Network Working Group Y. Li
Internet-Draft A. Lior
Intended status: Standards Track BWS
Expires: October 1, 2009 G. Zorn, Ed.
Network Zen
March 30, 2009
Extended Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) Attributes
draft-ietf-radext-extended-attributes-08.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain material
from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly
available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the
copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF
Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the
IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from
the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this
document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and
derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards
Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
translate it into languages other than English.
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 October 1, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Li, et al. Expires October 1, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Extended RADIUS Attributes March 2009
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Abstract
For the Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) protocol
to continue to support new applications, the RADIUS attribute type
space must be extended beyond the current limit of 255 possible
attribute types while maintaining backwards compatibility with the
existing protocol. This document defines a mechanism to accomplish
that task, along with standard methods to group together related
attributes and to encode values that don't fit into 253 octets.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. RADIUS Type Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Formal Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Diameter Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Li, et al. Expires October 1, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Extended RADIUS Attributes March 2009
1. Introduction
The Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) Protocol
[RFC2865] defines two classes of attributes: standard and vendor-
specific.
Vendor-specific Attributes (VSAs) allow vendors (including Standards
Development Organizations (SDOs)) to define their own Attributes,
which may not be suitable for general usage; on the other hand, the
attributes that belong to the standard RADIUS space are controlled by
the IETF and are intended to be of general utility. These attributes
are defined in RFCs and are assigned type codes by the Internet
Assigned Number Authority (IANA)[IANA].
The standard RADIUS attribute type code is 8 bits in length; hence
RADIUS is limited to 255 attribute types. Of these 255 attribute
types, approximately 101 have been assigned as of this writing.
According to RFC 3575 [RFC3575], types 192-223 are reserved for
experimental use; types 224-240 are reserved for implementation-
specific use; and values 241-255 are reserved and should not be used.
Therefore, as of this writing there are approximately 90 type codes
that can be allocated to new attributes.
RADIUS evolution must not be hindered by the inability to define new
standard RADIUS attributes. This document defines a mechanism to
extend the standard RADIUS Attribute space by defining a new scheme
to allocate attribute type codes. In addition, mechanisms are
defined to support both the grouping of related attributes and the
encoding of attribute values the length of which exceed the current
limit of 253 octets.
2. Terminology
Extended Attribute
The term used for the new RADIUS attributes that are defined in
this document
Extended Type
The type code assigned to an Extended Attribute
2.1. Requirements Language
In this document, several words are used to signify the requirements
of the specification. These words are often capitalized. The key
words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD",
"SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document
are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Li, et al. Expires October 1, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Extended RADIUS Attributes March 2009
An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or more
of the must or must not requirements for the protocols it implements.
An implementation that satisfies all the MUST, MUST NOT, SHOULD, and
SHOULD NOT requirements for its protocols is said to be
"unconditionally compliant"; one that satisfies all the MUST and MUST
NOT requirements but not all the SHOULD or SHOULD NOT requirements
for its protocols is said to be "conditionally compliant".
3. Problem Statement
A fundamental requirement for extending the RADIUS attribute space is
the maintenance of backwards compatibility. This means that RADIUS
servers and proxies must be able to continue to decode and encode
messages even though they may not need to understand an attribute
that has been extended. More specifically, the scheme MUST be
compliant with the various RADIUS RFCs such as [RFC2865] and RADIUS
Accounting [RFC2866], etc.
The scheme SHOULD ensure that the size of the standard type space
extension is large enough that it will not be quickly exhausted or is
extensible in the event that it is.
Furthermore, the scheme SHOULD align with the Diameter NASReq
Application [RFC4005], thereby allowing the two AAA standards to
interoperate.
A need to group related RADIUS attributes together has become
prevalent in current work. Therefore, the proposed scheme SHOULD
provide a mechanism to group related attributes together.
In recent years, attribute sizes have been pushing the current limit
of 253 octets. Fragmentation of RADIUS attributes has always been
possible by extending the value into another attribute of the same
type; however, this approach does not always work (for example, if
more than one instance of an attribute occurs in the same RADIUS
packet). The proposed scheme SHOULD enable the transmission of
attributes longer than 253 octets.
4. RADIUS Type Extension
The solution described in this document takes the recommended VSA
format [RFC2865] as a basis for the RADIUS Extended Attributes.
We allocate RADIUS the Vendor-Id of zero (0). In essence we are
assigning the IETF a Vendor-Id which is what other SDOs have done in
registering their own Vendor-Id.
Li, et al. Expires October 1, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Extended RADIUS Attributes March 2009
Extended Attributes consist of an attribute header similar to that
recommended by RFC 2865 [RFC2865] for Vendor Specific Attributes
followed by a non-empty sequence of Type-Length-Value (TLV) triples
(see below). If an Extended Attribute contains more than one TLV
then all of the encapsulated TLVs MUST fit completely within the
Extended Attribute.
The Extended Attribute header is 7 octets in length and is encoded as
follows:
o The first octet contains the Type which is always Vendor-Specific
(26)
o The second octet contains the length (in octets) of the entire
Extended Attribute, including the Extended Attribute header and
all encapsulated TLVs
o The next 4 octets contain the Vendor-Id (0)
o The final octet of the header contains the More flag and Tag
field. If the one-bit More flag is set (1) this indicates that
the encapsulated TLV is continued in the following Extended
Attribute; if the More flag is clear (0) then all of the
encapsulated TLVs fit into the current Extended Attribute. The
More flag MUST NOT be set if the Extended Attribute contains more
than one TLV. The Tag field is used to combine sets of related
Extended Attributes into simple, one level groups.
o The Data field is an abstract container for TLVs; the Data field
MUST contain at least one TLV.
TLVs are encoded as follows:
o The first two octets contain the Ext-Type field
o The next octet is the Ext-Len field, representing the length in
octets of the entire TLV, including the length of the Ext-Type
field (2 octets), the length of the Ext-Len field itself (1 octet)
and the length of the Value field (1 or more octets)
o The Value field consists of one or more octets comprising the
actual data to be transmitted
5. Formal Syntax
This section describes the encoding scheme used for RADIUS Extended
Attributes. The basis of this encoding is the format recommended for
Li, et al. Expires October 1, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Extended RADIUS Attributes March 2009
Vendor Specific Attributes in RFC 2865 [RFC2865].
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (26) | Length | Vendor-Id (0) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Vendor-Id (0) |M| Tag | Data...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
26 for Vendor-Specific
Length
> 10
Vendor ID
The Vendor Id field is 4 octets in length and MUST be zero
(0x0000), signifying an extended IETF RADIUS attribute
M (More)
The More Flag is one (1) bit in length and MUST be present. When
a value to be transmitted exceeds 245 octets in length it is
fragmented over two or more Extended Attributes. If the More Flag
is set (1), this indicates that the Value field of the Extended
Attribute contains a fragment of a larger value, which MUST be
continued in the next Extended Attribute of the same Ext-Type.
When the More Flag is clear (0), the final (or only) fragment of
the value is contained in the Extended Attribute. The More Flag
MUST NOT be set if the Length is less than 255. Any Extended
Attributes containing multiple fragments of the same value MUST be
in order and MUST be consecutive attributes in the packet.
Tag
The Tag field is 7 bits long and MUST be present. It is used to
group Extended Attributes. Extended Attributes with the same non-
zero value in the Tag field belong to the same group. A Tag value
of zero (0) indicates that the attribute is not grouped. A Tag
value of all ones (0x7F) is reserved.
Li, et al. Expires October 1, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Extended RADIUS Attributes March 2009
Data
The Data field is >= 4 octets in length. It consists of 1 or more
TLVs.
TLVs have the following syntax:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Ext-Type | Ext-Len | Value...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Ext-Type
Two (2) octets. Up-to-date values of the Ext-Type field are
specified in the most recent "Assigned Numbers" [IANA]. Values
64512-65535 (0xFC00-0xFFFF) are reserved.
Ext-Len
> 3. The length of the Type-Length-Value tuple in octets,
including the Ext-Type, Ext-Len and Value fields.
Value
One or more octets.
6. Examples
Consider an attribute called Foo of type String. Foo has been
allocated an Extended-Type of 257 by IANA. The following figure
illustrates the encoding of the string "Hello":
Li, et al. Expires October 1, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Extended RADIUS Attributes March 2009
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (26) | Length | Vendor-Id
| | (7 + 8 = 15) | (0)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Vendor-Id (cont) |M| Tag | Ext-Type
|0| (0) | (0X01)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Ext-Type (cont)| Ext-Len | Value | |
(0X01) | (3 + 5 = 8) | (H) | (e) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
| (l) | (l) | (o) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1
Now consider another instantiation of the Foo Extended Attribute,
this one with a length of 251 octets. In this case the value is
fragmented over two Extended Attributes. The first 245 octets are
included in the first fragment which has the More bit set and the
remaining 6 octets appear in the second attribute. Figure 2 below
illustrates the encoding of the first 7 octets of the first Extended
Attribute, while Figure 3 shows how the second attribute (containing
the string "e end.") is encoded.
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (26) | Length | Vendor-Id
| |(7 + 248 = 255)| (0)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Vendor-Id (cont) |M| Tag | Ext-Type
(0) |1| (0) | (0X01)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Ext-Type (cont)| Ext-Len | Value | |
(0X01) |(3 + 245 = 248)| (H) | (e) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| (l) | (l) | (o) | ( ) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| (W) | ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2
Li, et al. Expires October 1, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Extended RADIUS Attributes March 2009
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (26) | Length | Vendor-Id
| | (7 + 9 = 16) | (0)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Vendor-Id (cont) |M| Tag | Ext-Type
(0) |0| (0) | (0X01)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Ext-Type (cont)| Ext-Len | Value | |
(0X01) | (3 + 6 = 9) | (e) | ( ) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | | |
| (e) | (n) | (d) | (.) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3
The next example illustrates several of the features of Extended
Attributes:
o encapsulation of values greater than 253 octets in length
o grouping of related Extended Attributes using tags
o encapsulation of more than one TLV in a single Extended Attribute
Consider the following structure:
struct
Integer a;
String b;
Integer c;
endStruct
Element 'a' is assigned an Extended Type of 290 (0x0122). Element
'b' is assigned an Extended Type of 259 (0x0103) and element 'c' is
assigned an Extended Type of 271 (0x010F). The following figure
illustrates the encoding where the value of 'a' contains 0xDEADDEAD,
the first two octets of 'b' contain the string "He", octets 243-250
of 'b' contain "The end." and the value of 'c' is 0x12345678. The
attributes are grouped together with TAG=42. Note that this encoding
is only one out of several possibilities since there is no strict
order in attribute marshalling; for the sake of brevity, octets 3-241
of the value of 'b' are omitted from the diagram.
Li, et al. Expires October 1, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Extended RADIUS Attributes March 2009
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (26) | Length | Vendor-Id
| | (7 + 7 = 14) | (0)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Vendor-Id (cont) |M| Tag | Ext-Type
(0) |0| (42) | (0x01)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Ext-Type (cont)| Ext-Len | Value | |
(0x22) | (3 + 4 = 7) | (0xDE) | (0xAD) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | |
| (0xDE) | (0xAD) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (26) | Length | Vendor-Id
| |(7 + 248 = 255)| (0)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Vendor-Id (cont) |M| Tag | Ext-Type
(0) |1| (42) | (0x01)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Ext-Type (cont)| Ext-Len | Value | |
(0x03) |(3 + 245 = 248)| (H) | (e) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
...
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (26) | Length | Vendor-Id
| | (7+8 = 15) | (0)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Vendor-Id (cont) |M| Tag | Ext-Type
(0) |0| (42) | (0x01)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Ext-Type (cont)| Ext-Len | Value | |
(0x03) | (3 + 5 = 8) | ( ) | (e) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
| (n) | (d) | (.) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Li, et al. Expires October 1, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Extended RADIUS Attributes March 2009
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (26) | Length | Vendor-Id
| | (7+7 = 14) | (0)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Vendor-Id (cont) |M| Tag | Ext-Type
(0) |0| (42) | (0x01)
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Ext-Type (cont)| Ext-Len | Value | |
(0x0F) | (3 + 4 = 7) | (0x12) | (0x34) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | |
| (0x56) | (0x78) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4
7. Diameter Considerations
Since the Extended Attributes are encoded as Vendor-Specific RADIUS
Attributes (see [IANA]), no special handling is required by Diameter
[RFC3588] entities; see [RFC4005] for details on the Diameter
treatment of RADIUS VSAs.
8. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any new security issues into the
RADIUS protocol; for known security problems with RADIUS, see
[RFC2865], [RFC2869] and [RFC2607].
9. IANA Considerations
This standard requires that the Vendor-Id of zero be allocated to the
IETF.
It also requires that IANA set up a new registry for the RADIUS
Extended Types, reserving the value ranges 0-255 (0x0000-0x00FF) and
64512-65535 (0xFC00-0xFFFF) for future purposes. Values in this
registry should be allocated using the "IETF Review" policy
[RFC5226].
10. References
Li, et al. Expires October 1, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Extended RADIUS Attributes March 2009
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2865] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson,
"Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)",
RFC 2865, June 2000.
10.2. Informative References
[IANA] Internet Assigned Number Authority, "RADIUS TYPES",
August 2008,
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/radius-types>.
[RFC2607] Aboba, B. and J. Vollbrecht, "Proxy Chaining and Policy
Implementation in Roaming", RFC 2607, June 1999.
[RFC2866] Rigney, C., "RADIUS Accounting", RFC 2866, June 2000.
[RFC2869] Rigney, C., Willats, W., and P. Calhoun, "RADIUS
Extensions", RFC 2869, June 2000.
[RFC3575] Aboba, B., "IANA Considerations for RADIUS (Remote
Authentication Dial In User Service)", RFC 3575,
July 2003.
[RFC3588] Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J.
Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, September 2003.
[RFC4005] Calhoun, P., Zorn, G., Spence, D., and D. Mitton,
"Diameter Network Access Server Application", RFC 4005,
August 2005.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
Li, et al. Expires October 1, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Extended RADIUS Attributes March 2009
Authors' Addresses
Yong Li
Bridgewater Systems Corporation
303 Terry Fox Drive
Suite 100
Ottawa, Ontario K2K 3J1
Canada
Phone: +1 (613) 591-6655
Email: yongli@bridgewatersystems.com
URI: http://www.bridgewatersystems.com/
Avi Lior
Bridgewater Systems Corporation
303 Terry Fox Drive
Suite 100
Ottawa, Ontario K2K 3J1
Canada
Phone: +1 (613) 591-6655
Email: avi@bridgewatersystems.com
URI: http://www.bridgewatersystems.com/
Glen Zorn (editor)
Network Zen
1310 East Thomas Street
Seattle, Washington 98102
US
Phone: +1 (206) 377-9035
Email: gwz@net-zen.net
Li, et al. Expires October 1, 2009 [Page 13]
