idnits 2.17.1 draft-cam-winget-eap-nea-tlv-02.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but was first submitted on or after 10 November 2008. The disclaimer is usually necessary only for documents that revise or obsolete older RFCs, and that take significant amounts of text from those RFCs. If you can contact all authors of the source material and they are willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, you can and should remove the disclaimer. Otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this comment. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (January 3, 2011) is 4856 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: 'RFC2434' is defined on line 182, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4493' is defined on line 190, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2434 (Obsoleted by RFC 5226) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 4493 Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group N. Cam-Winget 3 Internet-Draft H. Zhou 4 Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems 5 Expires: July 7, 2011 January 3, 2011 7 EAP TLV for NEA 8 draft-cam-winget-eap-nea-tlv-02 10 Abstract 12 This document describes how Network Endpoint Assessment (NEA) data 13 can be carried inside of a general Type-Length-Value container using 14 EAP-TLV. 16 Status of this Memo 18 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 19 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 21 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 22 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 23 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 24 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 26 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 27 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 28 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 29 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 31 This Internet-Draft will expire on July 7, 2011. 33 Copyright Notice 35 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 36 document authors. All rights reserved. 38 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 39 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 40 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 41 publication of this document. Please review these documents 42 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 43 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 44 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 45 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 46 described in the Simplified BSD License. 48 This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF 49 Contributions published or made publicly available before November 50 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this 51 material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow 52 modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. 53 Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling 54 the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified 55 outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may 56 not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format 57 it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other 58 than English. 60 Table of Contents 62 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 63 2. Specification Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 3. EAP NEA TLV Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 4. Capabilities and Limitations of EAP-TLV as a PT for PB-TNC . . 5 66 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 68 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 69 8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 70 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 72 1. Introduction 74 NEA has standardized a transport agnostic Posture Broker protocol 75 defined in [RFC5793] to effect a network endpoint assessment between 76 a Posture Broker Client and a Posture Broker Server. The Extensible 77 Authentication Protocol (EAP) [RFC3748] defines an authentication 78 transport mechanism that can be extended to transport the Posture 79 Broker Protocol. [draft-cam-winget-eap-tlv-01] defines an EAP-TLV 80 container to carry arbitrary data within an EAP method. 82 This document describes an EAP-TLV that can be used to carry Posture 83 Broker messages within an EAP method. This document also describes 84 the capabilities and limitations of EAP as a transport mechanism for 85 carrying NEA protocols. 87 2. Specification Requirements 89 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 90 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 91 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] . 93 3. EAP NEA TLV Format 95 The NEA EAP TLV Format is defined and described below. The fields 96 are transmitted from left to right. 98 0 1 2 3 99 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 100 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 101 |M|R| TLV Type | Length | 102 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 103 | Version | Reserved | PB-TNC Header | 104 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 105 | PB-TNC Header | PB-PA Message... | 106 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- 107 | | 108 | PB-PA-Message... | 109 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 111 M 112 0 Optional TLV 114 1 Mandatory TLV 116 R 118 Reserved, set to zero (0) 120 TLV Type 122 The EAP NEA TLV type: 124 TBD 126 Length 128 The length of the Value field in octets. 130 Version 132 The one octet version of the EAP NEA TLV: 134 1 136 Reserved 138 Reserved octect, must be set to 0x00 140 PB-TNC Header 142 The PB-TNC encapsulation header as described in [RFC5793]. 144 PB-PA Message 146 The message between the Posture Broker Client and Posture 147 Broker Server as described in [RFC5793]. 149 4. Capabilities and Limitations of EAP-TLV as a PT for PB-TNC 151 TBD 153 5. Security Considerations 155 The EAP NEA TLV container carries network endpoint assessment 156 information between the Posture Broker Client and the Posture Broker 157 Server. As some of this data can be sensitive, it is highly 158 recommended that the EAP NEA TLV container MUST be carried inside a 159 protected EAP tunneled method. 161 To address the potential man-in-the-middle attack in a tunneled EAP 162 method, the 'tls-unique' Channel Binding as defined in [RFC5929] MUST 163 be used. 165 6. IANA Considerations 167 The IANA is hereby requested to create a new registry for the EAP NEA 168 TLV defined in Section 3. The purpose of this registry is uniquely 169 identify when NEA Posture Broker Protocol packets are being 170 transported in an EAP method. 172 7. Acknowledgements 174 The authors would like to recognize Joe Salowey, Susan Thomson, Syam 175 Appala and Subbu Srinivasan for providing input into this draft. 177 8. Normative References 179 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 180 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 182 [RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 183 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, 184 October 1998. 186 [RFC3748] Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J., and H. 187 Levkowetz, "Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)", 188 RFC 3748, June 2004. 190 [RFC4493] Song, JH., Poovendran, R., Lee, J., and T. Iwata, "The 191 AES-CMAC Algorithm", RFC 4493, June 2006. 193 [RFC5793] Sahita, R., Hanna, S., Hurst, R., and K. Narayan, "PB-TNC: 194 A Posture Broker (PB) Protocol Compatible with Trusted 195 Network Connect (TNC)", RFC 5793, March 2010. 197 [RFC5929] Altman, J., Williams, N., and L. Zhu, "Channel Bindings 198 for TLS", RFC 5929, July 2010. 200 Authors' Addresses 202 Nancy Cam-Winget 203 Cisco Systems 204 80 West Tasman Drive 205 San Jose, CA 95134 206 US 208 Email: ncamwing@cisco.com 210 Hao Zhou 211 Cisco Systems 212 4125 Highlander Parkway 213 Richfield, OH 44286 214 US 216 Email: hzhou@cisco.com