#User-Name
1: fred@bigco.com
#Acct-Status-Type
40: 2
#Acct-Delay-Time
41: 14
#Acct-Input-Octets
42: 234732
#Acct-Output-Octets
43: 15439
#Acct-Session-Id
44: 185
#Acct-Authentic
45: 1
#Acct-Session-Time
46: 1238
#Acct-Input-Packets
47: 153
#Acct-Output-Packets
48: 148
#Acct-Terminate-Cause
49: 11
#Acct-Multi-Session-Id
50: 73
#Acct-Link-Count
51: 2
8. AAA Requirements
8.1. A Well-Defined Set of Attributes
AAA needs a well-defined set of attributes whose values are to be
carried in records to or from accounting servers.
Most of the existing sets of documents described above include a set
of attributes, identified by small integers. It is likely that these
sets overlap, i.e. that some of them have attributes which represent
the same quantity using different names in different sets. This
suggests it might be possible to produce a single combined set of
"universal" accounting attributes, but such a "universal" set does
not seem worthwhile.
The ADIF approach of specifying a default protocol (from which
attributes are assumed to come) and identifying any exceptions seems
much more practical. We therefore propose that AAA should use the
Brownlee & Blount Informational [Page 22]
RFC 2924 Accounting Attributes and Record Formats September 2000
ADIF convention (or something like it) to identify attributes,
together with all the sets of attributes covered by the [ASG-NBR]
document.
8.2. A Simple Interchange Format
AAA needs a simple interchange file format, to be used for accounting
data. Several schemes for packaging and transporting such data have
been described above.
The SNMP-based ones fit well within the context of an SNMP-based
network management system. RTFM and AToMMIB provide ways to reduce
the SNMP overhead for collecting data, and AToMMIB defines a complete
file format. Both provide good ways to collect accounting data.
As an interchange format, however, ASN.1-based schemes suffer from
being rather complex binary structures. This means that one requires
suitable tools to work with them, as compared to plain-text files
where one can use existing text-based utilities.
The binary schemes such as RADIUS and DIAMETER have simpler
structures, but they too need purpose-built tools. For general use
they would need to be extended to allow them to use attributes from
other protocols.
From the point of view of being easy for humans to understand, ADIF
seems very promising. Of course any processing program would need a
suitable ADIF input parser, but using plain-text files makes them
much easier to understand.
TIPHON's record format is specified by an XML DTD. While XML
representations have the advantages of being well-known, they are
limited by XML's inability to specify type or other validity checking
for information within the tags. This situation will likely be
improved by the XML Schema [XML-SCHM] efforts that are underway, but
a stable reference is not yet available.
9. Issues
It is generally agreed that there is a need for a standard record
format and transport protocol for communication between Service
Elements and Accounting Servers.
There is less agreement on the following issues:
o Separate or integral record format and transport protocol
o Standard set of base data types
o Service definitions: part of the protocol or separately defined
Brownlee & Blount Informational [Page 23]
RFC 2924 Accounting Attributes and Record Formats September 2000
o Service definition namespace management
The following sections address these issues.
9.1. Record Format vs. Protocol
All known Internet-centric billing protocols to date have an integral
record format. That is, the collection of Properties that describe a
Usage Event are specified as an integral part of the protocol,
typically as a part of a "submit" message that is used to transmit a
Usage Event from a Service Entity to an Accounting Server.
It may be advantageous to define a record format that is independent
of the transport protocol. Such a record format should support both
representation of individual records and records in bulk, as Usage
Events are often aggregated and transmitted in bulk.
A separate record format is useful for record archiving and temporary
file storage. Multiple transport protocols may be defined without
affecting the record format. The task of auditing is made easier if
a standard file format is defined. If a canonical format is used,
bulk records may be hashed with MD5 [MD5] or a similar function, for
reliability and security purposes.
+------------+
| transport |
| header |
+------------+ +------------+
| | | |
| Usage | | Usage |
| Event(s) | | Event(s) |
| | | |
| | | |
+------------+ +------------+
| trailer |
+------------+
record format transport protocol
If the protocol is written such that it can transmit Usage Events in
the record format, no record rewriting for transport is required.
9.2. Tagged, Typed Data
Record formats and protocols use a combination of data locality and
explicit tagging to identify data elements. Mail [RFC822], for
instance, defines a header block composed of several Attribute-Value
Pairs, followed by a message body. Each header field is explicitly
Brownlee & Blount Informational [Page 24]
RFC 2924 Accounting Attributes and Record Formats September 2000
tagged, but the order of the AVPs is undefined. The message body is
not tagged (except with an additional preceding blank line), and is
found through its position in the message, which must be after all
header fields.
Some record formats make no use of tags--data elements are identified
only by their position within a record structure. While this
practice provides for the least amount of record space overhead, it
is difficult to later modify the record format by adding or removing
elements, as all record readers will have to be altered to handle the
change. Tagged data allows old readers to detect unexpected tags and
to detect if required data are missing. If the overhead of carrying
explicit tags can be borne, it is advantageous to use explicitly
tagged data elements where possible.
An AVP approach has proven useful in accounting. RADIUS [RADIUS]
uses numeric data type identifiers. ETSI's TIPHON [TIPHON] uses XML
markup.
For an AAA accounting record format, the authors suggest that each
Property be named by a textual or numeric identifier and carry a
value and a data type indicator, which governs interpretation of the
value. It may also be useful for each Property to carry a units of
measure identifier. The TIPHON specification takes this approach.
TS 101 321 also carries an Increment field, which denominates the
Property's Unit of Measure field. Whether this additional
convenience is necessary is a matter for discussion.
It is not strictly necessary for each data record to carry data type,
units of measure, or increments identifiers. If this information is
recorded in a record schema document that is referenced by each data
record, each record may be validated against the schema without the
overhead of carrying type information.
9.2.1. Standard Type Definitions
It is useful to define a standard set of primitive data types to be
used by the record format and protocol. Looking at the prior art,
DIAMETER supports Data (arbitrary octets), String (UTF-8), Address
(32 or 128 bit), Integer32, Integer64, Time (32 bits, seconds since
1970), and Complex. MSIX [MSIX-SPEC] supports String, Unistring,
Int32, Float, Double, Boolean, and Timestamp. SMIv2 [SMI-V2] offers
ASN.1 types INTEGER, OCTET STRING, and OBJECT IDENTIFIER, and the
application-defined types Integer32, IpAddress, Counter32, Gauge32,
Unsigned32, TimeTicks, Opaque, and Counter64.
Brownlee & Blount Informational [Page 25]
RFC 2924 Accounting Attributes and Record Formats September 2000
An appropriate set would likely include booleans, 32 and 64 bit
signed integers, 32 and 64 bit floats, arbitrary octets, UTF-8 and
UTF-16 strings, and ISO 8601:1988 [ISO-DATE] timestamps. Fixed-
precision numbers capable of representing currency amounts (with
precision specified on both sides of the decimal point) have proven
useful in accounting record formats, as they are immune to the
precision problems that are encountered when one attempts to
represent fixed-point amounts with floating point numbers.
It may be worthwhile to consider the datatypes that are being
specified by the W3C's "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes" [XML-DATA]
document. That document specifies a rich set of base types, along
with a mechanism to specify derivations that further constrain the
base types.
9.3. Transaction Identifiers
Each Usage Event requires its own unique identifier.
It is expedient to allow Service Elements to create their own unique
identifiers. In this manner, Usage Events can be created and
archived without the involvement of an Accounting Server or other
central authority.
A number of methods for creating unique identifiers are well known.
One popular identifier is an amalgamation of a monotonically
increasing sequence number, a large random value, a network element
identifier, and a timestamp. Another possible source of entropy is a
hash value of all or part of the record itself.
RFC 822 [MAIL], RFC 1036 [NEWS], and RFC 2445 [ICAL-CORE] give
guidance on the creation of good unique identifiers.
9.4. Service Definitions
A critical differentiator in accounting record formats and protocols
is their capability to account for arbitrary service usage. To date,
no accounting record format or protocol that can handle arbitrary
service definitions has achieved broad acceptance on the Internet.
This section analyzes the issues in service definition and makes a
case for a record format and protocol with the capability to carry
Usage Events for rich, independently-defined services.
Brownlee & Blount Informational [Page 26]
RFC 2924 Accounting Attributes and Record Formats September 2000
9.4.1. Service Independence
It is informative to survey a number of popular Internet protocols
and document encodings and examine their capacities for extension.
These protocols can be categorized into two broad categories--"fully
specified" protocols that have little provision for extension and
"framework" protocols that are incomplete, but provide a basis for
future extension when coupled with application documents.
Examples of fully-specified protocols are NTP [NTP], NNTP [NNTP],
RADIUS Accounting [RAD-ACT], and HTML [HTML].
Aside from leaving some field values "reserved for future use", all
of Network Time Protocol's fields are fixed-width and completely
defined. This is appropriate for a simple protocol that solves a
simple problem.
Network News Transfer Protocol [NEWS-PROT] specifies that further
commands may be added, and requests that non-standard implementations
use the "X-" experimental prefix so as to not conflict with future
additions. The content of news is 7-bit data, with the high-order
bit cleared to 0. Nothing further about the content is defined.
There is no in-protocol facility for automating decoding of content
type.
We pay particular attention to RADIUS Accounting [RAD-ACT]. Perhaps
the second most frequently heard complaint (after security
shortcomings) about RADIUS Accounting is its preassigned and fixed
set of "Types". These are coded as a range of octets from 40 to 51
and are as follows:
40 Acct-Status-Type
41 Acct-Delay-Time
42 Acct-Input-Octets
43 Acct-Output-Octets
44 Acct-Session-Id
45 Acct-Authentic
46 Acct-Session-Time
47 Acct-Input-Packets
48 Acct-Output-Packets
49 Acct-Terminate-Cause
50 Acct-Multi-Session-Id
51 Acct-Link-Count
These identifiers were designed to account for packet-based network
access service. They are ill-suited for describing other services.
While extension documents have specified additional types, the base
Brownlee & Blount Informational [Page 27]
RFC 2924 Accounting Attributes and Record Formats September 2000
protocol limits the type identifier to a single octet, limiting the
total number of types to 256.
HTML/2.0 [HTML] is mostly a fully-specified protocol, but with W3C's
HTML/4.0, HTML is becoming more of a framework protocol. HTML/2.0
specified a fixed set of markups, with no provision for addition
(without protocol revision).
Examples of "framework" protocols and document encodings are HTTP,
XML, and SNMP.
HTTP/1.1 [HTTP] is somewhat similar to NNTP in that it is designed to
transport arbitrary content. It is different in that it supports
description of that content through its Content-Type, Content-
Encoding, Accept-Encoding, and Transfer-Encoding header fields. New
types of content can be designated and carried by HTTP/1.1 without
modification to the HTTP protocol.
XML [XML] is a preeminent general-purpose framework encoding. DTD
publishing is left to users. There is no standard registry of DTDs.
SNMP presents a successful example of a framework protocol. SNMP's
authors envisioned SNMP as a general management protocol, and allow
extension through the use of private MIBs. SNMP's ASN.1 MIBs are
defined, published, and standardized without the necessity to modify
the SNMP standard itself. From "An Overview of SNMP" [SNMP-OVER]:
It can easily be argued that SNMP has become prominent mainly from
its ability to augment the standard set of MIB objects with new
values specific for certain applications and devices. Hence, new
functionality can continuously be added to SNMP, since a standard
method has been defined to incorporate that functionality into
SNMP devices and network managers.
Most accounting protocols are fully-specified, with either a
completely defined service or set of services (RADIUS Accounting) or
with one or more services defined and provision for "extension"
services to be added to the protocol later (TIPHON). While the
latter is preferable, it may be preferable to take a more SNMP-like
approach, where the accounting record format and protocol provide
only a framework for service definition, and leave the task of
service definition (and standardization) to separate efforts. In
this manner, the accounting protocol itself would not have to be
modified to handle new services.
Brownlee & Blount Informational [Page 28]
RFC 2924 Accounting Attributes and Record Formats September 2000
9.4.2. Versioned Service Definitions
Versioning is a naming and compatibility issue. Version identifiers
are useful in service definition because they enable service
definitions to be upgraded without a possibly awkward name change.
They also enable possible compatibility between different versions of
the same service.
An example could be the service definition of a phone call. Version
1 might define Properties for the start time, duration, and called
and calling party numbers. Later, version 2 is defined, which
augments the former service definition with a byte count. An
Accounting Server, aware only of Version 1, may accept Version 2
records, discarding the additional information (forward
compatibility). Alternately, if an Accounting Server is made aware
of version 2, it could optionally still accept version 1 records from
Service Elements, provided the Accounting Sever does not require the
additional information to properly account for service usage
(backward compatibility).
9.4.3. Relationships Among Usage Events
Accounting record formats and protocols to date do not sufficiently
addressed "compound" service description.
A compound service is a service that is described as a composition of
other services. A conference call, for example, may be described as
a number of point-to-point calls to a conference bridge. It is
important to account for the individual calls, rather than just
summing up an aggregate, both for auditing purposes and to enable
differential rating. If these calls are to be reported to the
Accounting Server individually, the Usage Events require a shared
identifier that can be used by the Accounting Server and other back-
end systems to group the records together.
In order for a Service Element to report compound events over time as
a succession of individual Usage Events, the accounting protocol
requires a facility to communicate that the compound event has
started and stopped. The "start" message can be implicit--the
transmission of the first Usage Event will suffice. An additional
semaphore is required to tell the Accounting Server that the compound
service is complete and may be further processed. This is necessary
to prevent the Accounting Server from prematurely processing compound
events that overlap the end of a billing period.
Brownlee & Blount Informational [Page 29]
RFC 2924 Accounting Attributes and Record Formats September 2000
RADIUS Accounting has some provision for this sort of accounting with
its "Acct-Multi-Session-Id" field. Unfortunately, RADIUS
Accounting's other shortcomings preclude it from being used in
general purpose service usage description.
9.4.4. Service Namespace Management
"Framework" protocols, as previously mentioned, do not define
complete schema for their payload. For interoperability to be
achieved, it must be possible for:
(1) content definers to specify definitions without conflicting
with the names of other definitions
(2) protocol users to find and use content definitions
Condition (1) can be readily managed through IANA assignment or by
using an existing namespace differentiator (for example, DNS).
Condition (2) is harder, and places considerable burden on the
implementors. Their clients and servers must be able, statically or
dynamically, to find and validate definitions, and manage versioning
issues.
As previously mentioned, the XML specification provides no facility
for DTD discovery or namespace management. XML specifies only a
document format, and as such does not need to specify support for
more "protocol" oriented problems.
For an accounting record format and protocol, an approach closer to
SNMP's is useful. SNMP uses an ISO-managed dotted-decimal namespace.
An IANA-managed registry of service types is a possibility. Another
possibility, used by MSIX [MSIX-SPEC], is for Service Element
creators to identify their services by concatenation of a new service
name with existing unique identifier, such as a domain name.
A standard record format for service definitions would make it
possible for Service Element creators to directly supply accounting
system managers with the required definitions, via the network or
other means.
10. Encodings
It may be useful to define more than one record encoding.
A "verbose" XML encoding is easily implemented and records can be
syntactically verified with existing tools. "Human-readable"
protocols tend to have an edge on "bitfield" protocols where ease of
Brownlee & Blount Informational [Page 30]
RFC 2924 Accounting Attributes and Record Formats September 2000
implementation is paramount and the application can tolerate any
additional processing required to generate, parse, and transport the
records.
A alternative "compressed" encoding that makes minimal use of storage
and processing may be useful in many contexts.
There are disadvantages to supporting multiple encodings.
Optionally-supported multiple encodings mandate the requirement for
capabilities exchange between Service Element and Accounting Server.
Also, implementations can tend to "drift apart", with one encoding
better-supported than another. Unless all encodings are mandatory,
implementors may find they are unable to interoperate because they
picked the wrong encoding.
11. Security Considerations
This document summarises many existing IETF and ITU documents; please
refer to the original documents for security considerations for their
particular protocols.
It must be possible for the accounting protocol to be carried by a
secure transport. A canonical record format is useful so that
regeneration of secure record hashes is possible.
When dealing with accounting data files, one must take care that
their integrity and privacy are preserved. This document, however,
is only concerned with the format of such files.
12. References
[ACC-BKG] Mills, C., Hirsch, G. and G. Ruth, "Internet Accounting
Background", RFC 1272, November 1991.
[ASG-NBR] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2,
RFC 1700, October 1994.
[ASN1] Information processing systems - Open Systems
Interconnection - Specification of Abstract Syntax
Notation One (ASN.1), International Organization for
Standardization, International Standard 8824, December
1987.
[ATM-ACT] McCloghrie, K., Heinanen, J., Greene, W. and A. Prasad,
"Accounting Information for ATM Networks", RFC 2512,
February 1999.
Brownlee & Blount Informational [Page 31]
RFC 2924 Accounting Attributes and Record Formats September 2000
[ATM-COLL] McCloghrie, K., Heinanen, J., Greene, W. and A. Prasad, "
Managed Objects for Controlling the Collection and
Storage of Accounting Information for Connection-Oriented
Networks", RFC 2513, February 1999.
[BER] Information processing systems - Open Systems
Interconnection - Specification of Basic Encoding Rules
for Abstract Notation One (ASN.1), International
Organization for Standardization, International Standard
8825, December 1987.
[DIAM-ACT] Arkko, J., Calhoun, P.R., Patel, P. and Zorn, G.,
"DIAMETER Accounting Extension", Work in Progress.
[DIAM-AUTH] Calhoun, P.R. and Bulley, W., "DIAMETER User
Authentication Extensions", Work in Progress.
[DIAM-FRAM] Calhoun, P.R., Zorn, G. and Pan, P., "DIAMETER Framework
Document", Work in Progress.
[DSRV-ARC] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.
and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
Services", RFC 2475, December 1998.
[HTML] Berners-Lee, T. and D. Connolly, "Hypertext Markup
Language - 2.0", RFC 1866, November 1995.
[HTTP] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J. Frystyk, H. and T.
Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol--HTTP/1.1", RFC
2068, January 1997.
[ICAL-CORE] Dawson, F. and D. Stenerson, "Internet Calendaring and
Scheduling Core Object Specification", RFC 2445, November
1998.
[IIS-ARC] Braden, R., Clark, D. and S. Shenker, "Integrated
Services in the Internet Architecture: an Overview", RFC
1633, June 1994.
[IIS-SPEC] Shenker, S., Partridge, C. and R. Guerin, "Specification
of Guaranteed Quality of Service", RFC 2212, September
1997.
[ISDN-MIB] Roeck, G., "ISDN Management Information Base using
SMIv2", RFC 2127, March 1997.
Brownlee & Blount Informational [Page 32]
RFC 2924 Accounting Attributes and Record Formats September 2000
[ISO-DATE] "Data elements and interchange formats -- Information
interchange -- Representation of dates and times", ISO
8601:1988.
[MAIL] Crocker, D., "STANDARD FOR THE FORMAT OF ARPA INTERNET
TEXT MESSAGES", STD 11, RFC 822, August 1982.
[MD5] Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm", RFC 1321,
April 1992.
[MSIX-SPEC] Blount, A. and D. Young, "Metered Service Information
Exchange 1.2", Work in Progress.
[NEWS-MSGS] Horton, M. and R. Adams, "Standard for Interchange of
USENET Messages", RFC 1036, December 1987.
[NEWS-PROT] Kantor, B. and P. Lapsley, "Network News Transfer
Protocol", RFC 977, February 1986.
[NTP] Mills, D., "Network Time Protocol (NTP)", RFC 958,
September 1985.
[Q-825] "Specification of TMN applications at the Q3 interface:
Call detail recording", ITU-T Recommendation Q.825, 1998.
[RAD-ACT] Rigney, C., "RADIUS Accounting", RFC 2866, June 2000.
[RAD-EXT] Rigney, C., Willats, W. and Calhoun, P., "RADIUS
Extensions", RFC 2869, June 2000.
[RAD-PROT] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson,
"Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)",
RFC 2865, June 2000.
[RAD-TACC] Zorn, G., Mitton, D. and A. Aboba, "RADIUS Accounting
Modifications for Tunnel Protocol Support", RFC 2867,
June 2000.
[RAP-COPS] Boyle, J., Cohen, R., Durham, D., Herzog, S., Rajan, R.
and A. Sastry, "The COPS (Common Open Policy Service)
Protocol", RFC 2748, January 2000.
[ROAM-ADIF] Aboba, B. and D. Lidyard, "The Accounting Data
Interchange Format (ADIF)", Work in Progress.
[ROAM-IMPL] Aboba, B., Lu, J., Alsop, J., Ding, J. and W. Wang,
"Review of Roaming Implementations", RFC 2194, September
1997.
Brownlee & Blount Informational [Page 33]
RFC 2924 Accounting Attributes and Record Formats September 2000
[RS-DS-OP] Bernet, Y., Yavatkar, R., Ford, P., Baker, F., Zhang, L.,
Speer, M., Braden, R., Davie, B., Wroclawski, J. and E.
Felstaine, "A Framework For Integrated Services Operation
Over Diffserv Networks", Work in Progress.
[RSVP-ARC] Braden, R., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S. and S.
Jamin, "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.
[RSVP-MIB] Baker, F., Krawczyk, J. and A. Sastry, "RSVP Management
Information Base using SMIv2", RFC 2206, September 1997.
[RTFM-ARC] Brownlee, N., Mills, C. and G. Ruth, "Traffic Flow
Measurement: Architecture", RFC 2722, October 1999.
[RTFM-MIB] Brownlee, N., "Traffic Flow Measurement: Meter MIB",
Measurement: Architecture", RFC 2720, October 1999.
[RTFM-NEWA] Handelman, S., Brownlee, N., Ruth, G. and S. Stibler,
"New Attributes for Traffic Flow Measurement", RFC 2724,
October 1999.
[SIP-PROT] Handley, M., Schulzrinne, H., Schooler, E. and J.
Rosenberg, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 2543,
March 1999.
[SMI-V2] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D. and J. Schoenwaelder,
"Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)",
STD 58, RFC 2578, April 1999.
[SNMP-OVER] "AN OVERVIEW OF SNMP V2.0", Diversified Data Resources,
Inc., http://www.ddri.com, 1999.
[TIPHON] "Telecommunications and Internet Protocol Harmonization
Over Networks (TIPHON); Inter-domain pricing,
authorization, and usage exchange", TS 101 321 V1.4.2,
December 1998.
[XML] Bray, T., J. Paoli, and C. Sperberg-McQueen, "Extensible
Markup Language (XML) 1.0", W3C Recommendation, February
1998.
Brownlee & Blount Informational [Page 34]
RFC 2924 Accounting Attributes and Record Formats September 2000
[XML-DATA] "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes", W3C Working Draft 07
April 2000, April 2000.
[XML-SCHM] "XML Schema Part 1: Structures", W3C Working Draft 7
April 2000, April 2000.
13. Authors' Addresses
Nevil Brownlee
Information Technology Systems & Services
The University of Auckland
Phone: +64 9 373 7599 x8941
EMail: n.brownlee@auckland.ac.nz
Alan Blount
MetraTech Corp.
330 Bear Hill Road
Waltham, MA 02451
EMail: blount@alum.mit.edu
Brownlee & Blount Informational [Page 35]
RFC 2924 Accounting Attributes and Record Formats September 2000
14. 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.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Brownlee & Blount Informational [Page 36]