Network Working Group Y. Bernet
Request for Comments: 2872 R. Pabbati
Category: Standards Track Microsoft
June 2000
Network Working Group Y. Bernet
Request for Comments: 2872 R. Pabbati
Category: Standards Track Microsoft
June 2000
Application and Sub Application Identity Policy Element for Use with RSVP
用于RSVP的应用程序和子应用程序标识策略元素
Status of this Memo
本备忘录的状况
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
本文件规定了互联网社区的互联网标准跟踪协议，并要求进行讨论和提出改进建议。有关本协议的标准化状态和状态，请参考当前版本的“互联网官方协议标准”（STD 1）。本备忘录的分发不受限制。
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2000年）。版权所有。
Conventions used in this document
本文件中使用的公约
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 [RFC2119].
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“必需”、“应”、“不应”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“可”和“可选”应按照[RFC2119]中所述进行解释。
Abstract
摘要
RSVP [RFC 2205] signaling messages typically include policy data objects, which in turn contain policy elements. Policy elements may describe user and/or application information, which may be used by RSVP aware network elements to apply appropriate policy decisions to a traffic flow. This memo details the usage of policy elements that provide application information.
RSVP[RFC 2205]信令消息通常包括策略数据对象，而策略数据对象又包含策略元素。策略元素可以描述用户和/或应用程序信息，RSVP感知网络元素可以使用这些信息将适当的策略决策应用于业务流。此备忘录详细说明了提供应用程序信息的策略元素的用法。
RSVP aware network elements may act as policy enforcement points (PEPs). These work together with policy decision points (PDPs) to enforce QoS policy. Briefly, PEPs extract policy information from RSVP signaling requests and compare the information against information stored by a PDP in a (possibly remotely located) policy database or directory. A policy decision is made based on the results of the comparison.
感知RSVP的网络元件可充当策略实施点（PEP）。它们与策略决策点（PDP）一起执行QoS策略。简单地说，PEP从RSVP信令请求中提取策略信息，并将该信息与PDP存储在（可能位于远程的）策略数据库或目录中的信息进行比较。根据比较结果作出政策决定。
One type of policy information describes the application on behalf of which an RSVP signaling request is generated. When application policy information is available, network administrators are able to manage QoS based on application type. So, for example, a network administrator may establish a policy that prioritizes known mission-critical applications over games.
一种类型的策略信息描述代表其生成RSVP信令请求的应用程序。当应用程序策略信息可用时，网络管理员可以根据应用程序类型管理QoS。因此，例如，网络管理员可以制定一项策略，将已知的关键任务应用程序优先于游戏。
This memo describes a structure for a policy element that can be used to identify application traffic flows. The policy element includes a number of attributes, one of which is a policy locator. This policy locator includes the following hierarchically ordered sub-elements (in descending levels of hierarchy):
此备忘录描述了可用于标识应用程序通信流的策略元素的结构。策略元素包括许多属性，其中一个是策略定位器。此策略定位器包括以下按层次结构排序的子元素（按层次结构的降序排列）：
1. identifier that uniquely identifies the application vendor 2. identifier of the application 3. version number of the application 4. sub-application identifier
1. 唯一标识应用程序供应商2的标识符。应用程序的标识符3。应用程序的版本号4。子应用程序标识符
An arbitrary number of sub-application identifiers may be included in the policy locator. An example of such an identifier is 'print transaction'.
策略定位器中可以包括任意数量的子应用标识符。这种标识符的一个例子是“打印事务”。
This memo specifies the structure of the application policy element and proposes keywords for the sub-elements at each level of the hierarchy. It does not enumerate specific values for the sub-elements: such an enumeration is beyond the scope of this memo.
此备忘录指定应用程序策略元素的结构，并为层次结构的每个级别的子元素建议关键字。它不枚举子元素的特定值：这种枚举超出了本备忘录的范围。
General application identity policy elements are defined in [RFC2752]. These are policy elements with a P-type of AUTH_APP. Following the policy element header is a list of authentication attributes.
[RFC2752]中定义了一般应用程序标识策略元素。这些是具有P型AUTH_应用程序的策略元素。策略元素标头后面是身份验证属性的列表。
The first authentication attribute is of the A-type POLICY_LOCATOR. The sub-type of the POLICY_LOCATOR attribute is of type ASCII_DN [RFC1779] or UNICODE_DN. The actual attribute data is formatted as an X.500 distinguished name (DN), representing a globally unique identifier, the application, version number and sub-application in a hierarchical structure. The POLICY_LOCATOR attribute contains keywords as described in section 2. For further details on the format of the POLICY_LOCATOR attribute, see [RFC2752].
第一个身份验证属性是A型策略定位器。策略定位器属性的子类型为ASCII\u DN[RFC1779]或UNICODE\u DN类型。实际属性数据的格式为X.500可分辨名称（DN），表示层次结构中的全局唯一标识符、应用程序、版本号和子应用程序。策略定位器属性包含第2节所述的关键字。有关策略定位器属性格式的更多详细信息，请参阅[RFC2752]。
The second authentication attribute is of the A-type CREDENTIAL. The sub-type of the CREDENTIAL attribute is of type ASCII_ID or UNICODE_ID. The actual attribute data is an ASCII or Unicode string representing the application name. This structure is illustrated in the following diagram:
第二个身份验证属性是A-type凭证。凭证属性的子类型为ASCII\u ID或UNICODE\u ID类型。实际属性数据是表示应用程序名称的ASCII或UNICODE字符串。该结构如下图所示：
0 1 2 3
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PE Length (8) | P-type = AUTH_APP |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Attribute Length | A-type = | Sub-type = |
| | POLICY_LOCATOR| ASCII_DN |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Application policy locator attribute data in X.500 DN format |
| (see below) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Attribute Length | A-type = | Sub-type = |
| | CREDENTIAL | ASCII_ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Application name as ASCII string |
| (e.g. SAP.EXE) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
0 1 2 3
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PE Length (8) | P-type = AUTH_APP |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Attribute Length | A-type = | Sub-type = |
| | POLICY_LOCATOR| ASCII_DN |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Application policy locator attribute data in X.500 DN format |
| (see below) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Attribute Length | A-type = | Sub-type = |
| | CREDENTIAL | ASCII_ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Application name as ASCII string |
| (e.g. SAP.EXE) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The following keywords are recommended although others MAY be used:
建议使用以下关键字，但也可以使用其他关键字：
Key Attribute
--------------
GUID Globally Unique Identifier (optional)
APP Application Name
VER Application Version Number
SAPP Sub Application (optional)
Key Attribute
--------------
GUID Globally Unique Identifier (optional)
APP Application Name
VER Application Version Number
SAPP Sub Application (optional)
The following are examples of conformant policy locators:
以下是一致策略定位器的示例：
"APP=SAP, VER=1.1, SAPP=Print"
"APP=SAP, VER=1.1, SAPP=Print"
"GUID=http://www.microsoft.com/apps, APP=MyApplication, VER=1.2.3"
"GUID=http://www.microsoft.com/apps, APP=MyApplication, VER=1.2.3"
The APP, VER and SAPP attributes SHOULD describe the application to a human reader in as unique and unambiguous a way as possible. The GUID attribute MAY be used when absolute uniqueness of application identification is required and its contents MUST be an identifier from a globally-unique source (e.g. domain names as assigned by the corresponding registration authorities). Note that publication of the chosen identifiers in a suitable format is strongly encouraged.
APP、VER和SAPP属性应以尽可能独特和明确的方式向人类读者描述应用程序。当需要应用程序标识的绝对唯一性且其内容必须是来自全局唯一源（例如，由相应注册机构分配的域名）的标识符时，可以使用GUID属性。请注意，强烈鼓励以适当的格式发布选定的标识符。
The proposed simple policy element does not guarantee that element is indeed associated with the application it claims to be associated with. In order to provide such guarantees, it is necessary to sign applications. Signed application policy elements may be proposed at a future date. Note that, typically, the application policy element will be included in an RSVP message with an encrypted and authenticated user policy element. A level of security is provided by trusting the application policy element only if the user policy element is trusted.
建议的简单策略元素并不保证元素确实与它声称关联的应用程序关联。为了提供这种保证，有必要签署申请书。已签署的应用程序策略元素可能会在未来某个日期提出。请注意，通常情况下，应用程序策略元素将包含在RSVP消息中，其中包含一个加密且经过身份验证的用户策略元素。只有当用户策略元素受信任时，才信任应用程序策略元素，从而提供一定级别的安全性。
All RSVP integrity considerations apply to the message containing the application policy element.
所有RSVP完整性注意事项都适用于包含应用程序策略元素的消息。
[RFC2205] Braden, R., Zhang, L., Berson, L., Herzog, S. and S. Jamin, "Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP) - Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.
[RFC2205]Braden，R.，Zhang，L.，Berson，L.，Herzog，S.和S.Jamin，“资源预留协议（RSVP）-第1版功能规范”，RFC 22052997年9月。
[RFC1779] Kille, S., "A String Representation of Distinguished Names", RFC 1779, March 1995.
[RFC1779]Kille，S.，“可分辨名称的字符串表示”，RFC17791995年3月。
[RFC2752] Yadav, S., Yavatkar, R., Pabbati, R,. Ford, P., Moore, T. and S. Herzog, "Identity Representation for RSVP", RFC 2752, January 2000.
[RFC2752]亚达夫，S.，亚瓦卡尔，R.，帕巴蒂，R，。Ford，P.，Moore，T.和S.Herzog，“RSVP的身份表示”，RFC 2752，2000年1月。
[ASCII] Coded Character Set -- 7-Bit American Standard Code for Information Interchange, ANSI X3.4-1986.
[ASCII]编码字符集——信息交换用7位美国标准代码，ANSI X3.4-1986。
[UNICODE] The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard, Version 2.0", Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1996.
[UNICODE]UNICODE联盟，“UNICODE标准，版本2.0”，Addison Wesley，雷丁，马萨诸塞州，1996年。
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2119]Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，1997年3月。
Thanks to Tim Moore, Shai Mohaban, Andrew Smith, Ulrich Homann and other contributors to the IETF's RAP WG for their input.
感谢Tim Moore、Shai Mohaban、Andrew Smith、Ulrich Homann和IETF RAP WG的其他贡献者的投入。
Yoram Bernet Microsoft One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052
Yoram Bernet微软一路微软雷德蒙，华盛顿州98052
Phone: (425) 936-9568 EMail: yoramb@microsoft.com
电话：（425）936-9568电子邮件：yoramb@microsoft.com
Ramesh Pabbati One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052
Ramesh Pabbati One Microsoft Way Redmond，WA 98052
EMail: rameshpa@microsoft.com
EMail: rameshpa@microsoft.com
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
版权所有（C）互联网协会（2000年）。版权所有。
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.
本文件及其译本可复制并提供给他人，对其进行评论或解释或协助其实施的衍生作品可全部或部分编制、复制、出版和分发，不受任何限制，前提是上述版权声明和本段包含在所有此类副本和衍生作品中。但是，不得以任何方式修改本文件本身，例如删除版权通知或对互联网协会或其他互联网组织的引用，除非出于制定互联网标准的需要，在这种情况下，必须遵循互联网标准过程中定义的版权程序，或根据需要将其翻译成英语以外的其他语言。
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
上述授予的有限许可是永久性的，互联网协会或其继承人或受让人不会撤销。
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.
本文件和其中包含的信息是按“原样”提供的，互联网协会和互联网工程任务组否认所有明示或暗示的保证，包括但不限于任何保证，即使用本文中的信息不会侵犯任何权利，或对适销性或特定用途适用性的任何默示保证。
Acknowledgement
确认
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.
RFC编辑功能的资金目前由互联网协会提供。