draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-app-id-vv-profiles-01.txt   draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-app-id-vv-profiles-02.txt 
Network WG James Polk Network WG James Polk
Internet-Draft Subha Dhesikan Internet-Draft Subha Dhesikan
Expires: March 19, 2014 Cisco Systems Expires: January 4, 2015 Cisco Systems
Intended Status: Standards Track September 19, 2013 Intended Status: Standards Track July 4, 2014
Updates: RFC 2872 (if accepted) Updates: RFC 2872 (if accepted)
Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Application-ID Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) Application-ID
Profiles for Voice and Video Streams Profiles for Voice and Video Streams
draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-app-id-vv-profiles-01 draft-ietf-tsvwg-rsvp-app-id-vv-profiles-02
Abstract Abstract
RFC 2872 defines an Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) object for RFC 2872 defines an Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) object for
application identifiers. This document uses that App-ID and gives application identifiers. This document uses that App-ID and gives
implementers specific guidelines for differing voice and video implementers specific guidelines for differing voice and video
stream identifications to nodes along a reservation path, creating stream identifications to nodes along a reservation path, creating
specific profiles for voice and video session identification. specific profiles for voice and video session identification.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 36 skipping to change at page 1, line 36
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 19, 2014. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 4, 2014.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Application-ID Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. RSVP Application-ID Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. The Voice and Video Application-ID Profiles . . . . . . . . . 4 3. The Voice and Video Application-ID Profiles . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1 The Broadcast video Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1 The Broadcast video Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2 The Real-time Interactive Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2 The Real-time Interactive Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3 The Multimedia Conferencing Profile . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.3 The Multimedia Conferencing Profile . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4 The Multimedia Streaming Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.4 The Multimedia Streaming Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.5 The Conversational Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.5 The Conversational Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1 Application Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.1 Application Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1.1 Broadcast Profiles IANA Registry . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1.1 Broadcast Profiles IANA Registry . . . . . . . . . . . 8
skipping to change at page 2, line 30 skipping to change at page 2, line 30
5.1.3 Multimedia-Conferencing Profiles IANA Registry . . . . 9 5.1.3 Multimedia-Conferencing Profiles IANA Registry . . . . 9
5.1.4 Multimedia-Streaming Profiles IANA Registry . . . . . . 10 5.1.4 Multimedia-Streaming Profiles IANA Registry . . . . . . 10
5.1.5 Conversational Profiles IANA Registry . . . . . . . . . 10 5.1.5 Conversational Profiles IANA Registry . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
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 [RFC 2119].
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
RFC 2872 [RFC2872] describes the usage of policy elements for RFC 2872 [RFC2872] describes the usage of policy elements for
providing application information in Resource Reservation Protocol providing application information in Resource Reservation Protocol
(RSVP) signaling [RFC2205]. The intention of providing this (RSVP) signaling [RFC2205]. The intention of providing this
information is to enable application-based policy control. However, information is to enable application-based policy control. However,
RFC 2872 does not enumerate any application profiles. The absence RFC 2872 does not enumerate any application profiles. The absence
of explicit, uniform profiles leads to incompatible handling of of explicit, uniform profiles leads to incompatible handling of
these values and misapplied policies. An application profile used by these values and misapplied policies. An application profile used by
a sender might not be understood by the intermediaries or receiver a sender might not be understood by the intermediaries or receiver
skipping to change at page 3, line 27 skipping to change at page 3, line 20
not allow the flexibility of having different domains choosing the not allow the flexibility of having different domains choosing the
DSCP value for the traffic classes that they maintain. DSCP value for the traffic classes that they maintain.
How these labels indicate the appropriate Differentiated Services How these labels indicate the appropriate Differentiated Services
Codepoint (DSCP) is out of scope for this document. Codepoint (DSCP) is out of scope for this document.
This document will break out each application type and propose how This document will break out each application type and propose how
the values in application-id template should be populated for the values in application-id template should be populated for
uniformity and interoperability. uniformity and interoperability.
2. Application ID Template 1.1 Terminology
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 [RFC 2119].
2. RSVP Application ID Template
The template from RFC 2872 is as follows: The template from RFC 2872 is as follows:
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PE Length (8) | P-type = AUTH_APP | | PE Length (8) | P-type = AUTH_APP |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Attribute Length | A-type = | Sub-type = | | Attribute Length | A-type = | Sub-type = |
| | POLICY_LOCATOR| ASCII_DN | | | POLICY_LOCATOR| ASCII_DN |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 End of changes. 7 change blocks. 
11 lines changed or deleted 13 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/