ROAMOPS Working Group Bernard Aboba
INTERNET-DRAFT Microsoft Corporation
<draft-ietf-roamops-dnsrr-03.txt >
7 March 1997
The Roaming Relationship (REL) Resource 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-03.txt>, and expires September 15, 1997. Please
send comments to the authors.
2. Abstract
This document describes the use of the Roaming Relationship (REL)
record in the DNS for the description of roaming relationships. REL
resource records may be used for determining the existence of a roam-
ing relationship path between the local ISP and the user's home
domain, as well as the location of an appropriate accounting agent.
However, unless the roaming relationship path is authenticated by some
method (such as via tokens or certificates returned by the home
authentication server), hierarchical authentication routing must be
used in order to validate the path.
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
particular state or province, looking to combine their efforts
with those of other regional providers to offer dialup service
over a wider area.
Aboba [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT 7 March 1997
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 (REL)
record in the DNS for the description of roaming relationships. REL
resource records may be used for determining the existence of a roam-
ing relationship path between the local ISP and the user's home
domain, as well as the location of an appropriate accounting agent.
However, unless the roaming relationship path is authenticated by some
method (such as via tokens or certificates returned by the home
authentication server), hierarchical authentication routing must be
used in order to validate the path.
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.
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
Aboba [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT 7 March 1997
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
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
Aboba [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT 7 March 1997
"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."
4. The Roaming Relationship (REL) 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 (REL) resource record is to
document inter-domain roaming relationships. When hierarchical authen-
tication routing is being used, REL resource records are typically
retrieved by the local ISP's authentication proxy, and used both for
determination of the roaming relationship path as well as for use in
authentication routing. If public key authentication technology is
available, it may be possible for the local ISP's authentication proxy
to contact the home domain's authentication server directly. In this
case, hierarchical authentication routing will not be required, and
the home authentication server may return tokens or certificates in
order to validate the roaming relationship path. If this is done, then
the local ISP's authentication proxy may not need to look up any REL
resource records itself, and as a result, the total time required for
the authentication will be decreased. This will lessen the probability
Aboba [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT 7 March 1997
of a timeout.
4.1. REL resource record RDATA format
The RDATA for a REL 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|U P C A I F H R R R R R R R R R|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
U = User. If U=1, then the REL resource record represents an individ-
ual 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 REL resource record represents delega-
tion of roaming authority from a non-ISP to an ISP or a roaming con-
sortia.
C = Consortia. If C=1, then the REL resource record represents delega-
tion of roaming authority from an ISP to a roaming consortia.
A = Accounting agent. If A=1, then a accounting agent exists within
the domain.
I = Internet access. If I=1, then the REL resource record may be used
for provisioning of Internet access. In roaming applications this bit
MUST be set.
Aboba [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT 7 March 1997
F = Fax. If F=1, then the REL resource record may be used for provi-
sioning of Internet fax.
H = H.323. If H=1, then the REL resource record may be used for provi-
sioning 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 (REL) Resource Record
The Roaming Relationship (REL) resource record uses semantics similar
to that of the Mail Exchange (MX) record, in that it includes a prior-
ity as well as the domain to which roaming authority has been dele-
gated. The REL resource record is of the form:
bigco.com. IN REL 10 (; priority
ispa.com. ;domain with roaming authority
P I ;flags. P = Provider, I = Internet Access
)
Here 10 refers to the priority of the REL resource record, and
ispa.com is the domain to which BIGCO has delegated roaming responsi-
bilities. The use of a priority field allows multiple relationships to
be represented, with authenticating ISPs checking the relationships in
ascending order of priority. Thus, an REL resource record of priority
10 would be checked before a REL resource 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.
Aboba [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT 7 March 1997
The REL resource records for BIGCO appear as follows:
bigco.com. IN REL 10 ispa.com. P I
bigco.com. IN REL 20 ispc.com. P I
bigco.com. IN REL 30 ispgroup3.com. P I
bigco.com. IN REL 40 ispgroup2.com. P I
The REL resource records for ISPA, ISPB, ISPC, ISPGROUP1, ISPGROUP2
and ISPGROUP3 appear as follows:
ispa.com. IN REL 10 ispgroup1.com. C I
ispb.com. IN REL 10 ispgroup1.com. C I
ispc.com. IN REL 10 ispgroup1.com. C I
ispgroup1.com. IN REL 10 ispgroup1.com. C I A
ispgroup2.com. IN REL 10 ispgroup2.com. C I A
ispgroup3.com. IN REL 10 ispgroup3.com. C I A
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 REL 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 REL
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, then hierarchical authentication routing will be used.
In this case, ISPB's authentication proxy will need to retrieve REL
resource records from the bigco.com zone. If ISPB's authentication
proxy supports public key authentication and ISPEC, then rather than
immediately retrieving REL 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 authenti-
cation 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 public key authentica-
tion. If so, then ISPB's authentication proxy may contact the
bigco.com authentication server directly. In its authentication reply,
the bigco.com authentication server may return the REL resource
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
Aboba [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT 7 March 1997
forwarding the authentication reply on to the NAS.
Once the REL 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 REL resource records
for the ispa.com domain, and determines whether it has a direct roam-
ing relationship 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 an 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 REL resource record in the bigco.com zone (ispc.com). In
this case the roaming relationship path bigco.com/ispc.com/isp-
group1.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.
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. However, ISPGROUP1 does not have coverage in
Israel. As a result, the branch office in Israel has a contract with
ISPC, which is a member of ISPGROUP2, which does have coverage in
Israel. 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. It should be noted that ISPA and
ISPC can be located anywhere; they need not necessarily reside in
Illinois or Israel.
In this case, the REL records for BIGCO will appear as follows:
bigco.com. IN REL 10 ispa.com. P I
bigco.com. IN REL 20 ispc.com. P I
The records for ISPA, ISPB, ISPC, ISPD, ISPGROUP1 and ISPGROUP2 appear
as follows:
ispa.com. IN REL 10 ispgroup1.com. C I
Aboba [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT 7 March 1997
ispb.com. IN REL 10 ispgroup1.com. C I
ispc.com. IN REL 10 ispgroup2.com. C I
ispd.com. IN REL 10 ispgroup2.com. C I
ispgroup1.com. IN REL 10 ispgroup1.com. C I A
ispgroup2.com. IN REL 10 ispgroup2.com. C I A
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 REL 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 REL 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 REL resource records
for the ispa.com domain, and determines whether it has a direct roam-
ing relationship 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.
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 REL resource records either from its own cache or from the
bigco.com zone.
Once the REL 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 REL resource records
for the ispa.com domain, and determines whether it has a direct
Aboba [Page 9]
INTERNET-DRAFT 7 March 1997
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 passing through ISPA.
As a result, ISPD checks for a roaming relationship path on the ISPC
branch (priority 20 REL resource 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 REL records
for the ispc.com domain, and determines whether it has a direct roam-
ing relationship with any of the domains to whom ISPC has delegated
roaming responsibility. In this case, ISPD determines that it has a
direct roaming relationship with ISPGROUP2 (priority 10 REL resource
record from the ispc.com zone). As a result, the roaming relationship
path bigco.com/ispc.com/ispgroup2.com/ispd.com is selected. Since ISP-
GROUP2 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 REL resource
record.
In this case, the REL resource records for BIGCO will appear as fol-
lows:
bigco.com. IN REL 10 ispa.com. P I
fred.bigco.com. IN REL 10 ispe.com. U I
The records for ISPA, ISPB, ISPD, ISPGROUP1 and ISPGROUP2 appear as
follows:
ispa.com. IN REL 10 ispgroup1.com. C I
ispb.com. IN REL 10 ispgroup1.com. C I
ispb.com. IN REL 10 ispgroup2.com. C I
ispe.com. IN REL 10 ispgroup2.com. C I
ispgroup1.com. IN REL 10 ispgroup1.com. C I A
ispgroup2.com. IN REL 10 ispgroup2.com. C I A
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 REL resource records for
Aboba [Page 10]
INTERNET-DRAFT 7 March 1997
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 REL resource record from the fred.bigco.com zone).
If not, then it looks at the REL resource 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 responsi-
bility. In this case, ISPB determines that it has a direct roaming
relationship with ISPGROUP2 (priority 10 REL resource 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 ISP-
GROUP2 operates a accounting agent within its domain, accounting
records for the transaction will be sent to ISPGROUP2's accounting
agent.
Please note that even though Fred has a user REL resource 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 REL resource
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 REL RR
When REL resource records are utilized, 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 another means. This can be accom-
plished by causing the authentication to be routed along the roaming
relationship path, or by verifying the authenticity of a certificate
or token returned by the home authentication server.
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, then ISPD's authentication proxy will for-
ward it's authentication request to ISPGROUP2, including the roaming
relationship path as a source route. ISPGROUP2 will then in turn for-
ward 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 roaming relation-
ship path acts to validate the roaming relationship as determined from
the REL resource records.
Aboba [Page 11]
INTERNET-DRAFT 7 March 1997
Note that such hop by hop forwarding may be required even if 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, the local
ISP will still need to validate the roaming relationship path. This
can be accomplished by forcing the authentication to follow the roam-
ing relationship path, validating the relationships between the prox-
ies at each hop.
Please also note that public key authentication will also typically be
used in order to enable signed receipts to be returned by the account-
ing agent in response to receipt of digitally signed accounting record
bundles. DNS security can assist in determining what security features
are implemented at a given home authentication server or accounting
agent. Accounting agent support for MIME Security Multiparts is indi-
cated via use of the Email bit within the KEY resource record flag
field. DNS security may also be used to indicate that a home authenti-
cation server supports IPSEC. This is indicated via use of the IPSEC
bit within the KEY resource record flag field.
8. 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.
9. 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.
Aboba [Page 12]
INTERNET-DRAFT 7 March 1997
[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.
[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.
10. Authors' Addresses
Bernard Aboba
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
Phone: 206-936-6605
EMail: bernarda@microsoft.com
Aboba [Page 13]
