draft-ietf-dime-erp-14.txt | draft-ietf-dime-erp-15.txt | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Network Working Group J. Bournelle | Network Working Group J. Bournelle | |||
Internet-Draft L. Morand | Internet-Draft L. Morand | |||
Intended status: Standards Track Orange Labs | Intended status: Standards Track Orange Labs | |||
Expires: April 25, 2013 S. Decugis | Expires: June 13, 2013 S. Decugis | |||
INSIDE Secure | INSIDE Secure | |||
Q. Wu | Q. Wu | |||
Huawei | Huawei | |||
G. Zorn | G. Zorn | |||
Network Zen | Network Zen | |||
October 22, 2012 | December 10, 2012 | |||
Diameter Support for the EAP Re-authentication Protocol (ERP) | Diameter Support for the EAP Re-authentication Protocol (ERP) | |||
draft-ietf-dime-erp-14.txt | draft-ietf-dime-erp-15.txt | |||
Abstract | Abstract | |||
The EAP Re-authentication Protocol (ERP) defines extensions to the | The EAP Re-authentication Protocol (ERP) defines extensions to the | |||
Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) to support efficient re- | Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) to support efficient re- | |||
authentication between the peer and an EAP Re-authentication (ER) | authentication between the peer and an EAP Re-authentication (ER) | |||
server through a compatible authenticator. This document specifies | server through a compatible authenticator. This document specifies | |||
Diameter support for ERP. It defines a new Diameter ERP application | Diameter support for ERP. It defines a new Diameter ERP application | |||
to transport ERP messages between an ER authenticator and the ER | to transport ERP messages between an ER authenticator and the ER | |||
server, and a set of new AVPs that can be used to transport the | server, and a set of new AVPs that can be used to transport the | |||
skipping to change at page 1, line 43 | skipping to change at page 1, line 43 | |||
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | |||
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | |||
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | |||
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | |||
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | |||
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | |||
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | |||
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 25, 2013. | This Internet-Draft will expire on June 13, 2013. | |||
Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | |||
document authors. All rights reserved. | document authors. All rights reserved. | |||
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | |||
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | |||
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | |||
publication of this document. Please review these documents | publication of this document. Please review these documents | |||
skipping to change at page 2, line 44 | skipping to change at page 2, line 44 | |||
8.3.4. Key-Lifetime AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 8.3.4. Key-Lifetime AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | |||
9. Result-Code AVP Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 9. Result-Code AVP Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | |||
9.1. Permanent Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 9.1. Permanent Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | |||
10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | |||
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | |||
12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | |||
12.1. Diameter Application Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 12.1. Diameter Application Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | |||
12.2. New AVPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 12.2. New AVPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | |||
12.3. New Permanent Failures Result-Code AVP Values . . . . . . 14 | 12.3. New Permanent Failures Result-Code AVP Values . . . . . . 14 | |||
13. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 13. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | |||
14. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | ||||
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | ||||
1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
Cao, et al. [RFC6696] defines the EAP Re-authentication Protocol | Cao, et al. [RFC6696] defines the EAP Re-authentication Protocol | |||
(ERP). It consists of the following steps: | (ERP). It consists of the following steps: | |||
Bootstrapping | Bootstrapping | |||
A root key for re-authentication is derived from the Extended | A root key for re-authentication is derived from the Extended | |||
Master Session Key (EMSK) created during EAP authentication | Master Session Key (EMSK) created during EAP authentication | |||
skipping to change at page 4, line 18 | skipping to change at page 4, line 18 | |||
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | |||
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this | "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this | |||
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. | document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. | |||
3. Assumptions | 3. Assumptions | |||
This document assumes the existence of at most one logical ER server | This document assumes the existence of at most one logical ER server | |||
entity in a domain. If several physical servers are deployed for | entity in a domain. If several physical servers are deployed for | |||
robustness, a replication mechanism must be deployed to synchronize | robustness, a replication mechanism must be deployed to synchronize | |||
the ERP state (e.g., root keys) between these servers. This | the ERP state (e.g., root keys) between these servers. Any such | |||
replication mechanism is out of the scope of this document. If | replication mechanism is outside the scope of this document. If | |||
multiple ER servers are deployed in the domain, we assume that they | multiple ER servers are deployed in the domain, we assume that they | |||
can be used interchangeably. If multiple ER servers are deployed | can be used interchangeably. If multiple ER servers are deployed | |||
across the domains, we assume only one ER server that is near to the | across the domains, we assume only one ER server that is near the | |||
peer is getting involved in the ERP. | peer is involved in ERP. | |||
Also this document assumes the existence of at most one EAP server | This document also assumes the existence of at most one EAP server | |||
entity in the home domain. In case of multiple physical home EAP | entity in the home domain. In case of multiple physical home EAP | |||
servers in the same domain, if the ER server wants to reach the same | servers in the same domain, if the ER server wants to reach the same | |||
home EAP server, the ER server may cache the Destination-Host AVP | home EAP server, the ER server may cache the Destination-Host AVP | |||
corresponding to the home EAP server it requests. | corresponding to the home EAP server it requests. | |||
4. Protocol Overview | 4. Protocol Overview | |||
The following figure shows the components involved in ERP, and their | The following figure illustrates the components involved in ERP and | |||
interactions. | their interactions. | |||
Diameter +--------+ | Diameter +--------+ | |||
+-------------+ ERP +-----------+ (*) | Home | | +-------------+ ERP +-----------+ (*) | Home | | |||
Peer <->|Authenticator|<=======>| ER server | <---> | EAP | | Peer <->|Authenticator|<=======>| ER server | <---> | EAP | | |||
+-------------+ +-----------+ | server | | +-------------+ +-----------+ | server | | |||
+--------+ | +--------+ | |||
(*) Diameter EAP application, explicit bootstrapping scenario only. | (*) Diameter EAP application, explicit bootstrapping scenario only. | |||
Figure 1: Diameter ERP Overview. | Figure 1: Diameter ERP Overview. | |||
skipping to change at page 5, line 21 | skipping to change at page 5, line 21 | |||
If there is no local ER server, the message is routed according to | If there is no local ER server, the message is routed according to | |||
its Destination-Realm AVP content, extracted from the realm component | its Destination-Realm AVP content, extracted from the realm component | |||
of the keyName-NAI attribute. As specified in RFC 6696, this realm | of the keyName-NAI attribute. As specified in RFC 6696, this realm | |||
is the home domain of the peer in the case of bootstrapping exchange | is the home domain of the peer in the case of bootstrapping exchange | |||
('B' flag is set in ERP message) or the domain of the bootstrapped ER | ('B' flag is set in ERP message) or the domain of the bootstrapped ER | |||
server otherwise . | server otherwise . | |||
If no ER server is available in the home domain either, the ERP/DER | If no ER server is available in the home domain either, the ERP/DER | |||
message cannot be delivered, and an error DIAMETER_UNABLE_TO_DELIVER | message cannot be delivered, and an error DIAMETER_UNABLE_TO_DELIVER | |||
MUST be generated as specified in [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis] and | MUST be generated as specified in [RFC6733] and returned to the | |||
returned to the authenticator. The authenticator MAY cache this | authenticator. The authenticator MAY cache this information (with | |||
information (with limited duration) to avoid further attempts to | limited duration) to avoid further attempts to execute ERP with this | |||
execute ERP with this realm. It MAY also fallback to full EAP | realm. It MAY also fallback to full EAP authentication to | |||
authentication to authenticate the peer. | authenticate the peer. | |||
When an ER server receives the ERP/DER message, it searches its local | When an ER server receives the ERP/DER message, it searches its local | |||
database for a valid, unexpired root key matching the keyName part of | database for a valid, unexpired root key matching the keyName part of | |||
the User-Name AVP. If such key is found, the ER server processes the | the User-Name AVP. If such key is found, the ER server processes the | |||
ERP message as described in RFC 6696, then creates the ERP/DEA answer | ERP message as described in RFC 6696, then creates the ERP/DEA answer | |||
as described in Section 6. The rMSK is included in this answer. | as described in Section 6. The rMSK is included in this answer. | |||
Finally, the authenticator extracts the rMSK from the ERP/DEA as | Finally, the authenticator extracts the rMSK from the ERP/DEA as | |||
described in RFC 6696, and forwards the content of the EAP-Payload | described in RFC 6696, and forwards the content of the EAP-Payload | |||
AVP, the EAP-Finish/Re-Auth message, to the peer. | AVP, the EAP-Finish/Re-Auth message, to the peer. | |||
skipping to change at page 8, line 30 | skipping to change at page 8, line 30 | |||
5.2. Bootstrapping During the First Re-authentication | 5.2. Bootstrapping During the First Re-authentication | |||
Bootstrapping the ER server during the first re-authentication (also | Bootstrapping the ER server during the first re-authentication (also | |||
known as explicit bootstrapping) is only needed when there is no | known as explicit bootstrapping) is only needed when there is no | |||
local ER server in the visited domain and there is an ER server in | local ER server in the visited domain and there is an ER server in | |||
the home domain. It is less resource-intensive, since the EMSK | the home domain. It is less resource-intensive, since the EMSK | |||
generated during initial EAP authentication is reused to derive root | generated during initial EAP authentication is reused to derive root | |||
keys. On the other hand, the first re-authentication requires a one- | keys. On the other hand, the first re-authentication requires a one- | |||
round-trip exchange with the home EAP server, since the EMSK is | round-trip exchange with the home EAP server, since the EMSK is | |||
generated during the initial EAP authentication and never leaves the | generated during the initial EAP authentication and never leaves the | |||
home EAP server, which is less efficient than the implicit | home EAP server, which is less efficient than implicit bootstrapping. | |||
bootstrapping scenario. | ||||
The EAP-Initiate/Re-auth message is sent to the home ER server. The | The EAP-Initiate/Re-auth message is sent to the home ER server. The | |||
home ER server receives the ERP/DER message containing the EAP- | home ER server receives the ERP/DER message containing the EAP- | |||
Initiate/Re-Auth message with the 'B' flag set. It creates the new | Initiate/Re-Auth message with the 'B' flag set. It creates the new | |||
EAP/DER message using the received DRP/DER message and performs the | EAP/DER message using the received DRP/DER message and performs the | |||
following processing: | following processing: | |||
Set the Application Id in the header of the message to <Diameter | Set the Application Id in the header of the message to <Diameter | |||
EAP Application> [RFC4072] | EAP Application> [RFC4072] | |||
skipping to change at page 9, line 19 | skipping to change at page 9, line 18 | |||
the Domain- Name TLV attribute with the content from the ERP-Realm | the Domain- Name TLV attribute with the content from the ERP-Realm | |||
AVP. The server creates the EAP/DEA reply message [RFC4072] | AVP. The server creates the EAP/DEA reply message [RFC4072] | |||
including an instance of the Key AVP (Section 8.3) with Key-Type AVP | including an instance of the Key AVP (Section 8.3) with Key-Type AVP | |||
set to rRK and an instance of the Domain-Name TLV attribute with the | set to rRK and an instance of the Domain-Name TLV attribute with the | |||
content from the ERP-Realm AVP. | content from the ERP-Realm AVP. | |||
The ER server receives this EAP/DEA and proxies it as follows, in | The ER server receives this EAP/DEA and proxies it as follows, in | |||
addition to standard proxy operations: | addition to standard proxy operations: | |||
Set the Application Id back to Diameter ERP Application Id | Set the Application Id back to Diameter ERP Application Id | |||
(Section 12.1 ) | (Section 12.1) | |||
Extract and cache the content of the Key AVP with Key-Type set to | Extract and cache the content of the Key AVP with Key-Type set to | |||
rRK, as described in the implicit scenario (Section 5.1). | rRK, as described in Section 5.1). | |||
The ERP/DEA message is then forwarded to the authenticator, that can | The ERP/DEA message is then forwarded to the authenticator, that can | |||
use the rMSK as described in RFC 6696. | use the rMSK as described in RFC 6696. | |||
The figure below captures this proxy behavior: | The figure below captures this proxy behavior: | |||
Authenticator ER server Home Diameter server | Authenticator ER server Home Diameter server | |||
============= ========= ==================== | ============= ========= ==================== | |||
-----------------------> | -----------------------> | |||
Diameter ERP/DER | Diameter ERP/DER | |||
skipping to change at page 10, line 51 | skipping to change at page 10, line 51 | |||
specific code (EAP-Initiate). The peer should fallback to full EAP | specific code (EAP-Initiate). The peer should fallback to full EAP | |||
authentication in this case. | authentication in this case. | |||
When the authenticator receives an EAP-Initiate/Re-auth message from | When the authenticator receives an EAP-Initiate/Re-auth message from | |||
the peer, the message is processed as described in RFC 6696 with | the peer, the message is processed as described in RFC 6696 with | |||
regard to the EAP state machine. It creates a Diameter ERP/DER | regard to the EAP state machine. It creates a Diameter ERP/DER | |||
message following the general process of Diameter EAP [RFC4072], with | message following the general process of Diameter EAP [RFC4072], with | |||
the following differences: | the following differences: | |||
The Application Id in the header is set to <Diameter ERP> (code | The Application Id in the header is set to <Diameter ERP> (code | |||
TBD1 ). | TBD1). | |||
The value in Auth-Application-Id AVP is also set to <Diameter | The value in Auth-Application-Id AVP is also set to <Diameter | |||
ERP>. | ERP>. | |||
The keyName-NAI attribute from the ERP message is used to create | The keyName-NAI attribute from the ERP message is used to create | |||
the content of the User-Name and Destination-Realm AVPs. | the content of the User-Name and Destination-Realm AVPs. | |||
The Auth-Request-Type AVP content is set to the appropriate value. | The Auth-Request-Type AVP content is set to the appropriate value. | |||
The EAP-Payload AVP contains the EAP-Initiate/Re-Auth meassge. | The EAP-Payload AVP contains the EAP-Initiate/Re-Auth message. | |||
Then this ERP/DER message is sent as described in Section 4. | Then this ERP/DER message is sent as described in Section 4. | |||
The ER server receives and processes this request as described in | The ER server receives and processes this request as described in | |||
Section 4. It then creates an ERP/DEA message following the general | Section 4. It then creates an ERP/DEA message following the general | |||
process described in RFC4072 [RFC4072], with the following | process described in RFC4072 [RFC4072], with the following | |||
differences: | differences: | |||
The Application Id in the header is set to <Diameter ERP> (code | The Application Id in the header is set to <Diameter ERP> (code | |||
TBD1). | TBD1). | |||
skipping to change at page 11, line 37 | skipping to change at page 11, line 37 | |||
The EAP-Payload AVP contains the EAP-Finish/Re-auth message. | The EAP-Payload AVP contains the EAP-Finish/Re-auth message. | |||
If authentication is successful, an instance of the Key AVP | If authentication is successful, an instance of the Key AVP | |||
containing the Re-authentication Master Session Key (rMSK) derived | containing the Re-authentication Master Session Key (rMSK) derived | |||
by ERP is included. | by ERP is included. | |||
When the authenticator receives this ERP/DEA answer, it processes it | When the authenticator receives this ERP/DEA answer, it processes it | |||
as described in the Diameter EAP Application specification [RFC4072] | as described in the Diameter EAP Application specification [RFC4072] | |||
and RFC 6696: the content of the EAP-Payload AVP is forwarded to the | and RFC 6696: the content of the EAP-Payload AVP is forwarded to the | |||
peer, and the contents of the Keying-Material AVP | peer, and the contents of the Keying-Material AVP [RFC6734] is used | |||
[I-D.ietf-dime-local-keytran] is used as a shared secret for a secure | as a shared secret for a secure association protocol specific to the | |||
association protocol specific to the lower-layer in use. | lower-layer in use. | |||
7. Application Id | 7. Application Id | |||
We define a new Diameter application in this document, Diameter ERP | We define a new Diameter application in this document, Diameter ERP | |||
Application, with an Application Id value of TBD1. Diameter nodes | Application, with an Application Id value of TBD1. Diameter nodes | |||
conforming to this specification in the role of ER server MUST | conforming to this specification in the role of ER server MUST | |||
advertise support by including an Auth-Application-Id AVP with a | advertise support by including an Auth-Application-Id AVP with a | |||
value of Diameter ERP in the Capabilities-Exchange-Request and | value of Diameter ERP in the Capabilities-Exchange-Request and | |||
Capabilities-Exchange-Answer commands [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis]. | Capabilities-Exchange-Answer commands [RFC6733]. | |||
The primary use of the Diameter ERP Application Id is to ensure | The primary use of the Diameter ERP Application Id is to ensure | |||
proper routing of the messages, and that the nodes that advertise the | proper routing of the messages, and that the nodes that advertise the | |||
support for this application do understand the new AVPs defined in | support for this application do understand the new AVPs defined in | |||
Section 8, although these AVP have the 'M' flag cleared. | Section 8, although these AVP have the 'M' flag cleared. | |||
8. AVPs | 8. AVPs | |||
The following sub-sections discuss the AVPs used by the Diameter ERP | The following sub-sections discuss the AVPs used by the Diameter ERP | |||
application. | application. | |||
skipping to change at page 12, line 34 | skipping to change at page 12, line 34 | |||
8.2. ERP-Realm AVP | 8.2. ERP-Realm AVP | |||
The ERP-Realm AVP (AVP Code TBD3) is of type DiameterIdentity. It | The ERP-Realm AVP (AVP Code TBD3) is of type DiameterIdentity. It | |||
contains the name of the realm in which the ER server is located. | contains the name of the realm in which the ER server is located. | |||
This AVP has the M and V bits cleared. | This AVP has the M and V bits cleared. | |||
8.3. Key AVP | 8.3. Key AVP | |||
The Key AVP [I-D.ietf-dime-local-keytran] is of type "Grouped" and is | The Key AVP [RFC6734] is of type "Grouped" and is used to carry the | |||
used to carry the rRK or rMSK and associated attributes. The usage | rRK or rMSK and associated attributes. The usage of the Key AVP and | |||
of the Key AVP and its constituent AVPs in this application is | its constituent AVPs in this application is specified in the | |||
specified in the following sub-sections. | following sub-sections. | |||
8.3.1. Key-Type AVP | 8.3.1. Key-Type AVP | |||
The value of the Key-Type AVP MUST be set to 2 for rRK or 3 for rMSK. | The value of the Key-Type AVP MUST be set to 2 for rRK or 3 for rMSK. | |||
8.3.2. Keying-Material AVP | 8.3.2. Keying-Material AVP | |||
The Keying-Material AVP contains the rRK sent by the home EAP server | The Keying-Material AVP contains the rRK sent by the home EAP server | |||
to the ER server, in answer to a request containing an ERP-RK-Request | to the ER server, in answer to a request containing an ERP-RK-Request | |||
AVP, or the rMSK sent by the ER server to the authenticator. How | AVP, or the rMSK sent by the ER server to the authenticator. How | |||
skipping to change at page 13, line 18 | skipping to change at page 13, line 18 | |||
The derivation of this name is specified in RFC 6696. | The derivation of this name is specified in RFC 6696. | |||
8.3.4. Key-Lifetime AVP | 8.3.4. Key-Lifetime AVP | |||
The Key-Lifetime AVP contains the lifetime of the keying material in | The Key-Lifetime AVP contains the lifetime of the keying material in | |||
seconds. It MUST NOT be greater than the remaining lifetime of the | seconds. It MUST NOT be greater than the remaining lifetime of the | |||
EMSK from which the material was derived. | EMSK from which the material was derived. | |||
9. Result-Code AVP Values | 9. Result-Code AVP Values | |||
This section defines new Result-Code [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis] | This section defines new Result-Code [RFC6733] values that MUST be | |||
values that MUST be supported by all Diameter implementations that | supported by all Diameter implementations that conform to this | |||
conform to this specification. | specification. | |||
9.1. Permanent Failures | 9.1. Permanent Failures | |||
Errors that fall within the Permanent Failures category are used to | Errors that fall within the Permanent Failures category are used to | |||
inform the peer that the request failed and SHOULD NOT be attempted | inform the peer that the request failed and SHOULD NOT be attempted | |||
again. | again. | |||
DIAMETER_ERROR_ EAP_CODE_UNKNOWN (TBD4) | DIAMETER_ERROR_ EAP_CODE_UNKNOWN (TBD4) | |||
This error code is used by the Diameter server to inform the | This error code is used by the Diameter server to inform the | |||
skipping to change at page 13, line 43 | skipping to change at page 13, line 43 | |||
10. Contributors | 10. Contributors | |||
Hannes Tschofenig wrote the initial draft of this document. | Hannes Tschofenig wrote the initial draft of this document. | |||
Lakshminath Dondeti contributed to the early versions of the | Lakshminath Dondeti contributed to the early versions of the | |||
document. | document. | |||
11. Acknowledgements | 11. Acknowledgements | |||
Hannes Tschofenig, Zhen Cao, Benoit Claise, Elwyn Davies and Jouni | Hannes Tschofenig, Zhen Cao, Benoit Claise, Elwyn Davies, Menachem | |||
Korhonen provided useful reviews. | Dodge, Vincent Roca and Jouni Korhonen provided useful reviews. | |||
Vidya Narayanan reviewed a rough draft version of the document and | Vidya Narayanan reviewed a rough draft version of the document and | |||
found some errors. | found some errors. | |||
Many thanks to these people! | Many thanks to these people! | |||
12. IANA Considerations | 12. IANA Considerations | |||
This document requires IANA registration of the following new | This document requires IANA registration of the following new | |||
elements in the Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) | elements in the Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) | |||
Parameters [1] registries. | Parameters registries [AAAPARAMS]. | |||
12.1. Diameter Application Identifier | 12.1. Diameter Application Identifier | |||
This specification requires IANA to allocate a new value "Diameter | This specification requires IANA to allocate a new value "Diameter | |||
ERP" in the "Application IDs" registry using the policy specified in | ERP" (code: TBD1) in the "Application IDs" registry using the policy | |||
Section 11.3 of RFC 3588 [RFC3588]. | specified in Section 11.3 of RFC 3588 [RFC3588]. | |||
12.2. New AVPs | 12.2. New AVPs | |||
This specification requires IANA to allocate new values from the "AVP | This specification requires IANA to allocate new values from the "AVP | |||
Codes" registry according to the policy specified in Section 11.1 of | Codes" registry according to the policy specified in Section 11.1 of | |||
Fajardo, et al. [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis] for the following AVPs: | Fajardo, et al. [RFC6733] for the following AVPs: | |||
ERP-RK-Request | ERP-RK-Request (code: TBD2) | |||
ERP-Realm | ERP-Realm (code: TBD3) | |||
These AVPs are defined in Section 8. | These AVPs are defined in Section 8. | |||
12.3. New Permanent Failures Result-Code AVP Values | 12.3. New Permanent Failures Result-Code AVP Values | |||
This specification requires IANA to allocate a new value from the | This specification requires IANA to allocate a new value from the | |||
"Result-Code AVP Values (code 268) - Permanent Failure" registry | "Result-Code AVP Values (code 268) - Permanent Failure" registry | |||
according to the policy specified in Section 11.3.2 of Fajardo, et | according to the policy specified in Section 11.3.2 of Fajardo, et | |||
al. [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis] for the following Result-Code: | al. [RFC6733] for the following Result-Code: | |||
DIAMETER_ERROR_EAP_CODE_UNKNOWN TBD4 | DIAMETER_ERROR_EAP_CODE_UNKNOWN (code: TBD4) | |||
This result-code value is defined in Section 9. | This result-code value is defined in Section 9. | |||
13. Security Considerations | 13. Security Considerations | |||
The security considerations from the following documents apply here: | The security considerations from the following documents apply here: | |||
o Fajardo, et al. [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis] | o Fajardo, et al. [RFC6733] | |||
o RFC 4072 [RFC4072] | o RFC 4072 [RFC4072] | |||
o RFC 6696 [RFC6696] | o RFC 6696 [RFC6696] | |||
o Zorn, Wu and Cakulev [I-D.ietf-dime-local-keytran] | o Zorn, Wu and Cakulev [RFC6734] | |||
14. Normative References | 14. References | |||
[I-D.ietf-dime-local-keytran] Zorn, G., Wu, W., and V. Cakulev, | 14.1. Normative References | |||
"Diameter Attribute-Value Pairs for | ||||
Cryptographic Key Transport", | ||||
draft-ietf-dime-local-keytran-14 (work | ||||
in progress), August 2011. | ||||
[I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis] Fajardo, V., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., | [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate | |||
and G. Zorn, "Diameter Base Protocol", | Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. | |||
draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-34 (work in | ||||
progress), June 2012. | ||||
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in | [RFC3588] Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J. | |||
RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", | Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, | |||
BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. | September 2003. | |||
[RFC3588] Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, | [RFC3748] Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J., and | |||
E., Zorn, G., and J. Arkko, "Diameter | H. Levkowetz, "Extensible Authentication Protocol | |||
Base Protocol", RFC 3588, | (EAP)", RFC 3748, June 2004. | |||
September 2003. | ||||
[RFC3748] Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., | [RFC4072] Eronen, P., Hiller, T., and G. Zorn, "Diameter | |||
Carlson, J., and H. Levkowetz, | Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Application", | |||
"Extensible Authentication Protocol | RFC 4072, August 2005. | |||
(EAP)", RFC 3748, June 2004. | ||||
[RFC4072] Eronen, P., Hiller, T., and G. Zorn, | [RFC5295] Salowey, J., Dondeti, L., Narayanan, V., and M. | |||
"Diameter Extensible Authentication | Nakhjiri, "Specification for the Derivation of Root Keys | |||
Protocol (EAP) Application", RFC 4072, | from an Extended Master Session Key (EMSK)", RFC 5295, | |||
August 2005. | August 2008. | |||
[RFC5295] Salowey, J., Dondeti, L., Narayanan, | [RFC6696] Cao, Z., He, B., Shi, Y., Wu, Q., and G. Zorn, "EAP | |||
V., and M. Nakhjiri, "Specification | Extensions for the EAP Re-authentication Protocol | |||
for the Derivation of Root Keys from | (ERP)", RFC 6696, July 2012. | |||
an Extended Master Session Key | ||||
(EMSK)", RFC 5295, August 2008. | ||||
[RFC6696] Cao, Z., He, B., Shi, Y., Wu, Q., and | [RFC6733] Fajardo, V., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn, | |||
G. Zorn, "EAP Extensions for the EAP | "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 6733, October 2012. | |||
Re-authentication Protocol (ERP)", | ||||
RFC 6696, July 2012. | ||||
[1] <http://www.iana.org/assignments/aaa-parameters/> | [RFC6734] Zorn, G., Wu, Q., and V. Cakulev, "Diameter Attribute- | |||
Value Pairs for Cryptographic Key Transport", RFC 6734, | ||||
October 2012. | ||||
14.2. Informative References | ||||
[AAAPARAMS] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "Authentication, | ||||
Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Parameters", | ||||
http://www.iana.org/assignments/aaa-parameters/. | ||||
Authors' Addresses | Authors' Addresses | |||
Julien Bournelle | Julien Bournelle | |||
Orange Labs | Orange Labs | |||
38-40 rue du general Leclerc | 38-40 rue du general Leclerc | |||
Issy-Les-Moulineaux 92794 | Issy-Les-Moulineaux 92794 | |||
France | France | |||
EMail: julien.bournelle@orange-ftgroup.com | EMail: julien.bournelle@orange-ftgroup.com | |||
End of changes. 39 change blocks. | ||||
81 lines changed or deleted | 78 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ |