One document matched: draft-ietf-dime-qos-attributes-04.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='./rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="no"?>
<?rfc compact="no" ?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<?rfc linkmailto="yes" ?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
<!ENTITY RFC2119 PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml'>
<!ENTITY RFC3588 PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3588.xml'>
<!ENTITY RFC4005 PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4005.xml'>
<!ENTITY I-D.ietf-dime-qos-parameters PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-dime-qos-parameters.xml'>
<!ENTITY I-D.ietf-dime-diameter-qos PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-dime-diameter-qos.xml'>
<!ENTITY I-D.ietf-radext-filter-rules PUBLIC ''
'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-radext-filter-rules.xml'>
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<?rfc toc="yes" ?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc iprnotified="no" ?>
<?rfc strict="no" ?>
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<?rfc subcompact="yes" ?>
<rfc ipr="full3978" category="std" docName="draft-ietf-dime-qos-attributes-04.txt">
<front>
<title abbrev="QoS Attributes for Diameter">Quality of Service Attributes for Diameter</title>
<author role="editor" initials="J" surname="Korhonen" fullname="Jouni Korhonen">
<organization>TeliaSonera</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Teollisuuskatu 13</street>
<city>Sonera</city>
<code>FIN-00051</code>
<country>Finland</country>
</postal>
<email>jouni.korhonen@teliasonera.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author initials="H." surname="Tschofenig" fullname="Hannes Tschofenig">
<organization>Nokia Siemens Networks</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Otto-Hahn-Ring 6</street>
<city>Munich</city>
<region>Bavaria</region>
<code>81739</code>
<country>Germany</country>
</postal>
<email>Hannes.Tschofenig@nsn.com</email>
<uri>http://www.tschofenig.com</uri>
</address>
</author>
<author initials="M." surname="Arumaithurai" fullname="Mayutan Arumaithurai">
<organization abbrev="University of Goettingen">University of Goettingen</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street/>
<city> </city>
<region> </region>
<code> </code>
<country> </country>
</postal>
<email>mayutan.arumaithurai@gmail.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author initials="M." surname="Jones" fullname="Mark Jones">
<organization>Bridgewater Systems</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>303 Terry Fox Drive</street>
<city>Ottawa</city>
<region>Ontario</region>
<code>K2K 3J1</code>
<country>Canada</country>
</postal>
<email>mark.jones@bridgewatersystems.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<date year="2008"/>
<area>Operations and Management</area>
<workgroup>Diameter Maintenance and Extensions (DIME)</workgroup>
<keyword>Internet-Draft</keyword>
<keyword>Diameter</keyword>
<keyword>QoS Attributes</keyword>
<abstract>
<t>This document extends the QoSFilterRule AVP functionality of the Diameter Base protocol
and the functionality of the QoS-Filter-Rule AVP defined in RFC 4005. The ability to
convey Quality of Service information using the AVPs defined in this document is
available to existing Diameter applications where permitted by the command ABNF and to
all new applications.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<!-- ====================================================================== -->
<middle>
<!-- ====================================================================== -->
<section anchor="introduction" title="Introduction">
<t>This document defines a number of Diameter Quality of Service (QoS) related AVPs that
can be used in existing Diameter applications where permitted by the command ABNF and
in all new applications. The Extended-QoS-Filter-Rule AVP thereby replaces the
QoSFilterRule, defined in RFC 3588 <xref target="RFC3588"/>, and the QoS-Filter-Rule,
defined in RFC 4005 <xref target="RFC4005"/>. </t>
</section>
<!-- ====================================================================== -->
<section title="Terminology">
<t>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 <xref target="RFC2119"/>. </t>
</section>
<!-- ====================================================================== -->
<section anchor="qos-new-avps" title="Diameter QoS Defined AVPs">
<t> The following table lists the Diameter AVPs used by this document, their AVP code
values, types, possible flag values, and whether the AVP may be encrypted. </t>
<t>
<figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[
+------------------+
| AVP Flag Rules |
+-------------------------------------------------|----+---+----+----+
| AVP Section |MUST|MAY|SHLD|MUST|
| Attribute Name Code Defined Data Type | | | NOT| NOT|
+-------------------------------------------------+----+---+----+----+
|QoS-Capability TBD 3.1 Grouped | |M,P| | V |
|QoS-Profile-Template TBD 3.2 Unsigned64 | |M,P| | V |
|QoS-Resources TBD 3.3 Grouped | |M,P| | V |
|Extended-QoS-Filter-Rule TBD 3.4 Grouped | |M,P| | V |
|QoS-Semantics TBD 3.5 Enumerated | |M,P| | V |
|QoS-Parameters TBD 3.6 OctetString| |M,P| | V |
|QoS-Rule-Precedence TBD 3.7 Unsigned32 | |M,P| | V |
|QoS-Flow-State TBD 3.8 Enumerated | |M,P| | V |
|QoS-Flow-Direction TBD 3.9 Enumerated | |M,P| | V |
+-------------------------------------------------+----+---+----+----+
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
<section title="QoS-Capability AVP" anchor="capability">
<t>The QoS-Capability AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Grouped and contains a list of
supported Quality of Service profile templates (and therefore the support of the
respective parameter AVPs).
</t>
<t>
<figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[
QoS-Capability ::= < AVP Header: XXX >
1* { QoS-Profile-Template }
* [ AVP ]
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
</section>
<section title="QoS-Profile-Template AVP" anchor="qos-profile">
<t>The QoS-Profile-Template AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned64 and contains
the vendor and a specifier field. The 64-bit value in the QoS-Profile-Template AVP
is structured as shown below.</t>
<t>
<figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Vendor |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Specifier |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
<t>
<list style="hanging">
<t hangText="Vendor Field:"><vspace blankLines="1"/>32 bits of IANA SMI Network
Management Private Enterprise Code. The Vendor-ID 0x00000000 is reserved for
IANA registered QoS profiles. <vspace blankLines="1"/>
</t>
<t hangText="Specifier Field:"><vspace blankLines="1"/>32-bit unsigned integer,
representing the defined profile value. </t>
</list>
</t>
<t>An initial QoS profile template is defined with vendor field set to 0x00000000 and the
specifier field set to 0, as described in <xref target="I-D.ietf-dime-qos-parameters"
/>. The registry for the QoS profile templates is created with the same document. </t>
</section>
<section title="QoS-Resources AVP">
<t> The QoS-Resources AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Grouped and includes a description of
the Quality of Service resources for policing traffic flows. </t>
<t>
<figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[
QoS-Resources ::= < AVP Header: XXX >
0* [ Extended-QoS-Filter-Rule ]
[ QoS-Flow-State ]
* [ AVP ]
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
</section>
<section title="Extended-QoS-Filter-Rule AVP">
<t>The Extended-QoS-Filter-Rule AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Grouped and defines
one or more traffic flows together with a set of QoS parameters that should be
applied to the flow(s) by the Resource Management Function. This AVP re-uses the
RADIUS NAS-Traffic-Rule AVP <xref target="I-D.ietf-radext-filter-rules"/> to describe
traffic flows. At least either one of the NAS-Traffic-Rule or the QoS-Flow-Direction
AVPs SHOULD be included.
</t>
<t>
<figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[
Extended-QoS-Filter-Rule ::= < AVP Header: XXX >
{ QoS-Semantics }
{ QoS-Profile-Template }
[ QoS-Parameters ]
[ QoS-Rule-Precedence ]
[ NAS-Traffic-Rule ]
[ QoS-Flow-Direction ]
* [ AVP ]
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
</section>
<section title="QoS-Semantics">
<t>The QoS-Semantics AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Enumerated and provides the semantics
for the QoS-Profile-Template and QoS-Parameters AVPs in the Extended-QoS-Filter-Rule AVP. </t>
<t>This document defines the following values: <figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[
(0): QoS-Desired
(1): QoS-Available
(2): QoS-Reserved
(3): Minimum-QoS
(4): QoS-Authorized
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
</section>
<section title="QoS-Parameters AVP">
<t> The QoS-Parameters AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type OctetString and contains Quality of
Service parameters. These parameters are defined in a separate document, see <xref
target="I-D.ietf-dime-qos-parameters"/>. </t>
</section>
<section title="QoS-Rule-Precedence AVP">
<t> The QoS-Rule-Precedence AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Unsigned32 and specifies the
execution order of the rules expressed in the QoS-Resources AVP. Rules with equal
precedence MAY be executed in parallel if supported by the Resource Management Function.
If the QoS-Rule-Precedence AVP is absent from the Extended-QoS-Filter-Rule AVP, the rules
SHOULD be executed in the order in which they appear in the QoS-Resources AVP.
</t>
</section>
<section title="QoS-Flow-State AVP">
<t> The QoS-Flow-State AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Enumerated. It gives an indication
as to how the flow has to be treated. The Extended-QoS-Filter-Rule already provides
an indicate whether a flow is permitted or denied. This optional AVP provides
additional information about the treatment. Currently, a single value is defined;
further values are available via IANA registration. <figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[
Value | Name and Semantic
------+------------------------------------------------------------
0 | QOS_FLOW_STATE_PENDING - The QoS reservation is kept
| pending. The QoS resources are not installed and subsequent
| QoS signaling is necessary to active them.
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
</section>
<!-- JiK -->
<section title="QoS-Flow-Direction AVP">
<t> The QoS-Flow-Direction AVP (AVP Code TBD) is of type Enumerated. It gives an
indication of the direction the provided QoS information should be applied to. The
QoS information can be applied to downlink flows or to uplink flows. The
QoS-Flow-Direction AVP may be used in conjunction with the NAS-Traffic-Rule AVP. In a
case conflicting definitions between the QoS-Flow-Direction and the NAS-Traffic-Rule,
the QoS-Flow-Direction has precedence meaning the filter rules are applied only to
the flows going to the direction indicated by the QoS-Flow-Direction AVP. In the
absence of the QoS-Flow-Direction the default treatment is to both directions.
</t>
<t>
<figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[
Value | Name and Semantic
------+------------------------------------------------------------
0 | QOS_FLOW_DIRECTION_BOTH - The QoS information in applied to
| both downlink and uplink flows. This is also the default.
1 | QOS_FLOW_DIRECTION_DL - The QoS information in applied to
| downlink flows only.
2 | QOS_FLOW_DIRECTION_UL - The QoS information in applied to
| uplink flows only.
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Semantics of QoS Parameters">
<t>The QoS parameters carried in the QoS-Resources AVP may appear in different messages.
The semantic of the QoS parameters depend on the information provided in the QoS-Semantics
AVP which currently defines 5 values, namely QoS-Desired (0), QoS-Available (1),
QoS-Reserved (2), Minimum-QoS (3), and QoS-Authorized (4). </t>
<t> The semantics of the different values are as follows: <figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[
Object Type Direction Semantic
----------------------------------------------------------------------
QoS-Desired C->S Please authorize the indicated QoS
QoS-Desired C<-S NA
QoS-Available C->S Admission Control at router indicates
that this QoS is available. (note 1)
QoS-Available C<-S Indicated QoS is available. (note 2)
QoS-Reserved C->S Used for reporting during accounting.
QoS-Reserved C<-S NA
Minimum-QoS C->S Indicates that the client is not interested
interested in authorizing QoS that is
lower than Min. QoS
Minimum-QoS C<-S The client must not provide QoS guarantees
lower than Min. QoS
QoS-Authorized C->S NA
QoS-Authorized C<-S Indicated QoS authorized
Legend:
C: Diameter client
S: Diameter server
NA: Not applicable to this document;
no semantic defined in this specification
Notes:
(1) QoS-Available is only useful in relationship with QoS-Desired
(and optionally with Minimum-QoS).
(2) QoS-Available is only useful when the AAA server performs
admission control and knows about the resources in the network.
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
</section>
<!-- =================================================================================== -->
<section title="Examples">
<t>This section shows a number of signaling flows where QoS negotiation and authorization
is part of the conventional NASREQ, EAP or Credit Control applications message
exchanges. The signalling flows for the Diameter QoS Application are described in
<xref target="I-D.ietf-dime-diameter-qos"/>.</t>
<section title="Diameter EAP with QoS Information">
<t><xref target="diameter-eap-message-flow"/> shows a simple signaling flow where a NAS
(Diameter Client) announces its QoS awareness and capabilities included into the DER
message and as part of the access authentication procedure. Upon completion of the
EAP exchange, the Diameter Server provides a pre-provisioned QoS profile with the
QoS-Semantics in the Extended-QoS-Filter-Rule AVP set to "QoS-Authorized", to the
NAS in the final DEA message. <figure
title="Example of a Diameter EAP enhanced with QoS Information"
anchor="diameter-eap-message-flow">
<artwork><![CDATA[
End Diameter Diameter
Host Client server
| | |
| (initiate EAP) | |
|<------------------------------>| |
| | Diameter-EAP-Request |
| | EAP-Payload(EAP Start) |
| | QoS-Capability |
| |------------------------------->|
| | |
| | Diameter-EAP-Answer |
| Result-Code=DIAMETER_MULTI_ROUND_AUTH |
| | EAP-Payload(EAP Request #1) |
| |<-------------------------------|
| EAP Request(Identity) | |
|<-------------------------------| |
: : :
: <<<more message exchanges>>> :
: : :
| | |
| EAP Response #N | |
|------------------------------->| |
| | Diameter-EAP-Request |
| | EAP-Payload(EAP Response #N) |
| |------------------------------->|
| | |
| | Diameter-EAP-Answer |
| | Result-Code=DIAMETER_SUCCESS |
| | EAP-Payload(EAP Success) |
| | [EAP-Master-Session-Key] |
| | (authorization AVPs) |
| | QoS-Resources(QoS-Authorized) |
| |<-------------------------------|
| | |
| EAP Success | |
|<-------------------------------| |
| | |
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
</section>
<section title="Diameter NASREQ with QoS Information">
<t><xref target="diameter-nasreq-flow"/> shows a similar pre-provisioned QoS signaling
as in <xref target="diameter-eap-message-flow"/> but using the NASREQ application
instead of EAP application. </t>
<t>
<figure title="Example of a Diameter NASREQ enhanced with QoS Information"
anchor="diameter-nasreq-flow">
<artwork><![CDATA[
End Diameter
Host NAS Server
| | |
| Start Network | |
| Attachment | |
|<---------------->| |
| | |
| |AA-Request |
| |NASREQ-Payload |
| |QoS-Capability |
| +----------------------------->|
| | |
| | AA-Answer|
| Result-Code=DIAMETER_MULTI_ROUND_AUTH|
| NASREQ-Payload(NASREQ Request #1)|
| |<-----------------------------+
| | |
| Request | |
|<-----------------+ |
| | |
: : :
: <<<more message exchanges>>> :
: : :
| Response #N | |
+----------------->| |
| | |
| |AA-Request |
| |NASREQ-Payload ( Response #N )|
| +----------------------------->|
| | |
| | AA-Answer|
| | Result-Code=DIAMETER_SUCCESS|
| | (authorization AVPs)|
| |QoS-Resources(QoS-Authorized) |
| |<-----------------------------+
| | |
| Success | |
|<-----------------+ |
| | |
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
</section>
<section title="QoS Authorization">
<t><xref target="diameter-authz-only-message-flow"/> shows an example of authorization
only QoS signaling as part of the NASREQ message exchange. The NAS provides the
Diameter server with the "QoS-Desired" QoS-Semantics AVP included in the
QoS-Resources AVP. The Diameter server then either authorizes the indicated QoS or
rejects the request and informs the NAS about the result. In this scenario the NAS
does not need to include the QoS-Capability AVP in the AAR message as the
QoS-Resources AVP implicitly does the same and also the NAS is authorizing a specific
QoS profile, not a pre-provisioned one. </t>
<t>
<figure title="Example of an Authorization-Only Message Flow"
anchor="diameter-authz-only-message-flow">
<artwork><![CDATA[
End Diameter
Host NAS Server
| | |
| | |
| QoS Request | |
+----------------->| |
| | |
| |AA-Request |
| |Auth-Request-Type=AUTHORIZE_ONLY
| |NASREQ-Payload |
| |QoS-Resources(QoS-Desired) |
| +----------------------------->|
| | |
| | AA-Answer|
| | NASREQ-Payload(Success)|
| | QoS-Resources(QoS-Authorized)|
| |<-----------------------------+
| Accept | |
|<-----------------+ |
| | |
| | |
| | |
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
</section>
<section title="Diameter Server Initiated Re-authorization of QoS">
<t><xref target="diameter-re-auth-flow"/> shows a message exchange for a Diameter server
initiated QoS re-authorization procedure. The Diameter server sends the NAS a RAR
message requesting re-authorization for an existing session and the NAS acknowledges
it with a RAA message. The NAS is aware of its existing QoS profile and information
for the ongoing session that the Diameter server requested for re-authorization.
Thus, the NAS must initiate re-authorization of the existing QoS profile. The
re-authorization procedure is the same as in <xref
target="diameter-authz-only-message-flow"/>. </t>
<t>
<figure title="Example of a Server-initiated Re-Authorization Procedure"
anchor="diameter-re-auth-flow">
<artwork><![CDATA[
End Diameter
Host NAS Server
| | |
| | |
: : :
: <<<Initial Message Exchanges>>> :
: : :
| | |
| | RA-Request |
| |<-----------------------------+
| | |
| |RA-Answer |
| |Result-Code=DIAMETER_SUCCESS |
| +----------------------------->|
| | |
| | |
| |AA-Request |
| |NASREQ-Payload |
| |Auth-Request-Type=AUTHORIZE_ONLY
| |QoS-Resources(QoS-Desired) |
| +----------------------------->|
| | |
| | AA-Answer|
| | Result-Code=DIAMETER_SUCCESS|
| | (authorization AVPs)|
| | QoS-Resources(QoS-Authorized)|
| |<-----------------------------+
| | |
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
</section>
<section title="Diameter Credit Control with QoS Information">
<t>In this case the User is charged as soon as the Service Element (CC client) receives
the service request. In this case the client uses the "QoS-Desired" QoS-Semantics
parameter in the QoS-Resources AVP that it sends to the Accounitng server. The server
responds with a "QoS-Available" QoS-Semantics parameter in the QoS-Resources AVP
<figure title="Example for a One-Time Diameter Credit Control Charging Event"
anchor="dcc-initial">
<artwork><![CDATA[
Service Element
End User (CC Client) B CC Server
| | | |
|(1) Service Request | | |
|-------------------->| | |
| |(2) CCR (event, DIRECT_DEBITING,|
| | QoS-Resources[QoS-desired]) |
| |-------------------------------->|
| |(3) CCA (Granted-Units, QoS- |
| | Resources[QoS-Authorized]) |
| |<--------------------------------|
|(4) Service Delivery | | |
|<--------------------| | |
|(5) Begin service | | |
|<------------------------------------>| |
| | | |
. . . .
. . . .
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
</section>
</section>
<!-- ==================================================================================== -->=
<!--
<section title="Contributors">
<t>The authors would like to thank Mayutan Arumaithurai (mayutan.arumaithurai@gmail.com)
for his work on this document. </t>
</section>
-->
<!-- ====================================================================== -->
<section title="Acknowledgments">
<t>We would like to thank Victor Fajardo, Tseno Tsenov, Robert Hancock, Jukka Manner,
Cornelia Kappler, Xiaoming Fu, Frank Alfano, Avi Lior, Tolga Asveren, Mike Montemurro,
Glen Zorn, Avri Doria, Dong Sun, Tina Tsou, Pete McCann, Georgios Karagiannis and Elwyn
Davies for their comments. </t>
</section>
<!-- ====================================================================== -->
<section title="IANA Considerations">
<!-- <t>Diameter reserves the AVP Codes 0 - 255 for RADIUS functions that are implemented in
Diameter. AVPs new to Diameter have code values of 256 and greater.</t>
-->
<t> This specification requests IANA to assignment of new AVPs from the AVP Code namespace
defined in RFC 3588 <xref target="RFC3588"/>. <xref target="qos-new-avps"/> lists the
newly defined AVPs. </t>
<!-- <t>This specification also specifies the use of AVPs in the 0 - 255 range, which are
defined in 'RADIUS Types', see http://www.iana.org/assignments/radius-types. These
values are assigned by the policy in Section 6 of RFC 2865 <xref target="RFC2865"/> and
are amended by RFC 3575 <xref target="RFC3575"/>. </t>
-->
<t>IANA is requested to allocate a registry for the QoS-Semantics. The following values
are allocated by this specification. <figure>
<artwork><![CDATA[
(0): QoS-Desired
(1): QoS-Available
(2): QoS-Reserved
(3): Minimum-QoS
(4): QoS-Authorized
]]></artwork>
</figure>
</t>
<t>A specification is required to add a new value to the registry. A standards track
document is required to depreciate, delete, or modify existing values. </t>
<!-- QoS-Flow-State -->
<t>IANA is requested to allocate a registry for the QoS-Flow-State. The following values
are allocated by this specification. <artwork><![CDATA[
Value | Name
------+------------------------------------------------------------
0 | QOS_FLOW_STATE_PENDING
]]></artwork>
</t>
<t>A specification is required to add a new value to the registry. A standards track
document is required to depreciate, delete, or modify existing values. </t>
</section>
<!-- ====================================================================== -->
<section title="Security Considerations">
<t> This document describes the extension of Diameter for conveying Quality of Service
information. The security considerations of the Diameter protocol itself have been
discussed in RFC 3588 <xref target="RFC3588"/>. Use of the AVPs defined in this document
MUST take into consideration the security issues and requirements of the Diameter Base
protocol. </t>
</section>
<!-- ====================================================================== -->
</middle>
<back>
<references title="Normative References"> &RFC2119; &RFC2234; &RFC3588;
&RFC4006; &RFC4005; &I-D.ietf-dime-qos-parameters;
&I-D.ietf-radext-filter-rules; &RFC4072; </references>
<references title="Informative References"> &I-D.ietf-dime-diameter-qos;</references>
</back>
<!-- ====================================================================== -->
</rfc>
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 04:58:14 |