NAI-based Dynamic Peer Discovery for RADIUS/TLS and RADIUS/DTLS
draft-ietf-radext-dynamic-discovery-10
RADIUS Extensions Working Group S. Winter
Internet-Draft RESTENA
Intended status: Experimental M. McCauley
Expires: August 18, 2014 OSC
February 14, 2014
NAI-based Dynamic Peer Discovery for RADIUS/TLS and RADIUS/DTLS
draft-ietf-radext-dynamic-discovery-10
Abstract
This document specifies a means to find authoritative RADIUS servers
for a given realm. It is used in conjunction with either RADIUS/TLS
and RADIUS/DTLS.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 18, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Winter & McCauley Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft RADIUS Peer Discovery February 2014
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. DNS RR definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1.1. S-NAPTR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1.2. SRV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1.3. Optional name mangling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2. Definition of the X.509 certificate property
SubjectAltName:otherName:NAIRealm . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3. DNS-based NAPTR/SRV Peer Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2. Configuration Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3. Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.4. Realm to RADIUS server resolution algorithm . . . . . . . 13
3.4.1. Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.4.2. Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4.3. Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.4.4. Validity of results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.4.5. Delay considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.4.6. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Appendix A. Appendix A: ASN.1 Syntax of NAIRealm . . . . . . . . 25
1. Introduction
RADIUS in all its current transport variants (RADIUS/UDP, RADIUS/TLS,
RADIUS/DTLS) requires manual configuration of all peers (clients,
servers).
Where RADIUS forwarding servers are in use, the number of realms to
be forwarded and the corresponding number of servers to configure may
be significant. Where new realms with new servers are added or
details of existing servers change on a regular basis, maintaining a
single monolithic configuration file for all these details may prove
too cumbersome to be useful.
Furthermore, in cases where a roaming consortium consists of
independently working branches, each with their own forwarding
servers, and who add or change their realm lists at their own
Show full document text