draft-ietf-radext-filter-08.txt		rfc4849.txt
	Network Working Group Paul Congdon		Network Working Group P. Congdon
	INTERNET-DRAFT Mauricio Sanchez		Request for Comments: 4849 M. Sanchez
	Category: Proposed Standard Hewlett-Packard Company		Category: Standards Track ProCurve Networking by HP
	<draft-ietf-radext-filter-08.txt> Bernard Aboba		B. Aboba
	13 January 2007 Microsoft Corporation		Microsoft Corporation
	RADIUS Filter Rule Attribute		RADIUS Filter Rule Attribute
	By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any		Status of This Memo
	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 July 18, 2007.		This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
			Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
			improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
			Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
			and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). All rights reserved.		Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
	Abstract		Abstract
	While RFC 2865 defines the Filter-Id attribute, this requires that		While RFC 2865 defines the Filter-Id attribute, it requires that the
	the Network Access Server (NAS) be pre-populated with the desired		Network Access Server (NAS) be pre-populated with the desired
	filters. However, in situations where the server operator does not		filters. However, in situations where the server operator does not
	know which filters have been pre-populated, it is useful to specify		know which filters have been pre-populated, it is useful to specify
	filter rules explicitly. This document defines the NAS-Filter-Rule		filter rules explicitly. This document defines the NAS-Filter-Rule
	attribute within the Remote Authentication Dial In User Service		attribute within the Remote Authentication Dial In User Service
	(RADIUS). This attribute is based on the Diameter NAS-Filter-Rule		(RADIUS). This attribute is based on the Diameter NAS-Filter-Rule
	Attribute Value Pair (AVP) described in RFC 4005, and the		Attribute Value Pair (AVP) described in RFC 4005, and the
	IPFilterRule syntax defined in RFC 3588.		IPFilterRule syntax defined in RFC 3588.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction .......................................... 3		1. Introduction ....................................................2
	1.1 Terminology ..................................... 3		1.1. Terminology ................................................2
	1.2 Requirements Language ........................... 3		1.2. Requirements Language ......................................3
	1.3 Attribute Interpretation ........................ 3		1.3. Attribute Interpretation ...................................3
	2. NAS-Filter-Rule Attribute ............................. 4		2. NAS-Filter-Rule Attribute .......................................3
	3. Table of Attributes ................................... 5		3. Table of Attributes .............................................5
	4. Diameter Considerations ............................... 5		4. Diameter Considerations .........................................5
	5. IANA Considerations ................................... 6		5. IANA Considerations .............................................6
	6. Security Considerations ............................... 6		6. Security Considerations .........................................6
	7. References ............................................ 7		7. References ......................................................7
	7.1 Normative References ............................ 7		7.1. Normative References .......................................7
	7.2 Informative References .......................... 7		7.2. Informative References .....................................7
	ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................. 8		8. Acknowledgments .................................................7
	AUTHORS' ADDRESSES ........................................... 8
	Intellectual Property Statement............................... 9
	Disclaimer of Validity........................................ 9
	Full Copyright Statement ..................................... 9
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	This document defines the NAS-Filter-Rule attribute within the Remote		This document defines the NAS-Filter-Rule attribute within the Remote
	Authentication Dialin User Service (RADIUS). This attribute has the		Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS). This attribute has the
	same functionality as the Diameter NAS-Filter-Rule AVP (400) defined		same functionality as the Diameter NAS-Filter-Rule AVP (400) defined
	in [RFC4005] Section 6.6 and the same syntax as an IPFilterRule		in [RFC4005], Section 6.6, and the same syntax as an IPFilterRule
	defined in [RFC3588] Section 4.3. This attribute may prove useful		defined in [RFC3588], Section 4.3. This attribute may prove useful
	for provisioning of filter rules.		for provisioning of filter rules.
	While [RFC2865] Section 5.11 defines the Filter-Id attribute (11),		While [RFC2865], Section 5.11, defines the Filter-Id attribute (11),
	this requires that the Network Access Server (NAS) be pre-populated		it requires that the Network Access Server (NAS) be pre-populated
	with the desired filters. However, in situations where the server		with the desired filters. However, in situations where the server
	operator does not know which filters have been pre-populated, it		operator does not know which filters have been pre-populated, it is
	useful to specify filter rules explicitly.		useful to specify filter rules explicitly.
	1.1. Terminology		1.1. Terminology
	This document uses the following terms:		This document uses the following terms:
	Network Access Server (NAS)		Network Access Server (NAS)
	A device that provides an access service for a user to a network.		A device that provides an access service for a user to a network.
	RADIUS server		RADIUS server
	skipping to change at page 3, line 44		skipping to change at page 3, line 14
	1.2. Requirements Language		1.2. Requirements Language
	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].
	1.3. Attribute Interpretation		1.3. Attribute Interpretation
	If a NAS conforming to this specification receives an Access-Accept		If a NAS conforming to this specification receives an Access-Accept
	packet containing a NAS-Filter-Rule attribute which it cannot apply,		packet containing a NAS-Filter-Rule attribute that it cannot apply,
	it MUST act as though it had received an Access-Reject. [RFC3576]		it MUST act as though it had received an Access-Reject. [RFC3576]
	requires that a NAS receiving a Change of Authorization Request		requires that a NAS receiving a Change of Authorization Request
	(CoA-Request) reply with a CoA-NAK if the Request contains an		(CoA-Request) reply with a CoA-NAK if the Request contains an
	unsupported attribute. It is RECOMMENDED that an Error-Cause		unsupported attribute. It is RECOMMENDED that an Error-Cause
	attribute with value set to "Unsupported Attribute" (401) be included		attribute with value set to "Unsupported Attribute" (401) be included
	in the CoA-NAK. As noted in [RFC3576], authorization changes are		in the CoA-NAK. As noted in [RFC3576], authorization changes are
	atomic so that this situation does not result in session termination		atomic so that this situation does not result in session termination,
	and the pre-existing configuration remains unchanged. As a result,		and the pre-existing configuration remains unchanged. As a result,
	no accounting packets should be generated as a result of the CoA-		no accounting packets should be generated because of the CoA-Request.
	Request.
	2. NAS-Filter-Rule Attribute		2. NAS-Filter-Rule Attribute
	Description		Description
	This attribute indicates filter rules to be applied for this user.		This attribute indicates filter rules to be applied for this user.
	Zero or more NAS-Filter-Rule attributes MAY be sent in Access-		Zero or more NAS-Filter-Rule attributes MAY be sent in Access-Accept,
	Accept, CoA-Request, or Accounting-Request packets.		CoA-Request, or Accounting-Request packets.
	The NAS-Filter-Rule attribute is not intended to be used		The NAS-Filter-Rule attribute is not intended to be used concurrently
	concurrently with any other filter rule attribute, including		with any other filter rule attribute, including Filter-Id (11) and
	Filter-Id (11) and NAS-Traffic-Rule [Traffic] attributes. NAS-		NAS-Traffic-Rule [Traffic] attributes. NAS-Filter-Rule and NAS-
	Filter-Rule and NAS-Traffic-Rule attributes MUST NOT appear in the		Traffic-Rule attributes MUST NOT appear in the same RADIUS packet.
	same RADIUS packet. If a NAS-Traffic-Rule attribute is present, a		If a NAS-Traffic-Rule attribute is present, a NAS implementing this
	NAS implementing this specification MUST silently discard NAS-		specification MUST silently discard any NAS-Filter-Rule attributes
	Filter-Rule attributes, if present. Filter-Id and NAS-Filter-Rule		that are present. Filter-Id and NAS-Filter-Rule attributes SHOULD
	attributes SHOULD NOT appear in the same RADIUS packet. Given the		NOT appear in the same RADIUS packet. Given the absence in [RFC4005]
	absence in [RFC4005] of well-defined precedence rules for		of well-defined precedence rules for combining Filter-Id and NAS-
	combining Filter-Id and NAS-Filter-Rule attributes into a single		Filter-Rule attributes into a single rule set, the behavior of NASes
	rule set, the behavior of NASes receiving both attributes is		receiving both attributes is undefined, and therefore a RADIUS server
	undefined, and therefore a RADIUS server implementation cannot		implementation cannot assume a consistent behavior.
	assume a consistent behavior.
	Where multiple NAS-Filter-Rule attributes are included in a RADIUS		Where multiple NAS-Filter-Rule attributes are included in a RADIUS
	packet, the String field of the attributes are to be concatenated		packet, the String field of the attributes are to be concatenated to
	to form a set of filter rules. As noted in [RFC2865] Section 2.3,		form a set of filter rules. As noted in [RFC2865], Section 2.3, "the
	"the forwarding server MUST NOT change the order of any attributes		forwarding server MUST NOT change the order of any attributes of the
	of the same type", so that RADIUS proxies will not reorder NAS-		same type", so that RADIUS proxies will not reorder NAS-Filter-Rule
	Filter-Rule attributes.		attributes.
	A summary of the NAS-Filter-Rule Attribute format is shown below.		A summary of the NAS-Filter-Rule Attribute format is shown below.
	The fields are transmitted from left to right.		The fields are transmitted from left to right.
	0 1 2 3		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		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 | String...		| Type | Length | String...
	+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+		+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	Type		Type
	TBD		92
	Length		Length
	>=3		>=3
	String		String
	The String field is one or more octets. It contains filter rules		The String field is one or more octets. It contains filter rules
	in the IPFilterRule syntax defined in [RFC3588] Section 4.3, with		in the IPFilterRule syntax defined in [RFC3588], Section 4.3, with
	individual filter rules separated by a NUL (0x00). A NAS-Filter-		individual filter rules separated by a NUL (0x00). A NAS-Filter-
	Rule attribute may contain a partial rule, one rule, or more than		Rule attribute may contain a partial rule, one rule, or more than
	one rule. Filter rules may be continued across attribute		one rule. Filter rules may be continued across attribute
	boundaries, so implementations cannot assume that individual		boundaries, so implementations cannot assume that individual
	filter rules begin or end on attribute boundaries.		filter rules begin or end on attribute boundaries.
	The set of NAS-Filter-Rule attributes SHOULD be created by		The set of NAS-Filter-Rule attributes SHOULD be created by
	concatenating the individual filter rules, separated by a NUL		concatenating the individual filter rules, separated by a NUL
	(0x00) octet. The resulting data should be split on 253 byte		(0x00) octet. The resulting data should be split on 253-octet
	boundaries to obtain a set of NAS-Filter-Rule attributes. On		boundaries to obtain a set of NAS-Filter-Rule attributes. On
	reception, the individual filter rules are determined by		reception, the individual filter rules are determined by
	concatenating the contents of all NAS-Filter-Rule attributes, and		concatenating the contents of all NAS-Filter-Rule attributes, and
	then splitting individual filter rules with the the NUL octet		then splitting individual filter rules with the NUL octet (0x00)
	(0x00) as a delimeter.		as a delimiter.
	3. Table of Attributes		3. Table of Attributes
	The following table provides a guide to which attributes may be found		The following table provides a guide to which attributes may be found
	in which kinds of packets, and in what quantity.		in which kinds of packets, and in what quantity.
	Access- Access- Access- Access- CoA- Acct-		Access- Access- Access- Access- CoA- Acct-
	Request Accept Reject Challenge Req Req # Attribute		Request Accept Reject Challenge Req Req # Attribute
	0 0+ 0 0 0+ 0+ TBD NAS-Filter-Rule		0 0+ 0 0 0+ 0+ 92 NAS-Filter-Rule
	The following table defines the meaning of the above table entries.		The following table defines the meaning of the above table entries.
	0 This attribute MUST NOT be present in the packet.		0 This attribute MUST NOT be present in the packet.
	0+ Zero or more instances of this attribute MAY be		0+ Zero or more instances of this attribute MAY be
	present in the packet.		present in the packet.
	0-1 Zero or one instance of this attribute MAY be		0-1 Zero or one instance of this attribute MAY be
	present in the packet.		present in the packet.
	4. Diameter Considerations		4. Diameter Considerations
	[RFC4005] Section 6.6 defines the NAS-Filter-Rule AVP (400) with the		[RFC4005], Section 6.6, defines the NAS-Filter-Rule AVP (400) with
	same functionality as the RADIUS NAS-Filter-Rule attribute. In order		the same functionality as the RADIUS NAS-Filter-Rule attribute. In
	to support interoperability, Diameter/RADIUS gateways will need to be		order to support interoperability, Diameter/RADIUS gateways will need
	configured to translate RADIUS attribute TBD to Diameter AVP 400 and		to be configured to translate RADIUS attribute 92 to Diameter NAS-
	vice-versa.		Filter-Rule AVP (400) and vice versa.
	When translating Diameter NAS-Filter-Rule AVPs to RADIUS NAS-Filter-		When translating Diameter NAS-Filter-Rule AVPs to RADIUS NAS-Filter-
	Rule attributes, the set of NAS-Filter-Rule attributes is created by		Rule attributes, the set of NAS-Filter-Rule attributes is created by
	concatenating the individual filter rules, separated by a NUL octet.		concatenating the individual filter rules, separated by a NUL octet.
	The resulting data SHOULD then be split on 253 byte boundaries.		The resulting data SHOULD then be split on 253-octet boundaries.
	When translating RADIUS NAS-Filter-Rule attributes to Diameter NAS-		When translating RADIUS NAS-Filter-Rule attributes to Diameter NAS-
	Filter-Rule AVPs, the individual rules are determined by		Filter-Rule AVPs, the individual rules are determined by
	concatenating the contents of all NAS-Filter-Rule attributes, and		concatenating the contents of all NAS-Filter-Rule attributes, and
	then splitting individual filter rules with the NUL octet as a		then splitting individual filter rules with the NUL octet as a
	delimeter. Each rule is then encoded as a single Diameter NAS-		delimiter. Each rule is then encoded as a single Diameter NAS-
	Filter-Rule AVP.		Filter-Rule AVP.
	Note that a translated Diameter message can be larger than the		Note that a translated Diameter message can be larger than the
	maximum RADIUS packet size (4096). Where a Diameter/RADIUS gateway		maximum RADIUS packet size (4096 bytes). Where a Diameter/RADIUS
	receives a Diameter message containing a NAS-Filter-Rule AVP that is		gateway receives a Diameter message containing a NAS-Filter-Rule AVP
	too large to fit into a RADIUS packet, the Diameter/RADIUS gateway		that is too large to fit into a RADIUS packet, the Diameter/RADIUS
	will respond to the originating Diameter peer with a Result-Code AVP		gateway will respond to the originating Diameter peer with a Result-
	with the value DIAMETER_RADIUS_AVP_UNTRANSLATABLE (TBD), and with a		Code AVP with the value DIAMETER_RADIUS_AVP_UNTRANSLATABLE (5018),
	Failed-AVP AVP containing the NAS-Filter-Rule AVP. Since repairing		and with a Failed-AVP AVP containing the NAS-Filter-Rule AVP. Since
	the error will probably require re-working the filter rules, the		repairing the error will probably require re-working the filter
	originating peer should treat the combination of a Result-Code AVP		rules, the originating peer should treat the combination of a
	with value DIAMETER_RADIUS_AVP_UNTRANSLATABLE and a Failed-AVP AVP		Result-Code AVP with value DIAMETER_RADIUS_AVP_UNTRANSLATABLE and a
	containing a NAS-Filter-Rule AVP as a terminal error.		Failed-AVP AVP containing a NAS-Filter-Rule AVP as a terminal error.
	5. IANA Considerations		5. IANA Considerations
	This specification does not create any new registries.		This specification does not create any new registries.
	This document uses the RADIUS [RFC2865] namespace, see		This document uses the RADIUS [RFC2865] namespace, see
	<http://www.iana.org/assignments/radius-types>. Allocation of one		<http://www.iana.org/assignments/radius-types>. One value has been
	update for the section "RADIUS Attribute Types" is requested. The		allocated in the section "RADIUS Attribute Types". The RADIUS
	RADIUS attribute for which a value is requested is:		attribute for which a value has been assigned is:
	TBD - NAS-Filter-Rule		92 - NAS-Filter-Rule
	This document also utilizes the Diameter [RFC3588] namespace.		This document also utilizes the Diameter [RFC3588] namespace. A
	Allocation of a Diameter Result-Code AVP value for the		Diameter Result-Code AVP value for the
	DIAMETER_RADIUS_AVP_UNTRANSLATABLE error is requested. Since this is		DIAMETER_RADIUS_AVP_UNTRANSLATABLE error has been allocated. Since
	a permanent failure, an allocation should be provided in the 5xxx		this is a permanent failure, the allocation (5018) is in the 5xxx
	range.		range.
	6. Security Considerations		6. Security Considerations
	This specification describes the use of RADIUS for purposes of		This specification describes the use of RADIUS for purposes of
	authentication, authorization and accounting. Threats and security		authentication, authorization and accounting. Threats and security
	issues for this application are described in [RFC3579] and [RFC3580];		issues for this application are described in [RFC3579] and [RFC3580];
	security issues encountered in roaming are described in [RFC2607].		security issues encountered in roaming are described in [RFC2607].
	This document specifies a new attribute that can be included in		This document specifies a new attribute that can be included in
	existing RADIUS packets, which are protected as described in		existing RADIUS packets, which are protected as described in
	[RFC3579] and [RFC3576]. See those documents for a more detailed		[RFC3579] and [RFC3576]. See those documents for a more detailed
	description.		description.
	The security mechanisms supported in RADIUS and Diameter are focused		The security mechanisms supported in RADIUS and Diameter are focused
	on preventing an attacker from spoofing packets or modifying packets		on preventing an attacker from spoofing packets or modifying packets
	in transit. They do not prevent an authorized RADIUS/Diameter server		in transit. They do not prevent an authorized RADIUS/Diameter server
	or proxy from modifying, inserting or removing attributes with		or proxy from modifying, inserting, or removing attributes with
	malicious intent. Filter attributes modified or removed by a		malicious intent. Filter attributes modified or removed by a
	RADIUS/Diameter proxy may enable a user to obtain network access		RADIUS/Diameter proxy may enable a user to obtain network access
	without the appropriate filters; if the proxy were also to modify		without the appropriate filters; if the proxy were also to modify
	accounting packets, then the modification would not be reflected in		accounting packets, then the modification would not be reflected in
	the accounting server logs.		the accounting server logs.
	Since the RADIUS protocol currently does not support capability		Since the RADIUS protocol currently does not support capability
	negotiation, a RADIUS server cannot automatically discover whether a		negotiation, a RADIUS server cannot automatically discover whether a
	NAS supports the NAS-Filter-Rule attribute. A legacy NAS not		NAS supports the NAS-Filter-Rule attribute. A legacy NAS not
	compliant with this specification may silently discard the NAS-		compliant with this specification may silently discard the NAS-
	Filter-Rule attribute while permitting the user to access the		Filter-Rule attribute while permitting the user to access the
	network. This can lead to users improperly receiving unfiltered		network. This can cause users to improperly receive unfiltered
	access to the network. As a result, the NAS-Filter-Rule attribute		access to the network. As a result, the NAS-Filter-Rule attribute
	SHOULD only be sent to a NAS that is known to support it.		SHOULD only be sent to a NAS that is known to support it.
	7. References		7. References
	7.1. Normative references		7.1. Normative References
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March, 1997.		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March, 1997.
	[RFC2865] Rigney, C., Rubens, A., Simpson, W. and S. Willens, "Remote		[RFC2865] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson,
	Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 2865, June		"Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC
	2000.		2865, June 2000.
	[RFC3588] Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J.		[RFC3588] Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J.
	Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, September 2003.		Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, September 2003.
	[RFC4005] Calhoun, P., Zorn, G., Spence, D. and D. Mitton, "Diameter		[RFC4005] Calhoun, P., Zorn, G., Spence, D., and D. Mitton, "Diameter
	Network Access Server Application", RFC 4005, August 2005.		Network Access Server Application", RFC 4005, August 2005.
	7.2. Informative references		7.2. Informative References
	[RFC2607] Aboba, B. and J. Vollbrecht, "Proxy Chaining and Policy		[RFC2607] Aboba, B. and J. Vollbrecht, "Proxy Chaining and Policy
	Implementation in Roaming", RFC 2607, June 1999.		Implementation in Roaming", RFC 2607, June 1999.
	[RFC3576] Chiba, M., Dommety, G., Eklund, M., Mitton, D. and B. Aboba,		[RFC3576] Chiba, M., Dommety, G., Eklund, M., Mitton, D., and B.
	"Dynamic Authorization Extensions to Remote Authentication		Aboba, "Dynamic Authorization Extensions to Remote
	Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 3576, July 2003.		Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 3576,
			July 2003.
	[RFC3579] Aboba, B. and P. Calhoun, "RADIUS Support for Extensible		[RFC3579] Aboba, B. and P. Calhoun, "RADIUS (Remote Authentication
	Authentication Protocol (EAP)", RFC 3579, September 2003.		Dial In User Service) Support For Extensible Authentication
			Protocol (EAP)", RFC 3579, September 2003.
	[RFC3580] Congdon, P., Aboba, B., Smith, A., Zorn, G., Roese, J., "IEEE		[RFC3580] Congdon, P., Aboba, B., Smith, A., Zorn, G., and J. Roese,
	802.1X Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)		"IEEE 802.1X Remote Authentication Dial In User Service
	Usage Guidelines", RFC3580, September 2003.		(RADIUS) Usage Guidelines", RFC 3580, September 2003.
	[Traffic] Congdon, P., Sanchez, M., Lior, A., Adrangi, F. and B. Aboba,		[Traffic] Congdon, P., Sanchez, M., Lior, A., Adrangi, F., and B.
	"RADIUS Attributes for Filtering and Redirection", Internet		Aboba, "RADIUS Attributes for Filtering and Redirection",
	draft (work in progress), draft-ietf-radext-filter-		Work in Progress, March 2007.
	rules-01.txt, June 2006.
	Acknowledgments		8. Acknowledgments
	The authors would like to acknowledge Emile Bergen, Alan DeKok, Greg		The authors would like to acknowledge Emile Bergen, Alan DeKok, Greg
	Weber, Glen Zorn, Pasi Eronen, David Mitton and David Nelson for		Weber, Glen Zorn, Pasi Eronen, David Mitton, and David Nelson for
	contributions to this document.		contributions to this document.
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Paul Congdon		Paul Congdon
	Hewlett Packard Company		Hewlett Packard Company
	HP ProCurve Networking		ProCurve Networking by HP
	8000 Foothills Blvd, M/S 5662		8000 Foothills Blvd, M/S 5662
	Roseville, CA 95747		Roseville, CA 95747
	EMail: paul.congdon@hp.com		EMail: paul.congdon@hp.com
	Phone: +1 916 785 5753		Phone: +1 916 785 5753
	Fax: +1 916 785 8478		Fax: +1 916 785 8478
	Mauricio Sanchez		Mauricio Sanchez
	Hewlett Packard Company		Hewlett Packard Company
	HP ProCurve Networking		ProCurve Networking by HP
	8000 Foothills Blvd, M/S 5559		8000 Foothills Blvd, M/S 5559
	Roseville, CA 95747		Roseville, CA 95747
	EMail: mauricio.sanchez@hp.com		EMail: mauricio.sanchez@hp.com
	Phone: +1 916 785 1910		Phone: +1 916 785 1910
	Fax: +1 916 785 1815		Fax: +1 916 785 1815
	Bernard Aboba		Bernard Aboba
	Microsoft Corporation		Microsoft Corporation
	One Microsoft Way		One Microsoft Way
	Redmond, WA 98052		Redmond, WA 98052
	EMail: bernarda@microsoft.com		EMail: bernarda@microsoft.com
	Phone: +1 425 706 6605		Phone: +1 425 706 6605
	Fax: +1 425 936 7329		Fax: +1 425 936 7329
	Intellectual Property Statement		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		The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
	Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to		Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
	pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in		pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
	this document or the extent to which any license under such rights		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		might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
	made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information		made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
	on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be		on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
	found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.		found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any		Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
	assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an		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		attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
	such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this		such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
	specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at		specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
	http://www.ietf.org/ipr.		http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
	The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any		The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
	copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary		copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
	rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement		rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
	this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-		this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
	ipr@ietf.org.		ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
	Disclaimer of Validity
	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.
	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.
	Acknowledgment		Acknowledgement
	Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the		Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
	Internet Society.		Internet Society.
	Open issues
	Open issues relating to this specification are tracked on the
	following web site:
	http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/
End of changes. 48 change blocks.
	153 lines changed or deleted		133 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.33. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/