idnits 2.17.1 draft-wu-hokey-ldn-discovery-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** You're using the IETF Trust Provisions' Section 6.b License Notice from 12 Sep 2009 rather than the newer Notice from 28 Dec 2009. (See https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/) -- The document has an IETF Trust Provisions (28 Dec 2009) Section 6.c(ii) Publication Limitation clause. If this document is intended for submission to the IESG for publication, this constitutes an error. 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 (February 10, 2010) is 5182 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) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3315 (Obsoleted by RFC 8415) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5296 (Obsoleted by RFC 6696) Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 2 comments (--). 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: August 14, 2010 Y. Wang 6 Huawei 7 February 10, 2010 9 The Local Domain Name DHCP Option 10 draft-wu-hokey-ldn-discovery-01 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 (DHCP) 20 option designed to allow a DHCP server to inform clients of the name 21 of the local domain.. 23 Status of This Memo 25 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the 26 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may not be modified, 27 and derivative works of it may not be created, and it may not be 28 published except as an Internet-Draft. 30 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 31 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 32 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 33 Drafts. 35 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 36 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 37 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 38 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 40 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 41 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 43 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 44 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 46 This Internet-Draft will expire on August 14, 2010. 48 Copyright Notice 49 Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 50 document authors. All rights reserved. 52 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 53 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 54 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 55 publication of this document. Please review these documents 56 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 57 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 58 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 59 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 60 described in the BSD License. 62 Table of Contents 64 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 66 3. Option Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 67 3.1. DHCPv6 Local Domain Name Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 68 4. Appearance of the Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 5. Client Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 70 6. Relay Agent Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 71 7. Server Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 72 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 73 9. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 74 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 75 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 76 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 78 1. Introduction 80 The EAP Re-authentication Protocol (ERP) [RFC5296] is designed to 81 allow faster re-authentication of a mobile device which was 82 previously authenticated by means of the Extensible Authentication 83 Protocol (EAP, [RFC3748]. Considering that the local root key (e.g., 84 DSRK [RFC5295]) is generated using the local domain name (LDN), LDN 85 discovery is an important part of re-authentication. As described in 86 RFC 5296 [RFC5296], the local domain name can be learned by the 87 mobile device through the ERP exchange or via a lower-layer 88 mechanism. However, no lower-layer mechanisms for LDN discovery have 89 yet been defined. 91 This document specifies an extension to DHCP for local domain name 92 discovery. 94 2. Terminology 96 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 97 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 98 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 100 3. Option Format 102 In DHCPv6-based local domain name discovery, the LDN option is used 103 by the DHCPv6 client (MD) to obtain the local domain name from the 104 DHCP Server after full EAP authentication has taken place. 106 3.1. DHCPv6 Local Domain Name Option 108 The format of this option is: 110 0 1 2 3 111 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 1 112 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 113 | OPTION_LOCAL_DOMAIN_NAME | option-length | 114 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 115 | local-domain-name ... 116 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 118 Figure 1 120 option code OPTION_LOCAL_DOMAIN_NAME (TBD) 122 option-length Length of the 'local domain name' field in octets 123 local-domain-name This field contains the name of the local domain 124 and MUST be encoded as specified in Section "8 of RFC 3315 125 [RFC3315] 127 4. Appearance of the Option 129 The LDN option MUST NOT appear in DHCPv6 messages other than the 130 types Solicit, Advertise, Request, Information-Request and Reply. 131 The option-code of the LDN option MAY be included in the Option 132 Request Option in the DHCPv6 message types Solicit, Request and 133 Information-Request. 135 5. Client Behavior 137 If a DHCPv6 client (MD) doesn't know the local domain name and 138 requires the DHCP Server to provide the DHCPv6 LDN option, it MUST 139 include an Option Request option requesting the DHCPv6 LDN option, as 140 described in Section 22.7 of RFC 3315 [RFC3315]. 142 When the DHCPv6 client recieves a LDN option with the local domain 143 name present in it, it MUST verify that the option length is no more 144 than 256 octets (the maximum length of a single FQDN allowed by DNS), 145 and that the local domain name is a properly encoded single FQDN, as 146 specified in Section 8 "Representation and Use of Domain Names" of 147 the RFC3315 [RFC3315]. 149 6. Relay Agent Behavior 151 If a DHCPv6 relay agent has pre-existing knowledge of the local 152 domain name (for example, from a previous AAA exchange), it SHOULD 153 include it in the DHCPv6 LDN option and forward to the DHPv6 server. 155 7. Server Behavior 157 If the option code for the LDN option is included in an Option 158 Request option, the server SHOULD return the DHCPv6 LDN option to the 159 client. If a DHCPv6 LDN option is received from a relay agent with a 160 non-empty local-domain-name field, the server SHOULD extract this 161 option and include it in the reply message. 163 8. Security Considerations 165 The communication between the DHCP client and the DHCP server for the 166 exchange of local domain name information is security sensitive and 167 requires authentication, integrity and replay protection. Either 168 lower-layer security (such as link layer security established as part 169 of the network access authentication protocol run) or DHCP security 170 [RFC3118] can be used. 172 9. IANA considerations 174 IANA is requested to allocate one DHCPv6 Option code, referencing 175 this document. 177 10. References 179 10.1. Normative References 181 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 182 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 184 [RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., 185 and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for 186 IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003. 188 [RFC5295] Salowey, J., Dondeti, L., Narayanan, V., and M. Nakhjiri, 189 "Specification for the Derivation of Root Keys from an 190 Extended Master Session Key (EMSK)", RFC 5295, 191 August 2008. 193 [RFC5296] Narayanan, V. and L. Dondeti, "EAP Extensions for EAP Re- 194 authentication Protocol (ERP)", RFC 5296, August 2008. 196 10.2. Informative References 198 [RFC3118] Droms, R. and W. Arbaugh, "Authentication for DHCP 199 Messages", RFC 3118, June 2001. 201 [RFC3748] Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J., and H. 202 Levkowetz, "Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)", 203 RFC 3748, June 2004. 205 Authors' Addresses 207 Glen Zorn 208 Network Zen 209 1463 East Republican Street 210 Seattle, Washington 98112 211 USA 213 Phone: +1 206 931 0768 214 EMail: gwz@net-zen.net 215 Qin Wu 216 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. 217 Site B, Floor 12, Huihong Mansion, No.91 Baixia Rd. 218 Nanjing, Jiangsu 21001 219 China 221 Phone: +86-25-84565892 222 EMail: sunseawq@huawei.com 224 Yungui Wang 225 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. 226 Site B, Floor 10, HuiHong Mansion, No.91 BaiXia Rd. 227 Nanjing, Jiangsu 210001 228 P.R. China 230 Phone: +86 25 84565893 231 EMail: w52006@huawei.com