idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-radext-vlan-06.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 632. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 609. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 616. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 622. ** 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 245, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'IEEE-8021.D' is mentioned on line 383, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'RFC 3588' is mentioned on line 429, but not defined ** Obsolete undefined reference: RFC 3588 (Obsoleted by RFC 6733) == Missing Reference: 'RFC 4005' is mentioned on line 448, but not defined ** Obsolete undefined reference: RFC 4005 (Obsoleted by RFC 7155) == Missing Reference: 'RFC 4072' is mentioned on line 436, but not defined ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3588 (Obsoleted by RFC 6733) -- 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: 6 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 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 11 June 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 December 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 ............................. 8 56 3. Table of Attributes ................................... 9 57 4. Diameter Considerations ............................... 10 58 5. IANA Considerations ................................... 10 59 6. Security Considerations ............................... 11 60 7. References ............................................ 12 61 7.1 Normative References ............................ 12 62 7.2 Informative References .......................... 12 63 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................. 13 64 AUTHORS' ADDRESSES ........................................... 13 65 Intellectual Property Statement............................... 14 66 Disclaimer of Validity........................................ 14 67 Full Copyright Statement ..................................... 14 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) or Diameter. 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 and Diameter analogous to the management 80 variables supported in [IEEE-802.1Q] and MIB objects defined in 81 [RFC4363]. In addition, this document enables support for a wider 82 range of [IEEE-802.1X] 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. 90 Also known as a RADIUS client. 92 RADIUS server 93 A RADIUS authentication server is an entity that provides an 94 authentication service to a NAS. 96 RADIUS proxy 97 A RADIUS proxy acts as an authentication server to the NAS, and a 98 RADIUS client to the RADIUS server. 100 1.2. Requirements Language 102 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 103 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 104 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 106 1.3. Attribute Interpretation 108 The attributes described in this document apply to a single instance 109 of a NAS port, or more specifically an IEEE 802.1Q bridge port. 110 [IEEE-802.1Q] [IEEE-802.1D] and [IEEE-802.1X] do not recognize finer 111 management granularity than "per port". In some cases, such as with 112 IEEE 802.11 wireless LANs, the concept of a "virtual port" is used in 113 place of the physical port. Such virtual ports are typically based 114 on security associations and scoped by station, or MAC address. 116 The attributes defined in this document are applied on per user basis 117 and it is expected that there is a single user per port; however in 118 some cases that port may be a "virtual port". If a NAS 119 implementation conforming to this document supports "virtual ports", 120 it may be possible to provision those "virtual ports" with unique 121 values of the attributes described in this document, allowing 122 multiple users sharing the same physical port to each have a unique 123 set of authorization parameters. 125 If a NAS conforming to this specification receives an Access-Accept 126 packet containing an attribute defined in this document which it 127 cannot apply, it MUST act as though it had received an Access-Reject. 128 [RFC3576] requires that a NAS receiving a Change of Authorization 129 Request (CoA-Request) reply with a CoA-NAK if the Request contains an 130 unsupported attribute. It is recommended that an Error-Cause 131 attribute with value set to "Unsupported Attribute" (401) be included 132 in the CoA-NAK. As noted in [RFC3576], authorization changes are 133 atomic so that this situation does not result in session termination 134 and the pre-existing configuration remains unchanged. As a result, 135 no accounting packets should be generated. 137 2. Attributes 139 2.1. Egress-VLANID 141 Description 143 The Egress-VLANID attribute represents an allowed IEEE 802 Egress 144 VLANID for this port, indicating if the VLANID is allowed for 145 tagged or untagged frames as well as the VLANID. 147 As defined in [RFC3580], the VLAN assigned via tunnel attributes 148 applies both to the ingress VLANID for untagged packets (known as 149 the PVID) and the egress VLANID for untagged packets. In 150 contrast, the Egress-VLANID attribute configures only the egress 151 VLANID for either tagged or untagged packets. The Egress-VLANID 152 attribute MAY be included in the same RADIUS packet as [RFC3580] 153 tunnel attributes; however, the Egress-VLANID attribute is not 154 necessary if it is being used to configure the same untagged 155 VLANID included in tunnel attributes. To configure an untagged 156 VLAN for both ingress and egress, the tunnel attrubutes of 157 [RFC3580] MUST be used. 159 Multiple Egress-VLANID attributes MAY be included in Access- 160 Request, Access-Accept, CoA-Request or Accounting-Request packets; 161 this attribute MUST NOT be sent within an Access-Challenge, 162 Access-Reject, Disconnect-Request, Disconnect-ACK, Disconnect-NAK, 163 CoA-ACK or CoA-NAK. Each attribute adds the specified VLAN to the 164 list of allowed egress VLANs for the port. 166 The Egress-VLANID attribute is shown below. The fields are 167 transmitted from left to right: 169 0 1 2 3 170 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 1 171 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 172 | Type | Length | Value 173 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 174 Value (cont) | 175 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 177 Type 179 TBD 181 Length 183 6 185 Value 187 The Value field is four octets. The format is described below: 189 0 1 2 3 190 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 1 191 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 192 | Tag Indic. | Pad | VLANID | 193 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 195 The Tag Indication field is one octet in length, and indicates 196 whether the frames on the VLAN are tagged (0x31) or untagged 197 (0x32). The Pad field is 12-bits in length and MUST be 0 (zero). 198 The VLANID is 12-bits in length and contains the [IEEE-802.1Q] 199 VLAN VID value. 201 2.2. Ingress-Filters 203 Description 205 The Ingress-Filters attribute corresponds to the Ingress Filter 206 per-port variable defined in [IEEE-802.1Q] clause 8.4.5. When the 207 attribute has the value "Enabled", the set of VLANs that are 208 allowed to ingress a port must match the set of VLANs that are 209 allowed to egress a port. Only a single Ingress-Filters attribute 210 MAY be sent within an Access-Request, Access-Accept, CoA-Request 211 or Accounting-Request packet; this attribute MUST NOT be sent 212 within an Access-Challenge, Access-Reject, Disconnect-Request, 213 Disconnect-ACK, Disconnect-NAK, CoA-ACK or CoA-NAK. 215 The Ingress-Filters attribute is shown below. The fields are 216 transmitted from left to right: 218 0 1 2 3 219 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 1 220 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 221 | Type | Length | Value 222 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 223 Value (cont) | 224 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 226 Type 228 TBD 230 Length 232 6 234 Value 236 The Value field is four octets. Supported values include: 238 1 - Enabled 239 2 - Disabled 241 2.3. Egress-VLAN-Name 243 Description 245 Clause 12.10.2.1.3 (a) in [IEEE-8021.Q] describes the 246 administratively assigned VLAN Name associated with a VLAN-ID 247 defined within an IEEE 802.1Q bridge. The Egress-VLAN-Name 248 attribute represents an allowed VLAN for this port. It is similar 249 to the Egress-VLANID attribute, except that the VLAN-ID itself is 250 not specified or known; rather the VLAN name is used to identify 251 the VLAN within the system. 253 The tunnel attributes described in [RFC3580] and the Egress-VLAN- 254 Name attribute both can be used to configure the egress VLAN for 255 untagged packets. These attributes can be used concurrently and 256 MAY appear in the same RADIUS packet. When they do appear 257 concurrently, the list of allowed VLANs is the concatenation of 258 the Egress-VLAN-Name and the Tunnel-Private-Group-ID (81) 259 attributes. The Egress-VLAN-Name attribute does not alter the 260 ingress VLAN for untagged traffic on a port (also known as the 261 PVID). The tunnel attributes from [RFC3580] should be relied upon 262 instead to set the PVID. 264 The Egress-VLAN-Name attribute contains two parts; the first part 265 indicates if frames on the VLAN for this port are to be 266 represented in tagged or untagged format, the second part is the 267 VLAN name. 269 Multiple Egress-VLAN-Name attributes MAY be included within an 270 Access-Request, Access-Accept, CoA-Request or Accounting-Request 271 packet; this attribute MUST NOT be sent within an Access- 272 Challenge, Access-Reject, Disconnect-Request, Disconnect-ACK, 273 Disconnect-NAK, CoA-ACK or CoA-NAK. Each attribute adds the named 274 VLAN to the list of allowed egress VLANs for the port. The 275 Egress-VLAN-Name attribute is shown below. The fields are 276 transmitted from left to right: 278 0 1 2 3 279 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 1 280 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 281 | Type | Length | Tag Indic. | String... 282 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 284 Type 286 TBD 288 Length 290 >=4 292 Tag Indication 294 The Tag Indication field is one octet in length, and indicates 295 whether the frames on the VLAN are tagged (0x31, ASCII '1') or 296 untagged (0x32, ASCII '2'). These values were chosen so as to 297 make them easier for users to enter. 299 String 301 The String field is at least one octet in length, and contains the 302 the VLAN Name as defined in [IEEE-802.1Q] clause 12.10.2.1.3 (a). 303 [RFC3629] UTF-8 encoded 10646 characters are RECOMMENDED, but a 304 robust implementation SHOULD support the field as undistinguished 305 octets. 307 2.4. User-Priority-Table 309 Description 311 [IEEE-802.1D] clause 7.5.1 discusses how to regenerate (or re-map) 312 user priority on frames received at a port. This per-port 313 configuration enables a bridge to cause the priority of received 314 traffic at a port to be mapped to a particular priority. 315 [IEEE-802.1D] clause 6.3.9 describes the use of remapping: 317 The ability to signal user priority in IEEE 802 LANs allows 318 user priority to be carried with end-to-end significance across 319 a Bridged Local Area Network. This, coupled with a consistent 320 approach to the mapping of user priority to traffic classes and 321 of user priority to access_priority, allows consistent use of 322 priority information, according to the capabilities of the 323 Bridges and MACs in the transmission path... 325 Under normal circumstances, user priority is not modified in 326 transit through the relay function of a Bridge; however, 327 network management can control how user priority is propagated. 328 Table 7-1 provides the ability to map incoming user priority 329 values on a per-Port basis. By default, the regenerated user 330 priority is identical to the incoming user priority. 332 This attribute represents the IEEE 802 prioritization that will be 333 applied to frames arriving at this port. There are eight possible 334 user priorities, according to the [IEEE-802] standard. 335 [IEEE-802.1D] clause 14.6.2.3.3 specifies the regeneration table 336 as 8 values, each an integer in the range 0-7. The management 337 variables are described in clause 14.6.2.2. 339 A single User-Priority-Table attribute MAY be included in an 340 Access-Accept or CoA-Request packet; this attribute MUST NOT be 341 sent within an Access-Request, Access-Challenge, Access-Reject, 342 Disconnect-Request, Disconnect-ACK, Disconnect-NAK, CoA-ACK, CoA- 343 NAK or Accounting-Request. Since the regeneration table is only 344 maintained by a bridge conforming to [IEEE-802.1D], this attribute 345 should only be sent to a RADIUS client supporting that 346 specification. 348 The User-Priority-Table attribute is shown below. The fields are 349 transmitted from left to right: 351 0 1 2 3 352 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 1 353 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 354 | Type | Length | String 355 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 356 String 357 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 358 String | 359 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 361 Type 363 TBD 365 Length 367 10 369 String 371 The String field is 8 octets in length, and includes a table which 372 maps the incoming priority (if it is set - the default is 0) into 373 one of eight regenerated priorities. The first octet maps to 374 incoming priority 0, the second octet to incoming priority 1, etc. 375 The values in each octet represent the regenerated priority of the 376 frame. 378 It is thus possible to either remap incoming priorities to more 379 appropriate values; to honor the incoming priorities; or to 380 override any incoming priorities, forcing them to all map to a 381 single chosen priority. 383 The [IEEE-8021.D] specification, Annex G, provides a useful 384 description of traffic type - traffic class mappings. 386 3. Table of Attributes 388 The following table provides a guide to which attributes may be found 389 in which kinds of packets, and in what quantity. 391 Access- Access- Access- Access- CoA- Acct- 392 Request Accept Reject Challenge Req Req # Attribute 393 0+ 0+ 0 0 0+ 0+ TBD Egress-VLANID 394 0-1 0-1 0 0 0-1 0-1 TBD Ingress-Filters 395 0+ 0+ 0 0 0+ 0+ TBD Egress-VLAN-Name 396 0 0-1 0 0 0-1 0 TBD User-Priority-Table 398 The following table defines the meaning of the above table entries. 400 0 This attribute MUST NOT be present in the packet. 401 0+ Zero or more instances of this attribute MAY be 402 present in the packet. 403 0-1 Zero or one instance of this attribute MAY be 404 present in the packet. 406 4. Diameter Considerations 408 When used in Diameter, the attributes defined in this specification 409 can be used as Diameter AVPs from the Code space 1-255 (RADIUS 410 attribute compatibility space). No additional Diameter Code values 411 are therefore allocated. The data types and flag rules for the 412 attributes are as follows: 414 +---------------------+ 415 | AVP Flag rules | 416 |----+-----+----+-----|----+ 417 | | |SHLD| MUST| | 418 Attribute Name Value Type |MUST| MAY | NOT| NOT|Encr| 419 -------------------------------|----+-----+----+-----|----| 420 Egress-VLANID OctetString| M | P | | V | Y | 421 Ingress-Filters Enumerated | M | P | | V | Y | 422 Egress-VLAN-Name UTF8String | M | P | | V | Y | 423 User-Priority-Table OctetString| M | P | | V | Y | 424 -------------------------------|----+-----+----+-----|----| 426 The attributes in this specification have no special translation 427 requirements for Diameter to RADIUS or RADIUS to Diameter gateways; 428 they are copied as is, except for changes relating to headers, 429 alignment, and padding. See also [RFC 3588] Section 4.1 and [RFC 430 4005] Section 9. 432 What this specification says about the applicability of the 433 attributes for RADIUS Access-Request packets applies in Diameter to 434 AA-Request [RFC 4005] or Diameter-EAP-Request [RFC 4072]. What is 435 said about Access-Challenge applies in Diameter to AA-Answer [RFC 436 4005] or Diameter-EAP-Answer [RFC 4072] with Result-Code AVP set to 437 DIAMETER_MULTI_ROUND_AUTH. 439 What is said about Access-Accept applies in Diameter to AA-Answer or 440 Diameter-EAP-Answer messages that indicate success. Similarly, what 441 is said about RADIUS Access-Reject packets applies in Diameter to AA- 442 Answer or Diameter-EAP-Answer messages that indicate failure. 444 What is said about COA-Request applies in Diameter to Re-Auth-Request 445 [RFC 4005]. 447 What is said about Accounting-Request applies to Diameter Accounting- 448 Request [RFC 4005] as well. 450 5. IANA Considerations 452 This specification does not create any new registries. 454 This document uses the RADIUS [RFC2865] namespace, see 455 . Allocation of four 456 updates for the section "RADIUS Attribute Types" is requested. The 457 RADIUS attributes for which values are requested are: 459 TBD - Egress-VLANID 460 TBD - Ingress-Filters 461 TBD - Egress-VLAN-Name 462 TBD - User-Priority-Table 464 6. Security Considerations 466 This specification describes the use of RADIUS and Diameter for 467 purposes of authentication, authorization and accounting in IEEE 802 468 local area networks. RADIUS threats and security issues for this 469 application are described in [RFC3579] and [RFC3580]; security issues 470 encountered in roaming are described in [RFC2607]. For Diameter, the 471 security issues relating to this application are described in 472 [RFC4005] and [RFC4072]. 474 This document specifies new attributes that can be included in 475 existing RADIUS packets, which are protected as described in 476 [RFC3579] and [RFC3576]. In Diameter, the attributes are protected 477 as specified in [RFC3588]. See those documents for a more detailed 478 description. 480 The security mechanisms supported in RADIUS and Diameter are focused 481 on preventing an attacker from spoofing packets or modifying packets 482 in transit. They do not prevent an authorized RADIUS/Diameter server 483 or proxy from inserting attributes with malicious intent. 485 VLAN attributes sent by a RADIUS/Diameter server or proxy may enable 486 access to unauthorized VLANs. These vulnerabilities can be limited 487 by performing authorization checks at the NAS. For example, a NAS 488 can be configured to accept only certain VLANIDs from a given 489 RADIUS/Diameter server/proxy. 491 Similarly, an attacker gaining control of a RADIUS/Diameter server or 492 proxy can modify the user priority table, causing either degradation 493 of quality of service (by downgrading user priority of frames 494 arriving at a port), or denial of service (by raising the level of 495 priority of traffic at multiple ports of a device, oversubscribing 496 the switch or link capabilities). 498 7. References 500 7.1. Normative references 502 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 503 Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March, 1997. 505 [RFC2865] Rigney, C., Rubens, A., Simpson, W. and S. Willens, "Remote 506 Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 2865, June 507 2000. 509 [RFC3588] Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G. and J. Arkko, 510 "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, September 2003. 512 [RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation of ISO 10646", RFC 3629, 513 November 2003. 515 [RFC4363] Levi, D. and D. Harrington, "Definitions of Managed Objects 516 for Bridges with Traffic Classes, Multicast Filtering and 517 Virtual LAN Extensions", RFC 4363, January 2006. 519 [IEEE-802] 520 IEEE Standards for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: 521 Overview and Architecture, ANSI/IEEE Std 802, 1990. 523 [IEEE-802.1D] 524 IEEE Standards for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Media 525 Access Control (MAC) Bridges, IEEE Std 802.1D-2004, June 2004. 527 [IEEE-802.1Q] 528 IEEE Standards for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Draft 529 Standard for Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks, 530 P802.1Q-2003, January 2003. 532 7.2. Informative references 534 [IEEE-802.1X] 535 IEEE Standards for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Port 536 based Network Access Control, IEEE Std 802.1X-2004, December 537 2004. 539 [RFC2607] Aboba, B. and J. Vollbrecht, "Proxy Chaining and Policy 540 Implementation in Roaming", RFC 2607, June 1999. 542 [RFC2868] Zorn, G., Leifer, D., Rubens, A., Shriver, J., Holdrege, M. 543 and I. Goyret, "RADIUS Attributes for Tunnel Protocol 544 Support", RFC 2868, June 2000. 546 [RFC3576] Chiba, M., Dommety, G., Eklund, M., Mitton, D. and B. Aboba, 547 "Dynamic Authorization Extensions to Remote Authentication 548 Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 3576, July 2003. 550 [RFC3579] Aboba, B. and P. Calhoun, "RADIUS Support for Extensible 551 Authentication Protocol (EAP)", RFC 3579, September 2003. 553 [RFC3580] Congdon, P., Aboba, B., Smith, A., Zorn, G., Roese, J., "IEEE 554 802.1X Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) 555 Usage Guidelines", RFC3580, September 2003. 557 [RFC4005] Calhoun, P., Zorn, G., Spence, D. and D. Mitton, "Diameter 558 Network Access Server Application", RFC 4005, August 2005. 560 [RFC4072] Eronen, P., Hiller, T., and G. Zorn, "Diameter Extensible 561 Authentication Protocol (EAP) Application", RFC 4072, August 562 2005. 564 Acknowledgments 566 The authors would like to acknowledge Joseph Salowey of Cisco, David 567 Nelson of Enterasys, Chuck Black of Hewlett Packard, and Ashwin 568 Palekar of Microsoft. 570 Authors' Addresses 572 Paul Congdon 573 Hewlett Packard Company 574 HP ProCurve Networking 575 8000 Foothills Blvd, M/S 5662 576 Roseville, CA 95747 578 EMail: paul.congdon@hp.com 579 Phone: +1 916 785 5753 580 Fax: +1 916 785 8478 582 Mauricio Sanchez 583 Hewlett Packard Company 584 HP ProCurve Networking 585 8000 Foothills Blvd, M/S 5559 586 Roseville, CA 95747 588 EMail: mauricio.sanchez@hp.com 589 Phone: +1 916 785 1910 590 Fax: +1 916 785 1815 591 Bernard Aboba 592 Microsoft Corporation 593 One Microsoft Way 594 Redmond, WA 98052 596 EMail: bernarda@microsoft.com 597 Phone: +1 425 706 6605 598 Fax: +1 425 936 7329 600 Intellectual Property Statement 602 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 603 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 604 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 605 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 606 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 607 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 608 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 609 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 611 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 612 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 613 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 614 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 615 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 616 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 618 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 619 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 620 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 621 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- 622 ipr@ietf.org. 624 Disclaimer of Validity 626 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 627 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 628 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 629 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 630 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 631 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 632 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 634 Copyright Statement 636 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject 637 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 638 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 640 Acknowledgment 642 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 643 Internet Society. 645 Open issues 647 Open issues relating to this specification are tracked on the 648 following web site: 650 http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/