As per Relevance of the word criteria, we have this rfc below:
Network Working Group B. Aboba,
Request for Comments: 2989 P. Calhoun, S. Glass, Sun Microsystems, Inc
Category: Informational T. Hiller, P. McCann, H. Shiino, P. Walsh,
G. Zorn, G. Dommety, Cisco Systems, Inc
C. Perkins, B. Patil, Nokia
D. Mitton, S. Manning, Nortel
M. Beadles, SmartPipes Inc
X. Chen,
S. Sivalingham, Ericsson Wireless
A. Hameed,
M. Munson, GTE
S. Jacobs, GTE
B. Lim, LG Information & Communications, Ltd
B. Hirschman,
R. Hsu, Qualcomm, Inc
H. Koo, Samsung Telecommunications America, Inc
M. Lipford, Sprint
E. Campbell, 3Com
Y. Xu, Watercove
S. Baba, Toshiba America Research, Inc
E. Jaques, Vodaphone
November 2000
Criteria for Evaluating AAA Protocols for Network
Status of this
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of
memo is unlimited
Copyright
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved
This document represents a summary of Authentication, Authorization
Accounting (AAA) protocol requirements for network access.
creating this document, inputs were taken from documents produced
the Network Access Server Requirements Next Generation (NASREQ),
Roaming Operations (ROAMOPS), and MOBILEIP working groups, as well
from TIA 45.6.
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 1]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
This document summarizes the requirements collected from
sources, separating requirements for authentication,
and accounting. Details on the requirements are available in
original documents
1.
This document represents a summary of AAA protocol requirements
network access. In creating this documents, inputs were taken
documents produced by the NASREQ [3], ROAMOPS [2], and MOBILEIP [5]
working groups, as well as from TIA 45.6 [4]. This
summarizes the requirements collected from those sources,
requirements for authentication, authorization and accounting
Details on the requirements are available in the original documents
1.1. Requirements
In this document, the key words "MAY", "MUST, "MUST NOT", "optional",
"recommended", "SHOULD", and "SHOULD NOT", are to be interpreted
described in [1].
Please note that the requirements specified in this document are
be used in evaluating AAA protocol submissions. As such,
requirements language refers to capabilities of these protocols;
protocol documents will specify whether these features are required
recommended, or optional. For example, requiring that a
support confidentiality is NOT the same thing as requiring that
protocol traffic be encrypted
A protocol submission is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one
more of the MUST or MUST NOT requirements for the capabilities
it implements. A protocol submission that satisfies all the MUST
MUST NOT, SHOULD and SHOULD NOT requirements for its capabilities
said to be "unconditionally compliant"; one that satisfies all
MUST and MUST NOT requirements but not all the SHOULD or SHOULD
requirements for its protocols is said to be "
compliant."
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 2]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
1.2.
The act of collecting information on resource usage for
purpose of trend analysis, auditing, billing, or
allocation
Administrative
An internet, or a collection of networks, computers,
databases under a common administration. Computer
operating in a common administration may be assumed
share administratively created security associations
Attendant A node designed to provide the service interface between
client and the local domain
The act of verifying a claimed identity, in the form of
pre-existing label from a mutually known name space, as
originator of a message (message authentication) or as
end-point of a channel (entity authentication).
The act of determining if a particular right, such
access to some resource, can be granted to the presenter
a particular credential
Billing The act of preparing an invoice
Broker A Broker is an entity that is in a different
domain from both the home AAA server and the local ISP,
which provides services, such as facilitating
between the local ISP and home administrative entities
There are two different types of brokers; proxy
routing
Client A node wishing to obtain service from an attendant
an administrative domain
End-to-
End-to-End is the security model that requires
security information be able to traverse, and be
even when an AAA message is processed by intermediate
such as proxies, brokers, etc
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 3]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Foreign
An administrative domain, visited by a Mobile IP client
and containing the AAA infrastructure needed to carry
the necessary operations enabling Mobile IP registrations
From the point of view of the foreign agent, the
domain is the local domain
Home
An administrative domain, containing the network
prefix matches that of a mobile node's home address,
containing the AAA infrastructure needed to carry out
necessary operations enabling Mobile IP registrations
From the point of view of the home agent, the home
is the local domain
Hop-by-
Hop-by-hop is the security model that requires that
direct set of peers in a proxy network share a
association, and the security information does not
a AAA entity
Inter-domain
Inter-domain accounting is the collection of information
resource usage of an entity within an
domain, for use within another administrative domain.
inter-domain accounting, accounting packets and
records will typically cross administrative boundaries
Intra-domain
Intra-domain accounting is the collection of information
resource within an administrative domain, for use
that domain. In intra-domain accounting,
packets and session records typically do not
administrative boundaries
Local
An administrative domain containing the AAA
of immediate interest to a Mobile IP client when it is
from home
Proxy A AAA proxy is an entity that acts as both a client and
server. When a request is received from a client,
proxy acts as a AAA server. When the same request needs
be forwarded to another AAA entity, the proxy acts as a
client
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 4]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Local
A Local Proxy is a AAA server that satisfies the
of a Proxy, and exists within the same
domain as the network device (e.g., NAS) that issued
AAA request. Typically, a local proxy will enforce
policies prior to forwarding responses to the
devices, and are generally used to multiplex AAA
from a large number of network devices
Network Access
The Network Access Identifier (NAI) is the userID
by the client during network access authentication.
roaming, the purpose of the NAI is to identify the user
well as to assist in the routing of the
request. The NAI may not necessarily be the same as
user's e-mail address or the user-ID submitted in
application layer authentication
Routing
A Routing Broker is a AAA entity that satisfies
definition of a Broker, but is NOT in the transmission
of AAA messages between the local ISP and the home domain'
AAA servers. When a request is received by a
Broker, information is returned to the AAA requester
includes the information necessary for it to be able
contact the Home AAA server directly.
organizations providing Routing Broker services MAY
act as a Certificate Authority, allowing the Routing
to return the certificates necessary for the local ISP
the home AAA servers to communicate securely
Non-Proxy
A Routing Broker is occasionally referred to as a Non-
Broker
Proxy
A Proxy Broker is a AAA entity that satisfies
definition of a Broker, and acts as a Transparent Proxy
acting as the forwarding agent for all AAA messages
the local ISP and the home domain's AAA servers
Real-time
Real-time accounting involves the processing of
on resource usage within a defined time window.
constraints are typically imposed in order to
financial risk
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 5]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Roaming
Roaming capability can be loosely defined as the ability
use any one of multiple Internet service providers (ISPs),
while maintaining a formal, customer-vendor
with only one. Examples of cases where roaming
might be required include ISP "confederations" and ISP
provided corporate network access support
Session
A session record represents a summary of the
consumption of a user over the entire session.
gateways creating the session record may do so
processing interim accounting events
Transparent
A Transparent Proxy is a AAA server that satisfies
definition of a Proxy, but does not enforce any
policies (meaning that it does not add, delete or
attributes or modify information within messages
forwards).
2. Requirements
The AAA protocol evaluation criteria for network access
summarized below. For details on the requirements, please
the documents referenced in the footnotes
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 6]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
2.1. General
These requirements apply to all aspects of AAA and thus
considered general requirements
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| General | NASREQ | ROAMOPS | MOBILE |
| Reqts. | | | IP |
| | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| Scalability | M | M | M |
| a | 12 | 3 | 30 39 |
| | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| Fail-over | M | | M |
| b | 12 | | 31 |
| | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| Mutual auth | M | | M |
| AAA client/server | 16 | | 30 |
| c | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| Transmission level | | M | S |
| security | | 6 | 31 39 |
| d | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| Data object | M | M | M |
| Confidentiality | 26 | 6 | 40 |
| e | | | |
| | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| Data object | M | M | M |
| Integrity | 16 | 6 | 31 39 |
| f | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| Certificate transport | M | | S/M |
| g | 42 | |31,33/46 |
| | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 7]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| Reliable AAA transport | M | | M |
| mechanism | 22 | | 31 32 |
| h | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| Run Over IPv4 | M | M | M |
| | 11 | 1 | 33 |
| | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| Run Over IPv6 | M | | S |
| | 11 | 1 | 47 |
| | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| Support Proxy and | M | | M |
| Routing Brokers | 12 | | 31 39 |
| i | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| Auditability | S | | |
| j | 25 | | |
| | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| Dual App and Transport | | O | M |
| Security not required | | 6 | 40 |
| k | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| Ability to carry | M | | S |
| service-specific attr. | 43 | | 31 33 |
| l | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
M =
S =
O =
N = MUST
B = SHOULD
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 8]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
[a] The AAA protocol must be capable of supporting millions of
and tens of thousands of simultaneous requests. The
architecture and protocol MUST be capable of supporting tens
thousands of devices, AAA servers, proxies and brokers
[b] In the event of failure to communicate with a given server,
protocol must provide a mechanism to change service to
backup or secondary server
[c] This requirement refers to the ability to support
authentication between the AAA client and server
[d] The AAA protocol requires authentication, integrity
and confidentiality at the transmission layer. This
model is also referred to as hop-by-hop security, whereas
security is established between two communicating peers. All
the security is removed when the AAA message is processed by
receiving AAA entity
[e] The AAA protocol requires confidentiality at the object level
where an object consists of one or more attributes.
level confidentiality implies that only the target AAA
for whom the data is ultimately destined may decrypt the data
regardless of the fact that the message may traverse one or
intermediate AAA entities (e.g., proxies, brokers).
[f] The AAA protocol requires authentication and
protection at the object level, which consists of one or
attributes. Object level authentication must be
across one or more intermediate AAA entity (e.g., proxy, broker
etc), meaning that any AAA entity in a proxy chain may
the authentication. This implies that data that is covered
object level security CANNOT be modified by
servers
[g] The AAA protocol MUST be capable of transporting certificates
This requirement is intended as an optimization, in lieu
requiring that an out-of-band protocol be used to
certificates
[h] This requirement refers to resilience against packet loss
including
1. Hop-by-hop retransmission and fail-over so that
does not solely depend on single hop
retransmission
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 9]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
2. Control of the retransmission mechanism by the
application
3. Acknowledgment by the transport that a message was
successfully, separate from message semantics or
evaluation
5. Piggy-backing of acknowledgments in AAA messages
6. Timely delivery of AAA responses
[i] In the Mobile IP AAA architecture, brokers can be in
forwarding path, in which case they act as transparent
(proxy brokers). Alternatively, it is also possible to
of brokers operating as certifying authorities outside of
forwarding path (routing brokers).
[j] An auditable process is one in which it is possible
definitively determine what actions have been performed on
packets as they travel from the home AAA server to the
device and back
[k] The AAA protocol MUST allow communication to be secured
However, the AAA protocol MUST also allow an underlying
service (e.g., IP Security) to be used. When the latter
used, the former MUST NOT be required
[l] The AAA protocol MUST be extensible by third parties (e.g.,
other IETF Working Groups), in order to define attributes
are specific to the service being defined. This
simply means that the AAA protocol MUST allow groups other
the AAA WG to define standard attributes
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 10]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
2.2. Authentication
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| Authentication | NASREQ | ROAMOPS | MOBILE |
| Reqts. | | | IP |
| | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| NAI Support | M | M | S/M |
| a | 9 | 2 |32,34,39/|
| | | | 40 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| CHAP Support | M | M | |
| b | 10 | 3 | |
| | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| EAP Support | M | S | |
| c | 10 | 3 | |
| | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| PAP/Clear-Text Support | M | B | |
| d | 26 | 3 | |
| | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| Re-authentication | M | | S |
| on demand | 17 | | 33 |
| e | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| Authorization Only | M | | |
| without Authentication | 9 | | |
| f | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
M =
S =
O =
N = MUST
B = SHOULD
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 11]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
[a] The AAA protocol MUST allow the use of Network
Identifiers (NAI) [8] to identify users and/or devices
[b] The AAA protocol MUST allow CHAP [20] authentication
to be transported. This is commonly used by Network
Servers that request authentication of a PPP user
[c] The AAA protocol MUST allow for Extensible
Protocol (EAP) [14] payload to be transported. Since some
authentication mechanisms require more than one round trip,
AAA protocol must allow for such authentication mechanisms to
used. The actual EAP authentication mechanism negotiated
be transparent to the AAA protocol. When EAP is used
authentication typically occurs between the user
authenticated and his/her home AAA server
[d] While PAP is deprecated, it is still in widespread use for
original intended purpose, which is support of clear-
passwords. As a result, a AAA protocol will need to be able
securely transport clear-text passwords. This
providing for confidentiality of clear-text passwords
over the wire, as well as protecting against disclosure
clear-text passwords to proxies in the forwarding path
[e] The AAA protocol MUST allow for a user to be re-
on-demand. The protocol MUST allow for this event to
triggered by either the user, access device (AAA client), or
home or visited AAA server
[f] The AAA protocol MUST NOT require that credentials of the
be provided during authorization. The AAA protocol
authorization by identification or assertion only
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 12]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
2.3. Authorization
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| Authorization | NASREQ | ROAMOPS | MOBILE |
| Reqts. | | | IP |
| | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Static and Dynamic | | | |
| IPv4/6 Address Assign. | M | M | M |
| a | 11 | 5 | 32 36 |
| | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| RADIUS gateway | M | M | M |
| capability | 44 | 3 | 45 |
| b | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| Reject | M | M | M |
| capability | 12 | 4 | 39 |
| c | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| Precludes layer 2 | N | N | |
| tunneling | 11 | 5 | |
| | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| Re-Authorization on | M | | S |
| demand | 18 | | 30 33 |
| d | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| Support for Access Rules,| M | | |
| Restrictions, Filters | 11, 19 | | |
| e | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| State Reconciliation | M | | |
| f | 20 | | |
| | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| Unsolicited Disconnect | M | | |
| g | 18 | | |
| | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 13]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
M =
S =
O =
N = MUST
B = SHOULD
[a] The AAA protocol MUST allow a server to provide a static
dynamic address during the authorization phase of a user and/
device. The address assigned MUST be either of type IPv4
IPv6. If both the client AND the server are aware of a pre
configured address, then it is considered static. Anything
is dynamic
[b] This requirement refers to the ability of a new AAA protocol
sufficiently compatible with the large installed base
attributes for existing approaches (RADIUS), such that a
implementation could speak both protocols, or translate
them
[c] This requirement refers to the ability of a proxy broker to
access without forwarding the access request to the AAA server
or to deny access after receiving an access accept from the
server
[d] This requirement refers to the ability of the AAA client
server to trigger re-authorization, or to the ability of
server to send updated authorization information to the device
such as "stop service." Authorization can allow for a
period, then additional authorization can be sought to continue
A server can initially authorize a user to connect and
services, but later decide the user is no longer allowed use
the service, for example after N minutes. Authorizations
have a time limit. Re-authorization does not necessarily
re-authentication
[e] This requirement refers to the ability to of the protocol
describe access operational limitations and
restrictions to usage to the NAS which includes (but is
limited to):
1. Session expirations and Idle
2. Packet
3. Static
4. QoS
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 14]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
[f] This requirement refers to the ability of the NAS to use the
server to manage resource allocation state. This capability
assist with, but it is not synonymous with, simultaneous
login control, port usage limitations, or IP address pooling
The design must provide for recovery from data loss due to
variety of faults, including NAS and AAA server reboots,
NAS/AAA server communication outages, and MUST be independent
the accounting stream. The granularity of the recovery of
information after an outage may be on the order of a fraction
a minute. In order to provide for state recovery,
session/resource status and update and disconnect messages
be required
Because of potential multi-domain issues, only systems
allocate or use a resource should track its state
[g] This requirement refers to the ability of the AAA server
request the NAS to disconnect an active session
authorization policy reasons
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 15]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
2.4. Accounting
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| Accounting | NASREQ | ROAMOPS | MOBILE |
| Reqts. | | | IP |
| | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| Real-time accounting | M | M | M |
| a | 14 | 7 | 31 |
| | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| Mandatory Compact | | M | |
| Encoding | | 7 | |
| b | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| Accounting Record | | M | M |
| Extensibility | | 7 | 33 |
| | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| Batch Accounting | S | | |
| c | 21 | | |
| | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| Guaranteed Delivery | M | | M |
| d | 22 | | 31 |
| | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| Accounting Time Stamps | M | | M |
| e | 23 | | 40 |
| | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| Dynamic Accounting | M | | |
| f | 48 | | |
| | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 16]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
M =
S =
O =
N = MUST
B = SHOULD
[a] This requirement may be loosely defined as
synchronously with events. Typically the time window is on
order of seconds, not milliseconds
[b] The AAA protocol's Accounting data format MUST NOT be bloated
imposing a large overhead for one or more accounting
elements
[c] This requirement refers to the ability to buffer or
multiple accounting records, and send them together at
later time
[d] This is an application layer acknowledgment. This is sent
the receiving server is willing to take responsibility for
message data
[e] This requirement refers to the ability to reflect the time
occurrence of events such as log-on, logoff, authentication
authorization and interim accounting. It also implies
ability to provide for unambiguous time-stamps
[f] This requirement refers to the ability to account for
authentication and authorization. To support this, there can
multiple accounting records for a single session
2.5. Unique Mobile IP
In addition to the above requirements, Mobile IP also has
following additional requirements
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 17]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| Encoding of Mobile IP | | | M |
| registration messages | | | 33 |
| | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| Firewall friendly | | | M |
| a | | | 35 |
| | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| Allocation of local Home | | | S/M |
| agent | | | 37/41 |
| | | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
M =
S =
O =
N = MUST
B = SHOULD
[a] A firewall friendly protocol is one which is designed
accommodate a firewall acting as a proxy. For example,
would permit a Home Agent AAA server situated behind a
to be reachable from the Internet for the purposes of
AAA services to a Mobile IP Foreign Agent
[1] Section 4.2.1 of [2]
[2] Section 4.2.2 of [2]. Also see [8].
[3] Section 4.2.3 of [2]. Also see [14].
[4] Section 4.2.4 of [2].
[5] Section 4.2.5 of [2].
[6] Section 4.2.6 of [2].
[7] Section 4.3 of [2].
[8] Section 6 of [3]. Also see [6].
[9] Section 8.2.2.2 of [3]. Also see [14].
[10] Section 8.2.2.1 of [3]. Also see [14].
[11] Section 8.3.2.2 of [3]. Also see [7].
[12] Section 8.1.1 of [3].
[13] Section 8.1.4.4 of [3].
[14] Section 8.4.1.2 of [3].
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 18]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
[15] Section 8.4.2 of [3].
[16] Section 8.1.3 of [3].
[17] Section 8.2.1.2 of [3].
[18] Section 8.3.1.1 of [3].
[19] Section 8.3.2.1 of [3]. Also see [7].
[20] Section 8.3.2.3 of [3]. Also see [6], [7].
[21] Section 8.4.1.3 of [3].
[22] Section 8.4.1.1 of [3].
[23] Section 8.4.1.4 of [3].
[24] Section 8.4.3.1 of [3].
[25] Section 8.4.3.2 of [3].
[26] Section 8.2.3.1 of [3].
[27] Section 8.3.3.1 of [3].
[28] Section 8.1.4.1 of [3].
[29] Refer [15]
[30] Section 3 of [5]
[31] Section 3.1 of [5]
[32] Section 4 of [5]
[33] Section 5 of [5]
[34] Section 5.1 of [5]
[35] Section 5.2 of [5]
[36] Section 5.3 of [5]
[37] Section 5.4 of [5]
[38] Section 5.5 of [5]
[39] Section 6 of [5]
[40] Section 5.1 of [4]
[41] Section 5.2.2 of [4]
[42] Section 8.2.2.2 of [3]
[43] Section 8.1.2.3 of [3]
[44] Section 8.1.2.2 of [3]
[45] Section 5.4 of [4]
[46] Section 7 of [4]
[47] Section 8 of [5]
[48] Section 8.4.1.5 of [3]
3.
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Aboba, B. and G. Zorn, "Criteria for Evaluating
Protocols", RFC 2477, January 1999.
[3] Beadles, M. and D. Mitton, "Criteria for Evaluating
Access Server Protocols", Work in Progress
[4] Hiller, T., et al., "Cdma2000 Wireless Data Requirements
AAA", Work in Progress
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 19]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
[5] Glass, S., Hiller, T., Jacobs, S. and C. Perkins, "Mobile
Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting Requirements",
2977, October 2000.
[6] Mitton, D., Beadles, M., "Network Access Server
Next Generation (NASREQNG) NAS Model", RFC 2881, July 2000.
[7] Mitton, D., "Network Access Server Requirements: Extended
Practices", RFC 2882, July 2000.
[8] Aboba, B. and M. Beadles, "The Network Access Identifier",
2486, January 1999.
[9] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A. and W. Simpson, "
Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 2865,
2000.
[10] Rigney, C., "RADIUS Accounting", RFC 2866, June 2000.
[11] Simpson, W., Editor, "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)",
51, RFC 1661, July 1994.
[12] Sklower, K., Lloyd, B., McGregor, G., Carr, D. and T. Coradetti
"The PPP Multilink Protocol (MP)", RFC 1990, August 1996.
[13] Simpson, W., Editor, "PPP LCP Extensions", RFC 1570,
1994.
[14] Blunk, L. and J. Vollbrecht, "PPP Extensible
Protocol (EAP)", RFC 2284, March 1998.
[15] Solomon, J. and S. Glass, "Mobile-IPv4 Configuration Option
PPP IPCP", RFC 2290, Feb 1998
[16] Calhoun, P. and C. Perkins, "Mobile IP Network Access
Extension for IPv4", RFC 2794, March 2000.
[17] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support", RFC 2002, Oct 1996.
[18] Johnson, D. and C. Perkins, "Mobility Support in IPv6", Work
Progress
[19] Aboba, B. and J. Vollbrecht, "Proxy Chaining and
Implementation in Roaming", RFC 2607, June 1999.
[20] Simpson, W., "PPP Challenge Handshake Authentication
(CHAP)", RFC 1994, August 1996.
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 20]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
4. Security
This document, being a requirements document, does not have
security concerns. The security requirements on protocols to
evaluated using this document are described in the
documents
5. IANA
This memo does not create any new number spaces for
administration
6.
Thanks to the members of the Mobile IP, AAA, and NASREQ
groups who have discussed and commented on these requirements.
would also like to thank the members of the AAA evaluation team,
St. Johns, Barney Wolf, Mark Stevens, David Nelson, Dave Mitton
Basavaraj Patil and Stuart Barkley for their thorough review of
document
7. Authors'
Bernard
Microsoft
One Microsoft
Redmond, WA 98052
Phone: +1 425-936-6605
Fax: +1 425-936-7329
EMail: bernarda@microsoft.
Pat R.
Network and Security Research Center, Sun
Sun Microsystems, Inc
15 Network
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Phone: +1 650-786-7733
EMail: pcalhoun@eng.sun.
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 21]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Steven M.
Sun
1 Network
Burlington, MA 01845
Phone: +1 781-442-0504
Fax: +1 781-442-1677
EMail: steven.glass@sun.
Tom
Wireless Data Standards &
Lucent
263 Shuman
Room 1HP2F-218
Naperville, IL 60563
Phone: +1 630-976-7673
EMail: tom.hiller@lucent.
Peter J.
Lucent
Rm 2Z-305
263 Shuman
Naperville, IL 60566
Phone: +1 630-713 9359
EMail: mccap@lucent.
Hajime
Lucent Technologies Japan Ltd
25 Mori Bldg. 1-4-30 Roppongi
Minato-ku
Phone: +81-3-5561-3695
EMail: hshiino@lucent.
Glen
Cisco Systems, Inc
500 108th Avenue N.E., Suite 500
Bellevue, WA 98004
Phone: +1 425-468-0955
EMail: gwz@cisco.
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 22]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Gopal
IOS Network
Cisco Systems, Inc
170 West Tasman
San Jose, CA 95134-1706
Phone: +1 408-525-1404
Fax: +1 408-526-4952
EMail: gdommety@cisco.
Charles E.
Communications Systems
Nokia Research
313 Fairchild
Mountain View,
Phone: +1 650-625-2986
Fax: +1-650-625-2502
EMail: charliep@iprg.nokia.
Basavaraj
Nokia
6000 Connection Dr
Irving, TX 75039
Phone: +1 972-894-6709
Fax: +1 972-894-5349
EMail: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.
David
Nortel
880 Technology Park
Billerica, MA 01821
Phone: +1 978-288-4570
EMail: dmitton@nortelnetworks.
Serge
Nortel
2201 Lakeside
Richardson, TX 75082-4399
Phone: +1 972-684-7277
EMail: smanning@nortelnetworks.
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 23]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Mark Anthony
SmartPipes, Inc
565 Metro Place
Suite 300
Dublin, OH 43017
Phone: +1 614-923-5657
EMail: mbeadles@smartpipes.
Pat
Lucent
263 Shuman Blvd
1F-545
Naperville,
Phone: +1 630-713-5063
EMail: walshp@lucent.
Xing
Alcatel
1000 Coit
Plano, TX 75075
Phone: +1 972-519-4142
Fax: +1 972-519-3300
EMail: xing.chen@usa.alcatel.
Sanjeevan
Ericsson Wireless Communications Inc.,
Rm Q-356
6455 Lusk
San Diego, CA 92126
Phone: +1 858-332-5670
EMail: s.sivalingham@ericsson.
Alan
2801 Telecom
Richardson, TX 75082
Phone: +1 972-479-2089
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 24]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Mark
GTE
One GTE
Alpharetta, GA 30004
Phone: +1 678-339-4439
EMail: mmunson@mobilnet.gte.
Stuart
Secure Systems
GTE
40 Sylvan Road
Waltham, MA 02451-1128
Phone: +1 781-466-3076
Fax: +1 781-466-2838
EMail: sjacobs@gte.
Byung-Keun
LG Electronics, Ltd
533, Hogye-dong, Dongan-ku, Anyang-shi
Kyungki-do,431-080
Phone: +82-31-450-7199
Fax: +82-31-450-7050
EMail: bklim@lgic.co.
Brent
1501 Shure Dr
Arlington Hieghts, IL 60006
Phone: +1 847-632-1563
EMail: qa4053@email.mot.
Raymond T.
Qualcomm Inc
6455 Lusk Blvd
San Diego, CA 92121
Phone: +1 619-651-3623
EMail: rhsu@qualcomm.
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 25]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Haeng S.
Samsung Telecommunications America, Inc
1130 E. Arapaho
Richardson, TX 75081
Phone: +1 972-761-7755
EMail: hskoo@sta.samsung.
Mark A.
Sprint
8001 College Blvd.; Suite 210
Overland Park, KS 66210
Phone: +1 913-664-8335
EMail: mlipfo01@sprintspectrum.
Ed
3Com
1800 W. Central Rd
Mount Prospect, IL 60056
Phone: +1 847-342-6769
EMail: ed_campbell@3com.
Name: Yingchun
WaterCove
One Century Centre, Suite 550
1750 E. Golf
Schaumburg,
Phone: +1 847-477-9280
EMail: yxu@watercove.
Shinichi
Toshiba America Research, Inc
PO Box 136,
Convent Station, NJ 07961-0136
Phone: +1 973-829-4795
EMail: sbaba@tari.toshiba.
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 26]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Eric
Vodafone
2999 Oak Road, MS-750
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: +1 925-279-6142
EMail: ejaques@akamail.
8. Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described
this document or the extent to which any license under such
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies
claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances
licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made
obtain a general license or permission for the use of
proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other
rights which may cover technology that may be required to
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF
Director
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 27]
RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
9. Full Copyright
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied,
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
included on all such copies and derivative works. However,
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other
English
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns
This document and the information contained herein is provided on
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by
Internet Society
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 28]
if you see any problems within the linking, don't worry be happy,
this is version 0.1 of the Relevance System and you gotta expect some crappy subroutines sometimes,
just be content we did not write this in Java, which would have made this "bigger and better" HAHAHHA.
RFC documents can be found at I.E.T.F.
Relevance System Copyright © 2002 Spectrum WorldResearch
other technical nosh by ServerMasters Corporation
collaboration of BobX
