idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-hokey-ldn-discovery-06.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 date (October 1, 2010) is 4956 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-09) exists of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-relay-supplied-options-02 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3315 (Obsoleted by RFC 8415) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5296 (Obsoleted by RFC 6696) Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group G. Zorn 3 Internet-Draft Network Zen 4 Intended status: Standards Track Q. Wu 5 Expires: April 4, 2011 Y. Wang 6 Huawei 7 October 1, 2010 9 The Local Domain Name DHCPv6 Option 10 draft-ietf-hokey-ldn-discovery-06 12 Abstract 14 In order to derive a Domain-Specific Root Key (DSRK) from the 15 Extended Master Session Key (EMSK) generated as a side-effect of an 16 Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) method, the EAP peer must 17 discover the name of the domain to which it is attached. 19 This document specifies a Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Version 20 6 (DHCPv6) option designed to allow a DHCPv6 server to inform clients 21 of the name of the local domain.. 23 Status of This Memo 25 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 26 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 28 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 29 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 30 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 31 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 33 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 34 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 35 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 36 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 38 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 4, 2011. 40 Copyright Notice 42 Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 43 document authors. All rights reserved. 45 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 46 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 47 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 48 publication of this document. Please review these documents 49 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 50 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 51 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 52 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 53 described in the Simplified BSD License. 55 Table of Contents 57 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 3. Option Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 3.1. DHCPv6 Local Domain Name Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 4. Client Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 5. Relay Agent Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 64 7. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 69 1. Introduction 71 The EAP Re-authentication Protocol (ERP) [RFC5296] is designed to 72 allow faster re-authentication of a mobile device which was 73 previously authenticated by means of the Extensible Authentication 74 Protocol [RFC3748]. Given that the local root key (e.g., DSRK RFC 75 5295 [RFC5295]) is generated using the local domain name (LDN), LDN 76 discovery is an important part of re-authentication. As described in 77 RFC 5296 [RFC5296], the local domain name can be learned by the 78 mobile device through the ERP exchange or via a lower-layer 79 mechanism. However, no lower-layer mechanisms for LDN discovery have 80 yet been defined. 82 This document specifies an extension to DHCPv6 for local domain name 83 discovery. 85 2. Terminology 87 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 88 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 89 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 91 3. Option Format 93 In DHCPv6-based local domain name discovery, the LDN option is used 94 by the DHCPv6 client to obtain the local domain name from the DHCPv6 95 Server after full EAP authentication has taken place. 97 3.1. DHCPv6 Local Domain Name Option 99 The format of this option is: 101 0 1 2 3 102 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 1 103 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 104 | OPTION_LOCAL_DOMAIN_NAME | option-length | 105 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 106 | local-domain-name... 107 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 109 option code 110 OPTION_LOCAL_DOMAIN_NAME (TBD) 112 option-length 113 Length of the local-domain-name field, in octets 115 local-domain-name 116 This field contains the name of the local domain and MUST be 117 encoded as specified in Section 8 of RFC 3315 [RFC3315]. 119 4. Client Behavior 121 If a DHCPv6 client doesn't know the local domain name and requires 122 the DHCPv6 Server to provide the DHCPv6 LDN option, it MUST include 123 an Option Request option requesting the DHCPv6 LDN option, as 124 described in Section 22.7 of RFC 3315 [RFC3315]. 126 When the DHCPv6 client recieves a LDN option with the local domain 127 name present in it, it MUST verify that the option length is no more 128 than 256 octets (the maximum length of a single FQDN allowed by DNS), 129 and that the local domain name is a properly encoded single FQDN, as 130 specified in Section 8, "Representation and Use of Domain Names" of 131 RFC3315 [RFC3315]. 133 5. Relay Agent Behavior 135 If a DHCPv6 relay agent has pre-existing knowledge of the local 136 domain name (for example, from a previous AAA exchange), it SHOULD 137 include it in an instance of the DHCPv6 LDN option and forward to the 138 DHPv6 server as a suboption of the Relay-Supplied Options option 139 [I-D.ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-relay-supplied-options]. 141 6. Security Considerations 143 The communication between the DHCPv6 client and the DHCPv6 server for 144 the exchange of local domain name information is security sensitive 145 and requires authentication, integrity and replay protection. DHCPv6 146 security [RFC3315] can be used for this purpose. 148 7. IANA considerations 150 IANA is requested to assign one new option code from the registry of 151 DHCP Option Codes maintained at 152 http://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-parameters, referencing this 153 document. 155 8. References 157 8.1. Normative References 159 [I-D.ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-relay-supplied-options] Lemon, T. and W. Wu, 160 "Relay-Supplied DHCP 161 Options", draft-ietf- 162 dhc-dhcpv6-relay- 163 supplied-options-02 164 (work in progress), 165 September 2010. 167 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words 168 for use in RFCs to 169 Indicate Requirement 170 Levels", BCP 14, 171 RFC 2119, March 1997. 173 [RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., 174 Volz, B., Lemon, T., 175 Perkins, C., and M. 176 Carney, "Dynamic Host 177 Configuration Protocol 178 for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", 179 RFC 3315, July 2003. 181 [RFC5295] Salowey, J., Dondeti, 182 L., Narayanan, V., and 183 M. Nakhjiri, 184 "Specification for the 185 Derivation of Root Keys 186 from an Extended Master 187 Session Key (EMSK)", 188 RFC 5295, August 2008. 190 [RFC5296] Narayanan, V. and L. 191 Dondeti, "EAP 192 Extensions for EAP Re- 193 authentication Protocol 194 (ERP)", RFC 5296, 195 August 2008. 197 8.2. Informative References 199 [RFC3748] Aboba, B., Blunk, L., 200 Vollbrecht, J., 201 Carlson, J., and H. 202 Levkowetz, "Extensible 203 Authentication Protocol 204 (EAP)", RFC 3748, 205 June 2004. 207 Authors' Addresses 209 Glen Zorn 210 Network Zen 211 227/358 Thanon Sunpawut 212 Bang Na, Bangkok 10110 213 Thailand 215 Phone: +66 (0) 87-040-4617 216 EMail: gwz@net-zen.net 218 Qin Wu 219 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. 220 101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District 221 Nanjing, Jiangsu 21001 222 China 224 Phone: +86-25-84565892 225 EMail: sunseawq@huawei.com 227 Yungui Wang 228 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. 229 Site B, Floor 10, HuiHong Mansion, No.91 BaiXia Rd. 230 Nanjing, Jiangsu 210001 231 P.R. China 233 Phone: +86 25 84565893 234 EMail: w52006@huawei.com