Diameter Support for the EAP Re-authentication Protocol (ERP)
RFC 6942
| Document | Type |
RFC
- Proposed Standard
(May 2013)
Was
draft-ietf-dime-erp
(dime WG)
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Julien Bournelle , Lionel Morand , Sebastien Decugis , Qin Wu , Glen Zorn | ||
| Last updated | 2015-10-14 | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
GENART Last Call review
(of
-12)
by Elwyn Davies
Almost ready
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Jouni Korhonen | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 6942 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Benoît Claise | ||
| IESG note | |||
| Send notices to | (None) |
RFC 6942
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Bournelle
Request for Comments: 6942 L. Morand
Category: Standards Track Orange Labs
ISSN: 2070-1721 S. Decugis
INSIDE Secure
Q. Wu
Huawei
G. Zorn
Network Zen
May 2013
Diameter Support for the EAP Re-authentication Protocol (ERP)
Abstract
The EAP Re-authentication Protocol (ERP) defines extensions to the
Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) to support efficient
re-authentication between the peer and an EAP Re-authentication (ER)
server through a compatible authenticator. This document specifies
Diameter support for ERP. It defines a new Diameter ERP application
to transport ERP messages between an ER authenticator and the ER
server, and a set of new Attribute-Value Pairs (AVPs) that can be
used to transport the cryptographic material needed by the
re-authentication server.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6942.
Bournelle, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 6942 Diameter ERP Application May 2013
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Bootstrapping the ER Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Bootstrapping during the Initial EAP Authentication . . . 6
5.2. Bootstrapping during the First Re-authentication . . . . 8
6. Re-authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Application Id . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. AVPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.1. ERP-RK-Request AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.2. ERP-Realm AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.3. Key AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.3.1. Key-Type AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.3.2. Keying-Material AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.3.3. Key-Name AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.3.4. Key-Lifetime AVP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. Result-Code AVP Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.1. Permanent Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.1. Diameter Application Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.2. New AVPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10.3. New Permanent Failures Result-Code AVP Values . . . . . 15
11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
13. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Bournelle, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 6942 Diameter ERP Application May 2013
1. Introduction
Cao, et al. [RFC6696] defines the EAP Re-authentication Protocol
(ERP). It consists of the following steps:
Bootstrapping
A root key for re-authentication is derived from the Extended
Master Session Key (EMSK) created during EAP authentication
[RFC5295]. This root key is transported from the EAP server to
the ER server.
Re-authentication
A one-round-trip exchange between the peer and the ER server,
resulting in mutual authentication. To support the EAP
re-authentication functionality, ERP defines two new EAP codes --
EAP-Initiate and EAP-Finish.
This document defines how Diameter transports the ERP messages during
the re-authentication process. For this purpose, we define a new
Application Identifier for ERP and reuse the Diameter EAP commands
Diameter-EAP-Request (DER) / Diameter-EAP-Answer (DEA).
This document also discusses the distribution of the root key during
bootstrapping, in conjunction with either the initial EAP
authentication (implicit bootstrapping) or the first ERP exchange
(explicit bootstrapping). Security considerations for this key
distribution are detailed in Section 7.4 of Salowey, et al.
[RFC5295].
2. Terminology
This document uses terminology defined in Aboba, et al. [RFC3748],
Salowey, et al. [RFC5295], Cao, et al. [RFC6696], and Eronen, et al.
[RFC4072].
Following RFC 5295, the term "domain" herein refers to a key
management domain unless otherwise qualified. Similarly, the terms
"home domain" and "local domain" have the same meaning here as in RFC
6696.
The re-authentication Domain-Specific Root Key (rDSRK) is a
re-authentication Root Key (rRK) [RFC6696] derived from the Domain-
Specific Root Key (DSRK) instead of the EMSK.
Bournelle, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 6942 Diameter ERP Application May 2013
"Root key" (RK) or "bootstrapping material" refers to the rRK or
rDSRK derived from an EMSK, depending on whether the ER server is
located in the home or a foreign domain.
We use the notation "ERP/DER" and "ERP/DEA" in this document to refer
to Diameter-EAP-Request and Diameter-EAP-Answer commands with the
Application Id set to <Diameter ERP> (Section 10.1); the same
commands are denoted "EAP/DER" and "EAP/DEA" when the Application Id
in the message is set to <Diameter EAP> [RFC4072].
2.1. Requirements Language
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].
3. Assumptions
This document assumes the existence of, at most, one logical ER
server entity in a given domain. If several physical servers are
deployed for robustness, a replication mechanism must be deployed to
synchronize the ERP state (e.g., root keys) between these servers.
Any such replication mechanism is outside the scope of this document.
If multiple ER servers are deployed in the domain, we assume that
they can be used interchangeably. If multiple ER servers are
deployed across multiple domains, we assume that only one ER server,
topologically close to the peer, is involved in ERP, with distance
being measured in terms of Diameter hops.
This document also assumes the existence of, at most, one EAP server
entity in the home domain. In case of multiple physical home EAP
servers, if the ER server wants to reach the same home EAP server,
the ER server SHOULD cache the Destination-Host AVP corresponding to
the home EAP server it requests.
In general, it is assumed that key management domain names and
Diameter realm names are identical for any given domain/realm.
Bournelle, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 6942 Diameter ERP Application May 2013
4. Protocol Overview
The following figure illustrates the components involved in ERP and
their interactions.
Diameter +--------+
+-------------+ ERP +-----------+ (*) | Home |
Peer <->|Authenticator|<=======>| ER server | <---> | EAP |
+-------------+ +-----------+ | server |
+--------+
(*) Diameter EAP application; explicit bootstrapping scenario only.
Figure 1: Diameter ERP Overview
The ER server is located either in the home domain (same as the EAP
server) or in the local domain (same as the authenticator, when it
differs from the home domain).
When the peer initiates an ERP exchange, the authenticator creates a
DER message [RFC4072]. The Application Id of the message is set to
that of the Diameter ERP application (Section 10.1) in the message.
The generation of the ERP/DER message is detailed in Section 6.
If there is an ER server in the same domain as the authenticator
(i.e., the local domain), Diameter routing MUST be configured so that
this ERP/DER message reaches that server, even if the Destination-
Realm is not the same as the local domain.
If there is no local ER server, the message is routed according to
its Destination-Realm AVP content, extracted from the realm component
of the keyName-NAI attribute. As specified in RFC 6696, this realm
is the home domain of the peer in the case of bootstrapping exchange
('B' flag is set in ERP message) or the domain of the bootstrapped ER
server otherwise.
If no ER server is available in the home domain either, the ERP/DER
message cannot be delivered and an error, DIAMETER_UNABLE_TO_DELIVER,
MUST be generated, as specified in RFC 6733, and returned to the
authenticator. The authenticator MAY cache this information (with
limited duration) to avoid further attempts to execute ERP with this
realm. It MAY also fallback to full EAP authentication to
authenticate the peer.
When an ER server receives the ERP/DER message, it searches its local
database for a valid, unexpired root key matching the keyName part of
the User-Name AVP. If such key is found, the ER server processes the
Bournelle, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 6942 Diameter ERP Application May 2013
ERP message, as described in RFC 6696, then creates the ERP/DEA
answer, as described in Section 6. The re-authentication Master
Session Key (rMSK) is included in this answer.
Finally, the authenticator extracts the rMSK from the ERP/DEA, as
described in RFC 6696, and forwards the content of the EAP-Payload
AVP, the EAP-Finish/Re-auth message, to the peer.
The ER server may or may not possess the root key in its local
database. If the EAP-Initiate/Re-auth message has its 'B' flag set
(bootstrapping exchange) and the ER server possesses the root key,
the ER server SHOULD respond directly to the peer that initiated the
ERP exchange. Otherwise, the ER server SHOULD act as a proxy and
forward the message to the home EAP server after changing its
Application Id to Diameter EAP and adding the ERP-RK-Request AVP to
request the root key. See Section 5 for more detail on this process.
5. Bootstrapping the ER Server
The bootstrapping process involves the home EAP server and the ER
server, but also impacts the peer and the authenticator. In ERP, the
peer must derive the same keying material as the ER server. To
achieve this, it must learn the domain name of the ER server. How
this information is acquired is outside the scope of this
specification, but the authenticator might be configured to advertise
this domain name, especially in the case of re-authentication after a
handover.
The bootstrapping of an ER server with a given root key happens
either during the initial EAP authentication of the peer when the
EMSK -- from which the root key is derived -- is created, during the
first re-authentication, or sometime between those events. We only
consider the first two possibilities in this specification, in the
following subsections.
5.1. Bootstrapping during the Initial EAP Authentication
Bootstrapping the ER server during the initial EAP authentication
(also known as implicit bootstrapping) offers the advantage that the
server is immediately available for re-authentication of the peer,
thus minimizing the re-authentication delay. On the other hand, it
is possible that only a small number of peers will use
re-authentication in the local domain. Deriving and caching key
material for all the peers (for example, for the peers that do not
support ERP) is a waste of resources and should be avoided.
Bournelle, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 6942 Diameter ERP Application May 2013
To achieve implicit bootstrapping, the ER server acts as a Diameter
EAP Proxy, and Diameter routing MUST be configured so that Diameter
EAP application messages are routed through this proxy. The figure
below illustrates this mechanism.
ER server &
Authenticator EAP Proxy Home EAP server
============= =========== ===============
------------------------->
Diameter EAP/DER
(EAP-Response)
------------------------->
Diameter EAP/DER
(EAP-Response)
(ERP-RK-Request)
<==================================================>
Multi-round Diameter EAP exchanges, unmodified
<-------------------------
Diameter EAP/DEA
(EAP-Success)
(MSK)
(Key AVP (rRK))
<-------------------------
Diameter EAP/DEA
(EAP-Success)
(MSK)
[ERP-Realm]
Figure 2: ERP Bootstrapping during Full EAP Authentication
The authenticator creates the first DER of the full EAP
authentication and sends it to the ER server. The ER server proxies
the first DER of the full EAP authentication and adds the
ERP-RK-Request AVP inside, then forwards the request to the home EAP
server.
If the home Diameter server does not support the Diameter ERP
extensions, it simply ignores the ERP-RK-Request AVP and continues as
specified in RFC 4072 [RFC4072]. If the server supports the ERP
extensions, it saves the value of the ERP-Realm AVP found inside the
ERP-RK-Request AVP, and continues with the EAP authentication. When
the authentication completes, if it is successful and the EAP method
has generated an EMSK, the server MUST derive the rRK as specified in
RFC 6696, using the saved ERP realm name. It then includes the rRK
inside a Key AVP (Section 8.3) with the Key-Type AVP set to rRK,
before sending the DEA as usual.
Bournelle, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 6942 Diameter ERP Application May 2013
When the ER server proxies a Diameter-EAP-Answer message with a
Session-Id corresponding to a message to which it added an
ERP-RK-Request AVP, and the Result-Code is DIAMETER_SUCCESS, it MUST
examine the message and save and remove any Key AVP (Section 8.3)
with Key-Type AVP set to rRK. If the message does not contain such a
Key AVP, the ER server may cache the information that
re-authentication via ERP is not possible for the session in order to
avoid any subsequent attempts. In any case, the information stored
in the ER server concerning a session should not have a lifetime
greater than the EMSK for this session.
If the ER server is successfully bootstrapped, it should also add the
ERP-Realm AVP after removing the Key AVP with Key-Type of rRK in the
EAP/DEA message. This ERP-Realm information can be used by the
authenticator to notify the peer that the ER server is bootstrapped,
and for which domain. How this information can be transmitted to the
peer is outside the scope of this document. This information needs
to be sent to the peer if both implicit and explicit bootstrapping
mechanisms are possible, because the ERP message and the root key
used for protecting this message are different in bootstrapping
exchanges and non-bootstrapping exchanges.
5.2. Bootstrapping during the First Re-authentication
Bootstrapping the ER server during the first re-authentication (also
known as explicit bootstrapping) is only needed when there is no ER
server in the local domain and there is an ER server in the home
domain. It is less resource intensive, since the EMSK generated
during initial EAP authentication is reused to derive root keys. On
the other hand, the first re-authentication requires a one-round-trip
exchange with the home EAP server, since the EMSK is generated during
the initial EAP authentication and never leaves the home EAP server,
which is less efficient than implicit bootstrapping.
The EAP-Initiate/Re-auth message is sent to the home ER server. The
home ER server receives the ERP/DER message containing the
EAP-Initiate/Re-auth message with the 'B' flag set. It creates the
new EAP/DER message using the received ERP/DER message and performs
the following processing:
Set the Application Id in the header of the message to
<Diameter EAP> [RFC4072].
Extract the ERP-RK-Request AVP from the ERP/DER message, which
contains the name of the domain where the ER server is located,
and add it to the newly created ERP/DER message.
Bournelle, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 6942 Diameter ERP Application May 2013
Then, the newly created EAP/DER is sent and routed to the home
Diameter EAP application server.
If the home Diameter EAP server does not support ERP extensions, EAP
packets with an unknown ERP-specific code (EAP-Initiate) will not be
understood. In such a case, the home Diameter EAP server MUST send
an EAP/DEA with a Result-Code indicating a Permanent Failure (for
example, DIAMETER_ERROR_EAP_CODE_UNKNOWN or
DIAMETER_UNABLE_TO_COMPLY). The Failed-AVP AVP MUST be included and
contain a copy of the EAP-Payload AVP. Otherwise, it processes the
DSRK request, as described in RFC 6696. In particular, it includes
the Domain-Name TLV attribute with the content from the ERP-Realm
AVP. The server creates the EAP/DEA reply message [RFC4072],
including an instance of the Key AVP (Section 8.3) with the Key-Type
AVP set to rRK and an instance of the Domain-Name TLV attribute with
the content from the ERP-Realm AVP.
The ER server receives this EAP/DEA and proxies it as follows, in
addition to standard proxy operations:
Set the Application Id back to Diameter ERP Application Id
(Section 10.1).
Extract and cache the content of the Key AVP with Key-Type set to
rRK, as described in Section 5.1).
The ERP/DEA message is then forwarded to the authenticator that can
use the rMSK as described in RFC 6696.
Bournelle, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 6942 Diameter ERP Application May 2013
The figure below captures this proxy behavior:
Authenticator ER server Home Diameter server
============= ========= ====================
----------------------->
Diameter ERP/DER
(EAP-Initiate)
------------------------>
Diameter EAP/DER
(EAP-Response)
(ERP-RK-Request)
<------------------------
Diameter EAP/DEA
(EAP-Success)
(Key AVP (rRK))
(Key AVP (rMSK))
<----------------------
Diameter ERP/DEA
(EAP-Finish)
(Key AVP (rMSK))
Figure 3: ERP Explicit Bootstrapping Message Flow
Bournelle, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 6942 Diameter ERP Application May 2013
6. Re-authentication
This section describes in detail a re-authentication exchange with an
ER server that was previously bootstrapped. The following figure
summarizes the re-authentication exchange.
ER server
Peer Authenticator (bootstrapped)
==== ============= ======================
[ <------------------------ ]
[optional EAP-Initiate/Re-auth-start,]
[ possibly with ERP domain name ]
----------------------->
EAP-Initiate/Re-auth
===============================>
Diameter ERP, cmd code DER
User-Name: keyName-NAI
EAP-Payload: EAP-Initiate/Re-auth
<===============================
Diameter ERP, cmd code DEA
EAP-Payload: EAP-Finish/Re-auth
Key AVP: rMSK
<----------------------
EAP-Finish/Re-auth
Figure 4: Diameter ERP Re-authentication Exchange
The peer sends an EAP-Initiate/Re-auth message to the ER server via
the authenticator. Alternatively, the authenticator may send an
EAP-Initiate/Re-auth-Start message to the peer to trigger the
mechanism. In this case, the peer responds with an
EAP-Initiate/Re-auth message.
If the authenticator does not support ERP (pure Diameter EAP
[RFC4072] support), it discards the EAP packets with an unknown ERP-
specific code (EAP-Initiate). The peer should fall back to full EAP
authentication in this case.
When the authenticator receives an EAP-Initiate/Re-auth message from
the peer, the message is processed as described in RFC 6696, with
regard to the EAP state machine. It creates a Diameter ERP/DER
message following the general process of Diameter EAP [RFC4072], with
the following differences:
Bournelle, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 6942 Diameter ERP Application May 2013
The Application Id in the header is set to <Diameter ERP>
(code 13).
The value in the Auth-Application-Id AVP is also set to
<Diameter ERP>.
The keyName-NAI attribute from the ERP message is used to create
the content of the User-Name and Destination-Realm AVPs.
The Auth-Request-Type AVP content is set to the appropriate value.
The EAP-Payload AVP contains the EAP-Initiate/Re-auth message.
Then, this ERP/DER message is sent as described in Section 4.
The ER server receives and processes this request as described in
Section 4. It then creates an ERP/DEA message following the general
process described in Eronen, et al. [RFC4072], with the following
differences:
The Application Id in the header is set to <Diameter ERP>
(code 13).
The value of the Auth-Application-Id AVP is also set to
<Diameter ERP>.
The EAP-Payload AVP contains the EAP-Finish/Re-auth message.
If authentication is successful, an instance of the Key AVP
containing the rMSK derived by ERP is included.
When the authenticator receives this ERP/DEA answer, it processes it
as described in the Diameter EAP Application specification [RFC4072]
and RFC 6696: the content of the EAP-Payload AVP is forwarded to the
peer, and the contents of the Keying-Material AVP [RFC6734] is used
as a shared secret for a secure association protocol specific to the
lower layer in use.
7. Application Id
We define a new Diameter application in this document, Diameter ERP,
with an Application Id value of 13. Diameter nodes conforming to
this specification in the role of the ER server MUST advertise
support by including an Auth-Application-Id AVP with a value of
Diameter ERP in the Capabilities-Exchange-Request and
Capabilities-Exchange-Answer commands [RFC6733].
Bournelle, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 6942 Diameter ERP Application May 2013
The primary use of the Diameter ERP Application Id is to ensure
proper routing of the messages, and that the nodes that advertise the
support for this application do understand the new AVPs defined in
Section 8, although these AVPs have the 'M' flag cleared.
8. AVPs
The following subsections discuss the AVPs used by the Diameter ERP
application.
8.1. ERP-RK-Request AVP
The ERP-RK-Request AVP (AVP Code 618) is of type Grouped AVP. This
AVP is used by the ER server to indicate its willingness to act as
the ER server for a particular session.
This AVP has the 'M' and 'V' bits cleared.
ERP-RK-Request ::= < AVP Header: 618 >
{ ERP-Realm }
* [ AVP ]
Figure 5: ERP-RK-Request ABNF
8.2. ERP-Realm AVP
The ERP-Realm AVP (AVP Code 619) is of type DiameterIdentity. It
contains the name of the realm in which the ER server is located.
This AVP has the 'M' and 'V' bits cleared.
8.3. Key AVP
The Key AVP [RFC6734] is of type Grouped and is used to carry the rRK
or rMSK and associated attributes. The usage of the Key AVP and its
constituent AVPs in this application is specified in the following
subsections.
8.3.1. Key-Type AVP
The value of the Key-Type AVP MUST be set to 1 for rRK or 2 for rMSK.
8.3.2. Keying-Material AVP
The Keying-Material AVP contains the rRK sent by the home EAP server
to the ER server, in answer to a request containing an ERP-RK-Request
AVP, or the rMSK sent by the ER server to the authenticator. How
this material is derived and used is specified in RFC 6696.
Bournelle, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 6942 Diameter ERP Application May 2013
8.3.3. Key-Name AVP
This AVP contains the EMSKname that identifies the keying material.
The derivation of this name is specified in RFC 6696.
8.3.4. Key-Lifetime AVP
The Key-Lifetime AVP contains the lifetime of the keying material in
seconds. It MUST NOT be greater than the remaining lifetime of the
EMSK from which the material was derived.
9. Result-Code AVP Values
This section defines new Result-Code [RFC6733] values that MUST be
supported by all Diameter implementations that conform to this
specification.
9.1. Permanent Failures
Errors that fall within the Permanent Failures category are used to
inform the peer that the request failed and SHOULD NOT be attempted
again.
DIAMETER_ERROR_EAP_CODE_UNKNOWN (5048)
This error code is used by the Diameter server to inform the
peer that the received EAP-Payload AVP contains an EAP packet
with an unknown EAP code.
10. IANA Considerations
IANA has registered the following new elements in the Authentication,
Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Parameters registries
[AAAPARAMS].
10.1. Diameter Application Identifier
IANA has allocated a new value "Diameter ERP" (code: 13) in the
"Application IDs" registry from the "Standards Action" range of
numbers using the "Specification Required" policy [RFC5226]; see
Section 11.3 of RFC 3588 [RFC3588] for further details.
Bournelle, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 6942 Diameter ERP Application May 2013
10.2. New AVPs
IANA has allocated new values from the "AVP Codes" registry according
to the policy specified in Section 11.1 of Fajardo, et al. [RFC6733]
for the following AVPs:
ERP-RK-Request (code: 618)
ERP-Realm (code: 619)
These AVPs are defined in Section 8.
10.3. New Permanent Failures Result-Code AVP Values
IANA has allocated a new value from the "Result-Code AVP Values (code
268) - Permanent Failure" registry according to the policy specified
in Section 11.3.2 of Fajardo, et al. [RFC6733] for the following
Result-Code:
DIAMETER_ERROR_EAP_CODE_UNKNOWN (code: 5048)
This Result-Code value is defined in Section 9.
11. Security Considerations
The security considerations from the following documents apply here:
o Eronen, et al. [RFC4072]
o Salowey, et al. [RFC5295]
o Cao, et al. [RFC6696]
o Fajardo, et al. [RFC6733]
o Zorn, et al. [RFC6734]
Because this application involves the transmission of sensitive data,
including cryptographic keys, it MUST be protected using Transport
Layer Security (TLS) [RFC5246], Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS) [RFC6347], or IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)
[RFC4303]. If TLS or DTLS is used, the bulk encryption algorithm
negotiated MUST be non-null. If ESP is used, the encryption
algorithm MUST be non-null.
Bournelle, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 6942 Diameter ERP Application May 2013
12. Contributors
Hannes Tschofenig wrote the initial draft of this document.
Lakshminath Dondeti contributed to the early drafts of the document.
13. Acknowledgements
Hannes Tschofenig, Zhen Cao, Benoit Claise, Elwyn Davies, Menachem
Dodge, Vincent Roca, Stephen Farrell, Sean Turner, Pete Resnick, Russ
Housley, Martin Stiemerling, and Jouni Korhonen provided useful
reviews.
Vidya Narayanan reviewed a rough draft version of the document and
found some errors.
Many thanks to these people!
14. References
14.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3748] Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J., and H.
Levkowetz, "Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)",
RFC 3748, June 2004.
[RFC4072] Eronen, P., Hiller, T., and G. Zorn, "Diameter Extensible
Authentication Protocol (EAP) Application", RFC 4072,
August 2005.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[RFC5295] Salowey, J., Dondeti, L., Narayanan, V., and M. Nakhjiri,
"Specification for the Derivation of Root Keys from an
Extended Master Session Key (EMSK)", RFC 5295, August
2008.
[RFC6696] Cao, Z., He, B., Shi, Y., Wu, Q., and G. Zorn, "EAP
Extensions for the EAP Re-authentication Protocol (ERP)",
RFC 6696, July 2012.
[RFC6733] Fajardo, V., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn,
"Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 6733, October 2012.
Bournelle, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 6942 Diameter ERP Application May 2013
[RFC6734] Zorn, G., Wu, Q., and V. Cakulev, "Diameter Attribute-
Value Pairs for Cryptographic Key Transport", RFC 6734,
October 2012.
14.2. Informative References
[AAAPARAMS] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "Authentication,
Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Parameters",
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/aaa-parameters/>.
[RFC3588] Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J.
Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, September
2003.
[RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", RFC
4303, December 2005.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.
[RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, January 2012.
Bournelle, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 6942 Diameter ERP Application May 2013
Authors' Addresses
Julien Bournelle
Orange Labs
38-40 rue du general Leclerc
Issy-Les-Moulineaux 92794
France
EMail: julien.bournelle@orange.com
Lionel Morand
Orange Labs
38-40 rue du general Leclerc
Issy-Les-Moulineaux 92794
France
EMail: lionel.morand@orange.com
Sebastien Decugis
INSIDE Secure
41 Parc Club du Golf
Aix-en-Provence 13856
France
Phone: +33 (0)4 42 39 63 00
EMail: sdecugis@freediameter.net
Qin Wu
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing, JiangSu 210012
China
EMail: sunseawq@huawei.com
Glen Zorn
Network Zen
227/358 Thanon Sanphawut
Bang Na, Bangkok 10260
Thailand
EMail: glenzorn@gmail.com
Bournelle, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]