One document matched: draft-cam-winget-eap-tlv-02.txt
Differences from draft-cam-winget-eap-tlv-01.txt
Network Working Group N. Cam-Winget
Internet-Draft H. Zhou
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems
Expires: July 7, 2011 S. McCann
RIM
January 3, 2011
EAP Type-Length-Value Container
draft-cam-winget-eap-tlv-02
Abstract
The Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP), defined in RFC 3748,
facilitates multiple authentication methods that are widely deployed
today. As tunnel mechanisms become more prevalent, there has been
interest in carrying other types of data between the EAP Peer and the
EAP server. Existing tunnel EAP methods have already defined generic
data structures to carry such information.
This document defines a generic TLV "container" that can be used
within an EAP method.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 7, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 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
Cam-Winget, et al. Expires July 7, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft EAP TLV January 2011
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.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Cam-Winget, et al. Expires July 7, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft EAP TLV January 2011
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Specification Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. EAP Type-Length-Value Format and Support . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. EAP TLV Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Error TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Vendor-Specific TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Cam-Winget, et al. Expires July 7, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft EAP TLV January 2011
1. Introduction
Different authentication systems use the Extensible Authentication
Protocol (EAP) framework to define tunnel authentication methods for
establishing strong mutual authentication through the use of
different authentication schemes including smart cards, One Time
Passwords, cleartext passwords and others. Tunnel EAP methods whose
requirements are defined in [I-D.salowey-emu-eaptunnel-req] carry EAP
methods and other authorization information such as channel binding
that need an inner tunnel transport mechanism. Other IETF groups
have also expressed the need to carry other types of data between the
EAP Peer and EAP Server.
Tunnel EAP methods such as EAP-FAST [RFC4851] and EAP-TTLS [RFC5281]
already use TLV structures to carry data. EAP-TTLS overloads the
Diameter AVP attribute type space, while EAP-FAST and other previous
work, such as the one presented in "draft-hiller-eap-tlv" use a
separate attribute type namespace. This memo takes the approach of
using the separate namespace used in EAP-FAST.
2. Specification Requirements
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] .
3. EAP Type-Length-Value Format and Support
To allow for interoperability, the EAP Type-Length-Value (EAP-TLV)
defines a container format used to carry arbitrary data between the
EAP peer and the EAP server. It is intended that this container be
used only inside a protected EAP tunnel.
The mandatory bit in an EAP-TLV indicates whether support of the EAP-
TLV is required. If the EAP Peer or Server does not support an EAP-
TLV marked mandatory, then it MUST send an Error TLV, with the error-
code set to 3(Unsupported TLV), in the response, and all the other
EAP-TLVs in the message MUST be ignored. If an EAP Peer or Server
finds an unsupported TLV which is marked as optional, it can ignore
the unsupported EAP-TLV. It MUST NOT send an Error TLV, with the
error-code set to 3(Unsupported TLV), for an EAP-TLV that is not
marked mandatory.
Note that an EAP Peer or Server may support an EAP-TLV with the
mandatory bit set, but may not understand the contents. The
appropriate response to a supported EAP-TLV with content that is not
Cam-Winget, et al. Expires July 7, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft EAP TLV January 2011
understood is defined by the individual EAP-TLV specification.
EAP implementations compliant with this specification MUST support
EAP-TLV exchanges, as well as processing of mandatory/optional
settings on the EAP-TLV. Implementations conforming to this
specification MUST support the following subset of EAP-TLVs defined
in this document:
Error TLV
4. EAP TLV Format
EAP-TLVs are defined as described below. The fields are transmitted
from left to right.
0 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|M|R| TLV Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
M
0 Optional TLV
1 Mandatory TLV
R
Reserved, set to zero (0)
TLV Type
A 14-bit field, denoting the TLV type. Allocated Types
include:
Cam-Winget, et al. Expires July 7, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft EAP TLV January 2011
0 Reserved
1 Reserved
2 Reserved
3 Reserved
4 Reserved
5 Error TLV
6 Reserved
7 Vendor Specific TLV
Length
The length of the Value field in octets.
Value
The value of the TLV.
5. Error TLV
The Error TLV allows an EAP Peer or Server to indicate errors to the
other party. For example, an error may occur if the EAP TLV contains
information that cannot be parsed or if the EAP Peer or Server
received an unexpected EAP TLV. An EAP packet can contain 0 or more
Error TLVs. The appropriate response to an Error TLV is defined by
the individual EAP method or EAP-TLV specification. The Error TLV is
defined as follows:
0 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|M|R| TLV Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Error-Code |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Cam-Winget, et al. Expires July 7, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft EAP TLV January 2011
M
Mandatory, set to one (1)
R
Reserved, set to zero (0)
TLV Type
5 for Error TLV
Length
4
Error-Code
The Error-Code field is four octets. Allocated Error Types
include:
0 Reserved
1 EAP-TLV could not be processed
2 Unexpected EAP-TLV
3 Unsupported EAP-TLV
6. Vendor-Specific TLV
The Vendor-Specific TLV is available to allow vendors to support
their own extended attributes not suitable for general usage. A
Vendor-Specific TLV attribute can contain one or more TLVs, referred
to as Vendor TLVs. The TLV-type of a Vendor-TLV is defined by the
vendor. All the Vendor TLVs inside a single Vendor-Specific TLV
belong to the same vendor. The can be multiple Vendor-Specific TLVs
from different vendors in the same message.
Cam-Winget, et al. Expires July 7, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft EAP TLV January 2011
Vendor TLVs may be optional or mandatory.
The Vendor-Specific TLV is defined as follows:
0 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|M|R| TLV Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Vendor-Id |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Vendor TLVs....
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
M
0 or 1
R
Reserved, set to zero (0)
TLV Type
7 for Vendor Specific TLV
Length
>=4
Vendor-Id
The Vendor-Id field is four octets, and contains the Vendor-Id
of the TLV. The high-order octet is 0 and the low-order 3
octets are the SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Code
of the Vendor in network byte order.
Vendor TLVs
This field is of indefinite length. It contains vendor-
specific TLVs, in a format defined by the vendor.
Cam-Winget, et al. Expires July 7, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft EAP TLV January 2011
7. Security Considerations
The EAP-TLV container can carry arbitrary data between an EAP Peer
and the EAP server. It is expected that the EAP TLVs defined in this
document are carried by an EAP method that provides the required
protection, such as an EAP tunnel method.
8. IANA Considerations
This section provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA) regarding registration of EAP-TLV related values, in
accordance with BCP 26, [RFC2434].
This document defines a registry for EAP-TLV types, which may be
assigned by Specification Required as defined in [RFC2434].
Section 4 defines the TLV types that initially populate the registry.
9. Acknowledgements
The TLVs defined in this draft borrow from the work done in EAP-FAST.
The authors would also like to recognize Tom Hiller, Ashwin Palekar
and Glen Zorn for introducing this concept to the EAP WG back in
2002.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[I-D.salowey-emu-eaptunnel-req]
Hoeper, K., Hanna, S., Zhou, H., and J. Salowey,
"Requirements for an Tunnel Based EAP Method",
draft-salowey-emu-eaptunnel-req-01 (work in progress),
June 2008.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
October 1998.
[RFC3748] Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J., and H.
Levkowetz, "Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)",
RFC 3748, June 2004.
Cam-Winget, et al. Expires July 7, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft EAP TLV January 2011
[RFC4851] Cam-Winget, N., McGrew, D., Salowey, J., and H. Zhou, "The
Flexible Authentication via Secure Tunneling Extensible
Authentication Protocol Method (EAP-FAST)", RFC 4851,
May 2007.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC5281] Funk, P. and S. Blake-Wilson, "Extensible Authentication
Protocol Tunneled Transport Layer Security Authenticated
Protocol Version 0 (EAP-TTLSv0)", RFC 5281, August 2008.
Authors' Addresses
Nancy Cam-Winget
Cisco Systems
80 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, CA 95134
US
Email: ncamwing@cisco.com
Hao Zhou
Cisco Systems
4125 Highlander Parkway
Richfield, OH 44286
US
Email: hzhou@cisco.com
Stephen McCann
RIM
200 Bath Road
Slough, Berkshire SL1 3XE
UK
Email: smccann@rim.com
Cam-Winget, et al. Expires July 7, 2011 [Page 10]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 02:15:50 |