[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 RFC 3575

Network Working Group                                           B. Aboba
INTERNET-DRAFT                                                 Microsoft
Category: Standards Track
<draft-aboba-radius-iana-02.txt>
22 March 2003
Updates: RFC 2865


                     IANA Considerations for RADIUS

This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all
provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task
Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that other groups
may also distribute working 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 material
or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

This document describes the IANA considerations for the Remote
Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS).

This document updates RFC 2865.













Aboba                        Standards Track                    [Page 1]


INTERNET-DRAFT                 RADIUS IANA                 22 March 2003


1.  Introduction

This document provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to the Remote
Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS), defined in [RFC2865], in
accordance with BCP 26, [RFC2434]. It also reserves Packet Type Codes
that are or have been in use on the Internet.

1.1.  Specification of Requirements

In this document, several words are used to signify the requirements of
the specification.  These words are often capitalized.  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].

1.2.  Terminology

The following terms are used here with the meanings defined in BCP 26:
"name space", "assigned value", "registration".

The following policies are used here with the meanings defined in BCP
26: "Private Use", "First Come First Served", "Expert Review",
"Specification Required", "IETF Consensus", "Standards Action".

2.  IANA Considerations

There are three name spaces in RADIUS that require registration: Packet
Type Codes, Attribute Types, and Attribute Values (for certain
Attributes). This draft creates no new IANA registries, since a RADIUS
registry was created by [RFC2865].

RADIUS is not intended as a general-purpose protocol, and allocations
SHOULD NOT be made for purposes unrelated to Authentication,
Authorization or Accounting.

2.1.  Recommended Registration Policies

For registration requests where a Designated Expert should be consulted,
the responsible IESG area director should appoint the Designated Expert.
Where a specification is required, this MUST be an Internet-Draft or
RFC.  For Designated Expert with Specification Required, the request is
posted to the AAA WG mailing list (or, if it has been disbanded, a
successor designated by the Area Director) for comment and review, and
MUST include an Internet-Draft or RFC. Before a period of 30 days has
passed, The Designated Expert will either approve or deny the
registration request and publish a notice of the decision to the AAA WG
mailing list or its successor.  A denial notice must be justified by an



Aboba                        Standards Track                    [Page 2]


INTERNET-DRAFT                 RADIUS IANA                 22 March 2003


explanation and, in the cases where it is possible, concrete suggestions
on how the request can be modified so as to become acceptable.

Packet Type Codes have a range from 1 to 249, of which 1-13,21-34,40-45,
50-51 have been allocated. Type Codes 250-253 are allocated for
Experimental Uses, and 254-255 are reserved.  Because a new Packet Type
has considerable impact on interoperability, a new Packet Type Code
requires Standards Action.  Type Codes 52-249 should be allocated first;
when these are exhausted, Type Codes 14-20,35-39,46-49 may be allocated.
A list of allocated RADIUS Type Codes is provided in Appendix A.

Attribute Types have a range from 1 to 255, and are the scarcest
resource in RADIUS, thus must be allocated with care.  Attributes
1-53,55,60-88,90-91,94-100 have been allocated, with 17 and 21 available
for re-use.  Attributes 17, 21, 54, 56-59, 89, 101-191 may be allocated
by IETF Consensus.  It is recommended that attributes 17 and 21 be used
only after all others are exhausted.

Note that RADIUS defines a mechanism for Vendor-Specific extensions
(Attribute 26) and the use of that should be encouraged instead of
allocation of global attribute types, for functions specific only to one
vendor's implementation of RADIUS, where no interoperability is deemed
useful.

As noted in [RFC2865]:

   Attribute Type Values 192-223 are reserved for experimental
   use, values 224-240 are reserved for implementation-specific use,
   and values 241-255 are reserved and should not be used.

Therefore Attribute Type values 192-240 are considered Private Use, and
values 241-255 require Standards Action.

Certain attributes (for example, NAS-Port-Type) in RADIUS define a list
of values to correspond with various meanings.  There can be 4 billion
(2^32) values for each attribute. Additional values can be allocated by
Designated Expert with Specification Required.  The exception to this
policy is the Service-Type attribute (6), whose values define new modes
of operation for RADIUS.  Values 1-16 of the Service-Type attribute have
been allocated. Allocation of new Service-Type values are by IETF
Consensus.










Aboba                        Standards Track                    [Page 3]


INTERNET-DRAFT                 RADIUS IANA                 22 March 2003


3.  Normative references

[RFC2119]      Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
               Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.

[RFC2434]      Alvestrand, H. and Narten, T., "Guidelines for Writing an
               IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
               October 1998.

[RFC2865]      Rigney, C., Rubens, A., Simpson, W., Willens, S.,
               "Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)",
               RFC 2865, June 2000.

4.  Informative references

[RFC2866]      Rigney, C., "RADIUS Accounting", RFC 2866, June 2000.

[RFC2867]      Zorn, G., Mitton, D., Aboba, B., "RADIUS Accounting
               Modifications for Tunnel Protocol Support", RFC 2867,
               June 2000.

[RFC2868]      Zorn, G., Leifer, D., Rubens, A., Shriver, J., Holdrege,
               M., Goyret, I., "RADIUS Attributes for Tunnel Protocol
               Support", RFC 2868, June 2000.

[RFC2869]      Rigney, C., Willats, W., Calhoun, P., "RADIUS
               Extensions", RFC 2869, June 2000.

[RFC2882]      Mitton, D., "Network Access Servers Requirements:
               Extended RADIUS Practices", RFC 2882, July 2000.

[RFC3162]      Aboba, B., Zorn, G., Mitton, D.,"RADIUS and IPv6", RFC
               3162, August 2001.

[DynAuth]      Chiba, M., et al., "Dynamic Authorization Extensions to
               Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)",
               Internet draft (work in progress), draft-chiba-radius-
               dynamic-authorization-08.txt, March 2003.













Aboba                        Standards Track                    [Page 4]


INTERNET-DRAFT                 RADIUS IANA                 22 March 2003


Appendix A - RADIUS Packet Types

A list of allocated RADIUS Packet Type Codes is given below. This
document reserves all Packet Type Codes listed below that are not
already allocated in [RFC2865], and instructs IANA to list them in the
registry of Packet Type Codes.

Note that Packet Type Codes 6-10,12-13,21-34,50-51 have no meaning
defined by an IETF RFC, but are reserved until a specification is
provided for them.  This is being done to avoid interoperability
problems with software that implements non-standard RADIUS extensions
that are or have been in use on the Internet.  Note that Type Codes
40-44, which are defined in [DynAuth] are also listed in [RFC2882].

#        Message                      Reference
----     -------------------------    ---------
1        Access-Request               [RFC2865]
2        Access-Accept                [RFC2865]
3        Access-Reject                [RFC2865]
4        Accounting-Request           [RFC2865]
5        Accounting-Response          [RFC2865]
6        Accounting-Status            [RFC2882]
         (now Interim Accounting)
7        Password-Request             [RFC2882]
8        Password-Ack                 [RFC2882]
9        Password-Reject              [RFC2882]
10       Accounting-Message           [RFC2882]
11       Access-Challenge             [RFC2865]
12       Status-Server (experimental) [RFC2865]
13       Status-Client (experimental) [RFC2865]
21       Resource-Free-Request        [RFC2882]
22       Resource-Free-Response       [RFC2882]
23       Resource-Query-Request       [RFC2882]
24       Resource-Query-Response      [RFC2882]
25       Alternate-Resource-
         Reclaim-Request              [RFC2882]
26       NAS-Reboot-Request           [RFC2882]
27       NAS-Reboot-Response          [RFC2882]
28       Reserved
29       Next-Passcode                [RFC2882]
30       New-Pin                      [RFC2882]
31       Terminate-Session            [RFC2882]
32       Password-Expired             [RFC2882]
33       Event-Request                [RFC2882]
34       Event-Response               [RFC2882]






Aboba                        Standards Track                    [Page 5]


INTERNET-DRAFT                 RADIUS IANA                 22 March 2003


#        Message                      Reference
----     -------------------------    ---------
40       Disconnect-Request           [DynAuth]
41       Disconnect-ACK               [DynAuth]
42       Disconnect-NAK               [DynAuth]
43       CoF-Request                  [DynAuth]
44       CoF-ACK                      [DynAuth]
45       CoF-NAK                      [DynAuth]
50       IP-Address-Allocate          [RFC2882]
51       IP-Address-Release           [RFC2882]
250-253  Experimental Use
254      Reserved
255      Reserved                     [RFC2865]

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Ignacio Goyret of Lucent, Allison Mankin of Lucent Bell Labs,
Glen Zorn and Harald Alvestrand of Cisco for discussions relating to
this document.

Authors' Addresses

Bernard Aboba
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052

EMail: bernarda@microsoft.com
Phone: +1 425 706 6605
Fax:   +1 425 936 7329

Intellectual Property Statement

The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain
to the implementation or use of the technology described in this
document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or
might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made any
effort to identify any such rights.  Information on the IETF's
procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and standards-
related documentation can be found in BCP-11.  Copies of claims of
rights made available for publication and any assurances of licenses to
be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general
license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by
implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the
IETF Secretariat.

The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any



Aboba                        Standards Track                    [Page 6]


INTERNET-DRAFT                 RADIUS IANA                 22 March 2003


copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights
which may cover technology that may be required to practice this
standard.  Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.

Full Copyright Statement

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or
assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and
distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included
on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this document itself
may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice
or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations,
except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in
which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet
Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into
languages other than English.  The limited permissions granted above are
perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its
successors or assigns.  This document and the information contained
herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE
INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE."

Expiration Date

This memo is filed as <draft-aboba-radius-iana-02.txt>,  and  expires
August 19, 2003.



















Aboba                        Standards Track                    [Page 7]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.123, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/