 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Last Modifield: 2002-02-11
This incarnation of the AAA Working Group will focus on development of an IETF Standards track protocol, based on the DIAMETER submission.
In this process, it is to be understood that the IETF does not function as a rubber stamp. It is likely that the protocol will be changed significantly during the process of development.
The immediate goals of the AAA working group are to address the following issues:
- Clarity. The protocol documents should clearly describe the contents of typical messages and the requirements for interoperability.
- Error messages. The protocol should define categories of error messages, enabling implementations to respond correctly based on the category. The set of error messages should cover the full range of operational problems.
- Accounting. The accounting operational model should be described for each type of network access.
- IPv6. The protocol must include attributes in support for IPv6 network access and must be transportable over IPv6.
- Transport. The protocol should be transport independent and must define at least one mandatory-to-implement transport mapping. Other transport mappings may also be defined. All transport mappings must effectively support congestion control.
- Explicit proxy support. The protocol should offer explicit support for proxies, including support for automated message routing, route recording, and (where necessary) path hiding.
- RADIUS compatibility. The protocol should provide improved RADIUS backward compatibility in the case where only RADIUS attributes are used or where RADIUS proxies or servers exist in the path.
- Security. The protocol should define a lightweight data object security model that is implementable on NASes.
- Data model. The proposal should offer logical separation between the protocol and the data model and should support rich data types.
- MIBs. A MIB must be defined, supporting both IPv4 and IPv6 operation.
| Done | Submission of requirements document as an Informational RFC. | |
| Done | Submission of evaluation document as an Informational RFC. | |
| Done | Submission of design team recommendations on protocol improvements. | |
| Done | Incorporation of design team recommendations into protocol submission. | |
| DEC 00 | Improved protocol submission accepted as an official WG draft. | |
| APR 01 | Submission of protocol document(s) as a Proposed Standard RFC. |