Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) K. Carlberg, Ed.
Request for Comments: 6735 G11
Category: Standards Track T. Taylor
ISSN: 2070-1721 PT Taylor Consulting
October 2012
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) K. Carlberg, Ed.
Request for Comments: 6735 G11
Category: Standards Track T. Taylor
ISSN: 2070-1721 PT Taylor Consulting
October 2012
Diameter Priority Attribute-Value Pairs
直径优先级属性值对
Abstract
摘要
This document defines Attribute-Value Pair (AVP) containers for various priority parameters for use with Diameter and the Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) framework. The parameters themselves are defined in several different protocols that operate at either the network or application layer.
本文档为各种优先级参数定义了属性值对（AVP）容器，用于Diameter和身份验证、授权和记帐（AAA）框架。参数本身在网络层或应用层上运行的几个不同协议中定义。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
这是一份互联网标准跟踪文件。
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
本文件是互联网工程任务组（IETF）的产品。它代表了IETF社区的共识。它已经接受了公众审查，并已被互联网工程指导小组（IESG）批准出版。有关互联网标准的更多信息，请参见RFC 5741第2节。
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6735.
有关本文件当前状态、任何勘误表以及如何提供反馈的信息，请访问http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6735.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2012 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)自本文件出版之日起生效。请仔细阅读这些文件，因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。从本文件中提取的代码组件必须包括信托法律条款第4.e节中所述的简化BSD许可证文本，并提供简化BSD许可证中所述的无担保。
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English.
本文件可能包含2008年11月10日之前发布或公开的IETF文件或IETF贡献中的材料。控制某些材料版权的人员可能未授予IETF信托允许在IETF标准流程之外修改此类材料的权利。在未从控制此类材料版权的人员处获得充分许可的情况下，不得在IETF标准流程之外修改本文件，也不得在IETF标准流程之外创建其衍生作品，除了将其格式化以RFC形式发布或将其翻译成英语以外的其他语言。
This document defines a number of Attribute-Value Pairs (AVP) that can be used within the Diameter protocol [RFC6733] to convey a specific set of priority parameters. These parameters are specified in other documents, but are briefly described below. The corresponding AVPs defined in Section 3 are extensions to those defined in [RFC5866]. We note that all the priority fields associated with the AVPs defined in this document are extensible and allow for additional values beyond what may have already been defined or registered with IANA.
本文档定义了许多属性值对（AVP），可在Diameter协议[RFC6733]中使用这些属性值对来传递一组特定的优先级参数。这些参数在其他文件中有详细说明，但下文将简要介绍。第3节中定义的相应AVP是[RFC5866]中定义的AVP的扩展。我们注意到，与本文档中定义的AVP相关的所有优先级字段都是可扩展的，并且允许在IANA已经定义或注册的值之外添加其他值。
Priority influences the distribution of resources and, in turn, the QoS associated with that resource. This influence may be probabilistic, ranging between (but not including) 0% and 100%, or it may be in the form of a guarantee to either receive or not receive the resource.
优先级影响资源的分布，进而影响与该资源相关联的QoS。这种影响可能是概率性的，介于（但不包括）0%和100%之间，也可能是以保证接收或不接收资源的形式存在的。
Another example of how prioritization can be realized is articulated in Appendix A.3 (the Priority Bypass Model) of [RFC6401]. In this case, prioritized flows may gain access to resources that are never shared with non-prioritized flows.
[RFC6401]附录A.3（优先级旁路模型）中阐述了如何实现优先级的另一个示例。在这种情况下，优先流可以访问从未与非优先流共享的资源。
The 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) has defined several Diameter AVPs that support prioritization of sessions. The following AVPs are intended to be used for priority services (e.g., Multimedia Priority Service):
第三代合作伙伴关系项目（3GPP）定义了多个Diameter AVP，这些AVP支持会话优先级划分。以下AVP拟用于优先服务（例如，多媒体优先服务）：
- Reservation-Priority AVP as defined in [ETSI] - MPS-Identifier AVP as defined in [3GPPa] - Priority-Level AVP (as part of the Allocation Retention Priority AVP) as defined in [3GPPb] - Session-Priority AVP as defined in [3GPPc] and [3GPPd]
- [ETSI]中定义的保留优先级AVP]-[3GPPa]中定义的MPS标识符AVP]-[3GPPb]中定义的优先级AVP（作为分配保留优先级AVP的一部分）-[3GPPc]和[3GPPd]中定义的会话优先级AVP]
Both the Reservation-Priority AVP and the Priority-Level AVP can carry priority levels associated with a session initiated by a user. We note that these AVPs are defined from the allotment set aside for 3GPP for Diameter-based interfaces, and they are particularly aimed at IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) deployment environments. The above AVPs defined by 3GPP are to be viewed as private implementations operating within a walled garden. In contrast, the priority-related AVPs defined below in Section 3 are not constrained to IMS environments. The potential applicability or use-case scenarios that involve coexistence between the above 3GPP-defined priority-related AVPs and those defined below in Section 3 is for further study.
保留优先级AVP和优先级AVP两者都可以携带与用户发起的会话相关联的优先级。我们注意到，这些AVP是根据3GPP为基于Diameter的接口预留的分配定义的，它们特别针对IP多媒体子系统（IMS）部署环境。上述由3GPP定义的avp将被视为在有围墙的花园内操作的私有实现。相比之下，下文第3节中定义的优先级相关AVP不受IMS环境的限制。涉及上述3GPP定义的优先级相关AVP与下文第3节中定义的AVP之间共存的潜在适用性或用例场景有待进一步研究。
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 [RFC2119].
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“要求”、“应”、“不应”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“可”和“可选”应按照RFC 2119[RFC2119]中所述进行解释。
This section defines a set of AVPs that correlates to priority fields defined in other protocols. This set of priority-related AVPs is for use with the Diameter QoS application [RFC5866] and represents a continuation of the list of AVPs defined in [RFC5624]. The syntax notation used is that of [RFC6733]. We note that the following subsections describe the prioritization field of a given protocol as well as the structure of the AVP corresponding to that field.
本节定义了一组与其他协议中定义的优先级字段相关的AVP。这组优先级相关的AVP用于Diameter QoS应用程序[RFC5866]，代表[RFC5624]中定义的AVP列表的延续。使用的语法符号是[RFC6733]的语法符号。我们注意到，以下小节描述了给定协议的优先级字段以及对应于该字段的AVP的结构。
We stress that neither the priority-related AVPs, nor the Diameter protocol, perform or realize the QoS for a session or flow of packets. Rather, these AVPs are part of a mechanism to determine validation of the priority value.
我们强调，优先级相关的AVP和Diameter协议都不能执行或实现会话或数据包流的QoS。相反，这些AVP是确定优先级值验证机制的一部分。
The Dual-Priority AVP (AVP Code 608) is a grouped AVP consisting of two AVPs, the Preemption-Priority and the Defending-Priority AVP. These AVPs are derived from the corresponding priority fields specified in the "Signaled Preemption Priority Policy Element" [RFC3181] of RSVP [RFC2205].
双优先级AVP（AVP代码608）是由抢占优先级和防御优先级AVP两个AVP组成的分组AVP。这些AVP来自RSVP[RFC2205]的“信号抢占优先权策略元素”[RFC3181]中指定的相应优先权字段。
In [RFC3181], the Defending-Priority value is set when the reservation has been admitted by the RSVP protocol. The Preemption-Priority field (described in [RFC3181]) of a newly requested reservation is compared with the Defending-Priority value of a previously admitted flow. The actions taken based upon the result of this comparison are a function of local policy.
在[RFC3181]中，当RSVP协议允许保留时，设置防御优先级值。将新请求的保留的抢占优先级字段（如[RFC3181]所述）与先前允许的流的防御优先级值进行比较。根据该比较结果采取的行动是当地政策的一个功能。
Dual-Priority ::= < AVP Header: 608 >
{ Preemption-Priority }
{ Defending-Priority }
Dual-Priority ::= < AVP Header: 608 >
{ Preemption-Priority }
{ Defending-Priority }
The Preemption-Priority AVP (AVP Code 609) is of type Unsigned16. Higher values represent higher priority. The value encoded in this AVP is the same as the preemption-priority value that would be encoded in the signaled preemption priority policy element.
抢占优先权AVP（AVP代码609）的类型为Unsigned16。值越高表示优先级越高。此AVP中编码的值与信号抢占优先级策略元素中编码的抢占优先级值相同。
The Defending-Priority AVP (AVP Code 610) is of type Unsigned16. Higher values represent higher priority. The value encoded in this AVP is the same as the defending-priority value that would be encoded in the signaled preemption priority policy element.
防御优先级AVP（AVP代码610）的类型为Unsigned16。值越高表示优先级越高。此AVP中编码的值与信号抢占优先级策略元素中编码的防御优先级值相同。
The Admission-Priority AVP (AVP Code 611) is of type Unsigned8. The admission priority associated with an RSVP flow is used to increase the probability of session establishment for selected RSVP flows. Higher values represent higher priority. A given admission priority is encoded in this information element using the same value as when encoded in the admission-priority parameter defined in Section 5.1 of [RFC6401].
接纳优先级AVP（AVP代码611）的类型为Unsigned8。与RSVP流相关联的接纳优先级用于增加所选RSVP流的会话建立的概率。值越高表示优先级越高。在该信息元素中使用与[RFC6401]第5.1节中定义的准入优先级参数编码时相同的值对给定的准入优先级进行编码。
The SIP-Resource-Priority AVP (AVP Code 612) is a grouped AVP consisting of two AVPs, the SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace and the SIP-Resource-Priority-Value AVP, which are derived from the corresponding optional header fields in [RFC4412].
SIP资源优先级AVP（AVP代码612）是由两个AVP组成的分组AVP，即SIP资源优先级名称空间和SIP资源优先级值AVP，这两个AVP源自[RFC4412]中相应的可选报头字段。
SIP-Resource-Priority ::= < AVP Header: 612 >
{ SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace }
{ SIP-Resource-Priority-Value }
SIP-Resource-Priority ::= < AVP Header: 612 >
{ SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace }
{ SIP-Resource-Priority-Value }
The SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace AVP (AVP Code 613) is of type UTF8String. This AVP contains a string that identifies a unique ordered set of priority values as described in [RFC4412].
SIP资源优先级命名空间AVP（AVP代码613）的类型为UTF8String。此AVP包含一个字符串，该字符串标识一组唯一的有序优先级值，如[RFC4412]中所述。
The SIP-Resource-Priority-Value AVP (AVP Code 614) is of type UTF8String. This AVP contains a string (i.e., a namespace entry) that identifies a member of a set of priority values unique to the namespace. Examples of namespaces and corresponding sets of priority values are found in [RFC4412].
SIP资源优先级值AVP（AVP代码614）的类型为UTF8String。此AVP包含一个字符串（即名称空间条目），用于标识名称空间特有的一组优先级值的成员。名称空间和相应优先级值集的示例见[RFC4412]。
The Application-Level-Resource-Priority (ALRP) AVP (AVP Code 615) is a grouped AVP consisting of two AVPs, the ALRP-Namespace AVP and the ALRP-Value AVP.
应用级资源优先级（ALRP）AVP（AVP代码615）是由两个AVP组成的分组AVP，即ALRP名称空间AVP和ALRP值AVP。
Application-Level-Resource-Priority ::= < AVP Header: 615 >
{ ALRP-Namespace }
{ ALRP-Value }
Application-Level-Resource-Priority ::= < AVP Header: 615 >
{ ALRP-Namespace }
{ ALRP-Value }
A description of the semantics of the parameter values can be found in [RFC4412] and in [RFC6401]. The registry set up by [RFC4412] provides string values for both the priority namespace and the priority values associated with that namespace. [RFC6401] modifies that registry to assign numerical values to both the namespace identifiers and the priority values within them. Consequently, SIP-Resource-Priority and Application-Level-Resource-Priority AVPs convey the same priority semantics, but with differing syntax. In the former case, an alpha-numeric encoding is used, while the latter case is constrained to a numeric-only value.
参数值的语义说明见[RFC4412]和[RFC6401]。[RFC4412]设置的注册表为优先级命名空间和与该命名空间关联的优先级值提供字符串值。[RFC6401]修改该注册表以将数值分配给名称空间标识符和其中的优先级值。因此，SIP资源优先级和应用程序级资源优先级AVP传递相同的优先级语义，但语法不同。在前一种情况下，使用字母数字编码，而后一种情况仅限于数字值。
The ALRP-Namespace AVP (AVP Code 616) is of type Unsigned16. This AVP contains a numerical value identifying the namespace of the application-level resource priority as described in [RFC6401].
ALRP命名空间AVP（AVP代码616）的类型为Unsigned16。此AVP包含一个数值，用于标识[RFC6401]中所述的应用程序级资源优先级的名称空间。
The ALRP-Value AVP (AVP Code 617) is of type Unsigned8. This AVP contains the priority value within the ALRP-Namespace, as described in [RFC6401].
ALRP值AVP（AVP代码617）的类型为Unsigned8。此AVP包含ALRP命名空间内的优先级值，如[RFC6401]中所述。
Usage of the Dual-Priority, Admission-Priority, and Application-Level-Resource-Priority AVPs can all be illustrated by the same simple network scenario, although they would not all typically be used in the same network. The scenario is as follows:
双优先级、许可优先级和应用级资源优先级avp的使用都可以通过相同的简单网络场景来说明，尽管它们通常不会在同一网络中使用。情况如下：
A user with special authorization is authenticated by a Network Access Server (NAS), which acts as a client to a Diameter Server supporting the user's desired application. Once the user has authenticated, the Diameter Server provides the NAS with information on the user's authorized QoS, including instances of the Dual-Priority, Admission-Priority, and/or Application-Level-Resource-Priority AVPs.
具有特殊授权的用户由网络访问服务器（NAS）进行身份验证，NAS充当支持用户所需应用程序的Diameter服务器的客户端。一旦用户通过身份验证，Diameter服务器将向NAS提供有关用户授权QoS的信息，包括双优先级、准入优先级和/或应用程序级资源优先级AVP的实例。
Local policy governs the usage of the values conveyed by these AVPs at the NAS to decide whether the flow associated with the user's application can be admitted. If the decision is positive, the NAS forwards the authorized QoS values as objects in RSVP signaling. In particular, the values in the Dual-Priority AVP would be carried in the "Signaled Preemption Priority Policy Element" defined in [RFC3181], and the values contained in the Admission-Priority and Application-Level-Resource-Priority AVPs would be carried in the corresponding policy objects defined in [RFC6401]. Each subsequent node would make its own decision taking account of the authorized QoS objects including the priority-related objects, again governed by local policy. The example assumes that the user session terminates on a host or server in the same administrative domain as the NAS to avoid complications due to the restricted applicability of [RFC3181] and [RFC6401].
本地策略控制这些AVP在NAS上传输的值的使用，以决定是否可以接纳与用户应用程序相关联的流。如果决定为肯定，NAS将授权QoS值作为RSVP信令中的对象转发。具体而言，双优先级AVP中的值将在[RFC3181]中定义的“信号抢占优先级策略元素”中携带，而许可优先级和应用级资源优先级AVP中包含的值将在[RFC6401]中定义的相应策略对象中携带。每个后续节点将根据授权的QoS对象（包括优先级相关对象）做出自己的决策，同样由本地策略管理。该示例假设用户会话在与NAS位于同一管理域的主机或服务器上终止，以避免由于[RFC3181]和[RFC6401]的适用性受到限制而导致的复杂性。
Local policy might for example indicate:
例如，当地政策可能表明：
- which value to take if both Admission-Priority and Application-Level-Resource-Priority are present;
- 如果同时存在准入优先级和应用程序级资源优先级，则采用哪个值；
- which namespace or namespaces are recognized for use in Application-Level-Resource-Priority;
- 在应用程序级资源优先级中识别哪些命名空间或多个命名空间；
- which resources are subject to preemption if the values in Dual-Priority are high enough to allow it.
- 如果双优先级中的值足够高，允许抢占哪些资源。
A scenario for the use of the SIP-Resource-Priority AVP will differ slightly from the previous one, in that the initial decision point would typically be a SIP proxy receiving a session initiation request containing a Resource-Priority header field and deciding whether to admit the session to the domain. Like the NAS, the SIP proxy would serve as client to a Diameter Server during the process of user authentication, and upon successful authentication would receive back from the Diameter Server AVPs indicating authorized QoS. Among these might be the SIP-Resource-Priority AVP, the contents of which would be compared with the contents of the Resource-Priority header field. Again, local policy would determine which namespaces to accept and the effect of a given priority level on the admission decision.
使用SIP资源优先级AVP的场景将与前一个稍有不同，因为初始决策点通常是SIP代理接收包含资源优先级报头字段的会话发起请求，并决定是否允许会话进入域。与NAS一样，SIP代理将在用户身份验证过程中充当Diameter服务器的客户端，并且在成功身份验证后，将从Diameter服务器接收指示授权QoS的AVP。其中可以是SIP资源优先级AVP，其内容将与资源优先级报头字段的内容进行比较。同样，本地策略将决定接受哪些名称空间，以及给定优先级对接纳决策的影响。
For the sake of our example, suppose now that the SIP proxy signals using RSVP to the border router that will be admitting the media flows associated with the session. (This, of course, makes a few assumptions on routing and knowledge of that routing at the proxy.) The SIP proxy can indicate authorized QoS using various objects. In particular, it can map the values from the Resource-Priority header field to the corresponding numeric values as defined by [RFC6401] and send it using the Application-Level Resource Priority Policy Element.
为了我们的示例，现在假设SIP代理使用RSVP向边界路由器发送信号，该路由器将接纳与会话相关联的媒体流。（当然，这对路由和代理上的路由知识做了一些假设。）SIP代理可以使用各种对象指示授权的QoS。特别是，它可以将资源优先级标头字段中的值映射到[RFC6401]定义的相应数值，并使用应用程序级资源优先级策略元素发送。
IANA has allocated AVP codes for the following AVPs that are defined in this document.
IANA已为本文件中定义的以下AVP分配了AVP代码。
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| AVP Section |
|AVP Name Code Defined Data Type |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Dual-Priority 608 3.1 Grouped |
|Preemption-Priority 609 3.1.1 Unsigned16 |
|Defending-Priority 610 3.1.2 Unsigned16 |
|Admission-Priority 611 3.2 Unsigned8 |
|SIP-Resource-Priority 612 3.3 Grouped |
|SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace 613 3.3.1 UTF8String |
|SIP-Resource-Priority-Value 614 3.3.2 UTF8String |
|Application-Level-Resource-Priority 615 3.4 Grouped |
|ALRP-Namespace 616 3.4.1 Unsigned32 |
|ALRP-Value 617 3.4.2 Unsigned32 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| AVP Section |
|AVP Name Code Defined Data Type |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Dual-Priority 608 3.1 Grouped |
|Preemption-Priority 609 3.1.1 Unsigned16 |
|Defending-Priority 610 3.1.2 Unsigned16 |
|Admission-Priority 611 3.2 Unsigned8 |
|SIP-Resource-Priority 612 3.3 Grouped |
|SIP-Resource-Priority-Namespace 613 3.3.1 UTF8String |
|SIP-Resource-Priority-Value 614 3.3.2 UTF8String |
|Application-Level-Resource-Priority 615 3.4 Grouped |
|ALRP-Namespace 616 3.4.1 Unsigned32 |
|ALRP-Value 617 3.4.2 Unsigned32 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
IANA has allocated a new value from the "QoS Profiles" subregistry of the "Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Parameters" defined in [RFC5624] for the QoS profile defined in this document. The name of the profile is "Resource priority parameters" (1).
IANA已从[RFC5624]中定义的“认证、授权和计费（AAA）参数”的“QoS配置文件”子区为本文件中定义的QoS配置文件分配了一个新值。配置文件的名称为“资源优先级参数”（1）。
This document describes an extension for conveying quality-of-service information, and therefore follows the same security considerations of the Diameter QoS Application [RFC5866]. The values placed in the AVPs are not changed by this document, nor are they changed in the Diameter QoS application. We recommend the use of mechanisms to ensure integrity when exchanging information from one protocol to an associated DIAMETER AVP. Examples of these integrity mechanisms
本文档描述了传输服务质量信息的扩展，因此遵循Diameter QoS应用程序[RFC5866]的相同安全注意事项。本文档不会更改AVP中的值，在Diameter QoS应用程序中也不会更改。我们建议在将信息从一个协议交换到相关的DIAMETER AVP时使用机制来确保完整性。这些完整性机制的示例
would be use of S/MIME with the SIP Resource Priority Header (RPH), or an INTEGRITY object within a POLICY_DATA object within the context of RSVP. The consequences of changing values in the Priority AVPs may result in an allocation of additional or less resources.
将S/MIME与SIP资源优先级头（RPH）一起使用，或在RSVP上下文中的策略_数据对象中使用完整性对象。更改优先级AVP值的后果可能导致额外或更少资源的分配。
Changes in integrity-protected values SHOULD NOT be ignored, and appropriate protocol-specific error messages SHOULD be sent back upstream. Note that we do not use the term "MUST NOT be ignored" because the local policy of an administrative domain associated with other protocols acts as the final arbiter. In addition, some protocols associated with the AVPs defined in this document may be deployed within a single administrative domain or "walled garden"; thus, possible changes in values would reflect policies of that administrative domain.
不应忽略完整性保护值中的更改，并且应向上游发送适当的特定于协议的错误消息。请注意，我们不使用术语“不得忽略”，因为与其他协议关联的管理域的本地策略充当最终仲裁者。此外，与本文件中定义的AVP相关的一些协议可以部署在单个管理域或“围墙花园”中；因此，价值观的可能变化将反映该行政领域的政策。
The security considerations of the Diameter protocol itself are discussed in [RFC6733]. Use of the AVPs defined in this document MUST take into consideration the security issues and requirements of the Diameter base protocol.
Diameter协议本身的安全注意事项在[RFC6733]中进行了讨论。使用本文件中定义的AVP必须考虑到Diameter base协议的安全问题和要求。
The authors also recommend that readers familiarize themselves with the security considerations of the various protocols listed in the Normative References. This is because values placed in the AVPs defined in this document are set/changed by other protocols.
作者还建议读者熟悉规范性参考文献中列出的各种协议的安全注意事项。这是因为本文档中定义的AVP中的值由其他协议设置/更改。
We would like to thank Lionel Morand, Janet Gunn, Piers O'Hanlon, Lars Eggert, Jan Engelhardt, Francois LeFaucheur, John Loughney, An Nguyen, Dave Oran, James Polk, Martin Stiemerling, Magnus Westerlund, David Harrington, Robert Sparks, and Dan Romascanu for their review and/or comments on previous draft versions of this document.
我们要感谢莱昂内尔·莫兰德、珍妮特·冈恩、皮尔斯·奥汉隆、拉尔斯·艾格特、扬·恩格哈特、弗朗索瓦·勒法乔尔、约翰·拉夫尼、安·阮、戴夫·奥兰、詹姆斯·波尔克、马丁·斯蒂默林、马格纳斯·韦斯特隆德、大卫·哈灵顿、罗伯特·斯帕克斯和丹·罗马斯库对本文件先前草案版本的审查和/或评论。
[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。
[RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S. Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.
[RFC2205]Braden，R.，Ed.，Zhang，L.，Berson，S.，Herzog，S.，和S.Jamin，“资源预留协议（RSVP）——版本1功能规范”，RFC 22052997年9月。
[RFC3181] Herzog, S., "Signaled Preemption Priority Policy Element", RFC 3181, October 2001.
[RFC3181]Herzog，S.，“信号抢占优先权政策要素”，RFC 31812001年10月。
[RFC4412] Schulzrinne, H. and J. Polk, "Communications Resource Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4412, February 2006.
[RFC4412]Schulzrinne，H.和J.Polk，“会话启动协议（SIP）的通信资源优先级”，RFC 4412，2006年2月。
[RFC5624] Korhonen, J., Ed., Tschofenig, H., and E. Davies, "Quality of Service Parameters for Usage with Diameter", RFC 5624, August 2009.
[RFC5624]Korhonen，J.，Ed.，Tschofenig，H.，和E.Davies，“直径使用的服务质量参数”，RFC 56242009年8月。
[RFC5866] Sun, D., Ed., McCann, P., Tschofenig, H., Tsou, T., Doria, A., and G. Zorn, Ed., "Diameter Quality-of-Service Application", RFC 5866, May 2010.
[RFC5866]Sun，D.，Ed.，McCann，P.，Tschofenig，H.，Tsou，T.，Doria，A.，和G.Zorn，Ed.“直径服务质量应用”，RFC 5866，2010年5月。
[RFC6401] Le Faucheur, F., Polk, J., and K. Carlberg, "RSVP Extensions for Admission Priority", RFC 6401, October 2011.
[RFC6401]Le Faucheur，F.，Polk，J.，和K.Carlberg，“入学优先权的RSVP延期”，RFC 6401，2011年10月。
[RFC6733] Fajardo, V., Ed., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn, Ed., "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 6733, October 2012.
[RFC6733]Fajardo，V.，Ed.，Arkko，J.，Loughney，J.，和G.Zorn，Ed.，“直径基础协议”，RFC 6733，2012年10月。
[3GPPa] "TS 29.214: Policy and charging control over Rx reference point", 3GPP, March, 2011
[3GPPa]“TS 29.214：Rx参考点的政策和收费控制”，3GPP，2011年3月
[3GPPb] "TS 29.212: Policy and charging control over Gx reference point", 3GPP, October, 2010
[3GPPb]“TS 29.212：Gx参考点的政策和收费控制”，3GPP，2010年10月
[3GPPc] "TS 29.229: Cx and Dx interfaces based on the Diameter protocol; Protocol details", 3GPP, September, 2010
[3GPPc]“TS 29.229：基于Diameter协议的Cx和Dx接口；协议详细信息”，3GPP，2010年9月
[3GPPd] "TS 29.329: Sh interface based on the Diameter protocol; Protocol details", 3GPP, September, 2010
[3GPPd]“TS 29.329:Sh接口基于Diameter协议；协议细节”，3GPP，2010年9月
[ETSI] "TS 183 017: Telecommunications and Internet Converged Services and Protocols for Advanced Networking (TISPAN); Resource and Admission Control", ETSI
[ETSI]“TS 183 017：用于高级网络的电信和互联网融合服务和协议（TISPAN）；资源和准入控制”，ETSI
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Ken Carlberg (editor) G11 1601 Clarendon Dr Arlington, VA 22209 United States
Ken Carlberg（编辑）G11 1601美国弗吉尼亚州阿灵顿克莱伦登博士22209
EMail: carlberg@g11.org.uk
EMail: carlberg@g11.org.uk
Tom Taylor PT Taylor Consulting 1852 Lorraine Ave Ottawa Canada
Tom Taylor PT Taylor Consulting 1852加拿大渥太华洛林大道
EMail: tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com
EMail: tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com