idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-radext-vlan-05.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 13. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 580. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 557. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 564. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 570. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line, instead of the newer IETF Trust Copyright according to RFC 4748. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.5 Disclaimer, instead of the newer disclaimer which includes the IETF Trust according to RFC 4748. 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 RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- Couldn't find a document date in the document -- date freshness check skipped. Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'IEEE-8021.Q' is mentioned on line 236, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'IEEE-8021.D' is mentioned on line 374, but not defined -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IEEE-802' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IEEE-802.1D' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'IEEE-802.1Q' -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3576 (Obsoleted by RFC 5176) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4005 (Obsoleted by RFC 7155) Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 12 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group Paul Congdon 3 INTERNET-DRAFT Mauricio Sanchez 4 Category: Proposed Standard Hewlett-Packard Company 5 Bernard Aboba 6 1 May 2006 Microsoft Corporation 8 RADIUS Attributes for Virtual LAN and Priority Support 10 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 11 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 12 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 13 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 15 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 16 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 17 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 18 Drafts. 20 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 21 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 22 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 23 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 25 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 26 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 28 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 31 This Internet-Draft will expire on November 10, 2006. 33 Copyright Notice 35 Copyright (C) The Internet Society 2006. 37 Abstract 39 This document proposes additional RADIUS (Remote Authentication Dial 40 In User Service) attributes for dynamic Virtual LAN assignment and 41 prioritization, for use in provisioning of access to IEEE 802 local 42 area networks. These attributes are usable within either RADIUS or 43 Diameter. 45 Table of Contents 47 1. Introduction .......................................... 3 48 1.1 Terminology ..................................... 3 49 1.2 Requirements Language ........................... 3 50 1.3 Attribute Interpretation ........................ 3 51 2. Attributes ............................................ 4 52 2.1 Egress-VLANID ................................... 4 53 2.2 Ingress-Filters ................................. 5 54 2.3 Egress-VLAN-Name ................................ 6 55 2.4 User-Priority-Table ............................. 7 56 3. Table of Attributes ................................... 9 57 4. Diameter Considerations ............................... 10 58 5. IANA Considerations ................................... 10 59 6. Security Considerations ............................... 10 60 7. References ............................................ 11 61 7.1 Normative References ............................ 11 62 7.2 Informative References .......................... 11 63 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................. 12 64 AUTHORS' ADDRESSES ........................................... 12 65 Intellectual Property Statement............................... 13 66 Disclaimer of Validity........................................ 13 67 Full Copyright Statement ..................................... 13 68 1. Introduction 70 This document describes Virtual LAN (VLAN) and re-prioritization 71 attributes that may prove useful for provisioning of access to IEEE 72 802 local area networks [IEEE-802] with the Remote Authentication 73 Dialin User Service (RADIUS). 75 While [RFC3580] enables support for VLAN assignment based on the 76 tunnel attributes defined in [RFC2868], it does not provide support 77 for a more complete set of VLAN functionality as defined by 78 [IEEE-802.1Q]. The attributes defined in this document provide 79 support within RADIUS analogous to the management variables supported 80 in [IEEE-802.1Q] and MIB objects defined in [RFC4363]. In addition, 81 this document enables support for a wider range of [IEEE-802.1X] 82 configurations. 84 1.1. Terminology 86 This document uses the following terms: 88 Network Access Server (NAS) 89 A device that provides an access service for a user to a network. 91 1.2. Requirements Language 93 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 94 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 95 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 97 1.3. Attribute Interpretation 99 The attributes described in this document apply to a single instance 100 of a NAS port, or more specifically an IEEE 802.1Q bridge port. 101 [IEEE-802.1Q] [IEEE-802.1D] and [IEEE-802.1X] do not recognize finer 102 management granularity than "per port". In some cases, such as with 103 IEEE 802.11 wireless LANs, the concept of a "virtual port" is used in 104 place of the physical port. Such virtual ports are typically based 105 on security associations and scoped by station, or MAC address. 107 The attributes defined in this document are applied on per user basis 108 and it is expected that there is a single user per port; however in 109 some cases that port may be a "virtual port". If a NAS 110 implementation conforming to this document supports "virtual ports", 111 it may be possible to provision those "virtual ports" with unique 112 values of the attributes described in this document, allowing 113 multiple users sharing the same physical port to each have a unique 114 set of authorization parameters. 116 If a NAS conforming to this specification receives an Access-Accept 117 packet containing an attribute defined in this document which it 118 cannot apply, it MUST act as though it had received an Access-Reject. 119 [RFC3576] requires that a NAS receiving a Change of Authorization 120 Request (CoA-Request) reply with a CoA-NAK if the Request contains an 121 unsupported attribute. It is recommended that an Error-Cause 122 attribute with value set to "Unsupported Attribute" (401) be included 123 in the CoA-NAK. As noted in [RFC3576], authorization changes are 124 atomic so that this situation does not result in session termination 125 and the pre-existing configuration remains unchanged. As a result, 126 no accounting packets should be generated. 128 2. Attributes 130 2.1. Egress-VLANID 132 Description 134 The Egress-VLANID attribute represents an allowed IEEE 802 Egress 135 VLANID for this port, indicating if the VLANID is allowed for 136 tagged or untagged frames as well as the VLANID. 138 As defined in [RFC3580], the VLAN assigned via tunnel attributes 139 applies both to the ingress VLANID for untagged packets (known as 140 the PVID) and the egress VLANID for untagged packets. In 141 contrast, the Egress-VLANID attribute configures only the egress 142 VLANID for either tagged or untagged packets. The Egress-VLANID 143 attribute MAY be included in the same RADIUS packet as [RFC3580] 144 tunnel attributes; however, the Egress-VLANID attribute is not 145 necessary if it is being used to configure the same untagged 146 VLANID included in tunnel attributes. To configure an untagged 147 VLAN for both ingress and egress, the tunnel attrubutes of 148 [RFC3580] MUST be used. 150 Multiple Egress-VLANID attributes MAY be included in Access- 151 Request, Access-Accept, CoA-Request or Accounting-Request packets; 152 this attribute MUST NOT be sent within an Access-Challenge, 153 Access-Reject, Disconnect-Request, Disconnect-ACK, Disconnect-NAK, 154 CoA-ACK or CoA-NAK. Each attribute adds the specified VLAN to the 155 list of allowed egress VLANs for the port. 157 The Egress-VLANID attribute is shown below. The fields are 158 transmitted from left to right: 160 0 1 2 3 161 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 1 162 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 163 | Type | Length | Value 164 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 165 Value (cont) | 166 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 168 Type 170 TBD 172 Length 174 6 176 Value 178 The Value field is four octets. The format is described below: 180 0 1 2 3 181 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 1 182 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 183 | Tag Indic. | Pad | VLANID | 184 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 186 The Tag Indication field is one octet in length, and indicates 187 whether the frames on the VLAN are tagged (0x31) or untagged 188 (0x32). The Pad field is 12-bits in length and MUST be 0 (zero). 189 The VLANID is 12-bits in length and contains the [IEEE-802.1Q] 190 VLAN VID value. 192 2.2. Ingress-Filters 194 Description 196 The Ingress-Filters attribute corresponds to the Ingress Filter 197 per-port variable defined in [IEEE-802.1Q] clause 8.4.5. When the 198 attribute has the value "Enabled", the set of VLANs that are 199 allowed to ingress a port must match the set of VLANs that are 200 allowed to egress a port. Only a single Ingress-Filters attribute 201 MAY be sent within an Access-Request, Access-Accept, CoA-Request 202 or Accounting-Request packet; this attribute MUST NOT be sent 203 within an Access-Challenge, Access-Reject, Disconnect-Request, 204 Disconnect-ACK, Disconnect-NAK, CoA-ACK or CoA-NAK. 206 The Ingress-Filters attribute is shown below. The fields are 207 transmitted from left to right: 209 0 1 2 3 210 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 1 211 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 212 | Type | Length | Value 213 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 214 Value (cont) | 215 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 217 Type 219 TBD 221 Length 223 6 225 Value 227 The Value field is four octets. Supported values include: 229 1 - Enabled 230 2 - Disabled 232 2.3. Egress-VLAN-Name 234 Description 236 Clause 12.10.2.1.3 (a) in [IEEE-8021.Q] describes the 237 administratively assigned VLAN Name associated with a VLAN-ID 238 defined within an IEEE 802.1Q bridge. The Egress-VLAN-Name 239 attribute represents an allowed VLAN for this port. It is similar 240 to the Egress-VLANID attribute, except that the VLAN-ID itself is 241 not specified or known; rather the VLAN name is used to identify 242 the VLAN within the system. 244 The tunnel attributes described in [RFC3580] and the Egress-VLAN- 245 Name attribute both can be used to configure the egress VLAN for 246 untagged packets. These attributes can be used concurrently and 247 MAY appear in the same RADIUS packet. When they do appear 248 concurrently, the list of allowed VLANs is the concatenation of 249 the Egress-VLAN-Name and the Tunnel-Private-Group-ID (81) 250 attributes. The Egress-VLAN-Name attribute does not alter the 251 ingress VLAN for untagged traffic on a port (also known as the 252 PVID). The tunnel attributes from [RFC3580] should be relied upon 253 instead to set the PVID. 255 The Egress-VLAN-Name attribute contains two parts; the first part 256 indicates if frames on the VLAN for this port are to be 257 represented in tagged or untagged format, the second part is the 258 VLAN name. 260 Multiple Egress-VLAN-Name attributes MAY be included within an 261 Access-Request, Access-Accept, CoA-Request or Accounting-Request 262 packet; this attribute MUST NOT be sent within an Access- 263 Challenge, Access-Reject, Disconnect-Request, Disconnect-ACK, 264 Disconnect-NAK, CoA-ACK or CoA-NAK. Each attribute adds the named 265 VLAN to the list of allowed egress VLANs for the port. The 266 Egress-VLAN-Name attribute is shown below. The fields are 267 transmitted from left to right: 269 0 1 2 3 270 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 1 271 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 272 | Type | Length | Tag Indic. | String... 273 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 275 Type 277 TBD 279 Length 281 >=4 283 Tag Indication 285 The Tag Indication field is one octet in length, and indicates 286 whether the frames on the VLAN are tagged (0x31, ASCII '1') or 287 untagged (0x32, ASCII '2'). These values were chosen so as to 288 make them easier for users to enter. 290 String 292 The String field is at least one octet in length, and contains the 293 the VLAN Name as defined in [IEEE-802.1Q] clause 12.10.2.1.3 (a). 294 [RFC3629] UTF-8 encoded 10646 characters are RECOMMENDED, but a 295 robust implementation SHOULD support the field as undistinguished 296 octets. 298 2.4. User-Priority-Table 300 Description 302 [IEEE-802.1D] clause 7.5.1 discusses how to regenerate (or re-map) 303 user priority on frames received at a port. This per-port 304 configuration enables a bridge to cause the priority of received 305 traffic at a port to be mapped to a particular priority. 306 [IEEE-802.1D] clause 6.3.9 describes the use of remapping: 308 The ability to signal user priority in IEEE 802 LANs allows 309 user priority to be carried with end-to-end significance across 310 a Bridged Local Area Network. This, coupled with a consistent 311 approach to the mapping of user priority to traffic classes and 312 of user priority to access_priority, allows consistent use of 313 priority information, according to the capabilities of the 314 Bridges and MACs in the transmission path... 316 Under normal circumstances, user priority is not modified in 317 transit through the relay function of a Bridge; however, 318 network management can control how user priority is propagated. 319 Table 7-1 provides the ability to map incoming user priority 320 values on a per-Port basis. By default, the regenerated user 321 priority is identical to the incoming user priority. 323 This attribute represents the IEEE 802 prioritization that will be 324 applied to frames arriving at this port. There are eight possible 325 user priorities, according to the [IEEE-802] standard. 326 [IEEE-802.1D] clause 14.6.2.3.3 specifies the regeneration table 327 as 8 values, each an integer in the range 0-7. The management 328 variables are described in clause 14.6.2.2. 330 A single User-Priority-Table attribute MAY be included in an 331 Access-Accept or CoA-Request packet; this attribute MUST NOT be 332 sent within an Access-Request, Access-Challenge, Access-Reject, 333 Disconnect-Request, Disconnect-ACK, Disconnect-NAK, CoA-ACK, CoA- 334 NAK or Accounting-Request. Since the regeneration table is only 335 maintained by a bridge conforming to [IEEE-802.1D], this attribute 336 should only be sent to a RADIUS client supporting that 337 specification. 339 The User-Priority-Table attribute is shown below. The fields are 340 transmitted from left to right: 342 0 1 2 3 343 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 1 344 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 345 | Type | Length | String 346 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 347 String 348 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 349 String | 350 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 352 Type 354 TBD 356 Length 358 10 360 String 362 The String field is 8 octets in length, and includes a table which 363 maps the incoming priority (if it is set - the default is 0) into 364 one of eight regenerated priorities. The first octet maps to 365 incoming priority 0, the second octet to incoming priority 1, etc. 366 The values in each octet represent the regenerated priority of the 367 frame. 369 It is thus possible to either remap incoming priorities to more 370 appropriate values; to honor the incoming priorities; or to 371 override any incoming priorities, forcing them to all map to a 372 single chosen priority. 374 The [IEEE-8021.D] specification, Annex G, provides a useful 375 description of traffic type - traffic class mappings. 377 3. Table of Attributes 379 The following table provides a guide to which attributes may be found 380 in which kinds of packets, and in what quantity. 382 Access- Access- Access- Access- CoA- Acct- 383 Request Accept Reject Challenge Req Req # Attribute 384 0+ 0+ 0 0 0+ 0+ TBD Egress-VLANID 385 0-1 0-1 0 0 0-1 0-1 TBD Ingress-Filters 386 0+ 0+ 0 0 0+ 0+ TBD Egress-VLAN-Name 387 0 0-1 0 0 0-1 0 TBD User-Priority-Table 389 The following table defines the meaning of the above table entries. 391 0 This attribute MUST NOT be present in the packet. 392 0+ Zero or more instances of this attribute MAY be 393 present in the packet. 394 0-1 Zero or one instance of this attribute MAY be 395 present in the packet. 397 4. Diameter Considerations 399 Diameter needs to define identical attributes with the same Type 400 values. The attributes should be available as part of the NASREQ 401 application [RFC4005], as well as the Diameter EAP application 402 [RFC4072]. 404 5. IANA Considerations 406 This specification does not create any new registries. 408 This document uses the RADIUS [RFC2865] namespace, see 409 . Allocation of four 410 updates for the section "RADIUS Attribute Types" is requested. The 411 RADIUS attributes for which values are requested are: 413 TBD - Egress-VLANID 414 TBD - Ingress-Filters 415 TBD - Egress-VLAN-Name 416 TBD - User-Priority-Table 418 6. Security Considerations 420 This specification describes the use of RADIUS for purposes of 421 authentication, authorization and accounting in IEEE 802 local area 422 networks. Threats and security issues for this application are 423 described in [RFC3579] and [RFC3580]; security issues encountered in 424 roaming are described in [RFC2607]. 426 This document specifies new attributes that can be included in 427 existing RADIUS packets, which are protected as described in 428 [RFC3579] and [RFC3576]. See those documents for a more detailed 429 description. 431 The security mechanisms described in [RFC3579] and [RFC3576] are 432 focused on preventing an attacker from spoofing packets or modifying 433 packets in transit. They do not prevent an authorized RADIUS server 434 or proxy from inserting attributes with malicious intent. 436 VLAN attributes sent by a RADIUS server or proxy may enable access to 437 unauthorized VLANs. These vulnerabilities can be limited by 438 performing authorization checks at the NAS. For example, a NAS can 439 be configured to accept only certain VLANIDs from a given RADIUS 440 server/proxy. 442 Similarly, an attacker gaining control of a RADIUS server or proxy 443 can modify the user priority table, causing either degradation of 444 quality of service (by downgrading user priority of frames arriving 445 at a port), or denial of service (by raising the level of priority of 446 traffic at multiple ports of a device, oversubscribing the switch or 447 link capabilities). 449 7. References 451 7.1. Normative references 453 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 454 Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March, 1997. 456 [RFC2865] Rigney, C., Rubens, A., Simpson, W. and S. Willens, "Remote 457 Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 2865, June 458 2000. 460 [RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation of ISO 10646", RFC 3629, 461 November 2003. 463 [RFC4363] Levi, D. and D. Harrington, "Definitions of Managed Objects 464 for Bridges with Traffic Classes, Multicast Filtering and 465 Virtual LAN Extensions", RFC 4363, January 2006. 467 [IEEE-802] 468 IEEE Standards for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: 469 Overview and Architecture, ANSI/IEEE Std 802, 1990. 471 [IEEE-802.1D] 472 IEEE Standards for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Media 473 Access Control (MAC) Bridges, IEEE Std 802.1D-2004, June 2004. 475 [IEEE-802.1Q] 476 IEEE Standards for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Draft 477 Standard for Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks, 478 P802.1Q-2003, January 2003. 480 7.2. Informative references 482 [IEEE-802.1X] 483 IEEE Standards for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Port 484 based Network Access Control, IEEE Std 802.1X-2004, December 485 2004. 487 [RFC2607] Aboba, B. and J. Vollbrecht, "Proxy Chaining and Policy 488 Implementation in Roaming", RFC 2607, June 1999. 490 [RFC2868] Zorn, G., Leifer, D., Rubens, A., Shriver, J., Holdrege, M. 491 and I. Goyret, "RADIUS Attributes for Tunnel Protocol 492 Support", RFC 2868, June 2000. 494 [RFC3576] Chiba, M., Dommety, G., Eklund, M., Mitton, D. and B. Aboba, 495 "Dynamic Authorization Extensions to Remote Authentication 496 Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 3576, July 2003. 498 [RFC3579] Aboba, B. and P. Calhoun, "RADIUS Support for Extensible 499 Authentication Protocol (EAP)", RFC 3579, September 2003. 501 [RFC3580] Congdon, P., Aboba, B., Smith, A., Zorn, G., Roese, J., "IEEE 502 802.1X Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) 503 Usage Guidelines", RFC3580, September 2003. 505 [RFC4005] Calhoun, P., Zorn, G., Spence, D. and D. Mitton, "Diameter 506 Network Access Server Application", RFC 4005, August 2005. 508 [RFC4072] Eronen, P., Hiller, T., and G. Zorn, "Diameter Extensible 509 Authentication Protocol (EAP) Application", RFC 4072, August 510 2005. 512 Acknowledgments 514 The authors would like to acknowledge Joseph Salowey of Cisco, David 515 Nelson of Enterasys, Chuck Black of Hewlett Packard, and Ashwin 516 Palekar of Microsoft. 518 Authors' Addresses 520 Paul Congdon 521 Hewlett Packard Company 522 HP ProCurve Networking 523 8000 Foothills Blvd, M/S 5662 524 Roseville, CA 95747 526 EMail: paul.congdon@hp.com 527 Phone: +1 916 785 5753 528 Fax: +1 916 785 8478 530 Mauricio Sanchez 531 Hewlett Packard Company 532 HP ProCurve Networking 533 8000 Foothills Blvd, M/S 5559 534 Roseville, CA 95747 536 EMail: mauricio.sanchez@hp.com 537 Phone: +1 916 785 1910 538 Fax: +1 916 785 1815 539 Bernard Aboba 540 Microsoft Corporation 541 One Microsoft Way 542 Redmond, WA 98052 544 EMail: bernarda@microsoft.com 545 Phone: +1 425 706 6605 546 Fax: +1 425 936 7329 548 Intellectual Property Statement 550 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 551 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 552 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 553 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 554 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 555 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 556 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 557 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 559 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 560 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 561 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 562 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 563 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 564 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 566 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 567 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 568 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 569 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- 570 ipr@ietf.org. 572 Disclaimer of Validity 574 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 575 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 576 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 577 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 578 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 579 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 580 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 582 Copyright Statement 584 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject 585 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 586 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 588 Acknowledgment 590 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 591 Internet Society. 593 Open issues 595 Open issues relating to this specification are tracked on the 596 following web site: 598 http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/