A RADIUS Attribute, Binding, Profiles, Name Identifier Format, and Confirmation Methods for the Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML)
RFC 7833
| Document | Type | RFC - Proposed Standard (May 2016) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Josh Howlett , Sam Hartman , Alejandro Pérez-Méndez | ||
| Last updated | 2016-05-11 | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
SECDIR Last Call review
(of
-12)
Has Issues
GENART Last Call review
(of
-12)
Almost Ready
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Klaas Wierenga | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2015-11-04 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 7833 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Stephen Farrell | ||
| Send notices to | "Klaas Wierenga" <klaas@cisco.com> | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | Version Changed - Review Needed | |
| IANA action state | RFC-Ed-Ack |
RFC 7833
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Howlett
Request for Comments: 7833 Jisc
Category: Standards Track S. Hartman
ISSN: 2070-1721 Painless Security
A. Perez-Mendez, Ed.
University of Murcia
May 2016
A RADIUS Attribute, Binding, Profiles, Name Identifier Format, and
Confirmation Methods for the Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML)
Abstract
This document describes the use of the Security Assertion Markup
Language (SAML) with RADIUS in the context of the Application
Bridging for Federated Access Beyond web (ABFAB) architecture. It
defines two RADIUS attributes, a SAML binding, a SAML name identifier
format, two SAML profiles, and two SAML confirmation methods. The
RADIUS attributes permit encapsulation of SAML Assertions and
protocol messages within RADIUS, allowing SAML entities to
communicate using the binding. The two profiles describe the
application of this binding for ABFAB authentication and assertion
Query/Request, enabling a Relying Party to request authentication of,
or assertions for, users or machines (clients). These clients may be
named using a Network Access Identifier (NAI) name identifier format.
Finally, the subject confirmation methods allow requests and queries
to be issued for a previously authenticated user or machine without
needing to explicitly identify them as the subject. The use of the
artifacts defined in this document is not exclusive to ABFAB. They
can be applied in any Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting
(AAA) scenario, such as network access control.
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/rfc7833.
Howlett, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 7833 SAML RADIUS May 2016
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
1.1. Terminology ................................................5
2. Conventions .....................................................5
3. RADIUS SAML Attributes ..........................................5
3.1. SAML-Assertion Attribute ...................................6
3.2. SAML-Protocol Attribute ....................................7
4. SAML RADIUS Binding .............................................8
4.1. Required Information .......................................8
4.2. Operation ..................................................8
4.3. Processing of Names ........................................9
4.3.1. AAA Names ..........................................10
4.3.2. SAML Names .........................................10
4.3.3. Mapping of AAA Names in SAML Metadata ..............11
4.3.4. Example of SAML Metadata That Includes AAA Names ...13
4.4. Use of XML Signatures .....................................14
4.5. Metadata Considerations ...................................14
5. Network Access Identifier Name Identifier Format ...............14
6. RADIUS State Confirmation Method Identifiers ...................15
7. ABFAB Authentication Profile ...................................15
7.1. Required Information ......................................15
7.2. Profile Overview ..........................................16
7.3. Profile Description .......................................18
7.3.1. Client Request to Relying Party ....................18
7.3.2. Relying Party Issues <samlp:AuthnRequest>
to Identity Provider ...............................18
7.3.3. Identity Provider Identifies Client ................18
7.3.4. Identity Provider Issues <samlp:Response>
to Relying Party ...................................19
7.3.5. Relying Party Grants or Denies Access to Client ....19
Howlett, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 7833 SAML RADIUS May 2016
7.4. Use of Authentication Request Protocol ....................19
7.4.1. <samlp:AuthnRequest> Usage .........................19
7.4.2. <samlp:Response> Message Usage .....................20
7.4.3. <samlp:Response> Message Processing Rules ..........20
7.4.4. Unsolicited Responses ..............................21
7.4.5. Use of the SAML RADIUS Binding .....................21
7.4.6. Use of XML Signatures ..............................21
7.4.7. Metadata Considerations ............................21
8. ABFAB Assertion Query/Request Profile ..........................21
8.1. Required Information ......................................22
8.2. Profile Overview ..........................................22
8.3. Profile Description .......................................23
8.3.1. Differences from the SAML V2.0 Assertion
Query/Request Profile ..............................23
8.3.2. Use of the SAML RADIUS Binding .....................23
8.3.3. Use of XML Signatures ..............................24
8.3.4. Metadata Considerations ............................24
9. Privacy Considerations .........................................24
10. Security Considerations .......................................25
11. IANA Considerations ...........................................25
11.1. RADIUS Attributes ........................................25
11.2. ABFAB Parameters .........................................26
11.3. Registration of the ABFAB URN Namespace ..................27
12. References ....................................................27
12.1. Normative References .....................................27
12.2. Informative References ...................................29
Appendix A. XML Schema ............................................30
Acknowledgments ...................................................32
Authors' Addresses ................................................32
1. Introduction
Within the ABFAB (Application Bridging for Federated Access Beyond
web) architecture [RFC7831], it is often desirable to convey Security
Assertion Markup Language (SAML) Assertions and protocol messages.
SAML typically only considers the use of HTTP-based transports, known
as bindings [OASIS.saml-bindings-2.0-os], which are primarily
intended for use with the SAML V2.0 web browser single sign-on
profile [OASIS.saml-profiles-2.0-os]. However, the goal of ABFAB is
to extend the applicability of federated identity beyond the web to
other applications by building on the Authentication, Authorization,
and Accounting (AAA) framework. Consequently, there exists a
requirement for SAML to integrate with the AAA framework and with
protocols such as RADIUS [RFC2865] and Diameter [RFC6733], in
addition to HTTP.
Howlett, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 7833 SAML RADIUS May 2016
In summary, this document specifies:
o Two RADIUS attributes to encapsulate SAML Assertions and protocol
messages, respectively.
o A SAML RADIUS binding that defines how SAML Assertions and
protocol messages can be transported by RADIUS within a SAML
exchange.
o A SAML name identifier format in the form of a Network Access
Identifier.
o A profile of the SAML Authentication Request Protocol that uses
the SAML RADIUS binding to effect SAML-based authentication and
authorization.
o A profile of the SAML Assertion Query and Request Protocol that
uses the SAML RADIUS binding to effect the query and request of
SAML Assertions.
o Two SAML subject confirmation methods for indicating that a user
or machine client is the subject of an assertion.
This document adheres to the guidelines stipulated by
[OASIS.saml-bindings-2.0-os] and [OASIS.saml-profiles-2.0-os] for
defining new SAML bindings and profiles, respectively, and other
conventions applied formally or otherwise within SAML. In
particular, this document provides a "Required Information" section
for the binding (Section 4.1) and profiles (Sections 7.1 and 8.1)
that enumerate:
o A URI that uniquely identifies the protocol binding or profile.
o Postal or electronic contact information for the author.
o A reference to previously defined bindings or profiles that the
new binding updates or obsoletes.
o In the case of a profile, any SAML confirmation method identifiers
defined and/or utilized by the profile.
Howlett, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 7833 SAML RADIUS May 2016
1.1. Terminology
This document uses terminology from a number of related standards
that tend to adopt different terms for similar or identical concepts.
In general, this document uses, when possible, the ABFAB term for the
entity, as described in [RFC7831]. For reference, we include the
following table, which maps the different terms into a single view.
(In this document, "NAS" refers to a network access server, and "AS"
refers to an authentication server.)
+----------+-----------+------------------+-------------------+
| Protocol | Client | Relying Party | Identity Provider |
+----------+-----------+------------------+-------------------+
| ABFAB | Client | Relying Party | Identity Provider |
| | | | |
| SAML | Subject | Service Provider | Identity Provider |
| | Principal | Requester | Responder |
| | | Consumer | Issuer |
| | | | |
| RADIUS | User | NAS | AS |
| | | RADIUS client | RADIUS server |
+----------+-----------+------------------+-------------------+
Table 1: Terminology
2. Conventions
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
3. RADIUS SAML Attributes
The SAML RADIUS binding defined in Section 4 of this document uses
two attributes to convey SAML Assertions and protocol messages
[OASIS.saml-core-2.0-os]. Owing to the typical size of these
structures, these attributes use the "Long Extended Type" format
[RFC6929] to encapsulate their data. RADIUS entities MUST NOT
include both attributes in the same RADIUS message, as they represent
exclusive alternatives to convey SAML information.
Howlett, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 7833 SAML RADIUS May 2016
3.1. SAML-Assertion Attribute
This attribute is used to encode a SAML Assertion. Figure 1
represents the format of this attribute.
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Extended-Type |M| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: SAML-Assertion Format
Type
245
Length
>= 5
Extended-Type
1
M (More)
As described in [RFC6929].
Reserved
As described in [RFC6929].
Value
One or more octets encoding a SAML Assertion.
Howlett, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 7833 SAML RADIUS May 2016
3.2. SAML-Protocol Attribute
This attribute is used to encode a SAML protocol message. Figure 2
represents the format of this attribute.
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Extended-Type |M| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: SAML-Protocol Format
Type
245
Length
>= 5
Extended-Type
2
M (More)
As described in [RFC6929].
Reserved
As described in [RFC6929].
Value
One or more octets encoding a SAML protocol message.
Howlett, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 7833 SAML RADIUS May 2016
4. SAML RADIUS Binding
The SAML RADIUS binding defines how RADIUS [RFC2865] can be used to
enable a RADIUS client and server to exchange SAML Assertions and
protocol messages.
4.1. Required Information
Identification: urn:ietf:params:abfab:bindings:radius
Contact information: iesg@ietf.org
Updates: None.
4.2. Operation
In this specification, the Relying Party (RP) MUST trust any
statement in the SAML messages from the Identity Provider (IdP) in
the same way that it trusts information contained in RADIUS
attributes. These entities MUST trust the RADIUS infrastructure to
provide integrity of the SAML messages.
Hence, it is REQUIRED that the RADIUS exchange be protected using
Transport Layer Security (TLS) encryption for RADIUS [RFC6614] to
provide confidentiality and integrity protection, unless alternative
methods to ensure them are used, such as IPsec tunnels or a
sufficiently secure internal network.
Implementations of this profile can take advantage of mechanisms to
permit the transport of longer SAML messages over RADIUS transports,
such as the support of fragmentation of RADIUS packets [RFC7499] or
larger packets for RADIUS over TCP [RADIUS-Large-Pkts].
There are two system models for the use of SAML over RADIUS. The
first is a request-response model, using the RADIUS SAML-Protocol
attribute defined in Section 3 to encapsulate the SAML protocol
messages.
1. The RADIUS client, acting as an RP, transmits a SAML request
element within a RADIUS Access-Request message. This message
MUST include a single instance of the RADIUS User-Name attribute
whose value MUST conform to the Network Access Identifier
[RFC7542] scheme. The RP MUST NOT include more than one SAML
request element.
Howlett, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 7833 SAML RADIUS May 2016
2. The RADIUS server, acting as an IdP, returns a SAML protocol
message within a RADIUS Access-Accept or Access-Reject message.
These messages necessarily conclude a RADIUS exchange, and
therefore this is the only opportunity for the IdP to send a
response in the context of this exchange. The IdP MUST NOT
include more than one SAML response. An IdP that refuses to
perform a message exchange with the RP can silently discard the
SAML request (this could subsequently be followed by a RADIUS
Access-Reject, as the same conditions that cause the IdP to
discard the SAML request may also cause the RADIUS server to fail
to authenticate).
The second system model permits a RADIUS server acting as an IdP to
use the RADIUS SAML-Assertion attribute defined in Section 3 to
encapsulate an unsolicited SAML Assertion. This attribute MUST be
included in a RADIUS Access-Accept message. When included, the
attribute MUST contain a single SAML Assertion.
RADIUS servers MUST NOT include both the SAML-Protocol and the
SAML-Assertion attribute in the same RADIUS message. If an IdP is
producing a response to a SAML request, then the first system model
is used. An IdP MAY ignore a SAML request and send an unsolicited
assertion using the second system model (that is, using the RADIUS
SAML-Assertion attribute).
In either system model, IdPs SHOULD return a RADIUS State attribute
as part of the Access-Accept message so that future SAML queries or
requests can be run against the same context of an authentication
exchange.
This binding is intended to be composed with other uses of RADIUS,
such as network access. Therefore, other arbitrary RADIUS attributes
MAY be used in either the request or response.
In the case of a SAML processing error, the RADIUS server MAY include
a SAML response message with an appropriate value for the
<samlp:Status> element within the Access-Accept or Access-Reject
packet to notify the client. Alternatively, the RADIUS server can
respond without a SAML-Protocol attribute.
4.3. Processing of Names
SAML entities using profiles making use of this binding will
typically possess both the SAML and AAA names of their
correspondents. Frequently, these entities will need to apply
policies using these names -- for example, when deciding to release
attributes. Often, these policies will be security-sensitive, and so
it is important that policy is applied on these names consistently.
Howlett, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 7833 SAML RADIUS May 2016
4.3.1. AAA Names
These rules relate to the processing of AAA names by SAML entities
using profiles making use of this binding.
o IdPs SHOULD apply policy based on the RP's identity associated
with the RADIUS Access-Request.
o RPs SHOULD apply policy based on the NAI realm associated with the
RADIUS Access-Accept.
4.3.2. SAML Names
These rules relate to the processing of SAML names by SAML entities
using profiles making use of this binding.
IdPs MAY apply policy based on the RP's SAML entityID. In such
cases, at least one of the following methods is required in order to
establish a relationship between the SAML name and the AAA name of
the RP:
o RADIUS client identity in trusted SAML metadata (as described in
Section 4.3.3).
o RADIUS client identity in trusted digitally signed SAML request.
A digitally signed SAML request without the RADIUS client identity is
not sufficient, since a malicious RADIUS entity can observe a SAML
message and include it in a different RADIUS message without the
consent of the issuer of that SAML message. If an IdP were to
process the SAML message without confirming that it applied to the
RADIUS message, inappropriate policy would be used.
RPs MAY apply policy based on the SAML issuer's entityID. In such
cases, at least one of the following methods is required in order to
establish a relationship between the SAML name and the AAA name of
the IdP:
o RADIUS realm in trusted SAML metadata (as described in
Section 4.3.3).
o RADIUS realm in trusted digitally signed SAML response or
assertion.
A digitally signed SAML response alone is not sufficient, for the
same reasons as those described above for SAML requests.
Howlett, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 7833 SAML RADIUS May 2016
4.3.3. Mapping of AAA Names in SAML Metadata
This section defines extensions to the SAML metadata schema
[OASIS.saml-metadata-2.0-os] that are required in order to represent
AAA names associated with a particular <EntityDescriptor> element.
In SAML metadata, a single entity may act in many different roles in
the support of multiple profiles. This document defines two new
roles: RADIUS IdP and RADIUS RP, requiring the declaration of two new
subtypes of RoleDescriptorType: RADIUSIDPDescriptorType and
RADIUSRPDescriptorType. These subtypes contain the additional
elements required to represent AAA names for IdP and RP entities,
respectively.
4.3.3.1. RADIUSIDPDescriptorType
The RADIUSIDPDescriptorType complex type extends RoleDescriptorType
with elements common to IdPs that support RADIUS. It contains the
following additional elements:
<RADIUSIDPService> [Zero or More] Zero or more elements of type
EndpointType that describe RADIUS endpoints that are associated
with the entity.
<RADIUSRealm> [Zero or More] Zero or more elements of type string
that represent the acceptable values of the RADIUS realm
associated with the entity, obtained from the realm part of the
RADIUS User-Name attribute.
Howlett, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 7833 SAML RADIUS May 2016
The following schema fragment defines the RADIUSIDPDescriptorType
complex type:
<complexType name="RADIUSIDPDescriptorType">
<complexContent>
<extension base="md:RoleDescriptorType">
<sequence>
<element ref="abfab:RADIUSIDPService"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
<element ref="abfab:RADIUSRealm"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</sequence>
</extension>
</complexContent>
</complexType>
<element name="RADIUSIDPService" type="md:EndpointType"/>
<element name="RADIUSRealm" type="string"/>
Figure 3: RADIUSIDPDescriptorType Schema
4.3.3.2. RADIUSRPDescriptorType
The RADIUSRPDescriptorType complex type extends RoleDescriptorType
with elements common to RPs that support RADIUS. It contains the
following additional elements:
<RADIUSRPService> [Zero or More] Zero or more elements of type
EndpointType that describe RADIUS endpoints that are associated
with the entity.
<RADIUSNasIpAddress> [Zero or More] Zero or more elements of type
string that represent the acceptable values of the RADIUS
NAS-IP-Address or NAS-IPv6-Address attributes associated with the
entity.
<RADIUSNasIdentifier> [Zero or More] Zero or more elements of type
string that represent the acceptable values of the RADIUS
NAS-Identifier attribute associated with the entity.
<RADIUSGssEapName> [Zero or More] Zero or more elements of type
string that represent the acceptable values of the GSS-API
Mechanism for the Extensible Authentication Protocol (GSS-EAP)
acceptor name associated with the entity. The format for this
name is described in Section 3.1 of [RFC7055], while Section 3.4
of [RFC7055] describes how that name is decomposed and transported
using RADIUS attributes.
Howlett, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 7833 SAML RADIUS May 2016
The following schema fragment defines the RADIUSRPDescriptorType
complex type:
<complexType name="RADIUSRPDescriptorType">
<complexContent>
<extension base="md:RoleDescriptorType">
<sequence>
<element ref="md:RADIUSRPService"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
<element ref="md:RADIUSNasIpAddress"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
<element ref="md:RADIUSNasIdentifier"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
<element ref="md:RADIUSGssEapName"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</sequence>
</extension>
</complexContent>
</complexType>
<element name="RADIUSRPService" type="md:EndpointType"/>
<element name="RADIUSNasIpAddress" type="string"/>
<element name="RADIUSNasIdentifier" type="string"/>
<element name="RADIUSGssEapName" type="string"/>
Figure 4: RADIUSRPDescriptorType Schema
4.3.4. Example of SAML Metadata That Includes AAA Names
Figures 5 and 6 illustrate examples of metadata that includes AAA
names for an IdP and an RP, respectively. The IdP's SAML name is
"https://IdentityProvider.com/", whereas its RADIUS realm is
"idp.com". The RP's SAML name is "https://RelyingParty.com/SAML",
being its GSS-EAP acceptor name "nfs/fileserver.rp.com@RP.COM".
<EntityDescriptor
xmlns="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:metadata"
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xmlns:abfab="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:abfab"
entityID="https://IdentityProvider.com/SAML">
<RoleDescriptor
xsi:type="abfab:RADIUSIDPDescriptorType"
protocolSupportEnumeration="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:protocol">
<RADIUSRealm>idp.com</RADIUSRealm>
</RoleDescriptor>
</EntityDescriptor>
Figure 5: Metadata for the IdP
Howlett, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 7833 SAML RADIUS May 2016
<EntityDescriptor
xmlns="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:metadata"
xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xmlns:abfab="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:abfab"
entityID="https://RelyingParty.com/SAML">
<RoleDescriptor
xsi:type="abfab:RADIUSRPDescriptorType"
protocolSupportEnumeration="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:protocol">
<RADIUSGssEapName>nfs/fileserver.rp.com@RP.COM</RADIUSGssEapName>
</RoleDescriptor>
</EntityDescriptor>
Figure 6: Metadata for the RP
4.4. Use of XML Signatures
This binding calls for the use of SAML elements that support XML
signatures. To promote interoperability, implementations of this
binding MUST support a default configuration that does not require
the use of XML signatures. Implementations MAY choose to use XML
signatures.
4.5. Metadata Considerations
This binding, and the profiles, are mostly intended to be used
without metadata. In this usage, RADIUS infrastructure is used to
provide integrity and naming of the SAML messages and assertions.
RADIUS configuration is used to provide policy, including which
attributes are accepted from an RP and which attributes are sent by
an IdP.
Nevertheless, if metadata is used, the roles described in
Section 4.3.3 MUST be present.
5. Network Access Identifier Name Identifier Format
URI: urn:ietf:params:abfab:nameid-format:nai
Indicates that the content of the element is in the form of a Network
Access Identifier (NAI) using the syntax described by [RFC7542].
Howlett, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 7833 SAML RADIUS May 2016
6. RADIUS State Confirmation Method Identifiers
URI: urn:ietf:params:abfab:cm:user
URI: urn:ietf:params:abfab:cm:machine
Indicates that the subject is the system entity (either the user or
machine) authenticated by a previously transmitted RADIUS
Access-Accept message, as identified by the value of that RADIUS
message's State attribute.
7. ABFAB Authentication Profile
In the scenario supported by the ABFAB Authentication Profile, a
client controlling a User Agent requests access to an RP. The RP
uses RADIUS to authenticate the client. In particular, the RP,
acting as a RADIUS client, attempts to validate the client's
credentials against a RADIUS server acting as the client's IdP. If
the IdP successfully authenticates the client, it produces an
authentication assertion that is consumed by the RP. This assertion
MAY include a name identifier that can be used between the RP and the
IdP to refer to the client.
7.1. Required Information
Identification: urn:ietf:params:abfab:profiles:authentication
Contact information: iesg@ietf.org
SAML confirmation method identifiers: The SAML V2.0 "RADIUS State"
confirmation method identifiers -- either
urn:ietf:params:abfab:cm:user or urn:ietf:params:abfab:cm:machine --
are used by this profile.
Updates: None.
Howlett, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 7833 SAML RADIUS May 2016
7.2. Profile Overview
To implement this scenario, this profile of the SAML Authentication
Request Protocol MUST be used in conjunction with the SAML RADIUS
binding defined in Section 4.
This profile is based on the SAML V2.0 web browser single sign-on
profile [OASIS.saml-profiles-2.0-os]. There are some important
differences; specifically:
Authentication: This profile does not require the use of any
particular authentication method. The ABFAB architecture does
require the use of the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)
[RFC3579], but this specification may be used in other non-ABFAB
scenarios.
Bindings: This profile does not use HTTP-based bindings. Instead,
all SAML protocol messages are transported using the SAML RADIUS
binding defined in Section 4. This is intended to reduce the
number of bindings that implementations must support to be
interoperable.
Requests: The profile does not permit the RP to name the
<saml:Subject> of the <samlp:AuthnRequest>. This is intended to
simplify implementation and interoperability.
Responses: The profile only permits the IdP to return a single SAML
message or assertion that MUST contain exactly one authentication
statement. Other statements may be included within this assertion
at the discretion of the IdP. This is intended to simplify
implementation and interoperability.
Howlett, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 7833 SAML RADIUS May 2016
Figure 7 below illustrates the flow of messages within this profile.
Client Relying Party Identity Provider
| | |
| (1) | |
| - - - - - - - - - > | |
| | |
| | (2) |
| | - - - - - - - - - - - - > |
| | |
| (3) | |
| < - - - - - - - - - |- - - - - - - - - - - - - >|
| | |
| | (4) |
| | < - - - - - - - - - - - - |
| | |
| (5) | |
| < - - - - - - - - - | |
| | |
V V V
Figure 7: Flow of Messages
The following steps are described by the profile. Within an
individual step, there may be one or more actual message exchanges.
1. Client request to RP (Section 7.3.1): In step 1, the client, via
a User Agent, makes a request for a secured resource at the RP.
The RP determines that no security context for the client exists
and initiates the authentication process.
2. RP issues <samlp:AuthnRequest> to IdP (Section 7.3.2). In step
2, the RP may optionally issue a <samlp:AuthnRequest> message to
be delivered to the IdP using the SAML-Protocol RADIUS attribute.
3. IdP identifies client (Section 7.3.3). In step 3, the client is
authenticated and identified by the IdP, while honoring any
requirements imposed by the RP in the <samlp:AuthnRequest>
message if provided.
4. IdP issues <samlp:Response> to RP (Section 7.3.4). In step 4,
the IdP issues a <samlp:Response> message to the RP using the
SAML RADIUS binding. The response either indicates an error or
includes a SAML authentication statement in exactly one SAML
Assertion. If the RP did not send a <samlp:AuthnRequest>, the
IdP issues an unsolicited <samlp:Assertion>, as described in
Section 7.4.4.
Howlett, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 7833 SAML RADIUS May 2016
5. RP grants or denies access to client (Section 7.3.5). In step 5,
having received the response from the IdP, the RP can respond to
the client with its own error, or can establish its own security
context for the client and return the requested resource.
7.3. Profile Description
The ABFAB Authentication Profile is a profile of the SAML V2.0
Authentication Request Protocol [OASIS.saml-core-2.0-os]. Where both
specifications conflict, the ABFAB Authentication Profile takes
precedence.
7.3.1. Client Request to Relying Party
The profile is initiated by an arbitrary client request to the RP.
There are no restrictions on the form of the request. The RP is free
to use any means it wishes to associate the subsequent interactions
with the original request. The RP, acting as a RADIUS client,
attempts to authenticate the client.
7.3.2. Relying Party Issues <samlp:AuthnRequest> to Identity Provider
The RP uses RADIUS to communicate with the client's IdP. The RP MAY
include a <samlp:AuthnRequest> within this RADIUS Access-Request
message using the SAML-Protocol RADIUS attribute. The "next hop"
destination MAY be the IdP or, alternatively, an intermediate RADIUS
proxy.
Profile-specific rules for the contents of the <samlp:AuthnRequest>
element are given in Section 7.4.1.
7.3.3. Identity Provider Identifies Client
The IdP MUST establish the identity of the client using a RADIUS
authentication method, or else it will return an error. If the
ForceAuthn attribute in the <samlp:AuthnRequest> element (if sent by
the RP) is present and true, the IdP MUST freshly establish this
identity rather than relying on any existing session state it may
have with the client (for example, TLS state that may be used for
session resumption). Otherwise, and in all other respects, the IdP
may use any method to authenticate the client, subject to the
constraints called out in the <samlp:AuthnRequest> message.
Howlett, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 7833 SAML RADIUS May 2016
7.3.4. Identity Provider Issues <samlp:Response> to Relying Party
The IdP MUST conclude the authentication in a manner consistent with
the RADIUS authentication result. The IdP MAY issue a
<samlp:Response> message to the RP that is consistent with the
authentication result, as described in [OASIS.saml-core-2.0-os].
This SAML response is delivered to the RP using the SAML RADIUS
binding described in Section 4.
Profile-specific rules regarding the contents of the <samlp:Response>
element are given in Section 7.4.2.
7.3.5. Relying Party Grants or Denies Access to Client
If a <samlp:Response> message is issued by the IdP, the RP MUST
process that message and any enclosed assertion elements as described
in [OASIS.saml-core-2.0-os]. Any subsequent use of the assertion
elements is at the discretion of the RP, subject to any restrictions
contained within the assertions themselves or from any previously
established out-of-band policy that governs the interaction between
the IdP and the RP.
7.4. Use of Authentication Request Protocol
This profile is based on the Authentication Request Protocol defined
in [OASIS.saml-core-2.0-os]. In the nomenclature of actors
enumerated in Section 3.4 of that document, the RP is the requester,
the User Agent is the attesting entity, and the client is the
subject.
7.4.1. <samlp:AuthnRequest> Usage
The RP MUST NOT include a <saml:Subject> element in the request. The
authenticated RADIUS identity identifies the client to the IdP.
An RP MAY include any message content described in Section 3.4.1 of
[OASIS.saml-core-2.0-os]. All processing rules are as defined in
[OASIS.saml-core-2.0-os].
If the RP wishes to permit the IdP to establish a new identifier for
the client if none exists, it MUST include a <saml:NameIDPolicy>
element with the AllowCreate attribute set to "true". Otherwise,
only a client for whom the IdP has previously established an
identifier usable by the RP can be authenticated successfully.
The <samlp:AuthnRequest> message MAY be signed. Authentication and
integrity are also provided by the SAML RADIUS binding.
Howlett, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 7833 SAML RADIUS May 2016
7.4.2. <samlp:Response> Message Usage
If the IdP cannot or will not satisfy the request, it MUST respond
with a <samlp:Response> message containing an appropriate error
status code or codes and/or respond with a RADIUS Access-Reject
message.
If the IdP wishes to return an error, it MUST NOT include any
assertions in the <samlp:Response> message. Otherwise, if the
request is successful (or if the response is not associated with a
request), the <samlp:Response> element is subject to the following
constraints:
o It MAY be signed.
o It MUST contain exactly one assertion. The <saml:Subject> element
of this assertion MUST refer to the authenticated RADIUS user.
o The assertion MUST contain a <saml:AuthnStatement>. Also, the
assertion MUST contain a <saml:Subject> element with at least one
<saml:SubjectConfirmation> element containing a
<saml:ConfirmationMethod> element of urn:ietf:params:abfab:cm:user
or urn:ietf:params:abfab:cm:machine that reflects the
authentication of the client to the IdP. Since the
<samlp:Response> message is in response to a <samlp:AuthnRequest>,
the InResponseTo attribute (in both the
<saml:SubjectConfirmationData> and <saml:Response> elements) MUST
match the request's ID. The <saml:Subject> element MAY use the
NAI name identifier format described in Section 5 to establish an
identifier between the RP and the IdP.
o Other conditions MAY be included as requested by the RP or at the
discretion of the IdP. The IdP is NOT obligated to honor the
requested set of conditions in the <samlp:AuthnRequest>, if any.
7.4.3. <samlp:Response> Message Processing Rules
The RP MUST do the following:
o Assume that the client's identifier implied by a SAML <Subject>
element, if present, takes precedence over an identifier implied
by the RADIUS User-Name attribute.
o Verify that the InResponseTo attribute in the "RADIUS State"
<saml:SubjectConfirmationData> equals the ID of its original
<samlp:AuthnRequest> message, unless the response is unsolicited,
in which case the attribute MUST NOT be present.
Howlett, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 7833 SAML RADIUS May 2016
o If a <saml:AuthnStatement> used to establish a security context
for the client contains a SessionNotOnOrAfter attribute, the
security context SHOULD be discarded once this time is reached,
unless the RP reestablishes the client's identity by repeating the
use of this profile.
o Verify that any assertions relied upon are valid according to
processing rules specified in [OASIS.saml-core-2.0-os].
o Any assertion that is not valid or whose subject confirmation
requirements cannot be met MUST be discarded and MUST NOT be used
to establish a security context for the client.
7.4.4. Unsolicited Responses
An IdP MAY initiate this profile by delivering an unsolicited
assertion to an RP. This MUST NOT contain any
<saml:SubjectConfirmationData> elements containing an InResponseTo
attribute.
7.4.5. Use of the SAML RADIUS Binding
It is RECOMMENDED that the RADIUS exchange be protected using TLS
encryption for RADIUS [RFC6614] to provide confidentiality and
integrity protection.
7.4.6. Use of XML Signatures
This profile calls for the use of SAML elements that support XML
signatures. To promote interoperability, implementations of this
profile MUST NOT require the use of XML signatures. Implementations
MAY choose to use XML signatures.
7.4.7. Metadata Considerations
There are no metadata considerations particular to this profile,
aside from those applying to the use of the RADIUS binding.
8. ABFAB Assertion Query/Request Profile
This profile builds on the SAML V2.0 Assertion Query/Request Profile
defined by [OASIS.saml-profiles-2.0-os]. That profile describes the
use of the Assertion Query and Request Protocol defined by
Section 3.3 of [OASIS.saml-core-2.0-os] with synchronous bindings,
such as the SOAP binding defined in [OASIS.saml-bindings-2.0-os].
Howlett, et al. Standards Track [Page 21]
RFC 7833 SAML RADIUS May 2016
Although the SAML V2.0 Assertion Query/Request Profile is independent
of the underlying binding, it is nonetheless useful to describe the
use of the SAML RADIUS binding defined in Section 4 of this document,
in the interest of promoting interoperable implementations,
particularly as the SAML V2.0 Assertion Query/Request Profile is most
frequently discussed and implemented in the context of the SOAP
binding.
8.1. Required Information
Identification: urn:ietf:params:abfab:profiles:query
Contact information: iesg@ietf.org
Description: Given below.
Updates: None.
8.2. Profile Overview
As with the SAML V2.0 Assertion Query/Request Profile defined by
[OASIS.saml-profiles-2.0-os], the message exchange and basic
processing rules that govern this profile are largely defined by
Section 3.3 of [OASIS.saml-core-2.0-os], which defines the messages
to be exchanged, in combination with the binding used to exchange the
messages. The SAML RADIUS binding described in this document defines
the binding of the message exchange to RADIUS. Unless specifically
noted here, all requirements defined in those specifications apply.
Figure 8 below illustrates the basic template for the Query/Request
Profile.
Relying Party Identity Provider
(SAML requester) (SAML responder)
| |
| (1) |
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > |
| |
| (2) |
| < - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
| |
V V
Figure 8: Basic Template for Query/Request Profile
Howlett, et al. Standards Track [Page 22]
RFC 7833 SAML RADIUS May 2016
The following steps are described by the profile:
1. Query/Request issued by RP: In step 1, an RP initiates the
profile by sending an <AssertionIDRequest>, <SubjectQuery>,
<AuthnQuery>, <AttributeQuery>, or <AuthzDecisionQuery> message
to a SAML authority.
2. <Response> issued by SAML authority: In step 2, the responding
SAML authority (after processing the query or request) issues a
<Response> message to the RP.
8.3. Profile Description
8.3.1. Differences from the SAML V2.0 Assertion Query/Request Profile
This profile is identical to the SAML V2.0 Assertion Query/Request
Profile, with the following exceptions:
o When processing the SAML request, the IdP MUST give precedence to
the client's identifier implied by the RADIUS State attribute, if
present, over the identifier implied by the SAML request's
<Subject>, if any.
o In respect to Sections 6.3.1 and 6.5 of
[OASIS.saml-profiles-2.0-os], this profile does not consider the
use of metadata (as in [OASIS.saml-metadata-2.0-os]). See
Section 8.3.4.
o In respect to Sections 6.3.2, 6.4.1, and 6.4.2 of
[OASIS.saml-profiles-2.0-os], this profile additionally stipulates
that implementations of this profile MUST NOT require the use of
XML signatures. See Section 8.3.3.
8.3.2. Use of the SAML RADIUS Binding
The RADIUS Access-Request sent by the RP:
o MUST include an instance of the RADIUS Service-Type attribute,
having a value of Authorize-Only.
o SHOULD include the RADIUS State attribute, where this
Query/Request pertains to a previously authenticated client.
When processing the SAML request, the IdP MUST give precedence to the
client's identifier implied by the RADIUS State attribute over the
identifier implied by the SAML request's <Subject>, if any.
Howlett, et al. Standards Track [Page 23]
RFC 7833 SAML RADIUS May 2016
It is RECOMMENDED that the RADIUS exchange be protected using TLS
encryption for RADIUS [RFC6614] to provide confidentiality and
integrity protection.
8.3.3. Use of XML Signatures
This profile calls for the use of SAML elements that support XML
signatures. To promote interoperability, implementations of this
profile MUST NOT require the use of XML signatures. Implementations
MAY choose to use XML signatures.
8.3.4. Metadata Considerations
There are no metadata considerations particular to this profile,
aside from those applying to the use of the RADIUS binding.
9. Privacy Considerations
The profiles defined in this document allow an RP to request specific
information about the client and allow an IdP to disclose information
about that client. In this sense, IdPs MUST apply policy to decide
what information is released to a particular RP. Moreover, the
identity of the client is typically hidden from the RP unless
provided by the IdP. Conversely, the RP does typically know the
realm of the IdP, as it is required to route the RADIUS packets to
the right destination.
The kind of information that is released by the IdP can include
generic attributes such as affiliation shared by many clients. But
even these generic attributes can help to identify a specific client.
Other kinds of attributes may also provide an RP with the ability to
link the same client between different sessions. Finally, other
kinds of attributes might provide a group of RPs with the ability to
link the client between them or with personally identifiable
information about the client.
These profiles do not directly provide a client with a mechanism to
express preferences about what information is released. That
information can be expressed out of band, for example, as part of the
enrollment process.
The RP may disclose privacy-sensitive information about itself as
part of the request, although this is unlikely in typical
deployments.
Howlett, et al. Standards Track [Page 24]
RFC 7833 SAML RADIUS May 2016
If RADIUS proxies are used and encryption is not used, the attributes
disclosed by the IdP are visible to the proxies. This is a
significant privacy exposure in some deployments. Ongoing work is
exploring mechanisms for creating TLS connections directly between
the RADIUS client and the RADIUS server to reduce this exposure. If
proxies are used, the impact of exposing SAML Assertions to the
proxies needs to be carefully considered.
The use of TLS to provide confidentiality for the RADIUS exchange is
strongly encouraged. Without this, passive eavesdroppers can observe
the assertions.
10. Security Considerations
In this specification, the RP MUST trust any statement in the SAML
messages from the IdP in the same way that it trusts information
contained in RADIUS attributes. These entities MUST trust the RADIUS
infrastructure to provide integrity of the SAML messages.
Furthermore, the RP MUST apply policy and filter the information
based on what information the IdP is permitted to assert and on what
trust is reasonable to place in proxies between them.
XML signatures and encryption are provided as an OPTIONAL mechanism
for end-to-end security. These mechanisms can protect SAML messages
from being modified by proxies in the RADIUS infrastructure. These
mechanisms are not mandatory to implement. It is believed that
ongoing work to provide direct TLS connections between a RADIUS
client and RADIUS server will provide similar assurances but better
deployability. XML security is appropriate for deployments where
end-to-end security is required but proxies cannot be removed or
where SAML messages need to be verified at a later time or by parties
not involved in the authentication exchange.
11. IANA Considerations
11.1. RADIUS Attributes
The Attribute Types and Attribute Values defined in this document
have been registered by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
(IANA) from the RADIUS namespaces as described in the "IANA
Considerations" section of [RFC3575], in accordance with BCP 26
[RFC5226]. For RADIUS packets, attributes, and registries created by
this document, IANA has placed them at
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/radius-types>.
Howlett, et al. Standards Track [Page 25]
RFC 7833 SAML RADIUS May 2016
In particular, this document defines two new RADIUS attributes,
entitled "SAML-Assertion" and "SAML-Protocol" (see Section 3), with
assigned values of 245.1 and 245.2 from the long extended space
[RFC6929]:
Type Ext. Type Name Length Meaning
---- --------- -------------- ------ ------------------------
245 1 SAML-Assertion >=5 Encodes a SAML Assertion
245 2 SAML-Protocol >=5 Encodes a SAML protocol
message
11.2. ABFAB Parameters
A new top-level registry has been created, entitled "Application
Bridging for Federated Access Beyond Web (ABFAB) Parameters".
In this top-level registry, a sub-registry entitled "ABFAB URN
Parameters" has been created. Registration in this registry is via
IETF Review or Expert Review procedures [RFC5226].
This paragraph gives guidance to designated experts. Registrations
in this registry are generally only expected as part of protocols
published as RFCs on the IETF stream; other URIs are expected to be
better choices for non-IETF work. Expert review is permitted mainly
to allow early registration related to specifications under
development when the community believes they have reached sufficient
maturity. The expert SHOULD evaluate the maturity and stability of
such an IETF-stream specification. Experts SHOULD review anything
not from the IETF stream for consistency and consensus with current
practice. Today, such requests would not typically be approved.
If a parameter named "paramname" is registered in this registry, then
its URN will be "urn:ietf:params:abfab:paramname". The initial
registrations are as follows:
+-------------------------+-----------+
| Parameter | Reference |
+-------------------------+-----------+
| bindings:radius | Section 4 |
| nameid-format:nai | Section 5 |
| profiles:authentication | Section 7 |
| profiles:query | Section 8 |
| cm:user | Section 6 |
| cm:machine | Section 6 |
+-------------------------+-----------+
ABFAB Parameters
Howlett, et al. Standards Track [Page 26]
RFC 7833 SAML RADIUS May 2016
11.3. Registration of the ABFAB URN Namespace
IANA has registered the "abfab" URN sub-namespace in the IETF URN
sub-namespace for protocol parameters defined in [RFC3553].
Registry Name: abfab
Specification: RFC 7833 (this document)
Repository: ABFAB URN Parameters (Section 11.2)
Index Value: Sub-parameters MUST be specified in UTF-8, using
standard URI encoding where necessary.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[OASIS.saml-bindings-2.0-os]
Cantor, S., Hirsch, F., Kemp, J., Philpott, R., and E.
Maler, "Bindings for the OASIS Security Assertion
Markup Language (SAML) V2.0", OASIS
Standard saml-bindings-2.0-os, March 2005,
<http://docs.oasis-open.org/security/saml/v2.0/
saml-bindings-2.0-os.pdf>.
[OASIS.saml-core-2.0-os]
Cantor, S., Kemp, J., Philpott, R., and E. Maler,
"Assertions and Protocols for the OASIS Security Assertion
Markup Language (SAML) V2.0", OASIS
Standard saml-core-2.0-os, March 2005,
<http://docs.oasis-open.org/security/saml/v2.0/
saml-core-2.0-os.pdf>.
[OASIS.saml-metadata-2.0-os]
Cantor, S., Moreh, J., Philpott, R., and E. Maler,
"Metadata for the OASIS Security Assertion Markup Language
(SAML) V2.0", OASIS Standard saml-metadata-2.0-os,
March 2005, <http://docs.oasis-open.org/security/
saml/v2.0/saml-metadata-2.0-os.pdf>.
[OASIS.saml-profiles-2.0-os]
Hughes, J., Cantor, S., Hodges, J., Hirsch, F., Mishra,
P., Philpott, R., and E. Maler, "Profiles for the OASIS
Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) V2.0", OASIS
Standard OASIS.saml-profiles-2.0-os, March 2005,
<http://docs.oasis-open.org/security/saml/v2.0/
saml-profiles-2.0-os.pdf>.
Howlett, et al. Standards Track [Page 27]
RFC 7833 SAML RADIUS May 2016
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2865] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson,
"Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)",
RFC 2865, DOI 10.17487/RFC2865, June 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2865>.
[RFC3575] Aboba, B., "IANA Considerations for RADIUS (Remote
Authentication Dial In User Service)", RFC 3575,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3575, July 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3575>.
[RFC3579] Aboba, B. and P. Calhoun, "RADIUS (Remote Authentication
Dial In User Service) Support For Extensible
Authentication Protocol (EAP)", RFC 3579,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3579, September 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3579>.
[RFC6614] Winter, S., McCauley, M., Venaas, S., and K. Wierenga,
"Transport Layer Security (TLS) Encryption for RADIUS",
RFC 6614, DOI 10.17487/RFC6614, May 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6614>.
[RFC6929] DeKok, A. and A. Lior, "Remote Authentication Dial In User
Service (RADIUS) Protocol Extensions", RFC 6929,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6929, April 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6929>.
[RFC7542] DeKok, A., "The Network Access Identifier", RFC 7542,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7542, May 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7542>.
Howlett, et al. Standards Track [Page 28]
RFC 7833 SAML RADIUS May 2016
12.2. Informative References
[RADIUS-Large-Pkts]
Hartman, S., "Larger Packets for RADIUS over TCP", Work in
Progress, draft-ietf-radext-bigger-packets-07, April 2016.
[RFC3553] Mealling, M., Masinter, L., Hardie, T., and G. Klyne, "An
IETF URN Sub-namespace for Registered Protocol
Parameters", BCP 73, RFC 3553, DOI 10.17487/RFC3553,
June 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3553>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC6733] Fajardo, V., Ed., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn,
Ed., "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 6733,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6733, October 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6733>.
[RFC7055] Hartman, S., Ed., and J. Howlett, "A GSS-API Mechanism for
the Extensible Authentication Protocol", RFC 7055,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7055, December 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7055>.
[RFC7499] Perez-Mendez, A., Ed., Marin-Lopez, R., Pereniguez-Garcia,
F., Lopez-Millan, G., Lopez, D., and A. DeKok, "Support of
Fragmentation of RADIUS Packets", RFC 7499,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7499, April 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7499>.
[RFC7831] Howlett, J., Hartman, S., Tschofenig, H., and J. Schaad,
"Application Bridging for Federated Access Beyond Web
(ABFAB) Architecture", RFC 7831, DOI 10.17487/RFC7831,
May 2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7831>.
[W3C.REC-xmlschema-1]
Thompson, H., Beech, D., Maloney, M., and N. Mendelsohn,
"XML Schema Part 1: Structures Second Edition",
W3C REC-xmlschema-1, October 2004,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/>.
Howlett, et al. Standards Track [Page 29]
RFC 7833 SAML RADIUS May 2016
Appendix A. XML Schema
The following schema formally defines the
"urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:abfab" namespace used in this document, in
conformance with [W3C.REC-xmlschema-1]. Although XML validation is
optional, the schema that follows is the normative definition of the
constructs it defines. Where the schema differs from any prose in
this specification, the schema takes precedence.
<schema
targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:abfab"
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
xmlns:md="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:metadata"
xmlns:abfab="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:abfab"
elementFormDefault="unqualified"
attributeFormDefault="unqualified"
blockDefault="substitution"
version="1.0">
<import namespace="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:metadata"/>
<complexType name="RADIUSIDPDescriptorType">
<complexContent>
<extension base="md:RoleDescriptorType">
<sequence>
<element ref="abfab:RADIUSIDPService"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
<element ref="abfab:RADIUSRealm"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</sequence>
</extension>
</complexContent>
</complexType>
<element name="RADIUSIDPService" type="md:EndpointType"/>
<element name="RADIUSRealm" type="string"/>
Howlett, et al. Standards Track [Page 30]
RFC 7833 SAML RADIUS May 2016
<complexType name="RADIUSRPDescriptorType">
<complexContent>
<extension base="md:RoleDescriptorType">
<sequence>
<element ref="md:RADIUSRPService"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
<element ref="md:RADIUSNasIpAddress"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
<element ref="md:RADIUSNasIdentifier"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
<element ref="md:RADIUSGssEapName"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
</sequence>
</extension>
</complexContent>
</complexType>
<element name="RADIUSRPService" type="md:EndpointType"/>
<element name="RADIUSNasIpAddress" type="string"/>
<element name="RADIUSNasIdentifier" type="string"/>
<element name="RADIUSGssEapName" type="string"/>
</schema>
Howlett, et al. Standards Track [Page 31]
RFC 7833 SAML RADIUS May 2016
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the OASIS Security Services
(SAML) Technical Committee, and Scott Cantor in particular, for their
help with the SAML-related material.
The authors would also like to acknowledge the collaboration of Jim
Schaad, Leif Johansson, Klaas Wierenga, Stephen Farrell, Gabriel
Lopez-Millan, and Rafa Marin-Lopez, who have provided valuable
comments on this document.
Authors' Addresses
Josh Howlett
Jisc
Lumen House, Library Avenue, Harwell
Oxford OX11 0SG
United Kingdom
Phone: +44 1235 822363
Email: Josh.Howlett@ja.net
Sam Hartman
Painless Security
Email: hartmans-ietf@mit.edu
Alejandro Perez-Mendez (editor)
University of Murcia
Campus de Espinardo S/N, Faculty of Computer Science
Murcia 30100
Spain
Phone: +34 868 88 46 44
Email: alex@um.es
Howlett, et al. Standards Track [Page 32]