[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits] [IPR]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 RFC 5296

Network Working Group                                       V. Narayanan
Internet-Draft                                                L. Dondeti
Intended status: Standards Track                          QUALCOMM, Inc.
Expires: January 7, 2008                                    July 6, 2007


                    EAP Re-authentication Extensions
                        draft-ietf-hokey-erx-02

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 7, 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

Abstract

   The extensible authentication protocol (EAP) is a generic framework
   supporting multiple types of authentication methods.  In the most
   common deployment scenario, a peer and server authenticate each other
   through an authenticator; the server sends the master session key
   (MSK) to the authenticator so that the peer and the authenticator can
   establish a security association for per-packet access enforcement.
   It is desirable to not repeat the entire process of authentication
   when the peer moves to another authenticator.  This document



Narayanan & Dondeti      Expires January 7, 2008                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                     ERX                         July 2007


   specifies, EAP Reauthentication Extensions (ERX), extensions to EAP
   and EAP keying hierarchy to support a EAP method-independent protocol
   for efficient Re-authentication between the peer and the server
   through an authenticator.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  ERP Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     3.1.  ERP with a Local ER Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  ER Key Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.1.  Key Derivations and Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       4.1.1.  rRK Derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       4.1.2.  rRK Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       4.1.3.  rIK Derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       4.1.4.  rIK Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       4.1.5.  rMSK Derivation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       4.1.6.  rMSK Properties  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   5.  Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.1.  ERP Bootstrapping  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       5.1.1.  ERP Bootstrapping with a Local ER Server . . . . . . . 14
     5.2.  EAP Reauth Protocol  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       5.2.1.  Failure Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     5.3.  New EAP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
       5.3.1.  EAP Initiate Re-auth Packet  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
       5.3.2.  EAP Finish Re-auth Packet  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       5.3.3.  TV and TLV Attributes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     5.4.  Replay Protection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     5.5.  Channel Binding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
   8.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   Appendix A.  Example ERP Exchange  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 32











Narayanan & Dondeti      Expires January 7, 2008                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                     ERX                         July 2007


1.  Introduction

   The extensible authentication protocol (EAP) is a generic framework
   for transport of methods that authenticate two parties; the
   authentication is either one-way or mutual.  The primary purpose is
   network access control, and a key generating method is recommended to
   enforce access control.  The EAP keying hierarchy defines two keys
   that are derived at the top level - the master session key (MSK) and
   the extended MSK (EMSK).  In the most common deployment scenario, a
   peer and a server authenticate each other through a third party known
   as the authenticator.  The authenticator or an entity controlled by
   the authenticator enforces access control.  After successful
   authentication, the server transports the MSK to the authenticator;
   the authenticator and the peer derive transient session keys (TSK)
   using the MSK as the authentication key or a key derivation key and
   use the TSK for per-packet access enforcement.

   When a peer moves from one authenticator to another, it is desirable
   to avoid full EAP authentication.  The full EAP exchange with another
   run of the EAP method takes several round trips and significant time
   to complete, causing delays in handoff times.  Some methods specify
   the use of state from the initial authentication to optimize Re-
   authentications by reducing the computational overhead, but method-
   specific Re-authentication takes at least 2 roundtrips in most cases
   (e.g., [7]).  It is also important to note that many methods do not
   offer support for Re-authentication.  Thus, it is beneficial to have
   efficient Re-authentication support in EAP rather than in individual
   methods.

   Key sharing across authenticators is sometimes used as a practical
   solution to lower handoff times.  In that case, compromise of any
   authenticator results in compromise of several more EAP sessions than
   for instance in case of 802.11r based systems.

   In conclusion, there is a need to design an efficient EAP Re-
   authentication mechanism that allows a fresh key to be established
   between the peer and an authenticator without having to execute the
   EAP method again.  The EAP Re-authentication problem statement is
   described in detail in [8].

   This document specifies EAP Reauthentication Extensions (ERX) for
   efficient re-authentication using EAP.  The EAP Reauthentication
   Protocol (ERP) based on ERX supports EAP method independent Re-
   authentication for a peer that has valid, unexpired key material from
   a previously performed EAP authentication.  The protocol and the key
   hierarchy required for EAP Reauthentication is described in this
   document.




Narayanan & Dondeti      Expires January 7, 2008                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                     ERX                         July 2007


2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1].

   This document uses terminology defined in [2] and in [3].  In
   addition, this document uses the following terms:

      ER peer - An EAP peer that supports the EAP Reauth protocol

      ER Authenticator - An entity that supports the authenticator
      functionality for EAP Reauthentication described in this document.
      All references to "authenticator" in this document imply an ER
      authenticator, unless specifically noted otherwise.

      ER Server - An entity that performs the server portion of ERP
      described here.  This entity may or may not be an EAP server.

      rRK - Re-authentication root Key, derived from the EMSK or DSRK.

      rIK - Re-authentication Integrity Key, derived from the rRK.

      rMSK - Re-authentication MSK.  This is a per-authenticator key,
      derived from the rRK.


3.  ERP Overview

   Figure 1 shows the protocol exchange.  The first time the peer
   attaches to an authenticator, it performs a full EAP exchange with
   the EAP server; as a result an MSK is distributed to the
   authenticator.  The MSK is then used by the authenticator and the
   peer to generate TSKs as needed.  At the time of the initial EAP
   exchange, the peer and the server derive a Re-authentication Root Key
   (rRK).  As noted below, the rRK may be derived from the EMSK or from
   a Domain Specific Root Key (DSRK).  The rRK is only available to the
   peer and the ER server and is never handed out to any other entity.
   Further, a Re-authentication Integrity Key (rIK) is derived from the
   rRK; the peer uses the rIK to provide proof of possession while
   performing an ERP exchange at a later time.  The rIK is also never
   handed out to any entity and is only available to the peer and
   server.

   At the time of the first EAP exchange, the peer may obtain a
   server-id (either from the EAP method or via an out-of-band mechanism
   from the server) for use in a subsequent exchange.  The EAP Reauth
   protocol supports explicit bootstrapping using which a server ID can



Narayanan & Dondeti      Expires January 7, 2008                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                     ERX                         July 2007


   be obtained by the peer.  Alternatively, the peer may simply use a
   key name to identify the full EAP session.  Particularly, when the ER
   state is duplicated among the different backend entities, a server ID
   is not required.  The server caches the rRK and rIK for the peer,
   along with a key name.


   Peer               Authenticator                   Server
   ====               =============                   ======

    <--- EAP Request/ ------
            Identity

    ----- EAP Response/ --->
            Identity          ---EAP Response/Identity-->

    <------------ EAP Method exchange------------------->

                              <----MSK, EAP Success------

    <---EAP Success---------


   Peer               Authenticator                   Server
   ====               =============                   ======

    [<-- EAP Request/ ------
           Identity]


    ---- EAP Initiate/ ----> ----EAP Initiate/ ---------->
           Reauth/                  Reauth/
          [Bootstrap]              [Bootstrap]

    <--- EAP Finish/ ------> <---rMSK,EAP Finish/---------
           Reauth/                   Reauth/
         [Bootstrap]               [Bootstrap]


                          Figure 1: ERP Exchange

   When the peer subsequently identifies a target authenticator that
   supports EAP Reauthentication, it performs an ERP exchange, as shown
   in the figure above as well; the exchange itself may happen when the
   peer attaches to a new authenticator supporting EAP Reauthentication,
   or prior to attachment.  The peer may initiate ERP by itself, or in
   response to an EAP Request Identity from the new authenticator.




Narayanan & Dondeti      Expires January 7, 2008                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                     ERX                         July 2007


   ERX adds two new messages to EAP: EAP Initiate and EAP Finish
   messages.  The peer sends an EAP Initiate Re-auth message; it
   includes peer-id and the server-id and/or a temporary NAI based on
   the rIKname, and a sequence number for replay protection.  The EAP
   Initiate Re-auth message is integrity protected with the rIK.  The
   authenticator routes this message to the server indicated by the
   server-id.  If a server-id is not present, the message is routed
   based on the rIKname when it is in the form of an NAI, and if rIK
   name is also not present, the message is routed based on the peer-id.
   The server uses the rIKname or the peer-id in that order to lookup
   the rIK.  If a server-id is present, the Authenticator MUST use that
   identity in the AAA message so that AAA proxies route the message to
   the correct server.  If the server-id is not present, the
   Authenticator uses NAI-based routing.  The server, after verifying
   proof of possession of the rIK, and freshness of the message, derives
   a Re-authentication MSK (rMSK) from the rRK using the sequence number
   as an input to the key derivation.

   In response to the EAP Initiate Re-auth message, the server sends an
   EAP Finish Re-auth message; this message is integrity protected with
   the rIK.  The server transports the rMSK along with this message to
   the authenticator.  The rMSK is transported in a manner similar to
   that of the MSK along with the EAP Success message in a full EAP
   exchange.

   In an ERP bootstrap exchange, the peer may request the rRK lifetime
   to be sent to it.  If so, the ER server sends the lifetime along with
   the EAP Finish Re-auth message.

   The peer verifies the replay protection and the origin of the
   message.  It then uses the sequence number in the EAP Finish Re-auth
   message to compute the rMSK.  The lower layer security association
   protocol is ready to be triggered after this point.

3.1.  ERP with a Local ER Server

   The defined ER extensions allow executing the ERP with a local ER
   server that may be topologically closer to the authenticator.  The
   local ER server may be collocated with a local AAA server.  The peer
   may learn about the presence of a local ER server in the network and
   the local domain (or ER server) name either via the lower layer or by
   means of ERP bootstrapping.  Figure 2 shows the full EAP and
   subsequent local ERP exchange with a local ER server.








Narayanan & Dondeti      Expires January 7, 2008                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                     ERX                         July 2007


 Peer           Authenticator        Local Server         Home Server
 ====           =============        ==========           ===========

    <-- EAP Request/ -----
          Identity

    --- EAP Response/ --->
          Identity           --EAP Response/-->
                                 Identity      --EAP Response/Identity->
                                                [DSRK Req, Domain name]

    <------------------------ EAP Method exchange------------------>

                                          <---MSK, DSRK, EAP Success--

                     <---MSK, EAP Success--

  <---EAP Success---


 Peer               Authenticator            Local Server
 ====               =============            ============

   [<-- EAP Request/ ----
          Identity]


   --- EAP Initiate/ --->  ---- EAP Initiate/ ----->
         Reauth/                  Reauth/

   <-- EAP Finish/ ------  <---rMSK,EAP Finish/-----
         Reauth/                   Reauth/


                       Figure 2: Local ERP Exchange

   As shown in Figure 2, the local ER server may be present in the path
   of the full EAP exchange (e.g., this may be one of the AAA entities
   in the path between the authenticator and the home EAP server of the
   peer).  In that case, at the end of a full authentication exchange,
   the DSRK may be provided to the local ER server.  Alternatively, the
   DSRK can be obtained at the time of an ERP bootstrap exchange with
   the home server.  The local ER server then computes a DS-rRK and a
   DS-rIK (and the appropriate key names) from the DSRK as defined in
   Section 4.1.1 and Section 4.1.3 below.  The peer also derives the
   DSRK, followed by the DS-rRK and the DS-rIK (and the appropriate key
   names) following the EAP or ERP bootstrap exchange.




Narayanan & Dondeti      Expires January 7, 2008                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                     ERX                         July 2007


   Subsequently, when the peer attaches to an authenticator within the
   local ER domain, it may perform an ERP exchange with the local ER
   server to obtain an rMSK for the new authenticator.


4.  ER Key Hierarchy

   We define a key hierarchy for ER, rooted at the rRK, and derived as a
   result of a full EAP exchange.  The rRK may be derived from an EMSK
   or DSRK as specified in this document.  For the purpose of rRK
   derivation, this document derives a Usage Specific Root Key (USRK) or
   a Domain Specific USRK (DS-USRK) in accordance with [3] for
   Reauthentication.  The USRK designated for Re-authentication is the
   Re-authentication root key (rRK).  A DS-USRK deisgnated for Re-
   authentication is the DS-rRK available to a local ER server in a
   particular domain.  For simplicity, the keys are referred to without
   the DS label in the rest of the document.  However, the scope of the
   various keys are limited to just the respective domains they are
   derived for, in the case of the domain specific keys.  Based on the
   ER server with which the peer performs the ERP exchange, it knows the
   corresponding keys that must be used.

   The rRK is used to derive a rIK and one or more rMSKs.  The figure
   below shows the key hierarchy with the rRK, rIK and rMSKs.


             rRK
              |
     +--------+--------+
     |        |        |
    rIK     rMSK1 ...rMSKn


                 Figure 3: Re-authentication Key Hierarchy

4.1.  Key Derivations and Properties

4.1.1.  rRK Derivation

   The rRK may be derived from the EMSK or DSRK.  This section provides
   the relevant key derivations for that purpose.

   The rRK is derived using the prf+ operation defined in RFC4306 [4] as
   follows.

   rRK = prf+ (K, S), where,





Narayanan & Dondeti      Expires January 7, 2008                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                     ERX                         July 2007


      K = EMSK or K = DSRK and

      S = rRK Label

   The rRK Label is an IANA-assigned ASCII string "EAP Re-authentication
   Root Key" assigned from the Key Label name space in accordance with
   [3].  This document specifies IANA registration for the rRK label
   above.

   The PRF used MAY be the same as that used by the EAP method - using
   the PRF from the EAP method provides algorithm agility.  Otherwise,
   the default PRF used is HMAC-SHA-256.

   Along with the rRK, a unique rRK name is derived to identify the rRK.

   The rRK name is derived as follows.

   rRK_name = prf-64 (rRK, "rRK Name")

   where prf-64 is the first 64 bits from the output of the PRF.  The
   PRF is the same as that used in the derivation of the rRK.

4.1.2.  rRK Properties

   The rRK has the following properties.  These properties apply to the
   rRK regardless of the parent key used to derive it.

   o  The length of the rRK MUST at least be equal to the length of the
      EMSK or DSRK derived by the corresponding EAP session.

   o  The rRK is to be used only as a root key for Re-authentication and
      never used to directly protect any data.

   o  The rRK is only used for derivation of rIK and rMSK as specified
      in this document.

   o  The rRK must remain on the peer and the server that derived it and
      MUST NOT be transported to any other entity.

   o  The rRK is cryptographically separate from any other key derived
      from its parent key.

   o  The lifetime of the rRK is never greater than that of its parent
      key.  The rRK is expired when the parent key expires and removed
      from use at that time.






Narayanan & Dondeti      Expires January 7, 2008                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                     ERX                         July 2007


4.1.3.  rIK Derivation

   The Re-authentication Integrity Key (rIK) is used for integrity
   protecting the ERP exchange.  This serves as the proof of possession
   of valid keying material from a previous full EAP exchange by the
   peer to the server.

   The rIK is derived from the rRK as follows.

   rIK = prf+ (rRK, "Re-authentication Integrity Key")

   The PRF used MAY be the same as that used by the EAP method - using
   the PRF from the EAP method provides algorithm agility.  Otherwise,
   the default PRF used is HMAC-SHA-256.

   The rIKname is derived as follows.

   rIK_name = prf-64 (rRK, "rIKname")

   where prf-64 is the first 64 bits from the output of the PRF.  The
   PRF is the same as that used in the derivation of the rIK.

4.1.4.  rIK Properties

   The rIK has the following properties.

   o  The length of the rIK MUST be equal to the length of the rRK.

   o  The rIK is only used for authentication of the ERP exchange as
      specified in this document.

   o  The rIK MUST NOT be used to derive any other keys.

   o  The rIK must remain on the peer and the server and MUST NOT be
      transported to any other entity.

   o  The rIK is cryptographically separate from any other keys derived
      from the rRK.

   o  The lifetime of the rIK is never greater than that of its parent
      key.  The rIK is expired when the EMSK expires and removed from
      use at that time.

4.1.5.  rMSK Derivation

   The rMSK is derived at the peer and server and delivered to the
   authenticator.  The rMSK is derived following an EAP Reauth protocol
   exchange.



Narayanan & Dondeti      Expires January 7, 2008               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                     ERX                         July 2007


   The rMSK is derived from the rRK as follows.

   rMSK = prf+ (rRK, SEQ), where

   The SEQ is the sequence number sent by the peer in the EAP Initiate
   Re-auth message.

   The PRF may be specified in the EAP Re-auth message.  The default PRF
   used is HMAC-SHA-256.

   The rMSK name is derived as follows.

   rMSK_name = prf-64 (rRK, "rMSK Name")

   where prf-64 is the first 64 bits from the output of the PRF.  The
   PRF may be specified in the EAP Re-auth message.

4.1.6.  rMSK Properties

   The rMSK has the following properties:

   o  The length of the rMSK SHOULD be the same as that of the MSK
      derived earlier in the EAP session at the time of the full EAP
      exchange.  The length of the rMSK MUST be at least 64 octets in
      length.

   o  The rMSK is delivered to the authenticator and is used for the
      same purposes that an MSK is used at an authenticator.

   o  The rMSK is cryptographically separate from any other keys derived
      from the rRK.

   o  The lifetime of the rMSK is less than or equal to that of the rRK.
      It MUST NOT be greater than the lifetime of the rRK.

   o  If a new rRK is derived, subsequent rMSKs must be derived from the
      new rRK.  Previously delivered rMSKs may still be used until the
      expiry of the lifetime.

   o  A given rMSK MUST NOT be shared by multiple authenticators.


5.  Protocol Description

   ERP allows a peer and server to verify proof of possession of keying
   material from an earlier EAP method run and establish a security
   association between the peer and an authenticator.  The authenticator
   acts as a pass-through entity for the Reauth protocol in a manner



Narayanan & Dondeti      Expires January 7, 2008               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                     ERX                         July 2007


   similar to that described in RFC 3748 [2].  ERP is a single roundtrip
   exchange between the peer and the server; it is independent of the
   lower layer and the EAP method used during the full EAP exchange.
   Finally, it is feasible to execute this protocol between a peer and a
   target authenticator via a current authenticator, on lower layers
   that allow it.

5.1.  ERP Bootstrapping

   The first time the peer attaches to an authenticator, it performs a
   full EAP exchange, which results in the MSK being distributed to the
   authenticator.  The MSK is then used by the authenticator as defined
   by specific lower layers.  At the time of the initial EAP exchange,
   the peer and the server also derive an EMSK.  Next, the peer and the
   server derive the rRK and the rIK as soon as the EMSK is available
   with the anticipation that ERP may be used by the peer if it plans to
   move to a new authenticator.  The rIKname is also derived to serve as
   the index to the rIK to process ERP messages.

   We identify two types of bootstrapping for ERP: explicit and implicit
   bootstrapping.  There are at least two scenarios to consider for Re-
   authentication.  When the Re-auth messages are routed to the target
   domain, they may or may not be routed to the server that holds the
   rRK and the rIK.  This is not an issue when there is a single ER
   server in the domain or when the state is synchronized across all
   servers in the domain.  In that case, the peer does not need to know
   the identity of the server that holds the Re-authentication keys.
   There is also the case of the peer knowing the server id through
   other means, say via the EAP method or through out of band
   mechanisms.  In those cases, ER bootstrapping is implicit.  The peer
   initiates an ERP exchange only when it moves from one authenticator
   to another.

   The peer may initiate an explicit ER bootstrapping exchange if the
   server id is not available or if it is not known that the server id
   is valid or when it is not known that the server state is
   synchronized.  In this case, the peer initiates the EAP Re-auth
   exchange, with the bootstrapping flag turned on, immediately after
   the full EAP authentication finishes.  The following steps summarize
   the process:

   o  The peer sends the EAP Initiate Re-auth message with the
      bootstrapping flag turned on.  It is recommended that the
      authenticator hold on to the state (e.g., called station id in
      RADIUS) that allows all messages of a full EAP conversation to be
      routed to the same server.  The EAP Initiate Re-auth message
      contains one or more TLVs containing identification information to
      assist the authenticator further in routing the message to the



Narayanan & Dondeti      Expires January 7, 2008               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                     ERX                         July 2007


      appropriate server -- in this case to the server that holds the
      EMSK, rRK and rIK.

      *  It is mandatory to send the rIKname either by itself, or as
         part of an NAI.  The authenticator may use the NAI to route the
         EAP Re-auth Bootstrap Initiate message.

      *  When the rIKname is not in the form of an NAI, the peer-id may
         be included.  The peer-id may be in the form of a pseudonym for
         identity privacy.

   o  In addition to the identities, the message contains a sequence
      number for replay protection, a crypto-suite, and an integrity
      checksum.  The crypto-suite indicates the authentication
      algorithm.  The integrity checksum indicates that the message
      originated at the claimed entity, the peer indicated by the
      peer-id, or the rIKname.

   o  The peer may additionally set the lifetime flag to request that
      the rRK lifetime be sent to it.

   o  When an ERP capable authenticator receives EAP Initiate Re-auth
      message from a peer, it looks for local EAP forwarding state
      corresponding to the peer's lower layer address and forwards the
      message accordingly.  This forwarding is similar to that of
      messages of an EAP conversation.  It is RECOMMENDED that an ERP
      capable authenticator store that forwarding information for a
      finite amount of time after the EAP Success message has been sent
      to the peer.

      *  In the absence of forwarding state, the authenticator parses
         the message for the server-id.  If that is present, the message
         is forwarded via AAA to that server.

      *  If a server-id is not present, the authenticator parses the EAP
         Initiate Re-auth message to locate the rIKname, and if the
         rIKname is in the NAI form, uses that domain name to forward
         the message.

      *  Otherwise, it finds the peer-id and uses the realm portion of
         the peer-id to route the EAP message to the appropriate server.

   o  Upon receipt of an EAP Initiate Re-auth message, the server
      verifies whether the message is fresh or a replay by evaluating
      whether the received sequence number is equal to or greater than
      the expected sequence number for that rIK.  Next, it verifies the
      origin authentication of the message by looking up the rIK.  If
      any of the checks fail, the server sends an EAP Finish Re-auth



Narayanan & Dondeti      Expires January 7, 2008               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                     ERX                         July 2007


      message with the relevant error value.  This error MUST NOT have
      any correlation on any EAP Success message that may have been
      received by the authenticator and the peer earlier.  If the
      message is well-formed and valid, the server prepares the EAP
      Finish Re-auth message.  The bootstrap flag is set to indicate
      that this is a bootstrapping exchange.  The message contains the
      following fields:

      *  one or more server identities so that the peer can reach a
         server for Re-authentication through authenticators other than
         the initial authenticator.  It is plausible that no server-id
         TLVs exist in the EAP Finish Re-auth message.  In that case, it
         is assumed that server side state is replicated in all the
         servers in the corresponding domain.

      *  A sequence number for replay protection.

      *  The rIKname so that the peer can correctly identify the rIK to
         verify the integrity and origin authentication of the Finish
         message.

      *  If the lifetime flag was set in the EAP Initiate Re-auth
         message, the ER server SHOULD include the rRK lifetime in the
         EAP Finish Re-auth message.

      *  An authentication tag to prove that the EAP Finish Re-auth
         message originates at a server that possesses the relevant rIK.

      *  An rMSK sent along with the EAP Finish Re-auth message, in a
         AAA attribute.

   Since the ER bootstrapping exchange is typically done immediately
   following the full EAP exchange, it is feasible that the process is
   completed through the same entity that served as the EAP
   authenticator for the full EAP exchange.  In this case, the lower
   layer may already have derived the TSKs based on the MSK received
   earlier.  The lower layer may then choose to ignore the rMSK that was
   received with the ER bootstrapping exchange.  This must be negotiated
   at the lower layer to ensure appropriate action at the peer and
   authenticator.  However, the bootstrapping exchange may be carried
   out via a new authenticator, in which case, the rMSK received is used
   by the lower layer.

5.1.1.  ERP Bootstrapping with a Local ER Server

   When a local ER server is present, it may be in the path of the full
   EAP exchange performed by the peer.  In this case, the local ER
   server SHOULD include a request for DSRK and its domain or server



Narayanan & Dondeti      Expires January 7, 2008               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                     ERX                         July 2007


   name along with the AAA message encapsulating the first EAP Response
   message sent by the peer.  If the EAP exchange is successful, the
   server sends a DSRK (for the local ER server) along with the EAP
   Success message.  The local ER server MUST extract the DSRK, if
   present, before forwarding the EAP Success message to the peer [9].
   Note that the MSK (also present along with the EAP Success message)
   is still extracted by the authenticator as usual.

   If the peer performs an ERP bootstrapping exchange when a local ER
   server is present, the local ER server MUST include the DSRK request
   and its domain name in the AAA message encapsulating the EAP Initiate
   Re-auth message sent by the peer.  If the exchange is successful, the
   home ER server MUST include a DSRK along with the EAP Finish Re-auth
   message.  The local ER server MUST extract the DSRK, if present,
   before forwarding the EAP Finish Re-auth message to the peer.

   When the server receives an EAP Initiate Re-auth message with the
   bootstrap flag set along with a DSRK request, it SHOULD return the
   domain or local ER server ID to which the DSRK was sent, in the EAP
   Finish Re-auth message.  The other processing rules for the ERP
   bootstrapping exchange apply as well.

   When the peer receives an EAP Finish Re-auth message with the
   bootstrap flag set, if a local domain or server ID is present, it
   MUST use that to derive the appropriate DSRK, DS-rRK and DS-rIK.  If
   not, the peer SHOULD derive the domain specific keys using the domain
   name it learnt via the lower layer.  If the peer has no available
   domain name, it must assume that there is no local ER server
   available.

   The RADIUS attributes required to carry the DSRK request, local
   domain name and the DSRK itself along with the encapsulated EAP
   messages are specified in [9].

5.2.  EAP Reauth Protocol

   When a peer that has an active rRK and rIK identifies a new/target
   authenticator that supports ERX, it may perform an ERP exchange
   either in advance or when it attaches to the new authenticator
   supporting ERX.  ERP is typically a peer-initiated exchange,
   consisting of an EAP Initiate Re-auth and an EAP Finish Re-auth
   message.  The ERP exchange may be performed with a local ER server
   (when one is present) or with the original EAP server.

   It is plausible for the network to trigger the EAP Re-authentication
   process however.  When an ERP capable authenticator sends an EAP
   Request Identity the peer may in response initiate the EAP Re-
   authentication exchange.



Narayanan & Dondeti      Expires January 7, 2008               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft                     ERX                         July 2007


   Notes on authenticator state machine:

   The authenticator state machine needs to be modified to consider the
   EAP Re-authentication exchange as a "response" to the EAP Request
   Identity and transfer the state machine to follow the EAP Re-
   authentication exchange and determine Success or Failure of the
   exchange based on whether the EAP Finish Re-auth message is a Success
   or Failure.  The authenticator MUST consider that it has received a
   response to the EAP Request Identity and cancel the corresponding
   retransmission timer.

   Operational Considerations at the Peer:

   ERP requires that the peer maintain retransmission timers for
   reliable transport of EAP Re-authentication messages.  The
   reliability considerations of Section 4.3 of RFC 3748 apply with the
   peer as the retransmitting entity.

   The EAP Reauth protocol has the following steps:

      The peer sends an EAP Initiate Re-auth message including one or
      more identity TLVs: the rIKname, and optionally the peer-id and/or
      the server-id; also included are the peer's rIK sequence number,
      and a crypto-suite indicating the cryptographic algorithms used.
      The message is integrity protected with the rIK.  When the peer is
      performing ERP with a local ER server, it MUST use the
      corresponding DS-rIK it shares with the local ER server.  The peer
      sets the lifetime flag to request the rRK lifetime from the
      server.  It may learn this to know when to trigger an EAP method
      exchange.

      The authenticator routes the EAP Initiate Re-auth message to the
      server indicated by the server-id.  If the server-id is not
      present, the rIKname, if in the form of an NAI MUST be used to
      route the message.  If neither the server-id nor the rIKname in
      the form of NAI are present, the peer-id MUST be used to forward
      the message via AAA.

      The server uses the rIKname to lookup the rIK.  It first verifies
      whether the sequence number is equal to or greater than the
      expected sequence number.  The server then proceeds to verify the
      integrity of the message using the rIK, thereby verifying proof of
      possession of that key by the peer.  If the verifications fail,
      the server sends an EAP Finish Re-auth message with the Result
      flag set to '1' (Failure).  Otherwise, it computes an rMSK from
      the rRK using the sequence number as the additional input to the
      key derivation.




Narayanan & Dondeti      Expires January 7, 2008               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft                     ERX                         July 2007


      The server then sends an EAP Finish Re-auth message containing the
      rIK sequence number and the rIKname.  The sequence number MUST be
      same as the received sequence number.  The local copy of the
      sequence number is incremented by 1.  The EAP Finish Re-auth
      message is also integrity protected with the rIK.  The server may
      include the server-id with this message.

      If the lifetime flag was set in the EAP Initiate Re-auth message,
      the ER server SHOULD include the rRK lifetime in the EAP Finish
      Re-auth message.

      The server transports the rMSK along with this message to the
      authenticator.  The rMSK is transported in a manner similar to the
      MSK transport along with the EAP Success message in a regular EAP
      exchange.

      The peer looks up the sequence number to verify whether it is
      expecting a EAP Finish Re-auth message with that sequence number.
      It then looks up the rIKname and verifies the integrity of the
      message.  This also verifies the proof of possession of the rIK at
      the server.  If the verifications fail, the peer logs an error and
      stops the process; otherwise, it proceeds to the next step.

      The peer uses the sequence number to compute the rMSK.

      The lower layer security association protocol can be triggered at
      this point.

5.2.1.  Failure Handling

   If the processing of the EAP Initiate Re-auth message results in a
   failure, the ER server MUST send an EAP Finish Re-auth message with
   the Result flag set to '1'.  If the server has a valid rIK for the
   peer, it MUST integrity protect the EAP Finish Re-auth failure
   message.

   The peer, upon receiving an EAP Finish Re-auth message with the
   Result flag set to '1', MUST verify the sequence number and the
   Authentication Tag to determine the validity of the message.  If the
   replay and integrity checks are successful, the peer MUST assume
   failure of the exchange and terminate the ER state machine.  If the
   replay and/or integrity checks fail, it may mean that the server did
   not have the rIK for the peer or that the failure message was sent by
   an attacker.  Hence, in this case, the peer SHOULD continue the ERP
   exchange per the retransmission timers before declaring a failure.






Narayanan & Dondeti      Expires January 7, 2008               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft                     ERX                         July 2007


5.3.  New EAP Messages

   Two new EAP messages are defined for the purpose of ERP: EAP Initiate
   Re-auth and EAP Finish Re-auth.  The packet format for these messages
   follows the EAP packet format defined in RFC3748 [2].


   0                   1                   2                   3
   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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Code      |  Identifier   |            Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Type      |  Type-Data ...
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-


                  Figure 4: EAP Re-authentication Packet

      Code

         5 Initiate

         6 Finish

         Two new code values are defined for the purpose of ERP.  The
         code values itself are TBD based on IANA assignment.

      Identifier

         The Identifier field is one octet.  The Identifier field MUST
         be the same if a Initiate Re-auth packet is retransmitted due
         to a timeout while waiting for a Finish message.  Any new (non-
         retransmission) Initiate message MUST use a new Identifier
         field.

         The Identifier field of the Finish Re-auth message MUST match
         that of the currently outstanding Initiate Re-auth message.  A
         Peer or Authenticator receiving a Finish Re-auth message whose
         Identifier value does not match that of the currently
         outstanding Initiate Re-auth message MUST silently discard the
         packet.

         In order to avoid confusion between new EAP Initiate Re-auth
         messages and retransmissions, the peer must choose a an
         Identifier value that is different from the previous Initiate
         message, especially if that exchange has not finished.  It is
         RECOMMENDED that the authenticator clear EAP Re-auth state
         after 300 seconds.



Narayanan & Dondeti      Expires January 7, 2008               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft                     ERX                         July 2007


      Type

         This field indicates that this is an ERP exchange.  One type is
         defined in this document for this purpose - Re-auth (assigned
         Type 1).

      Type-Data

         The Type-Data field varies with the Type of Re-authentication
         packet.

5.3.1.  EAP Initiate Re-auth Packet

   The EAP Initiate Re-auth packet contains the parameters shown in
   Figure 5 :


   0                   1                   2                   3
   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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Code      |  Identifier   |            Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Type      |R|B|L| Reserved|             SEQ               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 1 or more TVs or TLVs                         ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Crypto-Suite  |        Authentication Tag                     ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                   Figure 5: EAP Initiate Re-auth Packet

      Flags



         'R' - The R flag is set to 0 and ignored upon reception.

         'B' - The B flag is used as the bootstrapping flag.  If the
         flag is turned on, the message is a bootstrap message.

         'L' - The L flag is used to request the rRK lifetime from the
         server.

         The rest of the 5 bits are set to 0 and ignored on reception.






Narayanan & Dondeti      Expires January 7, 2008               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft                     ERX                         July 2007


      SEQ: A 16-bit sequence number is used for replay protection.  The
      SEQ number field is initialized to zero every time a new rRK is
      derived.

      TVs or TLVs: In the TV payloads, there is a 1-octet type payload
      and a value with type-specific length.  In the TLV payloads, there
      is a 1-octet type payload and a 1-octet length payload.  The
      length field indicates the length of the value expressed in number
      of octets.

         rIKname: This is carried in a TV payload.  The Type is 1 and
         the value is a 64-bit field computed as specified in Section
         Section 4.1.3 and is used to identify the rIK with which the
         ERP messages are protected.

         rIKname as NAI: This is carried in a TLV payload.  The Type is
         2.  The NAI is variable in length, not exceeding 256 octets.
         If the rIK is derived from the EMSK, the realm part of the NAI
         is the home domain name and if the rIK is derived from a DSRK,
         the realm part of the NAI is the domain name used in the
         derivation of the DSRK.

         Peer-Id: This is a TLV payload.  The Type is 3.  The Peer-Id is
         the NAI of the peer, and is variable in length, not exceeding
         256 octets.

         Server-Id: This is a TLV payload.  The Type is 4.  The
         Server-Id is the FQDN of the server; it is variable in length,
         not exceeding 256 octets.  Other types of server IDs such as IP
         addresses may be considered in future revisions of the draft.
         ER capable authenticators SHOULD use this field to route the
         EAP Initiate Re-auth Packet.  If local policy dictates
         otherwise, the packet may be routed based on the peer-Id.

         Authenticator Identifier: This is a TLV payload.  The Type is
         TBD (see Section 5.5 for additional discussion).  The server
         sends the Authenticator Identifier so that the peer can verify
         the identity seen at the lower layer, if channel binding is to
         be supported.

      Crypto Suite: This field indicates the integrity and if necessary
      the encryption algorithm used for ERP.  Key lengths and output
      lengths are either indicated or are obvious from the crypto suite
      name.







Narayanan & Dondeti      Expires January 7, 2008               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft                     ERX                         July 2007


      Authentication Tag: This field contains the integrity checksum
      over the ERP packet.  The length of the field is indicated by the
      Crypto Suite.

5.3.1.1.  Peer Operation

   When an ER capable peer receives an EAP Request Identity message from
   an Authenticator, it checks to see if it has valid EAP state from a
   previous EAP authentication.  If the peer has state from a previous
   authentication, and if it knows that the Authenticator is ER capable,
   it sends an EAP Initiate Re-auth message instead of an EAP Response
   Identity message.  The peer may, upon attachment to an authenticator
   send an EAP Initiate Re-auth message in an unsolicited manner.

5.3.1.2.  Authenticator Operation

   An ER capable Authenticator looks for the server ID in the EAP
   Initiate Re-auth message to route the packet to the correct server.
   This is the RECOMMENDED mode of operation.

   The appropriate domain may be available as part of the rIKName.

   The Authenticator sends the message just as it forwards other EAP
   messages to the EAP server.

5.3.1.3.  Server Operation

   The server uses the following steps in processing EAP Re-
   authentication messages:

      The server uses the rIKname to lookup the rIK.  It first verifies
      whether the sequence number is equal to or greater than the
      expected sequence number.  The server then proceeds to verify the
      integrity of the message using the rIK, thereby verifying proof of
      possession of that key by the peer.  If the verifications fail,
      the server sends an EAP Finish Re-auth message with a Failure
      indication.  Otherwise, it computes an rMSK from the rRK using the
      sequence number.

5.3.2.  EAP Finish Re-auth Packet

   The EAP Finish Re-auth packet contains the parameters shown in
   Figure 6 :








Narayanan & Dondeti      Expires January 7, 2008               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft                     ERX                         July 2007


   0                   1                   2                   3
   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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Code      |  Identifier   |            Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Type      |R|B|L| Reserved |             SEQ               ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 1 or more TVs or TLVs                         ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Crypto-Suite  |        Authentication Tag                     ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                    Figure 6: EAP Finish Re-auth Packet

      Flags



         'R' - The R flag is used as the Result flag - when set to 0, it
         indicates success and when set to '1', it indicates a failure.

         'B' - The B flag is used as the bootstrapping flag.  If the
         flag is turned on, the message is a bootstrap message.

         'L' - The L flag is used to indicate the presence of the rRK
         lifetime TLV.

         The rest of the 5 bits are set to 0 and ignored on reception.

      SEQ: A 16-bit sequence number is used for replay protection.  The
      SEQ number field is initialized to zero every time a new rRK is
      derived.

      TVs or TLVs: In the TV payloads, there is a 1-octet type payload
      and a value with type-specific length.  In the TLV payloads, there
      is a 1-octet type payload and a 1-octet length payload.  The
      length field indicates the length of the value expressed in number
      of octets.

         rIKname: This is carried in a TV payload.  The Type is 1 and
         the value is a 64-bit field computed as specified in Section
         Section 4.1.3 and is used to identify the rIK with which the
         ERP messages are protected.







Narayanan & Dondeti      Expires January 7, 2008               [Page 22]

Internet-Draft                     ERX                         July 2007


         rIKname as NAI: This is carried in a TLV payload.  The Type is
         2.  The NAI is variable in length, not exceeding 256 octets.
         If the rIK is derived from the EMSK, the realm part of the NAI
         is the home domain name and if the rIK is derived from a DSRK,
         the realm part of the NAI is the domain name used in the
         derivation of the DSRK.

         Peer-Id: This is a TLV payload.  The Type is 3.  The Peer-Id is
         the NAI of the peer, and is variable in length, not exceeding
         256 octets.

         Server-Id: This is a TLV payload.  The Type is 4.  The
         Server-Id is the FQDN of the server; it is variable in length,
         not exceeding 256 octets.  Other types of server IDs such as IP
         addresses may be considered in future revisions of the draft.

         Authenticator Identifier: This is a TLV payload.  The Type is
         TBD (see Section 5.5 for additional discussion).  The server
         sends the Authenticator Identifier so that the peer can verify
         the identity seen at the lower layer, if channel binding is to
         be supported.

      Crypto Suite: This field indicates the integrity and if necessary
      the encryption algorithm used for ERP.  Key lengths and output
      lengths are either indicated or are obvious from the crypto suite
      name.

      Authentication Tag: This field contains the integrity checksum
      over the ERP packet.  The length of the field is indicated by the
      Crypto Suite.

5.3.2.1.  Server Operation

   The server then sends an EAP Finish Re-auth message containing the
   rIK sequence number, and the rIKname; this message is also integrity
   protected with the rIK.  The server may include one or more server-
   ids with this message.  The server-id is for the peer to use to send
   future ERP messages.

   The server transports the rMSK along with this message to the
   authenticator.  The rMSK is transported in a manner similar to the
   MSK transport along with the EAP Success message in a regular EAP
   exchange.

5.3.2.2.  Authenticator Operation

   The Authenticator Operation is similar to that in processing an EAP
   success message.  It extracts the rMSK just as it does an MSK from a



Narayanan & Dondeti      Expires January 7, 2008               [Page 23]

Internet-Draft                     ERX                         July 2007


   AAA message containing an EAP success packet [9].

5.3.2.3.  Peer Operation

   The peer uses the following steps in processing an EAP Finish Re-auth
   message:

      The peer first checks if the identifier in the EAP Finish Re-auth
      message is the expected value.

      The peer then checks to see if the sequence number in the received
      message is the same as the sequence number in the EAP Initiate Re-
      auth message; otherwise it logs an error.

      Next, it uses the rIKname to lookup the appropriate rIK and
      verifies the integrity of the message.  If the verification
      succeeds, it proceeds to the next step; otherwise, it logs an
      error.

      The peer then uses the sequence number and the peer-id to compute
      the rMSK.

      The lower layer security association protocol can be triggered at
      this point.

5.3.3.  TV and TLV Attributes

   The TV attributes that may be present in the EAP Initiate or EAP
   Finish messages are of the following format:


   0                   1                   2                   3
   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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Type      |              Value ...
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                       Figure 7: TV Attribute Format

   The TLV attributes that may be present in the EAP Initiate or EAP
   Finish messages are of the following format:









Narayanan & Dondeti      Expires January 7, 2008               [Page 24]

Internet-Draft                     ERX                         July 2007


   0                   1                   2                   3
   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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Type      |    Length     |            Value ...
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                      Figure 8: TLV Attribute Format

   The following Types are defined in this document:

      '1' - rIKname: TV Payload

      '2' - rIKname as NAI: This is a TLV payload

      '3' - Peer-Id: This is a TLV payload

      '4' - Server-Id: This is a TLV payload

      The TLV type range of 128-191 is reserved to carry channel binding
      information in the EAP Initiate and Finish Reauth messages.  Below
      are the current assignments (all of them are TLVs):

         '128' - Called-Station-Id

         '129' - Calling-Station-Id

         '130' - NAS-Identifier

         '131' - NAS-IP-Address

         '132' - NAS-IPv6-Address

5.4.  Replay Protection

   For replay protection, ERP uses sequence numbers.  The sequence
   number is maintained per rIK and is initialized to zero in both
   directions.  In the first EAP Initiate Re-auth message, the peer uses
   the sequence number zero or higher.  Note that the when the sequence
   number rotates, the rIK MUST be changed.  The server expects a
   sequence number of zero or higher.  When the server receives an EAP
   Initiate Re-auth message, it uses the same sequence number in the EAP
   Finish Re-auth message.  It increments the expected sequence number
   by 1.

   If the peer sends an EAP Initiate Re-auth message, but does not
   receive a response, it retransmits the request (with no changes to
   the message itself) a pre-configured number of times before giving



Narayanan & Dondeti      Expires January 7, 2008               [Page 25]

Internet-Draft                     ERX                         July 2007


   up.  However, it is plausible that the server itself may have
   responded to the message and it was lost in transit.  Thus the peer
   MUST increment the sequence number and use the new sequence number to
   send subsequent EAP Re-authentication messages.

5.5.  Channel Binding

   ERP provides a protected facility to carry channel binding (CB)
   information, according to the guidelines in Section 7.15 of [2].  The
   TLV type range of 128-191 is reserved to carry CB information in the
   EAP Initiate and Finish Reauth messages.  Called-Station-Id, Calling-
   Station-Id, NAS-Identifier, NAS-IP-Address, and NAS-IPv6-Address are
   some examples of channel binding information listed in RFC 3748 and
   they are assigned values 128-132.  Other values may be added in
   future versions of this draft and the rest are IANA managed based on
   IETF Consensus [5].


6.  Security Considerations

   This section provides an analysis of the protocol in accordance with
   the AAA key management requirements specified in [10].

      Cryptographic Algorithm Independence

         The EAP Reauth protocol satisfies this requirement.  The
         algorithm chosen by the peer for the PRF used in key derivation
         as well as for the MAC generation is indicated in the EAP Re-
         authentication Response message.  If the chosen algorithms are
         unacceptable, the EAP server returns an EAP Failure message in
         response.  Only when the specified algorithms are acceptable,
         the server proceeds with derivation of keys and verification of
         the proof of possession of relevant keying material by the
         peer.  A full blown negotiation of algorithms cannot be
         provided in a single roundtrip protocol.  Hence, while the
         protocol provides algorithm agility, it does not provide true
         negotiation.

      Strong, fresh session keys

         ERP results in the derivation of strong, fresh keys that are
         unique for the given session.  An rMSK is always derived on-
         demand when the peer requires a key with a new authenticator.
         Both the peer and the server contribute nonces that are used in
         the rMSK derivation.  Further, the compromise of one rMSK does
         not result in the compromise of a different rMSK at any time.





Narayanan & Dondeti      Expires January 7, 2008               [Page 26]

Internet-Draft                     ERX                         July 2007


      Limit key scope

         The scope of all the keys derived by ERP are well defined.  The
         rRK and rIK are never shared with any entity and always remain
         on the peer and the server.  The rMSK is provided only to the
         authenticator through which the peer performs the ERP exchange.
         No other authenticator is authorized to use that rMSK.

      Replay detection mechanism

         For replay protection of ERP messages, a sequence number
         associated with the rIK is used.  The sequence number is
         maintained by the peer and the server, and initialized to zero
         when the rIK is generated.  The peer increments the sequence
         number by one after it sends an ERP message.  The server
         increments the sequence number when it receives and responds to
         the message.

      Authenticate all parties

         The EAP Reauth protocol provides mutual authentication of the
         peer and the server.  Both parties need to possess the keying
         material resulted from a previous EAP exchange in order to
         successfully derive the required keys.  Also, both the EAP Re-
         authentication Response and the EAP Re-authentication
         Information messages are integrity protected so that the peer
         and the server can verify each other.

      Keying material confidentiality

         The peer and the server derive the keys independently using
         parameters known to each entity.  The rMSK is sent to the
         authenticator via the AAA protocol.  It is RECOMMENDED that the
         AAA protocol be protected using IPsec or TLS so that the key
         can be sent encrypted to the authenticator.

      Confirm ciphersuite selection

         The same ciphersuite used as a result of the EAP session to
         which a particular ERP exchange corresponds is used after the
         ERP exchange as well.  The EAP method executed during the full
         EAP exchange is responsible for confirming the ciphersuite
         selection.

      Prevent the domino effect

         The compromise of one peer does not result in the compromise of
         keying material held by any other peer in the system.  Also,



Narayanan & Dondeti      Expires January 7, 2008               [Page 27]

Internet-Draft                     ERX                         July 2007


         the rMSK is meant for a single authenticator and is not shared
         with any other authenticator.  Hence, the compromise of one
         authenticator does not lead to the compromise of sessions or
         keys held by any other authenticator in the system.  Hence, the
         EAP Reauth protocol allows prevention of the domino effect by
         appropriately defining key scopes.

      Bind key to its context

         All the keys derived for ERP are bound to the appropriate
         context using appropriate key labels.  Also, the rMSK is bound
         to the peer and server IDs.


7.  IANA Considerations

   This document requires IANA registration of two new EAP Codes: 5
   (Initiate) and 6 (Finish).  These values are in accordance with [2].

   This document also requires IANA registration of a new Type related
   to Initiate and Finish: 1 (Re-auth).  Additional type values are IANA
   managed and assigned based on IETF Consensus.

   Next, a number of type values corresponding to the TLVs within EAP
   Initiate and Finish messages.  Those are as follows:

   o  rIKname: TV Payload.  The Type is 1

   o  rIKname as NAI: This is a TLV payload.  The Type is 2.

   o  Peer-Id: This is a TLV payload.  The Type is 3.

   o  Server-Id: This is a TLV payload.  The Type is 4.

   o  The TLV type range of 128-191 is reserved to carry CB information
      in the EAP Initiate and Finish Reauth messages.  Below are the
      current assignments (all of them are TLVs):

      *  Called-Station-Id: 128

      *  Calling-Station-Id: 129

      *  NAS-Identifier: 130

      *  NAS-IP-Address: 131

      *  NAS-IPv6-Address: 132




Narayanan & Dondeti      Expires January 7, 2008               [Page 28]

Internet-Draft                     ERX                         July 2007


      Other values may be added in future versions of this draft and the
      rest are IANA managed based on IETF Consensus.

   o  192-255 is reserved for Experimental/Private use.

   Further, this document registers a USRK label with a value "EAP Re-
   authentication Root Key" in accordance with [3].


8.  Acknowledgments

   In writing this draft, we benefited from discussing the problem space
   and the protocol itself with a number of folks including, Bernard
   Aboba, Jari Arkko, Sam Hartman, Russ Housley, Joe Salowey, Jesse
   Walker, Charles Clancy, Michaela Vanderveen, Kedar Gaonkar, Dan
   Harkins and other participants of the HOKEY working group.


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [1]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
         Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [2]   Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J., and H.
         Levkowetz, "Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)",
         RFC 3748, June 2004.

   [3]   Salowey, J., "Specification for the Derivation of Root Keys
         from an Extended Master  Session Key (EMSK)",
         draft-ietf-hokey-emsk-hierarchy-01 (work in progress),
         June 2007.

   [4]   Kaufman, C., "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol",
         RFC 4306, December 2005.

   [5]   Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
         Considerations Section in RFCs",
         draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-06 (work in
         progress), March 2007.

   [6]   Aboba, B., "Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Key
         Management Framework", draft-ietf-eap-keying-18 (work in
         progress), February 2007.






Narayanan & Dondeti      Expires January 7, 2008               [Page 29]

Internet-Draft                     ERX                         July 2007


9.2.  Informative References

   [7]   Arkko, J. and H. Haverinen, "Extensible Authentication Protocol
         Method for 3rd Generation Authentication and Key Agreement
         (EAP-AKA)", RFC 4187, January 2006.

   [8]   Clancy, C., "Handover Key Management and Re-authentication
         Problem Statement", draft-ietf-hokey-reauth-ps-01 (work in
         progress), January 2007.

   [9]   Gaonkar, K. and L. Dondeti, "RADIUS attributes for Domain-
         specific Key Request and Delivery",
         draft-gaonkar-radext-erp-attrs-00 (work in progress),
         July 2007.

   [10]  Housley, R. and B. Aboba, "Guidance for AAA Key Management",
         draft-housley-aaa-key-mgmt-09 (work in progress),
         February 2007.


Appendix A.  Example ERP Exchange


0. Authenticator --> Peer:  [EAP Request/Identity()]

1. Peer --> Authenticator:  EAP Initiate/Re-auth(
                             SEQ, rIKname, [peer-Id],[ER-server-Id],
                             Crypto-suite, Auth-tag*)

1a. Authenticator --> Reauth-Server: AAA-Request{Authenticator-Id,
                            EAP Initiate/Re-auth(SEQ, rIKname, [peer-Id],
                             [ER-server-Id],Crypto-suite, Auth-tag*)

2. ER-Server --> Authenticator:  AAA-Response{rMSK,
                            EAP Finish/Re-auth(SEQ, rIKname,[peer-Id],
                            [ER-server-Id],Crypto-suite,[CB-Info],
                            Auth-tag*)

2b. Authenticator --> Peer : EAP Finish/Re-auth(SEQ, rIKname,[peer-Id],
                             [ER-server-Id],Crypto-suite,[CB-Info],
                             Auth-tag*)

* Auth-tag computation is over the entire EAP Initiate/Finish message;
  the code values for Initiate and Finish are different and thus
  reflection attacks are mitigated.






Narayanan & Dondeti      Expires January 7, 2008               [Page 30]

Internet-Draft                     ERX                         July 2007


                          Figure 9: ERP Exchange


Authors' Addresses

   Vidya Narayanan
   QUALCOMM, Inc.
   5775 Morehouse Dr
   San Diego, CA
   USA

   Phone: +1 858-845-2483
   Email: vidyan@qualcomm.com


   Lakshminath Dondeti
   QUALCOMM, Inc.
   5775 Morehouse Dr
   San Diego, CA
   USA

   Phone: +1 858-845-1267
   Email: ldondeti@qualcomm.com




























Narayanan & Dondeti      Expires January 7, 2008               [Page 31]

Internet-Draft                     ERX                         July 2007


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).





Narayanan & Dondeti      Expires January 7, 2008               [Page 32]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/