1 files changed, 283 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc5431.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc5431.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0b66e9e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc5431.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,283 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                             D. Sun
+Request for Comments: 5431                                Alcatel-Lucent
+Category: Informational                                       March 2009
+
+
+       Diameter ITU-T Rw Policy Enforcement Interface Application
+
+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) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
+   document authors.  All rights reserved.
+
+   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
+   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
+   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
+   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
+   and restrictions with respect to this document.
+
+Abstract
+
+   This document describes the need for a new pair of IANA Diameter
+   Command Codes to be used in a vendor-specific new application, namely
+   for the ITU-T Rec. Q.3303.3 - Rw interface used to send a request/
+   response for authorizing network Quality of Service (QoS) resources
+   and policy enforcement in a network element, as one of the
+   recommendations of the International Telecommunication Union -
+   Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T).
+
+Table of Contents
+
+   1. Introduction ....................................................2
+   2. Terminology .....................................................2
+   3. Diameter ITU-T Rw Policy Enforcement Interface ..................3
+   4. IANA Considerations .............................................3
+      4.1. Application Identifier .....................................3
+      4.2. Command Codes ..............................................4
+      4.3. AVP Codes ..................................................4
+   5. Security Considerations .........................................4
+   6. Acknowledgements ................................................4
+   7. References ......................................................5
+      7.1. Normative References .......................................5
+      7.2. Informative References .....................................5
+
+
+
+Sun                          Informational                      [Page 1]
+
+RFC 5431                   ITU-T Rw Interface                 March 2009
+
+
+1.  Introduction
+
+   This document summarizes the use of Diameter codes in a newly defined
+   realization of a specification for authorizing network QoS resources
+   and policy enforcement [Q.3303.3].  A new pair of Command Codes have
+   been assigned by IANA.  This document summarizes the uses of newly
+   defined Diameter codes (Command Codes, AVP, vendor-specific
+   application id).  When combined with the Diameter Base protocol, this
+   application's specification [Q.3303.3] satisfies the requirements of
+   [Y.2111] of the International Telecommunication Union -
+   Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) to send a request
+   and receive a response for controlling the policy enforcement.
+
+   The Diameter realization of this application assumes the use of the
+   Diameter Base protocol, as per RFC 3588, and extends it only for a
+   specific application using a vendor-id (ITU-T), a vendor-specific
+   application ID (16777256), a new Command Code (315), and new
+   attribute-value pairs (AVPs), which are defined in the vendor-
+   specific namespace.
+
+   This application is used to authorize network QoS resources and
+   policy enforcement (including the amount of bandwidth, QoS class, and
+   traffic flow processing) as an extension of the Diameter application
+   [RFC4006].  The request is based on the Diameter extensibility
+   discussions in the DIME WG that led to the conclusion that it is
+   better to define new Command Codes whenever the ABNF of a command is
+   modified by adding, removing, or semantically changing a required AVP
+   in order to avoid interoperability problems.  The document is
+   utilizing authorization and accounting functionality, and the entire
+   exchange is related to users utilizing applications that require QoS
+   treatment.  This approach is consistent with the practice and
+   experience gained since the publication of [RFC3588] (see for example
+   [RFC5224]), which is now under revision by the DIME Working Group who
+   will provide a revised set of recommendations and procedures for IANA
+   considerations [DIME].
+
+2.  Terminology
+
+   In the base Diameter specification [RFC3588], Section 1.4 defines
+   most of the terminology used in this document.  Additionally, the
+   terms and acronyms defined in Section 3 and Section 4 of [Q.3303.3]
+   are used in this document.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Sun                          Informational                      [Page 2]
+
+RFC 5431                   ITU-T Rw Interface                 March 2009
+
+
+3.  Diameter ITU-T Rw Policy Enforcement Interface
+
+   The Rw interface is used for information exchange to apply policy
+   decisions between the Policy Decision Point (PDP, i.e., in the ITU-T
+   term, Policy Decision Functional Entity (PD-FE)) and the Policy
+   Enforcement Point (PEP, i.e., in the ITU-T term, Policy Enforcement
+   Functional Entity (PE-FE)).
+
+   The interface allows the PDP to push the authorized admission
+   decisions to the PEP.  It also allows the PEP to request the
+   authorization of admission decisions from the PDP when path-coupled
+   resource reservation mechanisms are in use.  The main information
+   conveyed by the Rw interface is:
+
+   o  Resources reservation and/or allocation requests for media flows;
+
+   o  QoS handling requests such as packet marking and policing;
+
+   o  Gate control (opening/closing) requests for a media flow;
+
+   o  NAPT and NAT traversal requests for the necessary address mapping
+      information;
+
+   o  Resource usage information requests and reports for media flows.
+
+   The detailed descriptions of the Diameter Policy Enforcement
+   interface ITU-T Rw can be found in Section 5 of [Q.3303.3].
+
+4.  IANA Considerations
+
+   This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers
+   Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to the
+   Diameter protocol, in accordance with BCP 26 [RFC5226].
+
+   This document defines values in the namespaces that have been created
+   and defined in [RFC3588].  The IANA Considerations section of that
+   document details the assignment criteria.  Values assigned in this
+   document, or by future IANA action, must be coordinated within this
+   shared namespace.
+
+4.1.  Application Identifier
+
+   A vendor-specific application ID (16777256) for the application of
+   [Q.3303.3] has been assigned by the IANA.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Sun                          Informational                      [Page 3]
+
+RFC 5431                   ITU-T Rw Interface                 March 2009
+
+
+   Registry:
+   ID values            Name          Reference
+   ----------------------------------------------------------
+   16777256           ITU-T Rw       7.2.1 of ITU-T Q.3303.3
+
+
+4.2.  Command Codes
+
+   IANA has allocated Command Code values for the following commands
+   defined in Section 7.4 of [Q.3303.3] from the Command Code namespace
+   defined in [RFC3588].
+
+   Registry:
+   Code Value     Name                        Reference
+   ------------------------------------------------------------------
+   315            Policy-Install-Request(PIR) 7.4.1 of ITU-T Q.3303.3
+   315            Policy-Install-Answer (PIA) 7.4.2 of ITU-T Q.3303.3
+
+4.3.  AVP Codes
+
+   The values 1010~1018 are assigned by the ITU-T to the following AVPs
+   within the ITU-T vendor-ID 11502 namespace: PI-Request-Type AVP, PI-
+   Request-Number AVP, Traffic-Descriptor-UL AVP, Traffic-Descriptor-DL
+   AVP, Maximum-Burst-Size AVP, Committed-Data-Rate AVP, Committed-
+   Burst-Size AVP, Excess-Burst-Size, Removal-Cause AVP.
+
+   See Table 1/Q.3303.3 in Section 7.3.1 of [Q.3303.3] for detailed
+   information on AVP codes, value types, and flag rules.
+
+5.  Security Considerations
+
+   This document describes the Diameter Policy Enforcement Application.
+   It builds on top of the Diameter Base protocol and the same security
+   considerations described in [RFC3588] are applicable to this
+   document.  No further extensions are required beyond the security
+   mechanisms offered by [RFC3588].
+
+6.  Acknowledgements
+
+   The author would like to thank Dan Romascanu, Hannes Tschofenig, and
+   Tina Tsou for their help and support.  Finally, the author would like
+   to thank Alcatel-Lucent, as most of the effort put into this document
+   was done while he was in their employ.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Sun                          Informational                      [Page 4]
+
+RFC 5431                   ITU-T Rw Interface                 March 2009
+
+
+7.  References
+
+7.1.  Normative References
+
+   [Q.3303.3]  ITU-T Recommendation Q.3303.3, "Resource control protocol
+               no. 3 (rcp3): Protocol at the Rw interface between the
+               Policy Decision Physical Entity (PD-PE) and the Policy
+               Enforcement Physical Entity (PE-PE): Diameter", 2008.
+
+   [RFC3588]   Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J.
+               Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588,
+               September 2003.
+
+7.2.  Informative References
+
+   [DIME]      Fajardo, V., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn,
+               "Diameter Base Protocol", Work in Progress,
+               November 2008.
+
+   [RFC4006]   Hakala, H., Mattila, L., Koskinen, J-P., Stura, M., and
+               J. Loughney, "Diameter Credit-Control Application",
+               RFC 4006, August 2005.
+
+   [RFC5224]   Brenner, M., "Diameter Policy Processing Application",
+               RFC 5224, March 2008.
+
+   [RFC5226]   Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
+               IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
+               May 2008.
+
+   [Y.2111]    ITU-T Recommedation Y.2111, "Resource and admission
+               control functions in Next Generation Networks",
+               September 2006.
+
+Author's Address
+
+   Dong Sun
+   Alcatel-Lucent
+   600 Mountain Ave
+   Murray Hill, NJ  07974
+   USA
+
+   Phone: +1 908 582 2617
+   EMail: dongsun@alcatel-lucent.com
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Sun                          Informational                      [Page 5]
+