rfc-5432

Quality of Service (QoS) Mechanism Selection in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)

J. Polk, S. Dhesikan, G. Camarillo
date2009-03 streamIETF areaart wgmmusic statusPROPOSED STANDARD pages9 canonicalhttps://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5432 doi10.17487/RFC5432
The offer/answer model for the Session Description Protocol (SDP) assumes that endpoints somehow establish the Quality of Service (QoS) required for the media streams they establish. Endpoints in closed environments typically agree out-of-band (e.g., using configuration information) regarding which QoS mechanism to use. However, on the Internet, there is more than one QoS service available. Consequently, there is a need for a mechanism to negotiate which QoS mechanism to use for a particular media stream. This document defines such a mechanism. [STANDARDS-TRACK]

Extracted elements (14)

design-rationale §1

The mechanism negotiates which QoS mechanism to use at the endpoint level but explicitly does not address whether the network supports that mechanism; discovering network-layer QoS support is out of scope. This scoping keeps the protocol focused on endpoint agreement and debugging misconfiguration.

qos, realtime

interoperability-note §4

The 'qos-mech-send' and 'qos-mech-recv' attributes are independent of QoS preconditions (RFC 3312); preconditions handle direction negotiation while this mechanism handles which QoS protocol to use. Parameters for a chosen mechanism (e.g., bandwidth) must be negotiated separately.

qos, realtime, sip

normative-requirement §4.3 SHOULD

After an offer/answer exchange, both offerer and answerer SHOULD attempt to use the highest-priority common QoS mechanism first, falling back to lower-priority ones if the preferred mechanism fails.

qos, realtime

normative-requirement §4.4 SHOULD

If a subsequent offer omits the 'qos-mech-send' or 'qos-mech-recv' attribute for a direction already negotiated, endpoints SHOULD continue using the previously agreed QoS mechanism for that direction.

qos, realtime, sip

normative-requirement §4.3 MAY

If an endpoint fails all common QoS mechanisms for a given direction, it MAY attempt to use additional QoS mechanisms not supported by the remote endpoint, since network intermediaries (e.g., an RSVP proxy) may make them work.

qos, realtime

normative-requirement §7 RECOMMENDED

Integrity and authenticity protection is strongly RECOMMENDED for SDP session descriptions carrying 'qos-mech-send' and 'qos-mech-recv' attributes to prevent tampering. For SIP, S/MIME is the natural choice.

security, qos, sip

normative-requirement §4.1 SHOULD

Offerers MUST include 'qos-mech-send' with tokens for QoS mechanisms supported in the send direction (in order of preference) and 'qos-mech-recv' for the receive direction.

qos, realtime, sip

protocol-element §4.2

The answerer intersects the offerer's 'qos-mech-send' tokens with its own receive-direction capabilities and returns the result in 'qos-mech-recv', and vice versa. If no common mechanism exists, empty attributes are returned.

qos, realtime, sip

protocol-element §3

The 'qos-mech-recv' SDP attribute lists QoS mechanisms (in order of preference) supported by the entity for traffic it receives. It is independent of 'qos-mech-send' and may be used without it.

qos, realtime, sip

protocol-element §3

The 'qos-mech-send' SDP attribute lists QoS mechanisms (in order of preference) supported by the entity for traffic it sends. It is defined at both session and media levels and takes IANA-registered tokens as values.

qos, realtime, sip

registry §6.3

RFC 5432 creates a new IANA subregistry 'QoS Mechanism Tokens' under SDP Parameters, with initial values 'rsvp' and 'nsis'. New registrations require 'Specification Required' per RFC 5226.

registry, qos

registry §6.2

RFC 5432 registers the SDP attribute 'qos-mech-recv' under the SDP Parameters registry, for session and media levels, listing QoS mechanisms supported in the receive direction.

registry, qos

security-consideration §7

An attacker may add, modify, or remove 'qos-mech-send'/'qos-mech-recv' attributes, potentially preventing endpoints from finding a common QoS mechanism. End-to-end integrity protection (e.g., S/MIME for SIP) is strongly recommended.

security, qos, sip

wire-format §3

Both attributes follow ABNF syntax: 'qos-mech-send' or 'qos-mech-recv' followed by a colon and an optional space-separated list of tokens. Each token is either 'rsvp', 'nsis', or an extension-mech (any token value).

qos, realtime