One document matched: draft-aboba-ieee802-rel-02.txt
Differences from draft-aboba-ieee802-rel-01.txt
Network Working Group Les Bell
INTERNET-DRAFT 3Com Europe Limited
Category: Informational Dan Romascanu
<draft-aboba-ieee802-rel-02.txt> Avaya Inc.
23 December 2003 Bernard Aboba
Microsoft Corporation
History of the IEEE 802/IETF Relationship
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 (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
Since the mid 1990s, IEEE 802 and IETF have cooperated in the
development of SNMP MIBs and AAA applications. This document
describes the history of that cooperation, and the policies and
procedures that have developed in order to coordinate between the two
organizations.
Bell, Romascanu & Aboba Informational [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT IEEE 802/IETF History 23 December 2003
1. Introduction
Since the late 1980s, participants in IEEE 802 and the IETF have
cooperated in the development of MIBs and AAA applications relating
to IEEE standards. This has included the Bridge MIB [RFC1493], the
Hub MIB [RFC2108], MAU MIB [RFC2668], revisions to the Ethernet-like
Interfaces MIB [RFC2665], the WAN Interfaces Sublayer MIB [WISMIB],
the Power Ethernet MIB [PETH], multicast filtering and VLAN extension
MIB [RFC2674], the IEEE 802.1X MIB [8021XMIB], IEEE 802.1X RADIUS
usage guidelines [RFC3580], RADIUS/EAP [RFC3579], the revised EAP
specification [RFC2284bis], and the EAP State Machine specification
[EAPSTATE]. This document describes the history of the IEEE 802/IETF
relationship, as well as the policies and procedures that have been
put in place to encourage cooperation.
2. MIB Development
2.1. Bridge MIB
The relationship between IETF and IEEE 802 began in the late 1980s
with SNMP MIBs developed for the original IEEE 802.1D standard.
Because the IEEE specification [IEEE8021D] contained only a
functional definition of the counters and operations, the IETF's
Bridge MIB WG took on the role of defining the Bridge MIB [RFC1493]
which was published as an RFC. Fred Baker and later Keith McCloghrie
served as chairs of the Bridge WG.
The Bridge MIB combined the work of Keith McCloghrie, Eric Decker and
Paul Langille, with spanning tree exertise provided by Anil
Rijsinghani. Mick Seaman (author of 802.1D) and Floyd Backes (who
had written the code for Digital Equipment's spanning tree
implementation) were the main contacts within IEEE 802.1. Since
Mick, Floyd, Anil and Paul all worked for Digital Equipment
Corporation at the time, much of the coordination between IEEE 802.1
and the Bridge MIB WG took place in the hallways at Digital, rather
than within official channels.
2.2. MAU and Hub MIBs
In the early 1990s when IEEE 802.3 was completing the first Ethernet
standards, SNMP was not yet the dominant network management protocol.
As a result, a 'protocol independent' MIB is included in Clause 30 of
the IEEE 802.3 standard [IEEE8023], which is updated each time the
Ethernet standard is enhanced to support higher speeds. In parallel,
IEEE 802 participants interested in network management were active in
the formation of the IETF HUBMIB WG, which took on the task of
transforming IEEE 802 definitions into SNMP MIBs documented as
Standards Track RFCs. This included Dan Romascanu, Chair of the IETF
Bell, Romascanu & Aboba Informational [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT IEEE 802/IETF History 23 December 2003
HUBMIB WG since 1996.
The Charter of the HUBMIB WG explicitly mentions that the IEEE 802.3
standard is the starting point for the Ethernet MIB, but at the same
time reserves the right to deviate from the IEEE model - either to
cover only part of the capabilities offered by the standard, or add
MIB objects that are not directly derived from the IEEE model (mostly
implemented in software). If management needs lead to requirements
for hardware support, the IETF HUBMIB WG is to provide this input to
IEEE 802.3 in a timely manner.
Cooperation between the IETF HUBMIB WG and IEEE 802.3 has continued
for more than a decade until today, mostly based on the work of a few
editors supported by their companies, who are taking the IEEE
standards and mapping them into a management data model and MIBs.
Work items include:
- The Hub MIB [RFC2108], which has gone through three iterations,
and is probably ending its evolution, as repeaters are less used
in Ethernets.
- The MAU MIB, which has been updated each time a new Ethernet speed
is developed, with [RFC2668] now being revised to accommodate
10 Gbps Ethernet.
- The Ethernet-like Interfaces MIB was not originally a work item
of the HUBMIB WG, but since the publication of [RFC2665] the WG
has taken responsibility for a revision, which is now in progress.
- The WAN Interfaces Sublayer MIB [WISMIB], and the Power Ethernet MIB
[PETH] are relatively new items in IEEE 802.3 and the IETF HUBMIB WG,
and are currently under review by the IESG.
In 2000, an official liason was established between IEEE 802.3 and
the IETF HUBMIB WG, and Dan Romascanu was appointed IETF liason. The
conditions of the liason agreement allows editors and other
participants in the IETF HUBMIB WG access to work-in-progress drafts
in IEEE 802.3 on a personal basis, for the purpose of working on MIBs
before the release of the standard. However, the username and
password for IEEE 802.3 document access are not for publication on
any IETF Web site or mail list.
2.3. 802.1p/Q MIB
In 1996 as the 802.1p and 802.1Q standards were being completed, a
need was perceived for development of an SNMP MIB, based on the
management clauses of those standards. IEEE 802 management clauses
are written in a manner that was independent of any protocol that may
be used to implement them.
At that time, there were a number of proprietary VLAN management MIBs
Bell, Romascanu & Aboba Informational [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT IEEE 802/IETF History 23 December 2003
which were both inadequate and difficult to understand. As a result
there was a need for a more comprehensive, simpler model for VLAN
management, along with the priority and multicast filtering
management also defined by these standards.
A small group of participants from the 802.1 WG began working on the
problem independently, then combined their work. The original
authors of the Bridge MIB, on which some of the work was based,
reviewed the initial work.
By the end of 1997, the work was ready for review by a larger
audience. Andrew Smith worked with Keith McCloghrie, chair of the
Bridge MIB WG (dormant at the time) to obtain a meeting slot at the
March 1998 IETF Meeting. After this, review and development of the
MIB continued on the IETF standards track.
During the development of [RFC2674], there was no official inter-
working between the IETF Bridge-MIB and IEEE 802.1 groups.
Development of this MIB was successful, because the main developers
(Andrew Smith and Les Bell) were involved in both IEEE 802.1 as well
as the IETF Bridge MIB WGs.
2.4. 802.3ad and 802.1X MIBs
As part of the IEEE 802.3ad and IEEE 802.1X standards work, it was
decided that it would better to develop a MIB as part of the
standards, rather than wait until an IETF WG was formed, and develop
the MIBs separately, so as to avoid a significant time lag in their
development.
As Les Bell was the participant in IEEE 802.3ad and IEEE 802.1 most
familiar with SNMP MIB development, he put together the initial MIBs
based on the management framework the groups had come up with.
Additional assistance was then received for both MIBs from within the
IEEE 802.3ad and IEEE 802.1X groups. Tony Jeffree, editor of both
standards, acted as editor of the MIBs as well.
The problem with IEEE 802 developing these MIBs without IETF
involvement was the lack of review. IEEE 802 members are generally
not familiar with MIBs and very few comments were received as part of
the balloting process for either MIB.
In the case of the IEEE 802.3ad MIB, this meant that basic errors
were not discovered until just before publication. Unfortunately by
then it was too late, and the corrections submitted to the IEEE
802.3ad chair and document editor did not get applied to the
published version.
Bell, Romascanu & Aboba Informational [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT IEEE 802/IETF History 23 December 2003
To solicit additional review, the IEEE 802.1X MIB was re-published as
an Internet-Draft [8021XMIB] within the Bridge WG. This occurred
after publication of [IEEE8021X].
2.5. 802.1t, 802.1u, 802.1v and 802.1w MIBs
802.1t and 802.1u were minor amendments to the 802.1D and 802.1Q
standards, requiring some additions to the MIB published in
[RFC2674]. 802.1v was a new feature extending the VLAN
classification schemes of 802.1Q, also requiring extensions to
[RFC2674]. 802.1w was a new version of Spanning Tree, requiring re-
writing of part of [RFC1493].
When Les Bell took on the role of Chair of the IETF Bridge-MIB WG in
2001, these issues were raised as new work items and two volunteers
were found to become editors of the Internet Drafts. A work item was
also included to publish the IEEE 802.1X MIB as an Informational RFC.
This approach worked well for a while, but it then became difficult
for the participants, including the editors and the Chair, to sustain
a level of interest sufficient to overcome the difficulties
introduced by budget cut-backs. As a result, the drafts have now
expired, although there are no significant technical issues
outstanding.
3. AAA/EAP
Since the late 1990s, IEEE 802.1 has been involved in work relating
to authentication and authorization [IEEE8021X], which has lead to
uncovering of issues in several IETF specifications, including
[RFC2284], and [RFC2869]. Similarly, IETF participants have
uncovered issues in early versions of the RADIUS usage specifications
such as [RFC3580], as well as the IEEE 802.1X state machine [Mishra].
In order to address these issues and ensure synchronization between
IEEE 802.1 and the IETF EAP and AAA WGs, a liason arrangement has
been devised that has so far been relatively successful.
More recently, IEEE 802.11 groups such as IEEE 802.11i and IEEE
802.11f have also become dependent on EAP and AAA work. This
relationship is still evolving, but is somewhat more challenging
since IEEE 802.11 has a need for features such as RADIUS extensions,
new EAP methods and an EAP Keying Framework that represent
substantial new IETF work, as opposed to the clarifications and
updates that have been required by IEEE 802.1. As a result, the
likelihood of IETF process delays affecting completion of IEEE
standards is considerably greater. Going forward, the IETF and IEEE
802 will need to work to resolve the tension between timely delivery
Bell, Romascanu & Aboba Informational [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT IEEE 802/IETF History 23 December 2003
of standards and the need for thorough IETF review.
3.1. IEEE 802.1X
IEEE 802.1X-2001 [IEEE8021X] defined the encapsulation of EAP
[RFC2284] over IEEE 802, as well as a state machine for the joint
operation of IEEE 802.1X and EAP.
During the development of [IEEE8021X], several problems were
discovered in the specification for RADIUS/EAP [RFC2869], and as a
result, work was begun on a revision which was eventually published
as [RFC3579]. In addition, clarifications were required on how
RADIUS attributes defined in [RFC2865], [RFC2866], [RFC2867],
[RFC2868], [RFC2869], and [RFC3162] would be interpreted by IEEE
802.1X implementations, and so a non-normative RADIUS usage appendix
was added to [IEEE8021X], and subsequently published as [RFC3580].
Subsequent to the publication of [IEEE8021X], a formal analysis of
the IEEE 802.1X state machine by the University of Maryland disclosed
several security issues [Mishra]. After discussion within IEEE
802.1aa, the group chartered to revise IEEE 802.1X, it was decided
that the issues were the result of lack of clarity in [RFC2284], and
the absence of an EAP state machine document.
At that time, work on EAP was handled within the IETF PPPEXT WG,
which was largely inactive. In order to handle work on a revised EAP
specification [RFC2284bis] as well as an EAP state machine document,
the IETF EAP WG was formed in July 2002. Bernard Aboba, a
participant in IEEE 802.1X and IEEE 802.1aa, was named co-chair.
Work on the EAP state machine [EAPSTATE] and [RFC2284bis]
specifications have proceeded in parallel within EAP WG, with issues
or changes in one document requiring changes to the other document,
as well as in some cases revisions to IEEE 802.1X [IEEE8021aa]. The
revised RADIUS/EAP specification [RFC3579] has been reviewed within
EAP WG, although it is not a WG work item.
A revision to IEEE 802.1X [IEEE8021aa] is now in progress, which
includes the following:
- a revised RADIUS usage appendix based on [RFC3580]
- clarifications based on [RFC3579]
- a revised IEEE 802.1X state machine
- an EAP state machine, based on [EAPSTATE] and [RFC2284bis]
Due to the deep dependencies between IEEE 802.1aa and EAP WG, a
liason was established between the two groups in August 2002. This
enables members of the IETF EAP WG to obtain access to IEEE 802.1aa
Bell, Romascanu & Aboba Informational [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT IEEE 802/IETF History 23 December 2003
work-in-progress.
IEEE 802 groups are duty bound to consider all comments received,
regardless of their origin. This allows IETF participants to comment
as part of the IEEE 802 ballot process, regardless of their voting
status within IEEE 802. Where there is active cooperation, IETF WGs
may be made aware that IEEE 802 ballots are occurring and that their
comments are welcome. Currently IEEE 802.1aa and IEEE 802.11i
ballots are announced on the EAP WG mailing list, as are IEEE 802
interim meeting arrangements.
Similarly, during the IEEE 802.1aa ballot process, comments have been
received relating to [RFC2284bis], [EAPSTATE], and [RFC3579]. These
comments are tracked on the EAP WG Issues List, and are reflected in
the documents.
In April 2003 [RFC3580] was approved by the IESG for publication as
an RFC, and in May 2003 [RFC3579] was approved for publication as an
RFC. The review process for both drafts involved bringing the
documents to IETF last call, and then reposting the IETF last call
announcement on the IEEE 802.1 mailing list. While ballot comments in
IEEE 802.1aa were also reflected in changes to both documents, it was
necessary for both documents to be approved for publication as RFCs
well in advance of IEEE 802.1aa Sponsor Ballot, in order to ensure
that RFC #s would be assigned in time, so as to avoid delaying
publication of IEEE 802.1aa.
Overall, despite the complex inter-dependencies between IEEE 802.1aa
and IETF specifications, the relationship has been relatively
successful. This is largely due to the work of a group of
contributors who have been joint participants in IEEE 802.1aa and the
IETF EAP WG.
3.2. IEEE 802.11i
IEEE 802.11i is chartered with security enhancements to IEEE 802.11.
Since IEEE 802.11i has chosen to utilize IEEE 802.1X, IEEE 802.11i
depends on the IEEE 802.1X revision-in-progress [IEEE8021aa]. As a
result, IEEE 802.11i and IEEE 802.1aa have in the past held joint
meetings at IEEE 802 plenaries and have established a liason
arrangement that permits members of either group (as well as EAP WG
participants) access to IEEE 802.11i work-in-progress.
Since IEEE 802.11i depends on IEEE 802.1aa, IEEE 802.11i inherits
IEEE 802.1aa dependencies on IETF work, including work on EAP, EAP
methods, and AAA support for EAP. In addition, since IEEE 802.11i
uses EAP for key management whereas [IEEE8021X] does not, there is an
additional dependency on EAP Key management [EAPKey].
Bell, Romascanu & Aboba Informational [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT IEEE 802/IETF History 23 December 2003
In February 2002, IEEE 802.11 sent a liason letter to the IESG
[IEEE802Liaison1] requesting additional work on EAP, EAP methods, and
EAP key management. This letter was presented at the second EAP BOF
at IETF 53, and was used as input to the EAP WG charter. In March
2003, another liason letter was presented, providing further
clarifications on requirements for EAP method work [IEEE802Liaison2].
This included a request from IEEE 802.11i for the EAP WG to consider
changing the mandatory-to-implement EAP method within [RFC2284bis],
so as to provide a method meeting the security requirements of IEEE
802.11i.
During IETF 56, the request for changing the mandatory-to-implement
method was considered by the EAP WG. A recommendation was made by
the Internet Area Director Erik Nordmark that the IEEE 802.11i
requirements be documented in an Internet Draft and that the EAP WG
consider the security requirements for EAP methods in various
situations. These requirements were subsequently included within
[RFC2284bis]. It was recommended not to change the mandatory-to-
implement method, since the EAP WG was not chartered to do work on
methods. However, work on additional methods may be included in a
future version of the EAP WG charter.
Most recently, IEEE 802.11i has been involved in discussions relating
to fast handoff, which may potentially require RADIUS extensions
[Arbaugh] as well as changes to the EAP Key hierarchy [EAPKey].
However, the direction of this work has not yet been determined so
that no liason request has been formulated yet.
In April 2003 Dorothy Stanley was appointed liason from IEEE 802.11
to the IETF, in order to help coordinate between IEEE 802.11 and the
IETF EAP and AAA WGs.
3.3. IEEE 802.11f
IEEE 802.11f is chartered with development of a recommended practice
for Inter-Access Point Communications. As part of development of an
Inter-Access Point Protocol (IAPP), it was necessary to secure
communications between the access points, as well as to support the
reverse resolution of the MAC address of the previous access point to
its IP address, so as to allow the two access points to communicate
via IAPP. Since the two access points might not be on the same link,
Inverse ARP [RFC2390], was not considered sufficient in all cases.
IEEE 802.11f elected to extend the RADIUS protocol [RFC2865] to
provide inverse address resolution as well as IPsec key management.
This was accomplished via use of vendor-specific attributes, as well
as new RADIUS commands, defined through definition of additional
values for the RADIUS Service-Type attribute. As a result, IETF
Bell, Romascanu & Aboba Informational [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT IEEE 802/IETF History 23 December 2003
review was not required under the IANA considerations included in
[RFC2865]. Subsequently, the RADIUS IANA considerations were revised
so as to require IETF review [RFC3575] in most cases.
No liason arrangement was developed between IEEE 802.11f and relevant
IETF WGs such as AAA WG or SEAMOBY WG, so as to allow IETF
participants access to the IEEE 802.11f specifications prior to
publication. Once IEEE 802.11f entered into Recirculation ballot,
only comments relating to changes in the specification could be
considered. As a result, issues raised relating to the IEEE 802.11f
RADIUS extensions were rejected.
Currently the plan is to handle issues in the IEEE 802.11f RADIUS
extensions via the IEEE 802.11 interpretation process, and
subsequently, if warranted, by a group chartered to revise IEEE
802.11f.
4. Summary and Recommendations
Based on the above history, the following changes are recommended:
[a] Increased reliance on online communication. In these times of
travel restriction it is important to be able to conclude IETF/IEEE
802 cooperative projects successfully without requiring physical
attendance at both IETF and IEEE 802 meetings. This is somewhat of
a challenge because in the past having participants attend both
standards bodies has been an important contributor to success.
[b] Development of a framework agreement. Access to IEEE work-in-
progress documents has frequently arisen as an issue in cooperation
between IETF and IEEE 802. The IEEE and IETF follow very different
models with respect to document access. While IETF Internet-Drafts
are freely available, IEEE 802 keeps documents restricted to the
participants in the IEEE 802 standards process. Within IEEE 802, a
participant is required to physically attend at least one IEEE
meeting. While in the past IETF WGs have successfully negotiated
access to IEEE work-in-progress, each instance has been handled
separately and may take significant time to set up. Going forward
it would be helpful to develop a framework agreement between the
IEEE 802 and IETF so that this process could be concluded quickly
and a new negotiation would not be required each time cooperation
is required.
[c] Increased review of IEEE MIBs. It would be helpful to encourage
wider review of MIBs developed by IEEE 802 WGs, via liaisons with
the IETF and by permitting access to relevant IEEE 802 draft
documents to IETF WG members. Were IEEE 802 draft documents to be
made more readily available, IETF WG chairs could encourage WG
Bell, Romascanu & Aboba Informational [Page 9]
INTERNET-DRAFT IEEE 802/IETF History 23 December 2003
members to review the MIBs as soon as the drafts are considered
stable enough.
It is recommended that SNMP MIBs written in the IEEE follow the MIB
guidelines [GUIDELINES] and be reviewed as part of the SNMP quality
control process ('MIB Doctors').
[d] Increased review of IEEE AAA applications. It would be helpful to
encourage wider review of AAA applications developed by IEEE 802
WGs. This can be accomplished via a liaison with the IETF AAA WG,
and by permitting access to IEEE 802 work-in-progress to IETF WGs
with a demonstrated need. The newly approved RADIUS IANA
Considerations document [RFC3575] now requires such a review in
most cases.
[e] Preference for IETF standard AAA attributes, and a single IEEE
Vendor-Specific attribute format. Currently several standards
organizations, including IEEE, have taken to allocating their own
vendor-specific AAA attributes. As noted in [RFC3575]:
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.
Since IEEE vendor-specific attributes are not specific to only one
vendor's implementation of RADIUS and interoperability is generally
deemed useful, use of vendor-specific attributes represents a last
resort. For AAA attributes of general utility, and particularly
those useful in multiple potential applications, allocation from
the IETF standard attribute space is preferred.
Where allocation of Vendor-Specific Attributes (VSAs) is required,
it is recommended that IEEE 802 create a uniform format for all of
IEEE 802, rather than letting each IEEE 802 WG create their own
format. The format defined in IEEE 802.11f is inappropriate for
this, since it only defines a single octet Type field, allowing for
only 255 attributes.
5. Security considerations
As IEEE 802 becomes increasingly involved in the specification of
standards for link-layer security, experience has shown that it is
helpful to obtain outside review of work-in-progress prior to
publication. This has proven somewhat challenging since access to
IEEE 802 work-in-progress documents are often tightly controlled.
For example, special permission had to be obtained for IEEE 802.11i
Bell, Romascanu & Aboba Informational [Page 10]
INTERNET-DRAFT IEEE 802/IETF History 23 December 2003
to be able to circulate a version of its security standard-in-
progress for review. A liason between an IEEE 802 group and a
relevant IETF WG can assist in obtaining the necessary level of
review.
In addition, experience has shown that IETF standards may not be
written to the level of clarity required by the IEEE 802 standards
process. In the case of EAP [RFC2284], the process of developing the
EAP state machine specification has proven useful in uncovering
aspects requiring clarification, and the joint review process has
exposed by IEEE and IETF documents-in-progress to wider review than
might otherwise have been possible.
Due to weaknesses in the RADIUS specification [RFC2865], it is
relatively easy for protocol extensions to introduce serious security
vulnerabilities. As a result, IETF review of RADIUS extensions is
advisable, and the RADIUS IANA Considerations [RFC3575] have been
revised so as to require such a review in most cases.
6. IANA Considerations
This document does not create any registries or allocate any protocol
parameters.
7. References
7.1. Informative references
[RFC1493] Decker, E., et al., "Definitions of Managed Objects for
Bridges", RFC 1493, July 1993.
[RFC2108] Graaf, K., et al., "Definitions of Managed Objects for
IEEE 802.3 Repeater Devices using SMIv2", RFC 2108,
February 1997.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March, 1997.
[RFC2284] Blunk, L. and J. Vollbrecht, "PPP Extensible
Authentication Protocol (EAP)", RFC 2284, March 1998.
[RFC2390] Bradley, T., Brown, C and A. Malis, "Inverse Address
Resolution Protocol", RFC 2390, September 1998.
[RFC2434] Alvestrand, H. and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
October 1998.
Bell, Romascanu & Aboba Informational [Page 11]
INTERNET-DRAFT IEEE 802/IETF History 23 December 2003
[RFC2665] Flick, J. and J. Johnson, "Definitions of Managed Objects
for the Ethernet-Like Interface Types", RFC 2665, August
1999.
[RFC2668] Smith, A., et al., "Definitions of Managed Objects for
IEEE 802.3 Medium Attachment Units (MAUs)", RFC 2668,
August 1999.
[RFC2674] Bell, E., et al., "Definitions of Managed Objects for
Bridges with Traffic Classes, Multicast Filtering and
Virtual LAN Extensions", RFC 2674, August 1999.
[RFC2865] Rigney, C., Rubens, A., Simpson, W. and S. Willens,
"Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)",
RFC 2865, June 2000.
[RFC2866] Rigney, C., "RADIUS Accounting", RFC 2866, June 2000.
[RFC2867] Zorn, G., Mitton, D. and B. Aboba, "RADIUS Accounting
Modifications for Tunnel Protocol Support", RFC 2867,
June 2000.
[RFC2868] Zorn, G., Leifer, D., Rubens, A., Shriver, J., Holdrege,
M. and I. Goyret, "RADIUS Attributes for Tunnel Protocol
Support", RFC 2868, June 2000.
[RFC2869] Rigney, C., Willats, W. and P. Calhoun, "RADIUS
Extensions", RFC 2869, June 2000.
[RFC3579] Aboba, B. and P. Calhoun, "RADIUS Support for Extensible
Authentication Protocol (EAP)", RFC 3579, September 2003.
[RFC3162] Aboba, B., Zorn, G. and D. Mitton, "RADIUS and IPv6", RFC
3162, August 2001.
[8021XMIB] Norseth, K., "Definitions for Port Access Control (IEEE
802.1X) MIB", Internet draft (work in progress), draft-
ietf-bridge-8021x-01.txt, April 2003.
[RFC3580] Congdon, P., et al., "IEEE 802.1X RADIUS Usage
Guidelines", RFC 3580, September 2003.
[IEEE8021X] IEEE Standards for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks:
Port based Network Access Control, IEEE Std 802.1X-2001,
June 2001.
[IEEE8021aa] IEEE Standards for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks:
Port based Network Access Control, IEEE Std 802.1aa/D7.1,
Bell, Romascanu & Aboba Informational [Page 12]
INTERNET-DRAFT IEEE 802/IETF History 23 December 2003
November 2003.
[IEEE802] IEEE Standards for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks:
Overview and Architecture, ANSI/IEEE Std 802, 1990.
[IEEE8021D] ISO/IEC 15802-3 Information technology -
Telecommunications and information exchange between
systems - Local and metropolitan area networks - Common
specifications - Part 3: Media access Control (MAC)
Bridges, (also ANSI/IEEE Std 802.1D-1998), 1998.
[IEEE8021Q] IEEE Standards for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks:
Draft Standard for Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks,
P802.1Q, January 1998.
[IEEE8023] ISO/IEC 8802-3 Information technology -
Telecommunications and information exchange between
systems - Local and metropolitan area networks - Common
specifications - Part 3: Carrier Sense Multiple Access
with Collision Detection (CSMA/CD) Access Method and
Physical Layer Specifications, (also ANSI/IEEE Std 802.3-
1996), 1996.
[IEEE8025] ISO/IEC 8802-5 Information technology -
Telecommunications and information exchange between
systems - Local and metropolitan area networks - Common
specifications - Part 5: Token ring access method and
physical layer specifications, (also ANSI/IEEE Std
802.5-1998), 1998.
[802.11] Information technology - Telecommunications and
information exchange between systems - Local and
metropolitan area networks - Specific Requirements Part
11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and
Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications, IEEE Std.
802.11-1999, 1999.
[WISMIB] Heard, C., "Definitions of Managed Objects for the
Ethernet WAN Interface Sublayer", Internet draft (work in
progress), draft-ietf-hubmib-wis-mib-07.txt, March 2003.
[PETH] Berger, A., and D. Romascanu, "Power over Ethernet (DTE
Power via MDI) MIB", draft-ietf-hubmib-power-ethernet-
mib-04.txt, Internet draft (work in progress), December
2002.
[Arbaugh] Arbaugh, W. and B. Aboba, "Handoff Extension to RADIUS",
draft-irtf-aaaarch-handoff-04.txt, Internet draft (work
Bell, Romascanu & Aboba Informational [Page 13]
INTERNET-DRAFT IEEE 802/IETF History 23 December 2003
in progress), November 2003.
[Mishra] Mishra, A. and W. Arbaugh, "An Initial Security Analysis
of the IEEE 802.1X Standard", Department of Computer
Science, University of Maryland College Park, CS-TR-4328,
February 2002.
[EAPSTATE] Vollbrecht, J., et al., "State Machines for EAP Peer and
Authenticator", draft-ietf-eap-statemachine-01.pdf,
Internet draft (work in progress), November 2003.
[EAPKey] Aboba, B. , et al., "EAP Keying Framework", draft-ietf-
eap-keying-02.txt, Internet draft (work in progress),
November 2003.
[IEEE80211Liaison1]
IEEE 802.11 liaison letter to Harald Alvestrand, February
2002, http://www.ietf.org/IESG/LIAISON/ieee802.11.txt
[IEEE80211Liaison2]
Input To IETF EAP Working Group on Methods and Key
Strength, March 2003,
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/LIAISON/LS-ieee-80211.txt
[RFC3575] Aboba, B., "IANA Considerations for RADIUS", RFC 3575,
July 2003.
[GUIDELINES] Heard, C.M., "Guidelines for MIB Authors and Reviewers",
draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-01.txt, Internet
draft (work in progress), February 2003.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge Tony Jeffree, Fred Baker and
Paul Langille for contributions to this document.
Authors' Addresses
Les Bell
3Com Europe Limited
3Com Centre, Boundary Way
Hemel Hempstead
Herts. HP2 7YU
UK
EMail: Les_Bell@3com.com
Phone: +44 1442 438025
Bell, Romascanu & Aboba Informational [Page 14]
INTERNET-DRAFT IEEE 802/IETF History 23 December 2003
Dan Romascanu
Avaya Inc.
Atidim Technology Park, Bldg. #3
Tel Aviv, 61131
Israel
EMail: dromasca@avaya.com
Phone: +972 3 645 8414
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 implementors or users of this specification can
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
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 (2004). 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
Bell, Romascanu & Aboba Informational [Page 15]
INTERNET-DRAFT IEEE 802/IETF History 23 December 2003
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-ieee802-rel-02.txt>, and expires
June 22, 2004.
Bell, Romascanu & Aboba Informational [Page 16]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-22 13:53:10 |