ROAMOPS Working Group Bernard Aboba
INTERNET-DRAFT Microsoft Corporation
<draft-ietf-roamops-dnsrr-01.txt >
1 March 1997
The Roaming Relationship (RR) Record in the DNS
1. Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working docu-
ments of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and
its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute work-
ing 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 mate-
rial or to cite them other than as ``work in progress.''
To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the
``1id-abstracts.txt'' listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow
Directories on ds.internic.net (US East Coast), nic.nordu.net
(Europe), ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast), or munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim).
The distribution of this memo is unlimited. It is filed as <draft-
ietf-roamops-dnsrr-01.txt>, and expires September 1, 1997. Please
send comments to the authors.
2. Abstract
This document describes the use of the Roaming Relationship (RR)
record in the DNS for the description of roaming relationships. In the
absence of DNS security, RR records may be used for determining the
existence of a roaming relationship path between the local ISP and the
user's home domain, as well as the location of an appropriate account-
ing agent. However, since the RR records are not secured, other meth-
ods (such as hierarchical authentication routing) must be used in
order to validate the roaming relationship path. When DNS security is
implemented, the roaming relationship path is authenticated via digi-
tal signatures, and as a result, additional services may be provided,
such as non-repudiation of proxied authentications and signed receipts
for accounting record transfers.
3. Introduction
Considerable interest has arisen recently in a set of features that
fit within the general category of "roaming capability" for dialup
Internet users. Interested parties have included:
Regional Internet Service Providers (ISPs) operating within a
Aboba [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT 1 March 1997
particular state or province, looking to combine their efforts
with those of other regional providers to offer dialup service
over a wider area.
National ISPs wishing to combine their operations with those of
one or more ISPs in another nation to offer more comprehensive
dialup service in a group of countries or on a continent.
Businesses desiring to offer their employees a comprehensive
package of dialup services on a global basis. Those services may
include Internet access as well as secure access to corporate
intranets via a Virtual Private Network (VPN), enabled by tunnel-
ing protocols such as PPTP, L2F, or L2TP.
This document describes the use of the Roaming Relationship (RR)
record in the DNS for the description of inter-domain roaming rela-
tionships, as required for enabling of roaming and other inter-
provider services. In the absence of DNS security, RR records may be
used for determining the existence of a roaming relationship between
the local ISP and the user's home domain, as well as the location of
an appropriate accounting agent. However, since the RR records are not
secured, other methods (such as hierarchical authentication routing)
must be used in order to validate the roaming relationship path. When
DNS security is implemented as described in [13], the roaming rela-
tionship path is authenticated via digital signatures, and as a
result, additional services may be provided, such as non-repudiation
of proxied authentications and signed receipts for accounting record
transfers. The latter capability is described in references [5] -
[11].
3.1. Terminology
This document frequently uses the following terms:
roaming relationship path
The roaming relationship path is the series of roaming rela-
tionships that link together a local ISP and user's home
domain. The roaming relationship path may or may not be the
same as the authentication route, depending on whether the
local proxy is able to directly contact the home authentica-
tion server.
authentication route
The route that an authentication will take in traveling
between the local ISP's authentication proxy and the home
authentication server. Where RADIUS proxy authentication is
used, the authentication route follows the roaming relation-
ship path.
Network Access Server
The Network Access Server (NAS) is the device that clients
dial in order to get access to the network.
Aboba [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT 1 March 1997
RADIUS server
This is a server which provides for authentication/autho-
rization via the protocol described in [3], and for account-
ing as described in [4].
RADIUS proxy
In order to provide for the routing of RADIUS authentication
and accounting requests, a RADIUS proxy may employed. To the
NAS, the RADIUS proxy appears to act as a RADIUS server, and
to the RADIUS server, the proxy appears to act as a RADIUS
client.
RADIUS domain
In order to provide for the routing of RADIUS authentication
and accounting requests, the userID field used in PPP and in
the subsequent RADIUS authentication and accounting
requests, may contain structure. This structure provides a
means by which the RADIUS proxy will locate the RADIUS
server that is to receive the request.
3.2. Requirements language
This specification uses the same words as [14] for defining the sig-
nificance of each particular requirement. These words are:
MUST This word, or the adjectives "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", means
that the definition is an absolute requirement of the speci-
fication.
MUST NOT This phrase, or the phrase "SHALL NOT", means that the defi-
nition is an absolute prohibition of the specification.
SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", means that there
may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to
ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be
understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different
course.
SHOULD NOT
This phrase means that there may exist valid reasons in par-
ticular circumstances when the particular behavior is
acceptable or even useful, but the full implications should
be understood and the case carefully weighed before imple-
menting any behavior described with this label.
MAY This word, or the adjective "OPTIONAL", means that an item
is truly optional. One vendor may choose to include the
item because a particular marketplace requires it or because
the vendor feels that it enhances the product while another
vendor may omit the same item. An implementation which does
not include a particular option MUST be prepared to interop-
erate with another implementation which does include the
Aboba [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT 1 March 1997
option, though perhaps with reduced functionality. In the
same vein an implementation which does include a particular
option MUST be prepared to interoperate with another imple-
mentation which does not include the option.(except, of
course, for the feature the option provides)
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 "uncondition-
ally compliant"; one that satisfies all the must and must not require-
ments but not all the should or should not requirements for its proto-
cols is said to be "conditionally compliant."
4. The Roaming Relationship (RR) Record
In order to enable roaming, it is necessary for a local provider to be
able to determine whether a roaming relationship path exists between
itself and the user's home domain, so as to enable the local provider
to be paid for the use of its resources. These roaming relationships
are typically of two types: the relationship between a firm and a
provider, in which the firm delegates roaming authority to the
provider; or the relationship between a provider and a roaming associ-
ation, in which the provider agrees to allow members of the consortium
to access its network resources, in exchange for compensation. How-
ever, it is also possible for a company or even an individual to form
a direct relationship with a roaming consortia, or for consortia to
form a relationship with another consortia.
Inter-domain roaming relationships may extend to several levels. For
example, BIGCO may delegate roaming authority to ISPA, who may in turn
join roaming association ISPGROUP. When Fred dials into ISPB and
attempts to authenticate as fred@bigco.com, it is necessary for ISPB
to determine whether it has a means for being paid for the resources
consumed by Fred. This is accomplished by tracing the web of roaming
relationships backwards from the bigco.com domain, in order to deter-
mine whether a path of roaming relationships exists between ISPB and
BIGCO.
Please note that the task of determining the path of roaming relation-
ships is orthogonal to the issue of authentication routing. Where
authentication proxy chaining is used, authentication routing is
required in order to improve scalability. However, when public key
authentication is available, it is possible for an authentication
proxy to directly contact a home authentication server. However,
regardless of how the authentication is routed, it is still necessary
for the local ISP to determine the path of roaming relationships so
that it can determine whether it can be paid for the transaction.
The purpose of the Roaming Relationship (RR) record is to document
inter-domain roaming relationships. Where DNS Security is enabled, it
is possible for these relationships to be authenticated via use of the
KEY and SIG RRs. In order to authenticate the existence of a roaming
Aboba [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT 1 March 1997
relationship, the domain to which roaming authority has been delegated
signs the KEY RR of the domain which has done the delegation. The sig-
nature includes an expiration date, as well as the KEY RR itself, and
it is expected that the expiration dates SHOULD NOT be far in the
future. As a result, it is expected that the roaming authority will
update the SIG RR periodically in order to enable the relationship to
continue.
Please note that Roaming Relationship (RR) records may be retrieved in
a variety of ways. When hierarchical authentication routing is being
used, RR records are typically retrieved by the local ISP's authenti-
cation proxy, and used both for the determination of a roaming rela-
tionship, and for use in authentication routing. When public key
authentication, IPSEC and DNS security are available, then it is pos-
sible for the local ISP's authentication proxy to contact the home
domain's authentication server directly. In this case, hierarchical
authentication routing is not necessary, and it is possible for the
home domain's authentication server to return signed Roaming Relation-
ship resource records to the local ISP's authentication proxy as
attributes within the authentication reply. If this is done, then the
local ISP's authentication proxy may not need to look up any Roaming
Relationship resource records itself, and as a result, the total time
required for the authentication will be decreased. This will lessen
the probability of a timeout.
4.1. Roaming Relationship resource record RDATA format
The RDATA for a Roaming Relationship resource record is as follows:
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 2
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Preference | Flags |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ /
/ Domain /
/ /
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
4.1.1. Preference
The Preference field, which is two octets, specifies the preference
given to this record versus other records of the same type and owner.
Lower values are preferred.
4.1.2. Flags
The flags field, which is two octets, is as follows:
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Aboba [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT 1 March 1997
|U P C S I F H R R R R R R R R R|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
U = User. If U=1, then the Roaming Relationship record represents an
individual user or account. The user name is represented the same way
as in the SOA or RP resource records. As a result, fred@bigco.com will
be represented as fred.bigco.com. Since the DNS was not intended for
use as a user database, it is expected that this flag will only be set
on rare occasions.
P = Provider. If P=1, then the Roaming Relationship record represents
delegation of roaming authority from a non-ISP to an ISP or a roaming
consortia.
C = Consortia. If C=1, then the Roaming Relationship record represents
delegation of roaming authority from an ISP to a roaming consortia.
S = Accounting agent. If S=1, then a accounting agent exists within
the domain.
I = Internet access. If I=1, then the Roaming Relationship record may
be used for provisioning of Internet access. In roaming applications
this bit MUST be set.
F = Fax. If F=1, then the Roaming Relationship record may be used for
provisioning of Internet fax.
H = H.323. If H=1, then the Roaming Relationship may be used for pro-
visioning of H.323 conferencing.
R = Reserved.
4.1.3. Domain
The domain field represents the domain name to which roaming authority
has been delegated by the owner name.
4.2. Use of the Roaming Relationship (RR) Record
The Roaming Relationship (RR) record uses semantics similar to that of
the Mail Exchange (MX) record, in that it includes a priority as well
as the domain to which roaming authority has been delegated. The RR
record is of the form:
bigco.com. IN RR
10 ;priority
P I ;flags. P = Provider, I = Internet Access
ispa.com. ;domain with roaming authority
Here 10 refers to the priority of the RR record, and ispa.com is the
domain to which BIGCO has delegated roaming responsibilities. The use
of a priority field allows multiple relationships to be represented,
Aboba [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT 1 March 1997
with authenticating ISPs checking the relationships in ascending order
of priority. Thus, an RR record of priority 10 would be checked before
a record of priority 20. As described in the previous section, letters
are used to denote flag bits.
Routes for a given domain SHOULD be given different priorities, so as
to allow for predictable behavior. Since routes at the same priority
will be round-robined, this will result in alternation of routes.
Unless there is a good reason for balancing the load this way, this
approach SHOULD NOT be used.
5. Examples
5.1. Example One
Let us assume that Fred is an employee of BIGCO, who has established
roaming relationships with ISPA and ISPC, both of which are members of
roaming consortia ISPGROUP1. BIGCO also has a relationship with clear-
ing houses ISPGROUP2 and ISPGROUP3. ISPB is a member of the ISPGROUP1
roaming consortia.
The Roaming Relationship records for BIGCO appear as follows:
bigco.com. IN RR 10 P I ispa.com.
bigco.com. IN RR 20 P I ispc.com.
bigco.com. IN RR 30 P I ispgroup3.com.
bigco.com. IN RR 40 P I ispgroup2.com.
The RR records for ISPA, ISPB, ISPC, ISPGROUP1, ISPGROUP2 and ISP-
GROUP3 appear as follows:
ispa.com. IN RR 10 C I ispgroup1.com.
ispb.com. IN RR 10 C I ispgroup1.com.
ispc.com. IN RR 10 C I ispgroup1.com.
ispgroup1.com. IN RR 10 C I S ispgroup1.com.
ispgroup2.com. IN RR 10 C I S ispgroup2.com.
ispgroup3.com. IN RR 10 C I S ispgroup3.com.
5.1.1. Sequence of events
Fred logs into ISPB as fred@bigco.com; as a result the ISPB authenti-
cation proxy receives this NAI. ISPB's authentication proxy first
checks for the presence of a user record for fred.bigco.com. If so,
then it retrieves the RR resource records for the domain to whom Fred
has delegated roaming authority. If there is no user record, then it
checks its configuration files to see whether bigco.com is one of the
Aboba [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT 1 March 1997
domains with whom it has a direct roaming relationship. This check
will fail since BIGCO has no direct roaming relationship with ISPB. As
a result, ISPB's authentication proxy will need to retrieve resource
records either from its own cache or from the bigco.com zone.
Assuming that ISPB's authentication proxy does not support public key
authentication and IPSEC, then hierarchical authentication routing
will be used. In this case, ISPB's authentication proxy will need to
retrieve RR resource records from the bigco.com zone. If ISPB's
authentication proxy supports public key authentication and ISPEC,
then rather than immediately retrieving RR resource records, it will
retrieve the SRV, KEY and SIG resource records for the bigco.com zone.
Using the SRV resource record, ISPB's authentication proxy can locate
the authentication proxy for the bigco.com domain. The SIG resource
records for the bigco.com zone can then be retrieved in order to
determine whether the bigco.com authentication server supports IPSEC.
If so, then ISPB's authentication proxy may contact the bigco.com
authentication server directly. In this case, only the IPSEC AH header
need be used, since only authentication services are required. In its
authentication reply, the bigco.com authentication server may return
the RR records for its zone as well as those of the zones to which it
has delegated roaming authority, in the form of attributes within the
Access-Reply. If so, then ISPB's authentication proxy will be saved
the work of having to retrieve these resource records itself prior to
forwarding the authentication reply on to the NAS.
Once the RR resource records have been retrieved by one mechanism or
another, a depth first search is performed in order to select the
roaming relationship path. In this case, ISPB determines whether it
has a direct roaming relationship with ISPA (priority 10 record from
the bigco.com zone). If not, then it looks at the RR records for the
ispa.com domain, and determines whether it has a direct roaming rela-
tionship with any of the domains to whom ISPA has delegated roaming
responsibility. In this case, ISPB determines that it has a direct
roaming relationship with ISPGROUP1 (priority 10 record from the
ispa.com zone). As a result, the roaming relationship path
bigco.com/ispa.com/ispgroup1.com/ispb.com is selected. Since ISPGROUP1
operates a accounting agent within its domain, accounting records for
the transaction will be sent to ISPGROUP1's accounting agent.
If ISPA had not been a member of the ISPGROUP1 roaming consortia, then
the depth-first search would have terminated, and ISPB would proceed
to check for a business relationship on the branch represented by the
priority 20 record in the bigco.com zone (ispc.com). In this case the
roaming relationship path bigco.com/ispc.com/ispgroup1.com/ispb.com
would have been selected.
If ISPB were a member of the ISPGROUP3 roaming consortia, and not a
member of the ISPGROUP1 or ISPGROUP2 consortia, then the breadth-first
search would fail on both the priority 10 and 20 branches of the
bigco.com tree. In this case, the business relationship path
bigco.com/ispgroup3.com/ispb.com would have been selected.
Aboba [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT 1 March 1997
5.2. Example Two
Let us assume that BIGCO has branch offices in multiple locations. The
BIGCO branch office in Illinois has a contract with ISPA, which is a
member of ISPGROUP1 while the branch office in Israel has a contract
with ISPC, which is a member of ISPGROUP2. As a result, it is desired
that Fred be able to login either from Illinois or from Israel, with
the authentication being done by the appropriate ISP. When logging in
from Illinois, Fred uses the POPs of ISPB, while in Israel, he uses
the POPs of ISPD.
In this case, the RR records for BIGCO will appear as follows:
bigco.com. IN RR 10 P I ispa.com.
bigco.com. IN RR 20 P I ispc.com.
The records for ISPA, ISPB, ISPC, ISPD, ISPGROUP1 and ISPGROUP2 appear
as follows:
ispa.com. IN RR 10 C I ispgroup1.com.
ispb.com. IN RR 10 C I ispgroup1.com.
ispc.com. IN RR 10 C I ispgroup2.com.
ispd.com. IN RR 10 C I ispgroup2.com.
ispgroup1.com. IN RR 10 C I S ispgroup1.com.
ispgroup2.com. IN RR 10 C I S ispgroup2.com.
5.2.1. Sequence of events
While in the United States, Fred logs into ISPB as fred@bigco.com; as
a result the ISPB authentication proxy receives this NAI. ISPB's
authentication proxy first checks for the presence of a user record
for fred.bigco.com. If so, then it retrieves the RR resource records
for the domain to whom Fred has delegated roaming authority. If there
is no user record, then it checks its configuration files to see
whether bigco.com is one of the domains with whom it has a direct
roaming relationship. This check will fail since BIGCO has no direct
roaming relationship with ISPB. As a result, ISPB's authentication
proxy will need to retrieve resource records either from its own cache
or from the bigco.com zone.
Once the RR resource records have been retrieved by one mechanism or
another, a depth first search is performed in order to select the
roaming relationship path. In this case, ISPB determines whether it
has a direct roaming relationship with ISPA (priority 10 record from
the bigco.com zone). If not, then it looks at the RR records for the
ispa.com domain, and determines whether it has a direct roaming rela-
tionship with any of the domains to whom ISPA has delegated roaming
responsibility. In this case, ISPB determines that it has a direct
Aboba [Page 9]
INTERNET-DRAFT 1 March 1997
roaming relationship with ISPGROUP1 (priority 10 record from the
ispa.com zone). As a result, the roaming relationship path
bigco.com/ispa.com/ispgroup1.com/ispb.com is selected. Since ISPGROUP1
operates a accounting agent within its domain, accounting records for
the transaction will be sent to ISPGROUP1's accounting agent.
While in Israel, Fred logs into ISPD as fred@bigco.com; as a result,
the ISPD authentication proxy receives this NAI. ISPD's authentication
proxy then checks its configuration files to see whether bigco.com is
one of the domains with whom it has a direct roaming relationship.
This check will fail since BIGCO has no direct roaming relationship
with ISPD. As a result, ISPD's authentication proxy will need to
retrieve resource records either from its own cache or from the
bigco.com zone.
Once the Roaming Relationship resource records have been retrieved by
one mechanism or another, a depth first search is performed in order
to select the roaming relationship path. In this case, ISPD determines
whether it has a direct roaming relationship with ISPA (priority 10
record from the bigco.com zone). If not, then it looks at the RR
records for the ispa.com domain, and etermines whether it has a direct
roaming relationship with any of the domains to whom ISPA has dele-
gated roaming responsibility. In this case, ISPD determines that no
roaming relationship path exists going through ISPA.
As a result, ISPD checks for a roaming relationship on the ISPC branch
(priority 20 record from the bigco.com zone). First, it determines
whether there is a direct roaming relationship between ISPD and ISPC
(there is not). Then it looks at the RR records for the ispc.com
domain, and determines whether it has a direct roaming relationship
with any of the domains to whom ISPC has delegated roaming responsi-
bility. In this case, ISPD determines that it has a direct roaming
relationship with ISPGROUP2 (priority 10 record from the ispc.com
zone). As a result, the roaming relationship path
bigco.com/ispc.com/ispgroup2.com/ispd.com is selected. Since ISPGROUP2
operates a accounting agent within its domain, accounting records for
the transaction will be sent to ISPGROUP2's accounting agent.
5.3. Example Three
Let us assume that Fred wishes to travel to a country which is not
served by the roaming consortia that BIGCO's provider ISPA has joined.
In this case, Fred will wish to make use of the user roaming relation-
ship resource record.
In this case, the RR records for BIGCO will appear as follows:
bigco.com. IN RR 10 P I ispa.com.
fred.bigco.com. IN RR 10 U I ispe.com.
The records for ISPA, ISPB, ISPD, ISPGROUP1 and ISPGROUP2 appear as
follows:
Aboba [Page 10]
INTERNET-DRAFT 1 March 1997
ispa.com. IN RR 10 C I ispgroup1.com.
ispb.com. IN RR 10 C I ispgroup1.com.
ispb.com. IN RR 10 C I ispgroup2.com.
ispe.com. IN RR 10 C I ispgroup2.com.
ispgroup1.com. IN RR 10 C I S ispgroup1.com.
ispgroup2.com. IN RR 10 C I S ispgroup2.com.
5.3.1. Sequence of events
While traveling, Fred logs into ISPB as fred@bigco.com; as a result
the ISPB authentication proxy receives this NAI. ISPB's authentication
proxy first checks for the presence of a user record for
fred.bigco.com. If so, then it retrieves the RR resource records for
the domain to whom Fred has delegated roaming authority. In this case,
a user record exists for fred@bigco.com, so that the authentication
proxy determines whether it has a direct roaming relationship with
ISPE (priority 10 record from the fred.bigco.com zone). If not, then
it looks at the RR records for the ispe.com domain, and determines
whether it has a direct roaming relationship with any of the domains
to whom ISPE has delegated roaming responsibility. In this case, ISPB
determines that it has a direct roaming relationship with ISPGROUP2
(priority 10 record from the ispe.com zone). As a result, the roaming
relationship path fred.bigco.com/ispe.com/ispgroup2.com/ispb.com is
selected. Since ISPGROUP2 operates a accounting agent within its
domain, accounting records for the transaction will be sent to ISP-
GROUP2's accounting agent.
Please note that even though Fred has a user Roaming Relationship
record, the authentication conversation will still be conducted
between ISPB's authentication proxy and BIGCO's authentication server.
6. Prevention of looping topologies
Since it is possible to create looping topologies using Roaming Rela-
tionship records, a mechanism must be provided to prevent endless
loops. As a result, it is recommended that authentication proxies be
configured with a default maximum of four hops. This would support the
scenario of an authentication passing from a NAS to an authentication
proxy, from the proxy to ISPGROUP, from ISPGROUP to ISPA, and from
ISPA to BIGCO.
7. Use of the RR Record Without DNS Security
When Roaming Relationship resource records are utilized without DNS
security, no assurance can be provided as to the authenticity of the
roaming relationships represented by these records. As a result, it is
necessary to verify the validity of the roaming relationship path by
Aboba [Page 11]
INTERNET-DRAFT 1 March 1997
another means. This can be accomplished by causing the authentication
to be routed along the roaming relationship path.
As an example, let us assume that the roaming relationship path
bigco.com/ispc.com/ispgroup2.com/ispd.com is selected. If this path
has not been authenticated via DNS Security, then ISPD's authentica-
tion proxy will forward it's authentication request to ISPGROUP2,
including the business relationship path as a source route. ISPGROUP2
will then in turn forward the authentication to ISPC, who will forward
it to BIGCO. At each step of the way, a pre-existing relationship will
need to exist between hops in order for this authentication forwarding
to proceed. As a result, the act of authenticating Fred via the roam-
ing relationship path acts to validate the roaming relationship as
determined from the RR resource records.
Note that such hop by hop forwarding is required even if IPSEC and
public key authentication is available for use between the local ISP's
authentication proxy and the home authentication server, as long as
the roaming relationship path has not been authenticated via DNS Secu-
rity. This is because while the authentication end-points might be
able to communicate securely without need for hierarchical authentica-
tion routing, the local ISP still needs to validate the roaming rela-
tionship path.
Please also note that DNS Security will also typically be used in
order to enable signed receipts to be returned by the accounting agent
in response to receipt of digitally signed accounting record bundles.
Accounting agent support for MIME Security Multiparts is indicated via
use of the Email bit within the KEY resource record flag field. DNS
Security may also be used to indicate that a home authentication
server supports IPSEC. This is indicated via use of the IPSEC bit
within the KEY resource record flag field.
8. Use of the RR Record With DNS Security
When used in concert with DNS Security, RR resource records may be
authenticated. When used along with IPSEC, this permits direct commu-
nication between the local ISP's authentication proxy and the home
authentication server. In addition, support for DNS Security allows
for provision of additional services, such as non-repudiation of
authentication replies, as well as for return of signed receipts for
accounting record transfers. This is accomplished via use of the KEY,
and SIG resource records.
8.1. Use of KEY Resource Record
The KEY resource record is used in order to allow a public key to be
associated with a zone.
Aboba [Page 12]
INTERNET-DRAFT 1 March 1997
8.1.1. Flag Field
No additional flags need to be defined for use in roaming. When used
to secure Roaming Relationship resource records, bit 0 of the Key
resource record flag field MUST be cleared, indicating that use of the
key is allowed for authentication. Bit 1 may or may not be set to
indicate use for confidentiality. If the Roaming Relationship record
is for a user, then bit 5 will be set, indicating the use of the KEY
for a user or account. Bits 6 and 7 (none-zone entity and zone bits)
may or may not be set. If the KEY resource record is for an authenti-
cation server supporting IPSEC, then bit 8 will be set. If the KEY
resource record is for a accounting server supporting MIME Security
Multiparts, then bit 9 will be set. Bits 12-15, the signatory bits,
may or may not be set.
8.1.2. Protocol field
When used to secure Roaming Relationship resource records, the value
192 will be used in the protocol octet, in order to denote experimen-
tal use. Should roaming technology be deployed on a widespread basis,
then a value between 1 and 191 will be assigned by IANA.
8.2. Use of the SIG Resource Record
Since the Roaming Relationship record is signed by the zone to whom
roaming authority has been delegated, rather than the parent zone, a
zone that has delegated roaming responsibility will typically have at
least two SIG records, one signed by the superzone, and at least one
additional SIG record, signed by the provider(s) to who roaming
authority has been delegated.
The SIG resource record used for roaming will have a type covered of
RR. It will also contain a signature expiration date and the time when
the record was signed. Since the roaming relationship will be assumed
to be in force until the signature expiration, ISPs or roaming consor-
tia will typically only sign records for short periods of time.
Finally, the SIG resource record will contain the domain to whom roam-
ing responsibility has been delegated, and will be signed by that
domain.
8.2.1. Example
BIGCO delegates roaming authority to ISPA. As a result, ISPA provides
the following SIG resource record in the bigco.com zone:
bigco.com. SIG RR 1 2 (; type-cov=RR, alg=1, labels=2
1997040102030405 ; signature expiration
1997030112130408 ; time signed
31273 ; key footprint
ispa.com. ; signer
Z2fWBj8L=wevdKjOwJbakr2s4Ns=/Mox32X1rQntZPud1Fws/yIpbj7WBtIBug2w5ZrN
Aboba [Page 13]
INTERNET-DRAFT 1 March 1997
2sWgTDnrOZd9=/U94gor9k8XCsV5gOr1+2SuGnU/ ;signature (640 bits)
In order to secure the bigco.com zone, there will also be other SIG
resource records. Given the size of these records, it is possible that
the resource records will exceed the maximum DNS UDP packet size, and
a TCP transfer will be required to return all of the associated zone
records.
9. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Glen Zorn of Microsoft, Pat Calhoun of USR, and Michael
Robinson of Global One for many useful discussions of this problem
space.
10. References
[1] B. Aboba, J. Lu, J. Alsop, J. Ding. "Review of Roaming Implemen-
tations." draft-ietf-roamops-imprev-01.txt, Microsoft, Aimnet, i-Pass
Alliance, Asiainfo, January, 1997.
[2] B. Aboba, G. Zorn. "Dialing Roaming Requirements." draft-ietf-
roamops-roamreq-02.txt, Microsoft, January, 1997.
[3] C. Rigney, A. Rubens, W. Simpson, S. Willens. "Remote Authenti-
cation Dial In User Service (RADIUS)." RFC 2058, Livingston, Merit,
Daydreamer, January, 1997.
[4] C. Rigney. "RADIUS Accounting." RFC 2059, Livingston, January,
1997.
[5] R. Fajman. "An Extensible Message Format for Message Disposition
Notifications." draft-ietf-receipt-mdn-02.txt, National Institute of
Health, November, 1996.
[6] M. Elkins. "MIME Security with Pretty Good Privacy (PGP)." RFC
2015, The Aerospace Corporation, October, 1996.
[7] G. Vaudreuil. "The Multipart/Report Content Type for the Reporting
of Mail System Administrative Messages." RFC 1892, Octel Network Ser-
vices, January, 1996.
[8] J. Galvin., et al. "Security Multiparts for MIME: Multipart/Signed
and Multipart/Encrypted." RFC 1847, Trusted Information Systems, Octo-
ber, 1995.
[9] D. Crocker. "MIME Encapsulation of EDI Objects." RFC 1767, Bran-
denburg Consulting, March, 1995.
[10] M. Jansson, C. Shih, N. Turaj, R. Drummond. "MIME-based Secure
EDI." draft-ietf-ediint-as1-02.txt, LiNK, Actra, Mitre Corp, Drummond
Group, November, 1996.
Aboba [Page 14]
INTERNET-DRAFT 1 March 1997
[11] C. Shih, M. Jansson, R. Drummond, L. Yarbrough. "Requirements for
Inter-operable Internet EDI." draft-ietf-ediint-req-01.txt, Actra,
LiNK, Drummond Group, May, 1995.
[12] A. Gulbrandsen, P. Vixie. "A DNS RR for specifying the location
of services (DNS SRV)." RFC 2052, Troll Technologies, Vixie Enter-
prises, October 1996.
[13] D. Eastlake, 3rd, C. W. Kaufman. "Domain Name System Security
Extensions." Draft-ietf-dnnsec-secext-10.txt, CyberCash, Iris, August,
1996.
[14] S. Bradner. "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels." draft-bradner-key-words-02.txt, Harvard University, August,
1996.
[15] C. Malmud, M. Rose. "Principles of Operation for the TPC.INT
Subdomain: General Principles and Policy." RFC 1530, Internet Multi-
casting Service, Dover Beach Consulting, Inc., October, 1993.
11. Authors' Addresses
Bernard Aboba
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
Phone: 206-936-6605
EMail: bernarda@microsoft.com
Aboba [Page 15]
