Concluded WG Authentication, Authorization and Accounting (aaa)
Note: The data for concluded WGs is occasionally incorrect.
|WG||Name||Authentication, Authorization and Accounting|
|Area||Operations and Management Area (ops)|
|Personnel||Chairs||David Mitton, Dr. Bernard D. Aboba, John A. Loughney|
|Area Director||Dan Romascanu|
Final Charter for Working Group
The Authentication, Authorization and Accounting Working Group
focused on the development of requirements for Authentication,
Authorization and Accounting as applied to network access.
Requirements were gathered from NASREQ, MOBILE IP, and ROAMOPS
Working Groups as well as TIA 45.6. The AAA WG then solicited
submission of protocols meeting the requirements, and evaluated
This incarnation of the AAA Working Group will focus on development
of an IETF Standards track protocol, based on the DIAMETER submission.
In this process, it is to be understood that the IETF does not function
as a rubber stamp. It is likely that the protocol will be changed
significantly during the process of development.
The immediate goals of the AAA working group are to address the
- Clarity. The protocol documents should clearly describe the contents
of typical messages and the requirements for interoperability.
- Error messages. The protocol should define categories of error
messages, enabling implementations to respond correctly based on the
category. The set of error messages should cover the full range of
- Accounting. The accounting operational model should be described for
each type of network access.
- IPv6. The protocol must include attributes in support for IPv6
network access and must be transportable over IPv6.
- Transport. The protocol should be transport independent and must
define at least one mandatory-to-implement transport mapping. Other
transport mappings may also be defined. All transport mappings must
effectively support congestion control.
- Explicit proxy support. The protocol should offer explicit support
for proxies, including support for automated message routing, route
recording, and (where necessary) path hiding.
- RADIUS compatibility. The protocol should provide improved RADIUS
backward compatibility in the case where only RADIUS attributes are
used or where RADIUS proxies or servers exist in the path.
- Security. The protocol should define a lightweight data object
security model that is implementable on NASes.
- Data model. The proposal should offer logical separation between the
protocol and the data model and should support rich data types.
- MIBs. A MIB must be defined, supporting both IPv4 and IPv6 operation.
|Done||Submission of Diameter SIP application as a Proposed Standard RFC|
|Done||Submission of Diameter Credit Control as a Proposed Standard RFC|
|Done||Submission of Diameter EAP as a Proposed Standard RFC|
|Done||Submission of Diameter NASREQ as a Proposed Standard RFC|
|Done||Submission of Diameter Base as a Proposed Standard RFC|
|Done||Submission of AAA Transport as a Proposed Standard RFC|
|Done||Incorporation of design team recommendations into protocol submission.|
|Done||Submission of design team recommendations on protocol improvements.|
|Done||Submission of evaluation document as an Informational RFC.|
|Done||Submission of requirements document as an Informational RFC.|