idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-roamops-nai-03.txt: ** The Abstract section seems to be numbered Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Cannot find the required boilerplate sections (Copyright, IPR, etc.) in this document. Expected boilerplate is as follows today (2024-04-25) according to https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info : IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.a: This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 2: Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 3: This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Missing expiration date. The document expiration date should appear on the first and last page. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about Internet-Drafts being working documents. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about 6 months document validity -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of current Internet-Drafts. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of Shadow Directories. == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 4 longer pages, the longest (page 2) being 66 lines == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form feeds but 4 pages Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Line 13 has weird spacing: '...ments of the...' == Line 14 has weird spacing: '...tribute work-...' == Line 18 has weird spacing: '...and may be u...' == Line 19 has weird spacing: '...e. It is i...' == Line 22 has weird spacing: '... please check...' == (36 more instances...) -- 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.) -- The document date (May 22, 1997) is 9835 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) == Missing Reference: '9' is mentioned on line 114, but not defined == Unused Reference: '2' is defined on line 144, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '3' is defined on line 148, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '4' is defined on line 151, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-03) exists of draft-ietf-roamops-imprev-02 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-roamops-imprev (ref. '1') ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2058 (ref. '2') (Obsoleted by RFC 2138) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2059 (ref. '3') (Obsoleted by RFC 2139) -- Unexpected draft version: The latest known version of draft-ietf-http-v11-spec is -06, but you're referring to -07. Summary: 13 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 13 warnings (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 ROAMOPS Working Group Bernard Aboba 3 INTERNET-DRAFT Microsoft 4 Category: Standards Track 5 6 May 22, 1997 8 The Network Access Identifier 10 1. Status of this Memo 12 This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working docu- 13 ments of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and 14 its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute work- 15 ing documents as Internet-Drafts. 17 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 18 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 19 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 20 material or to cite them other than as ``work in progress.'' 22 To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the 23 ``1id-abstracts.txt'' listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow 24 Directories on ds.internic.net (US East Coast), nic.nordu.net 25 (Europe), ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast), or munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim). 27 The distribution of this memo is unlimited. It is filed as and expires January 1, 1998. Please send 29 comments to the authors. 31 2. Abstract 33 In order to enhance the interoperability of roaming and tunneling ser- 34 vices, it is desirable to have a standardized method for identifying 35 users. This document proposes syntax for the Network Access Identifier 36 (NAI). It is expected that this will be of interest for support of 37 roaming as well as tunneling. "Roaming capability" may be loosely 38 defined as the ability to use any one of multiple Internet service 39 providers (ISPs), while maintaining a formal, customer-vendor rela- 40 tionship with only one. Examples of cases where roaming capability 41 might be required include ISP "confederations" and ISP-provided cor- 42 porate network access support. 44 3. Introduction 46 Considerable interest has arisen recently in a set of features that 47 fit within the general category of "roaming capability" for dialup 48 Internet users. Interested parties have included: 50 Regional Internet Service Providers (ISPs) operating within a 51 particular state or province, looking to combine their efforts 52 with those of other regional providers to offer dialup service 53 over a wider area. 55 National ISPs wishing to combine their operations with those of 56 one or more ISPs in another nation to offer more comprehensive 57 dialup service in a group of countries or on a continent. 59 Businesses desiring to offer their employees a comprehensive 60 package of dialup services on a global basis. Those services may 61 include Internet access as well as secure access to corporate 62 intranets via a Virtual Private Network (VPN), enabled by tunnel- 63 ing protocols such as PPTP, L2F and L2TP. 65 In order to enhance the interoperability of roaming and tunneling ser- 66 vices, it is desirable to have a standardized method for identifying 67 users. This document proposes syntax for the Network Access Identifier 68 (NAI). Methods for authentication routing or determination of tunnel 69 server endpoints will be addressed in future documents. 71 3.1. Terminology 73 This document frequently uses the following terms: 75 Network Access Identifier 76 The Network Access Identifier (NAI) is the userID submitted 77 by the client during PPP authentication. In roaming, the 78 purpose of the NAI is to identify the user as well as to 79 assist in the routing of the authentication request. Please 80 note that the NAI may not necessarily be the same as the 81 user's e-mail address or the userID submitted in an applica- 82 tion layer authentication. 84 Network Access Server 85 The Network Access Server (NAS) is the device that clients 86 dial in order to get access to the network. In PPTP termi- 87 nology this is referred to as the PPTP Access Concentrator 88 (PAC), and in L2TP terminology, it is referred to as the 89 L2TP Access Concentrator (LAC). 91 3.2. Purpose 93 As described in [1], there are now at least five services implementing 94 dialup roaming, and the number of Internet Service Providers involved 95 in roaming consortia is increasing rapidly. 97 In order to be able to offer roaming capability, one of the require- 98 ments is to be able to identify the user's home authentication server. 99 For use in roaming, this function is accomplished via the Network 100 Access Identifier (NAI) submitted by the user to the NAS in the ini- 101 tial PPP authentication. It is also expected that PACs and LACs will 102 use the NAI as part of the process of opening a new tunnel, in order 103 to determine the tunnel endpoint. 105 4. Formal Definition of the NAI 107 As proposed in this document, the Network Access Identifer is of the 108 form user@domain, where the domain is a fully qualified domain name 109 (FQDN). 111 4.1. BNF for the NAI 113 The grammar for the NAI is given below, using the augmented BNF nota- 114 tion described in reference [9]. 116 NAI = USERNAME "@" FQDN 117 FQDN = token "." token *[ "." token ] 118 USERNAME = token 120 Examples of valid Network Access Identifiers include: 122 fred@bigco.com 123 nancy@eng.bigco.edu 125 Examples of invalid Network Access Identifiers include: 127 bigco 128 howard.edu 129 fred@bigco.com@smallco.com 130 bigco!fred@smallco.com 131 bigco%fred@smallco.com 133 5. Acknowledgements 135 Thanks to Glen Zorn of Microsoft for many useful discussions of this 136 problem space. 138 6. References 140 [1] B. Aboba, J. Lu, J. Alsop, J. Ding, W. Wang. "Review of Roaming 141 Implementations." Work in progress, draft-ietf-roamops-imprev-02.txt, 142 Microsoft, Aimnet, i-Pass Alliance, Asiainfo, Merit, May, 1997. 144 [2] C. Rigney, A. Rubens, W. Simpson, S. Willens. "Remote Authenti- 145 cation Dial In User Service (RADIUS)." RFC 2058, Livingston, Merit, 146 Daydreamer, January, 1997. 148 [3] C. Rigney. "RADIUS Accounting." RFC 2059, Livingston, January, 149 1997. 151 [4] R. Fielding, et al. "Hypertext Transfer Protocol - HTTP/1.1." 152 draft-ietf-http-v11-spec-07, UC Irvine, August, 1996. 154 7. Authors' Addresses 156 Bernard Aboba 157 Microsoft Corporation 158 One Microsoft Way 159 Redmond, WA 98052 161 Phone: 206-936-6605 162 EMail: bernarda@microsoft.com