RFC 3726: Requirements for Signaling Protocols
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document defines requirements for signaling across different network environments, such as across administrative and/or technology domains. Signaling is mainly considered for Quality of Service (Qos) such as the Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP). However, in recent years, several other applications of signaling have been defined. For example, signaling for label distribution in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) or signaling to middleboxes. To achieve wide applicability of the requirements, the starting point is a diverse set of scenarios/use cases concerning various types of networks and application interactions. This document presents the assumptions before listing the requirements. The requirements are grouped according to areas such as architecture and design goals, signaling flows, layering, performance, flexibility, security, and mobility. This memo provides information for the Internet community.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC3726
- Published
- April 2004
- Authors
- M. Brunner
- Status
- INFORMATIONAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- tsv
- Pages
- 42
- Also known as
- —
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 4094Analysis of Existing Quality-of-Service Signaling ProtocolsCurrent
May 2005
- RFC 3175Aggregation of RSVP for IPv4 and IPv6 ReservationsUpdated
September 2001
- RFC 3097RSVP Cryptographic Authentication -- Updated Message Type ValueCurrent
April 2001
- RFC 2997Specification of the Null Service TypeCurrent
November 2000
- RFC 2996Format of the RSVP DCLASS ObjectCurrent
November 2000
- RFC 2961RSVP Refresh Overhead Reduction ExtensionsUpdated
April 2001
- RFC 2814SBM (Subnet Bandwidth Manager): A Protocol for RSVP-based Admission Control over IEEE 802-style networksCurrent
May 2000
- RFC 2747RSVP Cryptographic AuthenticationUpdated
January 2000
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?