Service Level Specification and Usage
charter-ietf-sls-01

Document Charter Service Level Specification and Usage WG (sls)
Title Service Level Specification and Usage
Last updated 2003-12-10
State Approved
WG State Concluded
IESG Responsible AD ** No value found for 'group.ad_role.person.plain_name' **
Charter Edit AD (None)
Send notices to (None)

Charter
charter-ietf-sls-01

Providing QoS enabled services across a diffserv enabled network is 
often closely linked with the negotiation of a Service Level 
Specification (as defined in draft-ietf-diffserv-new-terms-03.txt) over 
the administrative boundary where the service is provided.

The SLS BOF will examine whether a Working Group should be chartered to 
design a formal extensible model for Service Level Specifications and 
requirements for the negotiation of Service Levels across 
(administrative) boundaries. Based on input from the BOF a sharply 
focused proposal with milestones will be submitted, if need be.

The need to have an agreed set of Service Level Specification 
parameters 
and semantics is twofold.

A formal, extensible specification would enable automation of the 
service negotiation process. Providers and customers would benefit from 
the faster turnaround of service fulfillment. Providers would continue 
to enjoy flexibility in designing their service offerings, and 
customers 
would enjoy independence from their point of attachment.

Second, the design and the deployment of services across a multi-vendor 
and multi-provider environment requires a standardized set of semantics 
for Service Level Specifications being negotiated at different 
locations: (a) between the customer and the service provider (b) within 
an administrative domain (for intra-domain SLS negotiation purposes) 
and 
(c) between administrative domains (for inter-domain negotiation 
purposes).

While the semantics of the Service Level Specification need to be 
defined in a vendor-independent, interoperable and scalable manner, the 
syntax of the specification may be represented in different 
specification languages, eg., CIM, LDAP schemata, XML DITs, etc. 
Similarly, while the semantics of message exchanges during service 
negotiation need to be specified, the actual packet formats may depend 
on the protocol chosen for such a negotiation.

The notion of customer and provider as used within this description 
refer to a service requesting and a service offering entity 
respectively, and does not imply the specification of any particular 
business model.

The BOF will be used to gain input on the scope of the proposed working 
group, such that the goal of semantic specification is fulfilled, 
together with a narrow but representative syntactic set.