< draft-aboba-radius-iana-06.txt		draft-aboba-radius-iana-07.txt >
			A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
	Network Working Group B. Aboba		RFC 3575
	INTERNET-DRAFT Microsoft
	Category: Standards Track
	<draft-aboba-radius-iana-06.txt>
	17 April 2003
	Updates: RFC 2865
	IANA Considerations for RADIUS
	This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all
	provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task
	Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups
	may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material
	or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
	The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
	Copyright Notice		Title: IANA Considerations for RADIUS
			(Remote Authentication Dial In User Service)
			Author(s): B. Aboba
			Status: Standards Track
			Date: July 2003
			Mailbox: bernarda@microsoft.com
			Pages: 8
			Characters: 15539
			Updates: 2865
	Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.		I-D Tag: draft-aboba-radius-iana-07.txt
	Abstract		URL: ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3575.txt
	This document describes the IANA considerations for the Remote		This document describes the IANA considerations for the Remote
	Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS).		Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS).
	This document updates RFC 2865.		This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol.
	1. Introduction
	This document provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers
	Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to the Remote
	Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS), defined in [RFC2865], in
	accordance with BCP 26, [RFC2434]. It also reserves Packet Type Codes
	that are or have been in use on the Internet.
	1.1. Specification of Requirements
	In this document, several words are used to signify the requirements of
	the specification. These words are often capitalized. 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 [RFC2119].
	1.2. Terminology
	The following terms are used here with the meanings defined in BCP 26:
	"name space", "assigned value", "registration".
	The following policies are used here with the meanings defined in BCP
	26: "Private Use", "First Come First Served", "Expert Review",
	"Specification Required", "IETF Consensus", "Standards Action".
	2. IANA Considerations
	There are three name spaces in RADIUS that require registration: Packet
	Type Codes, Attribute Types, and Attribute Values (for certain
	Attributes). This draft creates no new IANA registries, since a RADIUS
	registry was created by [RFC2865].
	RADIUS is not intended as a general-purpose protocol, and allocations
	SHOULD NOT be made for purposes unrelated to Authentication,
	Authorization or Accounting.
	2.1. Recommended Registration Policies
	For registration requests where a Designated Expert should be consulted,
	the responsible IESG area director should appoint the Designated Expert.
	The intention is that any allocation will be accompanied by a published
	RFC. But in order to allow for the allocation of values prior to the
	RFC being approved for publication, the Designated Expert can approve
	allocations once it seems clear that an RFC will be published. The
	Designated expert will post a request to the AAA WG mailing list (or a
	successor designated by the Area Director) for comment and review,
	including an Internet-Draft. Before a period of 30 days has passed, The
	Designated Expert will either approve or deny the registration request
	and publish a notice of the decision to the AAA WG mailing list or its
	successor, as well as informing IANA. A denial notice must be justified
	by an explanation and, in the cases where it is possible, concrete
	suggestions on how the request can be modified so as to become
	acceptable.
	Packet Type Codes have a range from 1 to 253. RADIUS Type Codes 1-5 and
	11-13 were allocated in [RFC2865], while Type Codes 40-45, 250-253 are
	allocated by this document. Type Codes 250-253 are allocated for
	Experimental Uses, and 254-255 are reserved. Packet Type Codes 6-10,
	12-13, 21-34, 50-51 have no meaning defined by an IETF RFC, but are
	reserved until a specification is provided for them. This is being done
	to avoid interoperability problems with software that implements non-
	standard RADIUS extensions that are or have been in use on the Internet.
	Because a new Packet Type has considerable impact on interoperability, a
	new Packet Type Code requires Standards Action. Type Codes 52-249
	should be allocated first; when these are exhausted, Type Codes 14-20,
	35-39, 46-49 may be allocated. For a list of Type Codes, see Appendix
	A.
	Attribute Types have a range from 1 to 255, and are the scarcest
	resource in RADIUS, thus must be allocated with care. Attributes
	1-53,55,60-88,90-91,94-100 have been allocated, with 17 and 21 available
	for re-use. Attributes 17, 21, 54, 56-59, 89, 101-191 may be allocated
	by IETF Consensus. It is recommended that attributes 17 and 21 be used
	only after all others are exhausted.
	Note that RADIUS defines a mechanism for Vendor-Specific extensions
	(Attribute 26) and the use of that should be encouraged instead of
	allocation of global attribute types, for functions specific only to one
	vendor's implementation of RADIUS, where no interoperability is deemed
	useful.
	As noted in [RFC2865]:
	Attribute Type Values 192-223 are reserved for experimental
	use, values 224-240 are reserved for implementation-specific use,
	and values 241-255 are reserved and should not be used.
	Therefore Attribute Type values 192-240 are considered Private Use, and
	values 241-255 require Standards Action.
	Certain attributes (for example, NAS-Port-Type) in RADIUS define a list
	of values to correspond with various meanings. There can be 4 billion
	(2^32) values for each attribute. Additional values can be allocated by
	Designated Expert. The exception to this policy is the Service-Type
	attribute (6), whose values define new modes of operation for RADIUS.
	Values 1-16 of the Service-Type attribute have been allocated.
	Allocation of new Service-Type values are by IETF Consensus.
	3. Normative references
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
	[RFC2434] Alvestrand, H. and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an
	IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
	October 1998.
	[RFC2865] Rigney, C., Rubens, A., Simpson, W. and S. Willens,
	"Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)",
	RFC 2865, June 2000.
	4. Informative references
	[RFC2607] Aboba, B. and J. Vollbrecht, "Proxy Chaining and Policy
	Implementation in Roaming", RFC 2607, June 1999.
	[RFC2866] Rigney, C., "RADIUS Accounting", RFC 2866, June 2000.
	[RFC2867] Zorn, G., Mitton, D. and B. Aboba, "RADIUS Accounting
	Modifications for Tunnel Protocol Support", RFC 2867,
	June 2000.
	[RFC2868] Zorn, G., Leifer, D., Rubens, A., Shriver, J., Holdrege,
	M. and I. Goyret, "RADIUS Attributes for Tunnel Protocol
	Support", RFC 2868, June 2000.
	[RFC2869] Rigney, C., Willats, W. and P. Calhoun, "RADIUS
	Extensions", RFC 2869, June 2000.
	[RFC2869bis] Aboba, B. and P. Calhoun, "RADIUS Support for Extensible
	Authentication Protocol (EAP)", draft-aboba-radius-
	rfc2869bis-18.txt, Internet draft (work in progress),
	April 2003.
	[RFC2882] Mitton, D., "Network Access Servers Requirements:
	Extended RADIUS Practices", RFC 2882, July 2000.
	[RFC3162] Aboba, B., Zorn, G. and D. Mitton, "RADIUS and IPv6", RFC
	3162, August 2001.
	[DynAuth] Chiba, M., et al., "Dynamic Authorization Extensions to
	Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)",
	Internet draft (work in progress), draft-chiba-radius-
	dynamic-authorization-16.txt, April 2003.
	5. Security Considerations
	The security considerations detailed in [RFC2434] are generally
	applicable to this document. Security considerations relating to the
	RADIUS protocol are discussed in [RFC2607], [RFC2865], [RFC3162],
	[DynAuth], and [RFC2869bis].
	Appendix A - RADIUS Packet Types
	A list of RADIUS Packet Type Codes is given below. This document
	instructs IANA to list them in the registry of Packet Type Codes. Note
	that Type Codes 40-45, which are defined in [DynAuth] are being formally
	allocated here. Codes 40-45 were listed in [RFC2882] and have been
	implemented and used. Given their widespread current usage, these
	assignments are not reclaimable in practice.
	# Message Reference
	1 Access-Request [RFC2865]
	2 Access-Accept [RFC2865]
	3 Access-Reject [RFC2865]
	4 Accounting-Request [RFC2865]
	5 Accounting-Response [RFC2865]
	6 Accounting-Status [RFC2882]
	(now Interim Accounting)
	7 Password-Request [RFC2882]
	8 Password-Ack [RFC2882]
	9 Password-Reject [RFC2882]
	10 Accounting-Message [RFC2882]
	11 Access-Challenge [RFC2865]
	12 Status-Server (experimental) [RFC2865]
	13 Status-Client (experimental) [RFC2865]
	21 Resource-Free-Request [RFC2882]
	22 Resource-Free-Response [RFC2882]
	23 Resource-Query-Request [RFC2882]
	24 Resource-Query-Response [RFC2882]
	25 Alternate-Resource-
	Reclaim-Request [RFC2882]
	26 NAS-Reboot-Request [RFC2882]
	27 NAS-Reboot-Response [RFC2882]
	28 Reserved
	29 Next-Passcode [RFC2882]
	30 New-Pin [RFC2882]
	31 Terminate-Session [RFC2882]
	32 Password-Expired [RFC2882]
	33 Event-Request [RFC2882]
	34 Event-Response [RFC2882]
	# Message Reference
	40 Disconnect-Request [DynAuth]
	41 Disconnect-ACK [DynAuth]
	42 Disconnect-NAK [DynAuth]
	43 CoA-Request [DynAuth]
	44 CoA-ACK [DynAuth]
	45 CoA-NAK [DynAuth]
	50 IP-Address-Allocate [RFC2882]
	51 IP-Address-Release [RFC2882]
	250-253 Experimental Use
	254 Reserved
	255 Reserved [RFC2865]
	Acknowledgments
	Thanks to Ignacio Goyret of Lucent, Allison Mankin of Lucent Bell Labs,
	Thomas Narten of IBM, Glen Zorn and Harald Alvestrand of Cisco for
	discussions relating to this document.
	Authors' Addresses
	Bernard Aboba
	Microsoft Corporation
	One Microsoft Way
	Redmond, WA 98052
	EMail: bernarda@microsoft.com
	Phone: +1 425 706 6605
	Fax: +1 425 936 7329
	Intellectual Property Statement
	The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any		This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for
	intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain		the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions
	to the implementation or use of the technology described in this		for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the
	document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or		"Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the
	might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made any		standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution
	effort to identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's		of this memo is unlimited.
	procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-
	related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of claims of
	rights made available for publication and any assurances of licenses to
	be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general
	license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by
	implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the
	IETF Secretariat.
	The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any		This announcement is sent to the IETF list and the RFC-DIST list.
	copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights		Requests to be added to or deleted from the IETF distribution list
	which may cover technology that may be required to practice this		should be sent to IETF-REQUEST@IETF.ORG. Requests to be
	standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive		added to or deleted from the RFC-DIST distribution list should
	Director.		be sent to RFC-DIST-REQUEST@RFC-EDITOR.ORG.
	Full Copyright Statement		Details on obtaining RFCs via FTP or EMAIL may be obtained by sending
			an EMAIL message to rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG with the message body
			help: ways_to_get_rfcs. For example:
	Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.		To: rfc-info@RFC-EDITOR.ORG
	This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to		Subject: getting rfcs
	others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or
	assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and
	distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
	provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included
	on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself
	may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice
	or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations,
	except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in
	which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet
	Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into
	languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are
	perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its
	successors or assigns. This document and the information contained
	herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE
	INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
	IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
	INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
	WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
	Expiration Date		help: ways_to_get_rfcs
	This memo is filed as <draft-aboba-radius-iana-06.txt>, and expires		Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
	November 19, 2003.		author of the RFC in question, or to RFC-Manager@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Unless
			specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for
			unlimited distribution.echo
			Submissions for Requests for Comments should be sent to
			RFC-EDITOR@RFC-EDITOR.ORG. Please consult RFC 2223, Instructions to RFC
			Authors, for further information.
End of changes. 12 change blocks.
	294 lines changed or deleted		31 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/