RFC2989 日本語訳
2989 Criteria for Evaluating AAA Protocols for Network Access. B.Aboba, P. Calhoun, S. Glass, T. Hiller, P. McCann, H. Shiino, G.Zorn, G. Dommety,C.Perkins,B.Patil,D.Mitton,S.Manning,M.Beadles,P.Walsh,X.Chen,S.Sivalingham,A.Hameed,M.Munson,S.Jacobs,B.Lim,B.Hirschman, R.Hsu, Y.Xu, E.Campell,S.Baba, E.Jaques. November 2000. (Format: TXT=53197 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)
プログラムでの自動翻訳です。
英語原文
Network Working Group B. Aboba, Microsoft
Request for Comments: 2989 P. Calhoun, S. Glass, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Category: Informational T. Hiller, P. McCann, H. Shiino, P. Walsh, Lucent
G. Zorn, G. Dommety, Cisco Systems, Inc.
C. Perkins, B. Patil, Nokia Telecommunications
D. Mitton, S. Manning, Nortel Networks
M. Beadles, SmartPipes Inc.
X. Chen, Alcatel
S. Sivalingham, Ericsson Wireless Communications
A. Hameed, Fujitsu
M. Munson, GTE Wireless
S. Jacobs, GTE Laboratories
B. Lim, LG Information & Communications, Ltd.
B. Hirschman, Motorola
R. Hsu, Qualcomm, Inc.
H. Koo, Samsung Telecommunications America, Inc.
M. Lipford, Sprint PCS
E. Campbell, 3Com Corporation
Y. Xu, Watercove Networks
S. Baba, Toshiba America Research, Inc.
E. Jaques, Vodaphone Airtouch
November 2000
ワーキンググループB.Aboba、コメントを求めるマイクロソフト要求をネットワークでつないでください: 2989 P.カルフーン、S.ガラス、サン・マイクロシステムズ・インクカテゴリ: 情報のT.ヒラー、P.マッキャン、H.Shiino、P.ウォルシュ、透明なG.ゾルン、G.Dommety、シスコシステムズのInc.C.パーキンス、B.パティル、D.ミットン、ノキアのテレコミュニケーションS.マニング、ノーテルはSmartPipes株式会社のX.チェン、A.ハミード、アルカテルS.Sivalingham、エリクソン無線通信富士通のM.ムンソンのM.用務員をネットワークでつなぎます、GTEワイヤレスS; ジェイコブズ、GTE研究所B.リム、LG情報、およびコミュニケーションLtd.のB.ヒルシュマン、モトローラのR.シュー、クアルコムのInc.H.クー、三星テレコミュニケーションアメリカInc.M.Lipford、短距離競走PCS E.キャンベル、3Com社のY.シュー、WatercoveはS.馬場をネットワークでつなぎます、東芝のアメリカの研究Inc.E.ジャキュース、ボーダーフォンAirtouch2000年11月
Criteria for Evaluating AAA Protocols for Network Access
ネットワークアクセスのためにAAAプロトコルを評価する評価基準
Status of this Memo
このMemoの状態
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
このメモはインターネットコミュニティのための情報を提供します。 それはどんな種類のインターネット標準も指定しません。 このメモの分配は無制限です。
Copyright Notice
版権情報
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
Copyright(C)インターネット協会(2000)。 All rights reserved。
Abstract
要約
This document represents a summary of Authentication, Authorization, Accounting (AAA) protocol requirements for network access. In creating this document, inputs were taken from documents produced by the Network Access Server Requirements Next Generation (NASREQ), Roaming Operations (ROAMOPS), and MOBILEIP working groups, as well as from TIA 45.6.
このドキュメントはAuthentication、Authorization、ネットワークアクセサリーのためのAccounting(AAA)プロトコル要件の概要を表します。 このドキュメントを作成する際に、入力はNetwork Access Server Requirements Next Generation(NASREQ)、Roaming Operations(ROAMOPS)、およびMOBILEIPワーキンググループによって製作されたドキュメントから抜粋されました、よくTIA45.6のように。
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 1] RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Aboba、他 情報[1ページ]のRFC2989は2000年11月にアクセスAAA評価基準をネットワークでつなぎます。
This document summarizes the requirements collected from those sources, separating requirements for authentication, authorization and accounting. Details on the requirements are available in the original documents.
このドキュメントは認証、承認、および会計のための要件を切り離して、それらのソースから集められた要件をまとめます。 要件に関する詳細は正本で利用可能です。
1. Introduction
1. 序論
This document represents a summary of AAA protocol requirements for network access. In creating this documents, inputs were taken from documents produced by the NASREQ [3], ROAMOPS [2], and MOBILEIP [5] working groups, as well as from TIA 45.6 [4]. This document summarizes the requirements collected from those sources, separating requirements for authentication, authorization and accounting. Details on the requirements are available in the original documents.
このドキュメントはネットワークアクセサリーのためのAAAプロトコル要件の概要を表します。 これが記録する作成では、入力はNASREQ[3]、ROAMOPS[2]、およびMOBILEIP[5]ワーキンググループによって製作されたドキュメントから抜粋されました、よくTIA45.6[4]のように。 このドキュメントは認証、承認、および会計のための要件を切り離して、それらのソースから集められた要件をまとめます。 要件に関する詳細は正本で利用可能です。
1.1. Requirements language
1.1. 要件言語
In this document, the key words "MAY", "MUST, "MUST NOT", "optional", "recommended", "SHOULD", and "SHOULD NOT", are to be interpreted as described in [1].
そして、このドキュメント、「5月」というキーワードで「必須、「必須NOT」、「任意」の、そして、「お勧め」の“SHOULD"、「」、[1]で説明されるように解釈されることになっていてください、」であるべきです
Please note that the requirements specified in this document are to be used in evaluating AAA protocol submissions. As such, the requirements language refers to capabilities of these protocols; the protocol documents will specify whether these features are required, recommended, or optional. For example, requiring that a protocol support confidentiality is NOT the same thing as requiring that all protocol traffic be encrypted.
本書では指定された要件はAAAプロトコル差出を評価する際に使用されることです。 そういうものとして、要件言語はこれらのプロトコルの能力について言及します。 プロトコルドキュメントは、これらの特徴が必要であるか、お勧め、または任意であるかを指定するでしょう。 例えば、プロトコルサポート秘密性がすべてがトラフィックについて議定書の中で述べるのが必要であるのと同じものでないことは必要であることで、暗号化されてください。
A protocol submission is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or more of the MUST or MUST NOT requirements for the capabilities that it implements. A protocol submission that satisfies all the MUST, MUST NOT, SHOULD and SHOULD NOT requirements for its capabilities is said to be "unconditionally compliant"; one that satisfies all the MUST and MUST NOT requirements but not all the SHOULD or SHOULD NOT requirements for its protocols is said to be "conditionally compliant."
1つか以上を満たさないならプロトコル提案が対応でない、それが実装する能力のためのNOT要件はそうしなければなりません。 すべてを満たすプロトコル提案、NOT、能力のためのSHOULDとSHOULD NOT要件は「無条件に言いなりになる」と言われています;でなければならない すべてを満たすもの、プロトコルのためのすべてのSHOULDかSHOULD NOT要件だけが「条件付きに言いなりになる」と言われているというわけではないというNOT要件はそうしなければなりません。
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 2] RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Aboba、他 情報[2ページ]のRFC2989は2000年11月にアクセスAAA評価基準をネットワークでつなぎます。
1.2. Terminology
1.2. 用語
Accounting
The act of collecting information on resource usage for the
purpose of trend analysis, auditing, billing, or cost
allocation.
傾向変動分析、監査、支払い、または費用配分の目的のためにリソース用法における情報集めの行為を説明します。
Administrative Domain
An internet, or a collection of networks, computers, and
databases under a common administration. Computer entities
operating in a common administration may be assumed to
share administratively created security associations.
管理Domain Anインターネット、または一般的な管理の下におけるネットワーク、コンピュータ、およびデータベースの収集。 一般的な管理で作動するコンピュータ実体が行政上作成されたセキュリティ協会を共有すると思われるかもしれません。
Attendant A node designed to provide the service interface between a
client and the local domain.
クライアントと局所領域とのサービスインタフェースを提供するように設計された付き添いのAノード。
Authentication
The act of verifying a claimed identity, in the form of a
pre-existing label from a mutually known name space, as the
originator of a message (message authentication) or as the
end-point of a channel (entity authentication).
認証はアイデンティティであると主張されたaについて確かめる行為(互いに知られている名前からの先在のラベルのフォームがメッセージの創始者(通報認証)として、または、チャンネルのエンドポイント(実体認証)として区切るコネ)です。
Authorization
The act of determining if a particular right, such as
access to some resource, can be granted to the presenter of
a particular credential.
決定するのにもかかわらずの、a特定の行為が何らかのリソースへのアクセスなどのように正す承認を特定の資格証明書のプレゼンターに与えることができます。
Billing The act of preparing an invoice.
準備の行為にインボイスを請求します。
Broker A Broker is an entity that is in a different administrative
domain from both the home AAA server and the local ISP, and
which provides services, such as facilitating payments
between the local ISP and home administrative entities.
There are two different types of brokers; proxy and
routing.
ブローカーA BrokerはホームAAAサーバと地方のISPの両方と異なった管理ドメインにあって、地方のISPとホームの間の支払いを容易にすることなどのサービスに管理実体を提供する実体です。 2つの異なったタイプのブローカーがいます。 プロキシとルーティング。
Client A node wishing to obtain service from an attendant within
an administrative domain.
管理ドメインの中の付添人からサービスを得たがっているクライアントAノード。
End-to-End
End-to-End is the security model that requires that
security information be able to traverse, and be validated
even when an AAA message is processed by intermediate nodes
such as proxies, brokers, etc.
終わる終わりから終わりへのEndはセキュリティ情報が横断にできて、AAAメッセージがプロキシ、ブローカーなどの中間的ノードによって処理さえされるとき有効にされるのを必要とする機密保護モデルです。
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 3] RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Aboba、他 情報[3ページ]のRFC2989は2000年11月にアクセスAAA評価基準をネットワークでつなぎます。
Foreign Domain
An administrative domain, visited by a Mobile IP client,
and containing the AAA infrastructure needed to carry out
the necessary operations enabling Mobile IP registrations.
From the point of view of the foreign agent, the foreign
domain is the local domain.
モバイルIPクライアントによって訪問されて、モバイルIP登録証明書を可能にする必要な操作を行うのに必要であるAAAインフラストラクチャを含む外国Domain An管理ドメイン。 外国人のエージェントの観点から、外国ドメインは局所領域です。
Home Domain
An administrative domain, containing the network whose
prefix matches that of a mobile node's home address, and
containing the AAA infrastructure needed to carry out the
necessary operations enabling Mobile IP registrations.
From the point of view of the home agent, the home domain
is the local domain.
ホームDomain An管理のドメイン、接頭語がモバイルノードのホームアドレスと、AAAインフラストラクチャを含むものに合っているネットワークを含むのはモバイルIP登録証明書を可能にする必要な操作を行う必要がありました。 ホームのエージェントの観点から、ホームドメインは局所領域です。
Hop-by-hop
Hop-by-hop is the security model that requires that each
direct set of peers in a proxy network share a security
association, and the security information does not traverse
a AAA entity.
ホップごとのホップによるHopはプロキシネットワークにおける、それぞれのダイレクトセットの同輩がセキュリティ協会を共有して、セキュリティ情報がAAA実体を横断しないのを必要とする機密保護モデルです。
Inter-domain Accounting
Inter-domain accounting is the collection of information on
resource usage of an entity within an administrative
domain, for use within another administrative domain. In
inter-domain accounting, accounting packets and session
records will typically cross administrative boundaries.
相互ドメインAccounting Inter-ドメイン会計は管理ドメインの中の実体のリソース用法における情報の収集です、別の管理ドメインの中の使用のために。 相互ドメイン会計では、会計パケットとセッション記録は管理境界を通常越えるでしょう。
Intra-domain Accounting
Intra-domain accounting is the collection of information on
resource within an administrative domain, for use within
that domain. In intra-domain accounting, accounting
packets and session records typically do not cross
administrative boundaries.
イントラドメインAccounting Intra-ドメイン会計はそのドメインの中の使用のための管理ドメインの中のリソースにおける情報の収集です。 イントラドメイン会計では、会計パケットとセッション記録は管理境界を通常越えません。
Local Domain
An administrative domain containing the AAA infrastructure
of immediate interest to a Mobile IP client when it is away
from home.
それが家にいないときに即座にモバイルIPクライアントへの関心のAAAインフラストラクチャを含む地方のDomain An管理ドメイン。
Proxy A AAA proxy is an entity that acts as both a client and a
server. When a request is received from a client, the
proxy acts as a AAA server. When the same request needs to
be forwarded to another AAA entity, the proxy acts as a AAA
client.
プロキシA AAAプロキシは、両方としてクライアントを演じる実体とサーバです。クライアントから要求を受け取るとき、プロキシはAAAサーバとして務めます。同じ要求が、別のAAA実体に送られる必要があると、プロキシはAAAのクライアントとして務めます。
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 4] RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Aboba、他 情報[4ページ]のRFC2989は2000年11月にアクセスAAA評価基準をネットワークでつなぎます。
Local Proxy
A Local Proxy is a AAA server that satisfies the definition
of a Proxy, and exists within the same administrative
domain as the network device (e.g., NAS) that issued the
AAA request. Typically, a local proxy will enforce local
policies prior to forwarding responses to the network
devices, and are generally used to multiplex AAA messages
from a large number of network devices.
地方のProxy A Local ProxyはProxyの定義を満たすAAAサーバであり、AAA要求を出したネットワークデバイス(例えば、NAS)と同じ管理ドメインの中に存在しています。 地元のプロキシは、通常、ネットワークデバイスへの推進応答の前にローカルの方針を実施して、一般に、多くのネットワークデバイスからAAAメッセージを多重送信するのに使用されます。
Network Access Identifier
The Network Access Identifier (NAI) is the userID submitted
by the client during network access authentication. In
roaming, the purpose of the NAI is to identify the user as
well as to assist in the routing of the authentication
request. The NAI may not necessarily be the same as the
user's e-mail address or the user-ID submitted in an
application layer authentication.
ネットワークAccess Identifier Network Access Identifier(NAI)はネットワークアクセス認証の間にクライアントによって提出されたuserIDです。 ローミングでは、NAIの目的は、ユーザを特定して、認証要求のルーティングを助けることです。 NAIは必ずユーザのEメールアドレスかユーザIDが応用層認証で提出したのと同じであるかもしれないというわけではありません。
Routing Broker
A Routing Broker is a AAA entity that satisfies the
definition of a Broker, but is NOT in the transmission path
of AAA messages between the local ISP and the home domain's
AAA servers. When a request is received by a Routing
Broker, information is returned to the AAA requester that
includes the information necessary for it to be able to
contact the Home AAA server directly. Certain
organizations providing Routing Broker services MAY also
act as a Certificate Authority, allowing the Routing Broker
to return the certificates necessary for the local ISP and
the home AAA servers to communicate securely.
ルート設定Broker Aルート設定BrokerはBrokerの定義を満たすAAA実体ですが、地方のISPとホームドメインのAAAサーバの間のAAAメッセージのトランスミッション経路のそのような実体ではありません。 ルート設定Brokerが要求を受け取るとき、直接ホームAAAサーバに連絡できるように必要情報を含んでいるAAAリクエスタに情報を返します。 また、ルート設定Brokerサービスを提供するある組織はCertificate Authorityとして機能するかもしれません、ルート設定Brokerが地方のISPとホームAAAサーバがしっかりとコミュニケートするのに必要な証明書を返すのを許容して。
Non-Proxy Broker
A Routing Broker is occasionally referred to as a Non-Proxy
Broker.
非プロキシBroker Aルート設定Brokerは時折Non-プロキシBrokerと呼ばれます。
Proxy Broker
A Proxy Broker is a AAA entity that satisfies the
definition of a Broker, and acts as a Transparent Proxy by
acting as the forwarding agent for all AAA messages between
the local ISP and the home domain's AAA servers.
プロキシBroker A Proxy Brokerは地方のISPとホームドメインのAAAサーバの間のすべてのAAAメッセージのための小口運送業者として務めることによってBrokerの定義、およびTransparent Proxyとしての行為を満たすAAA実体です。
Real-time Accounting
Real-time accounting involves the processing of information
on resource usage within a defined time window. Time
constraints are typically imposed in order to limit
financial risk.
リアルタイムのAccountingレアル-時間会計は定義されたタイムウィンドウの中のリソース用法で情報の処理にかかわります。 時間規制は、財政危機を制限するために通常課されます。
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 5] RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Aboba、他 情報[5ページ]のRFC2989は2000年11月にアクセスAAA評価基準をネットワークでつなぎます。
Roaming Capability
Roaming capability can be loosely defined as the ability to
use any one of multiple Internet service providers (ISPs),
while maintaining a formal, customer-vendor relationship
with only one. Examples of cases where roaming capability
might be required include ISP "confederations" and ISP-
provided corporate network access support.
1だけとの正式な顧客ベンダー関係を維持している間、緩く複数のインターネット接続サービス業者(ISP)のどれかを使用する能力とローミングCapability Roaming能力を定義できます。 ローミング能力が必要であるかもしれないケースに関する例はISP「同盟者」とISPの提供された企業ネットワークアクセスサポートを含んでいます。
Session record
A session record represents a summary of the resource
consumption of a user over the entire session. Accounting
gateways creating the session record may do so by
processing interim accounting events.
セッション記録Aセッション記録は全体のセッションの間、ユーザのリソース消費の概要を表します。 セッション記録を作成する会計ゲートウェイは処理でそう当座の会計イベントをするかもしれません。
Transparent Proxy
A Transparent Proxy is a AAA server that satisfies the
definition of a Proxy, but does not enforce any local
policies (meaning that it does not add, delete or modify
attributes or modify information within messages it
forwards).
透明なProxy A Transparent ProxyはProxyの定義を満たしますが、どんなローカルの方針も実施しないAAAサーバ(それが加えないことを意味して、属性を削除するか、変更します、またはそれが転送するメッセージの中で情報を変更する)です。
2. Requirements Summary
2. 要件概要
The AAA protocol evaluation criteria for network access are summarized below. For details on the requirements, please consult the documents referenced in the footnotes.
ネットワークアクセスのためのAAAプロトコル評価基準は以下へまとめられます。 要件に関する詳細に関しては、脚注で参照をつけられるドキュメントを参照してください。
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 6] RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Aboba、他 情報[6ページ]のRFC2989は2000年11月にアクセスAAA評価基準をネットワークでつなぎます。
2.1. General requirements
2.1. 一般要件
These requirements apply to all aspects of AAA and thus are considered general requirements.
これらの要件は、AAAの全面に申し込んで、その結果、一般的な要件であると考えられます。
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | General | NASREQ | ROAMOPS | MOBILE | | Reqts. | | | IP | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Scalability | M | M | M | | a | 12 | 3 | 30 39 | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Fail-over | M | | M | | b | 12 | | 31 | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Mutual auth | M | | M | | AAA client/server | 16 | | 30 | | c | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Transmission level | | M | S | | security | | 6 | 31 39 | | d | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Data object | M | M | M | | Confidentiality | 26 | 6 | 40 | | e | | | | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Data object | M | M | M | | Integrity | 16 | 6 | 31 39 | | f | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Certificate transport | M | | S/M | | g | 42 | |31,33/46 | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | 一般| NASREQ| ROAMOPS| モバイル| | Reqts。 | | | IP| | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | スケーラビリティ| M| M| M| | a| 12 | 3 | 30 39 | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | フェイルオーバー| M| | M| | b| 12 | | 31 | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | 互いのauth| M| | M| | AAAクライアント/サーバ| 16 | | 30 | | c| | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | トランスミッションレベル| | M| S| | セキュリティ| | 6 | 31 39 | | d| | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | データ・オブジェクト| M| M| M| | 秘密性| 26 | 6 | 40 | | e| | | | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | データ・オブジェクト| M| M| M| | 保全| 16 | 6 | 31 39 | | f| | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | 証明書輸送| M| | S/M| | g| 42 | |31,33/46 | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 7] RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Aboba、他 情報[7ページ]のRFC2989は2000年11月にアクセスAAA評価基準をネットワークでつなぎます。
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Reliable AAA transport | M | | M | | mechanism | 22 | | 31 32 | | h | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Run Over IPv4 | M | M | M | | | 11 | 1 | 33 | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Run Over IPv6 | M | | S | | | 11 | 1 | 47 | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Support Proxy and | M | | M | | Routing Brokers | 12 | | 31 39 | | i | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Auditability | S | | | | j | 25 | | | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Dual App and Transport | | O | M | | Security not required | | 6 | 40 | | k | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Ability to carry | M | | S | | service-specific attr. | 43 | | 31 33 | | l | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | 信頼できるAAA輸送| M| | M| | メカニズム| 22 | | 31 32 | | h| | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | IPv4をひいてください。| M| M| M| | | 11 | 1 | 33 | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | IPv6をひいてください。| M| | S| | | 11 | 1 | 47 | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | そしてプロキシをサポートしてください。| M| | M| | ルート設定ブローカー| 12 | | 31 39 | | i| | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | 監査能力| S| | | | j| 25 | | | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | 二元的な装置と輸送| | O| M| | セキュリティは必要ではありません。| | 6 | 40 | | k| | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | 運ぶ能力| M| | S| | サービス特有のattr。 | 43 | | 31 33 | | l| | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Key M = MUST S = SHOULD O = MAY N = MUST NOT B = SHOULD NOT
= Oが必須NOT B=がそうするべきでない5月のN=と等しいなら、M=必須Sを合わせてください。
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 8] RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Aboba、他 情報[8ページ]のRFC2989は2000年11月にアクセスAAA評価基準をネットワークでつなぎます。
Clarifications
明確化
[a] The AAA protocol must be capable of supporting millions of users
and tens of thousands of simultaneous requests. The AAA
architecture and protocol MUST be capable of supporting tens of
thousands of devices, AAA servers, proxies and brokers.
[a] AAAプロトコルは何百万人ものユーザと何万もの同時の要求をサポートすることができなければなりません。 AAAアーキテクチャとプロトコルは何万台ものデバイス、AAAサーバ、プロキシ、およびブローカーをサポートできなければなりません。
[b] In the event of failure to communicate with a given server, the
protocol must provide a mechanism to change service to another
backup or secondary server.
[b] 与えられたサーバとコミュニケートしないことの場合、プロトコルは、別のバックアップかセカンダリサーバに対するサービスを変えるためにメカニズムを提供しなければなりません。
[c] This requirement refers to the ability to support mutual
authentication between the AAA client and server.
[c] この要件はAAAのクライアントとサーバの間の互いの認証をサポートする能力について言及します。
[d] The AAA protocol requires authentication, integrity protection
and confidentiality at the transmission layer. This security
model is also referred to as hop-by-hop security, whereas the
security is established between two communicating peers. All of
the security is removed when the AAA message is processed by a
receiving AAA entity.
[d] AAAプロトコルはトランスミッション層で認証、保全保護、および秘密性を必要とします。 また、この機密保護モデルはホップごとのセキュリティと呼ばれますが、セキュリティは2人の交信している同輩の間で確立されます。 受信AAA実体でAAAメッセージを処理するとき、セキュリティのすべてを取り除きます。
[e] The AAA protocol requires confidentiality at the object level,
where an object consists of one or more attributes. Object
level confidentiality implies that only the target AAA entity
for whom the data is ultimately destined may decrypt the data,
regardless of the fact that the message may traverse one or more
intermediate AAA entities (e.g., proxies, brokers).
[e] オブジェクトが1つ以上の属性から成るところでAAAプロトコルはオブジェクトレベルで秘密性を必要とします。 オブジェクトレベル秘密性は、データが結局運命づけられている目標AAA実体だけがデータを解読するかもしれないのを含意します、メッセージが1つ以上の中間的AAA実体(例えば、プロキシ、ブローカー)を横断するかもしれないという事実にかかわらず。
[f] The AAA protocol requires authentication and integrity
protection at the object level, which consists of one or more
attributes. Object level authentication must be persistent
across one or more intermediate AAA entity (e.g., proxy, broker,
etc), meaning that any AAA entity in a proxy chain may verify
the authentication. This implies that data that is covered by
object level security CANNOT be modified by intermediate
servers.
[f] AAAプロトコルはオブジェクトレベルで認証と保全保護を必要とします。(それは、1つ以上の属性から成ります)。 オブジェクトレベル認証は1つ以上の中間的AAA実体(例えば、プロキシ、ブローカーなど)の向こう側に永続的であるに違いありません、プロキシチェーンにおけるどんなAAA実体も認証について確かめるかもしれないことを意味して。 これはそのデータを含意します、すなわち、オブジェクトレベルでカバーされて、セキュリティが中間的サーバによって変更されません。
[g] The AAA protocol MUST be capable of transporting certificates.
This requirement is intended as an optimization, in lieu of
requiring that an out-of-band protocol be used to fetch
certificates.
[g] AAAプロトコルは証明書を輸送できなければなりません。 バンドで出ているプロトコルが使用されるのが必要であることの代わりに最適化として、この要件が証明書をとって来ることを意図します。
[h] This requirement refers to resilience against packet loss,
including:
[h] この要件はパケット損失、包含に対して弾力を呼びます:
1. Hop-by-hop retransmission and fail-over so that reliability
does not solely depend on single hop transport
retransmission.
1. ホップで、信頼性が唯一単一のホップ輸送「再-トランスミッション」によらないように、「再-トランスミッション」とフェイルオーバーを飛び越してください。
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 9] RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Aboba、他 情報[9ページ]のRFC2989は2000年11月にアクセスAAA評価基準をネットワークでつなぎます。
2. Control of the retransmission mechanism by the AAA
application.
3. Acknowledgment by the transport that a message was delivered
successfully, separate from message semantics or syntax
evaluation.
5. Piggy-backing of acknowledgments in AAA messages.
6. Timely delivery of AAA responses.
2. AAAアプリケーションによる「再-トランスミッション」メカニズムのコントロール。 3. メッセージがそうであったという輸送による承認が首尾よく提供されて、メッセージ意味論か構文評価から分離してください。 5. AAAメッセージにおける承認を背負います。 6. AAA応答のタイムリーな配送。
[i] In the Mobile IP AAA architecture, brokers can be in the
forwarding path, in which case they act as transparent proxies
(proxy brokers). Alternatively, it is also possible to conceive
of brokers operating as certifying authorities outside of the
forwarding path (routing brokers).
[i] モバイルIP AAAアーキテクチャには、ブローカーが推進経路にいることができます、その場合、彼らは透明なプロキシ(プロキシブローカー)として務めます。 あるいはまた、また、推進経路(ルーティングブローカー)の外で当局を公認するとして働いているブローカーを想像するのも可能です。
[j] An auditable process is one in which it is possible to
definitively determine what actions have been performed on AAA
packets as they travel from the home AAA server to the network
device and back.
[j] 監査可能プロセスはホームAAAサーバからネットワークデバイスまで旅行して、戻るときどんな動作がAAAパケットに実行されたかを決定的に決定するのが可能であるものです。
[k] The AAA protocol MUST allow communication to be secured.
However, the AAA protocol MUST also allow an underlying security
service (e.g., IP Security) to be used. When the latter is
used, the former MUST NOT be required.
[k] AAAプロトコルは、コミュニケーションが保証されるのを許容しなければなりません。 しかしながら、また、AAAプロトコルは、基本的なセキュリティー・サービス(例えば、IP Security)が使用されるのを許容しなければなりません。 後者が使用されているとき、前者を必要としてはいけません。
[l] The AAA protocol MUST be extensible by third parties (e.g.,
other IETF Working Groups), in order to define attributes that
are specific to the service being defined. This requirement
simply means that the AAA protocol MUST allow groups other than
the AAA WG to define standard attributes.
[l] AAAプロトコルは第三者(例えば、他のIETF Working Groups)が広げることができるに違いありません、定義されるサービスに特定の属性を定義するために。 この要件は、AAA WG以外のグループがAAAプロトコルで標準の属性を定義できなければならないことを単に意味します。
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 10] RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Aboba、他 情報[10ページ]のRFC2989は2000年11月にアクセスAAA評価基準をネットワークでつなぎます。
2.2. Authentication Requirements
2.2. 認証要件
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Authentication | NASREQ | ROAMOPS | MOBILE | | Reqts. | | | IP | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | NAI Support | M | M | S/M | | a | 9 | 2 |32,34,39/| | | | | 40 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | CHAP Support | M | M | | | b | 10 | 3 | | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | EAP Support | M | S | | | c | 10 | 3 | | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | PAP/Clear-Text Support | M | B | | | d | 26 | 3 | | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Re-authentication | M | | S | | on demand | 17 | | 33 | | e | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Authorization Only | M | | | | without Authentication | 9 | | | | f | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | 認証| NASREQ| ROAMOPS| モバイル| | Reqts。 | | | IP| | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | NAIサポート| M| M| S/M| | a| 9 | 2 |32,34,39/| | | | | 40 | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | やつサポート| M| M| | | b| 10 | 3 | | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | EAPサポート| M| S| | | c| 10 | 3 | | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | 乳首/クリアテキストサポート| M| B| | | d| 26 | 3 | | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | 再認証| M| | S| | 要求に関して| 17 | | 33 | | e| | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | 承認専用| M| | | | 認証なしで| 9 | | | | f| | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Key M = MUST S = SHOULD O = MAY N = MUST NOT B = SHOULD NOT
Key M = MUST S = SHOULD O = MAY N = MUST NOT B = SHOULD NOT
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 11] RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 11] RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Clarifications
Clarifications
[a] The AAA protocol MUST allow the use of Network Access
Identifiers (NAI) [8] to identify users and/or devices.
[a] The AAA protocol MUST allow the use of Network Access Identifiers (NAI) [8] to identify users and/or devices.
[b] The AAA protocol MUST allow CHAP [20] authentication information
to be transported. This is commonly used by Network Access
Servers that request authentication of a PPP user.
[b] The AAA protocol MUST allow CHAP [20] authentication information to be transported. This is commonly used by Network Access Servers that request authentication of a PPP user.
[c] The AAA protocol MUST allow for Extensible Authentication
Protocol (EAP) [14] payload to be transported. Since some EAP
authentication mechanisms require more than one round trip, the
AAA protocol must allow for such authentication mechanisms to be
used. The actual EAP authentication mechanism negotiated MUST
be transparent to the AAA protocol. When EAP is used,
authentication typically occurs between the user being
authenticated and his/her home AAA server.
[c] The AAA protocol MUST allow for Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) [14] payload to be transported. Since some EAP authentication mechanisms require more than one round trip, the AAA protocol must allow for such authentication mechanisms to be used. The actual EAP authentication mechanism negotiated MUST be transparent to the AAA protocol. When EAP is used, authentication typically occurs between the user being authenticated and his/her home AAA server.
[d] While PAP is deprecated, it is still in widespread use for its
original intended purpose, which is support of clear-text
passwords. As a result, a AAA protocol will need to be able to
securely transport clear-text passwords. This includes
providing for confidentiality of clear-text passwords traveling
over the wire, as well as protecting against disclosure of
clear-text passwords to proxies in the forwarding path.
[d] While PAP is deprecated, it is still in widespread use for its original intended purpose, which is support of clear-text passwords. As a result, a AAA protocol will need to be able to securely transport clear-text passwords. This includes providing for confidentiality of clear-text passwords traveling over the wire, as well as protecting against disclosure of clear-text passwords to proxies in the forwarding path.
[e] The AAA protocol MUST allow for a user to be re-authenticated
on-demand. The protocol MUST allow for this event to be
triggered by either the user, access device (AAA client), or the
home or visited AAA server.
[e] The AAA protocol MUST allow for a user to be re-authenticated on-demand. The protocol MUST allow for this event to be triggered by either the user, access device (AAA client), or the home or visited AAA server.
[f] The AAA protocol MUST NOT require that credentials of the user
be provided during authorization. The AAA protocol supports
authorization by identification or assertion only.
[f] The AAA protocol MUST NOT require that credentials of the user be provided during authorization. The AAA protocol supports authorization by identification or assertion only.
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 12] RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 12] RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
2.3. Authorization Requirements
2.3. Authorization Requirements
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Authorization | NASREQ | ROAMOPS | MOBILE | | Reqts. | | | IP | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Static and Dynamic | | | | | IPv4/6 Address Assign. | M | M | M | | a | 11 | 5 | 32 36 | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | RADIUS gateway | M | M | M | | capability | 44 | 3 | 45 | | b | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Reject | M | M | M | | capability | 12 | 4 | 39 | | c | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Precludes layer 2 | N | N | | | tunneling | 11 | 5 | | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Re-Authorization on | M | | S | | demand | 18 | | 30 33 | | d | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Support for Access Rules,| M | | | | Restrictions, Filters | 11, 19 | | | | e | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | State Reconciliation | M | | | | f | 20 | | | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Unsolicited Disconnect | M | | | | g | 18 | | | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Authorization | NASREQ | ROAMOPS | MOBILE | | Reqts. | | | IP | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Static and Dynamic | | | | | IPv4/6 Address Assign. | M | M | M | | a | 11 | 5 | 32 36 | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | RADIUS gateway | M | M | M | | capability | 44 | 3 | 45 | | b | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Reject | M | M | M | | capability | 12 | 4 | 39 | | c | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Precludes layer 2 | N | N | | | tunneling | 11 | 5 | | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Re-Authorization on | M | | S | | demand | 18 | | 30 33 | | d | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Support for Access Rules,| M | | | | Restrictions, Filters | 11, 19 | | | | e | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | State Reconciliation | M | | | | f | 20 | | | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Unsolicited Disconnect | M | | | | g | 18 | | | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 13] RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 13] RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Key M = MUST S = SHOULD O = MAY N = MUST NOT B = SHOULD NOT
Key M = MUST S = SHOULD O = MAY N = MUST NOT B = SHOULD NOT
Clarifications
Clarifications
[a] The AAA protocol MUST allow a server to provide a static or
dynamic address during the authorization phase of a user and/or
device. The address assigned MUST be either of type IPv4 or
IPv6. If both the client AND the server are aware of a pre-
configured address, then it is considered static. Anything else
is dynamic.
[a] The AAA protocol MUST allow a server to provide a static or dynamic address during the authorization phase of a user and/or device. The address assigned MUST be either of type IPv4 or IPv6. If both the client AND the server are aware of a pre- configured address, then it is considered static. Anything else is dynamic.
[b] This requirement refers to the ability of a new AAA protocol be
sufficiently compatible with the large installed base of
attributes for existing approaches (RADIUS), such that a server
implementation could speak both protocols, or translate between
them.
[b] This requirement refers to the ability of a new AAA protocol be sufficiently compatible with the large installed base of attributes for existing approaches (RADIUS), such that a server implementation could speak both protocols, or translate between them.
[c] This requirement refers to the ability of a proxy broker to deny
access without forwarding the access request to the AAA server,
or to deny access after receiving an access accept from the AAA
server.
[c] This requirement refers to the ability of a proxy broker to deny access without forwarding the access request to the AAA server, or to deny access after receiving an access accept from the AAA server.
[d] This requirement refers to the ability of the AAA client or
server to trigger re-authorization, or to the ability of the
server to send updated authorization information to the device,
such as "stop service." Authorization can allow for a time
period, then additional authorization can be sought to continue.
A server can initially authorize a user to connect and receive
services, but later decide the user is no longer allowed use of
the service, for example after N minutes. Authorizations can
have a time limit. Re-authorization does not necessarily imply
re-authentication.
[d] This requirement refers to the ability of the AAA client or server to trigger re-authorization, or to the ability of the server to send updated authorization information to the device, such as "stop service." Authorization can allow for a time period, then additional authorization can be sought to continue. A server can initially authorize a user to connect and receive services, but later decide the user is no longer allowed use of the service, for example after N minutes. Authorizations can have a time limit. Re-authorization does not necessarily imply re-authentication.
[e] This requirement refers to the ability to of the protocol to
describe access operational limitations and authorization
restrictions to usage to the NAS which includes (but is not
limited to):
[e] This requirement refers to the ability to of the protocol to describe access operational limitations and authorization restrictions to usage to the NAS which includes (but is not limited to):
1. Session expirations and Idle Timeouts
2. Packet filters
3. Static routes
4. QoS parameters
1. Session expirations and Idle Timeouts 2. Packet filters 3. Static routes 4. QoS parameters
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 14] RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 14] RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
[f] This requirement refers to the ability of the NAS to use the AAA
server to manage resource allocation state. This capability can
assist with, but it is not synonymous with, simultaneous user
login control, port usage limitations, or IP address pooling.
[f] This requirement refers to the ability of the NAS to use the AAA server to manage resource allocation state. This capability can assist with, but it is not synonymous with, simultaneous user login control, port usage limitations, or IP address pooling.
The design must provide for recovery from data loss due to a
variety of faults, including NAS and AAA server reboots, and
NAS/AAA server communication outages, and MUST be independent of
the accounting stream. The granularity of the recovery of state
information after an outage may be on the order of a fraction of
a minute. In order to provide for state recovery, explicit
session/resource status and update and disconnect messages will
be required.
The design must provide for recovery from data loss due to a variety of faults, including NAS and AAA server reboots, and NAS/AAA server communication outages, and MUST be independent of the accounting stream. The granularity of the recovery of state information after an outage may be on the order of a fraction of a minute. In order to provide for state recovery, explicit session/resource status and update and disconnect messages will be required.
Because of potential multi-domain issues, only systems that
allocate or use a resource should track its state.
Because of potential multi-domain issues, only systems that allocate or use a resource should track its state.
[g] This requirement refers to the ability of the AAA server to
request the NAS to disconnect an active session for
authorization policy reasons.
[g] This requirement refers to the ability of the AAA server to request the NAS to disconnect an active session for authorization policy reasons.
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 15] RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 15] RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
2.4. Accounting Requirements
2.4. Accounting Requirements
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Accounting | NASREQ | ROAMOPS | MOBILE | | Reqts. | | | IP | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Real-time accounting | M | M | M | | a | 14 | 7 | 31 | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Mandatory Compact | | M | | | Encoding | | 7 | | | b | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Accounting Record | | M | M | | Extensibility | | 7 | 33 | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Batch Accounting | S | | | | c | 21 | | | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Guaranteed Delivery | M | | M | | d | 22 | | 31 | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Accounting Time Stamps | M | | M | | e | 23 | | 40 | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Dynamic Accounting | M | | | | f | 48 | | | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Accounting | NASREQ | ROAMOPS | MOBILE | | Reqts. | | | IP | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Real-time accounting | M | M | M | | a | 14 | 7 | 31 | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Mandatory Compact | | M | | | Encoding | | 7 | | | b | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Accounting Record | | M | M | | Extensibility | | 7 | 33 | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Batch Accounting | S | | | | c | 21 | | | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Guaranteed Delivery | M | | M | | d | 22 | | 31 | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Accounting Time Stamps | M | | M | | e | 23 | | 40 | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Dynamic Accounting | M | | | | f | 48 | | | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 16] RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 16] RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Key M = MUST S = SHOULD O = MAY N = MUST NOT B = SHOULD NOT
Key M = MUST S = SHOULD O = MAY N = MUST NOT B = SHOULD NOT
Clarifications
Clarifications
[a] This requirement may be loosely defined as reporting
synchronously with events. Typically the time window is on the
order of seconds, not milliseconds.
[a] This requirement may be loosely defined as reporting synchronously with events. Typically the time window is on the order of seconds, not milliseconds.
[b] The AAA protocol's Accounting data format MUST NOT be bloated,
imposing a large overhead for one or more accounting data
elements.
[b] The AAA protocol's Accounting data format MUST NOT be bloated, imposing a large overhead for one or more accounting data elements.
[c] This requirement refers to the ability to buffer or store
multiple accounting records, and send them together at some
later time.
[c] This requirement refers to the ability to buffer or store multiple accounting records, and send them together at some later time.
[d] This is an application layer acknowledgment. This is sent when
the receiving server is willing to take responsibility for the
message data.
[d] This is an application layer acknowledgment. This is sent when the receiving server is willing to take responsibility for the message data.
[e] This requirement refers to the ability to reflect the time of
occurrence of events such as log-on, logoff, authentication,
authorization and interim accounting. It also implies the
ability to provide for unambiguous time-stamps.
[e] This requirement refers to the ability to reflect the time of occurrence of events such as log-on, logoff, authentication, authorization and interim accounting. It also implies the ability to provide for unambiguous time-stamps.
[f] This requirement refers to the ability to account for dynamic
authentication and authorization. To support this, there can be
multiple accounting records for a single session.
[f] This requirement refers to the ability to account for dynamic authentication and authorization. To support this, there can be multiple accounting records for a single session.
2.5. Unique Mobile IP requirements
2.5. Unique Mobile IP requirements
In addition to the above requirements, Mobile IP also has the following additional requirements:
In addition to the above requirements, Mobile IP also has the following additional requirements:
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 17] RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 17] RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Encoding of Mobile IP | | | M | | registration messages | | | 33 | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Firewall friendly | | | M | | a | | | 35 | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Allocation of local Home | | | S/M | | agent | | | 37/41 | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Encoding of Mobile IP | | | M | | registration messages | | | 33 | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Firewall friendly | | | M | | a | | | 35 | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | | | Allocation of local Home | | | S/M | | agent | | | 37/41 | | | | | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Key M = MUST S = SHOULD O = MAY N = MUST NOT B = SHOULD NOT
Key M = MUST S = SHOULD O = MAY N = MUST NOT B = SHOULD NOT
Clarifications
Clarifications
[a] A firewall friendly protocol is one which is designed to
accommodate a firewall acting as a proxy. For example, this
would permit a Home Agent AAA server situated behind a firewall
to be reachable from the Internet for the purposes of providing
AAA services to a Mobile IP Foreign Agent.
[a] A firewall friendly protocol is one which is designed to accommodate a firewall acting as a proxy. For example, this would permit a Home Agent AAA server situated behind a firewall to be reachable from the Internet for the purposes of providing AAA services to a Mobile IP Foreign Agent.
Notes
Notes
[1] Section 4.2.1 of [2]
[2] Section 4.2.2 of [2]. Also see [8].
[3] Section 4.2.3 of [2]. Also see [14].
[4] Section 4.2.4 of [2].
[5] Section 4.2.5 of [2].
[6] Section 4.2.6 of [2].
[7] Section 4.3 of [2].
[8] Section 6 of [3]. Also see [6].
[9] Section 8.2.2.2 of [3]. Also see [14].
[10] Section 8.2.2.1 of [3]. Also see [14].
[11] Section 8.3.2.2 of [3]. Also see [7].
[12] Section 8.1.1 of [3].
[13] Section 8.1.4.4 of [3].
[14] Section 8.4.1.2 of [3].
[1] Section 4.2.1 of [2] [2] Section 4.2.2 of [2]. Also see [8]. [3] Section 4.2.3 of [2]. Also see [14]. [4] Section 4.2.4 of [2]. [5] Section 4.2.5 of [2]. [6] Section 4.2.6 of [2]. [7] Section 4.3 of [2]. [8] Section 6 of [3]. Also see [6]. [9] Section 8.2.2.2 of [3]. Also see [14]. [10] Section 8.2.2.1 of [3]. Also see [14]. [11] Section 8.3.2.2 of [3]. Also see [7]. [12] Section 8.1.1 of [3]. [13] Section 8.1.4.4 of [3]. [14] Section 8.4.1.2 of [3].
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 18] RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 18] RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
[15] Section 8.4.2 of [3].
[16] Section 8.1.3 of [3].
[17] Section 8.2.1.2 of [3].
[18] Section 8.3.1.1 of [3].
[19] Section 8.3.2.1 of [3]. Also see [7].
[20] Section 8.3.2.3 of [3]. Also see [6], [7].
[21] Section 8.4.1.3 of [3].
[22] Section 8.4.1.1 of [3].
[23] Section 8.4.1.4 of [3].
[24] Section 8.4.3.1 of [3].
[25] Section 8.4.3.2 of [3].
[26] Section 8.2.3.1 of [3].
[27] Section 8.3.3.1 of [3].
[28] Section 8.1.4.1 of [3].
[29] Refer [15]
[30] Section 3 of [5]
[31] Section 3.1 of [5]
[32] Section 4 of [5]
[33] Section 5 of [5]
[34] Section 5.1 of [5]
[35] Section 5.2 of [5]
[36] Section 5.3 of [5]
[37] Section 5.4 of [5]
[38] Section 5.5 of [5]
[39] Section 6 of [5]
[40] Section 5.1 of [4]
[41] Section 5.2.2 of [4]
[42] Section 8.2.2.2 of [3]
[43] Section 8.1.2.3 of [3]
[44] Section 8.1.2.2 of [3]
[45] Section 5.4 of [4]
[46] Section 7 of [4]
[47] Section 8 of [5]
[48] Section 8.4.1.5 of [3]
[15] Section 8.4.2 of [3]. [16] Section 8.1.3 of [3]. [17] Section 8.2.1.2 of [3]. [18] Section 8.3.1.1 of [3]. [19] Section 8.3.2.1 of [3]. Also see [7]. [20] Section 8.3.2.3 of [3]. Also see [6], [7]. [21] Section 8.4.1.3 of [3]. [22] Section 8.4.1.1 of [3]. [23] Section 8.4.1.4 of [3]. [24] Section 8.4.3.1 of [3]. [25] Section 8.4.3.2 of [3]. [26] Section 8.2.3.1 of [3]. [27] Section 8.3.3.1 of [3]. [28] Section 8.1.4.1 of [3]. [29] Refer [15] [30] Section 3 of [5] [31] Section 3.1 of [5] [32] Section 4 of [5] [33] Section 5 of [5] [34] Section 5.1 of [5] [35] Section 5.2 of [5] [36] Section 5.3 of [5] [37] Section 5.4 of [5] [38] Section 5.5 of [5] [39] Section 6 of [5] [40] Section 5.1 of [4] [41] Section 5.2.2 of [4] [42] Section 8.2.2.2 of [3] [43] Section 8.1.2.3 of [3] [44] Section 8.1.2.2 of [3] [45] Section 5.4 of [4] [46] Section 7 of [4] [47] Section 8 of [5] [48] Section 8.4.1.5 of [3]
3. References
3. References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Aboba, B. and G. Zorn, "Criteria for Evaluating Roaming
Protocols", RFC 2477, January 1999.
[2] Aboba, B. and G. Zorn, "Criteria for Evaluating Roaming Protocols", RFC 2477, January 1999.
[3] Beadles, M. and D. Mitton, "Criteria for Evaluating Network
Access Server Protocols", Work in Progress.
[3] Beadles, M. and D. Mitton, "Criteria for Evaluating Network Access Server Protocols", Work in Progress.
[4] Hiller, T., et al., "Cdma2000 Wireless Data Requirements for
AAA", Work in Progress.
[4] Hiller, T., et al., "Cdma2000 Wireless Data Requirements for AAA", Work in Progress.
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 19] RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 19] RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
[5] Glass, S., Hiller, T., Jacobs, S. and C. Perkins, "Mobile IP
Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting Requirements", RFC
2977, October 2000.
[5] Glass, S., Hiller, T., Jacobs, S. and C. Perkins, "Mobile IP Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting Requirements", RFC 2977, October 2000.
[6] Mitton, D., Beadles, M., "Network Access Server Requirements
Next Generation (NASREQNG) NAS Model", RFC 2881, July 2000.
[6] Mitton, D., Beadles, M., "Network Access Server Requirements Next Generation (NASREQNG) NAS Model", RFC 2881, July 2000.
[7] Mitton, D., "Network Access Server Requirements: Extended RADIUS
Practices", RFC 2882, July 2000.
[7] Mitton, D., "Network Access Server Requirements: Extended RADIUS Practices", RFC 2882, July 2000.
[8] Aboba, B. and M. Beadles, "The Network Access Identifier", RFC
2486, January 1999.
[8] Aboba, B. and M. Beadles, "The Network Access Identifier", RFC 2486, January 1999.
[9] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A. and W. Simpson, "Remote
Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 2865, June
2000.
[9] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A. and W. Simpson, "Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 2865, June 2000.
[10] Rigney, C., "RADIUS Accounting", RFC 2866, June 2000.
[10] Rigney, C., "RADIUS Accounting", RFC 2866, June 2000.
[11] Simpson, W., Editor, "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)", STD
51, RFC 1661, July 1994.
[11] Simpson, W., Editor, "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)", STD 51, RFC 1661, July 1994.
[12] Sklower, K., Lloyd, B., McGregor, G., Carr, D. and T. Coradetti,
"The PPP Multilink Protocol (MP)", RFC 1990, August 1996.
[12] Sklower, K., Lloyd, B., McGregor, G., Carr, D. and T. Coradetti, "The PPP Multilink Protocol (MP)", RFC 1990, August 1996.
[13] Simpson, W., Editor, "PPP LCP Extensions", RFC 1570, January
1994.
[13] Simpson, W., Editor, "PPP LCP Extensions", RFC 1570, January 1994.
[14] Blunk, L. and J. Vollbrecht, "PPP Extensible Authentication
Protocol (EAP)", RFC 2284, March 1998.
[14] Blunk, L. and J. Vollbrecht, "PPP Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)", RFC 2284, March 1998.
[15] Solomon, J. and S. Glass, "Mobile-IPv4 Configuration Option for
PPP IPCP", RFC 2290, Feb 1998
[15] Solomon, J. and S. Glass, "Mobile-IPv4 Configuration Option for PPP IPCP", RFC 2290, Feb 1998
[16] Calhoun, P. and C. Perkins, "Mobile IP Network Access Identifier
Extension for IPv4", RFC 2794, March 2000.
[16] Calhoun, P. and C. Perkins, "Mobile IP Network Access Identifier Extension for IPv4", RFC 2794, March 2000.
[17] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support", RFC 2002, Oct 1996.
[17] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support", RFC 2002, Oct 1996.
[18] Johnson, D. and C. Perkins, "Mobility Support in IPv6", Work in
Progress.
[18] Johnson, D. and C. Perkins, "Mobility Support in IPv6", Work in Progress.
[19] Aboba, B. and J. Vollbrecht, "Proxy Chaining and Policy
Implementation in Roaming", RFC 2607, June 1999.
[19] Aboba, B. and J. Vollbrecht, "Proxy Chaining and Policy Implementation in Roaming", RFC 2607, June 1999.
[20] Simpson, W., "PPP Challenge Handshake Authentication Protocol
(CHAP)", RFC 1994, August 1996.
[20] Simpson, W., "PPP Challenge Handshake Authentication Protocol (CHAP)", RFC 1994, August 1996.
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 20] RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 20] RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
4. Security Considerations
4. Security Considerations
This document, being a requirements document, does not have any security concerns. The security requirements on protocols to be evaluated using this document are described in the referenced documents.
This document, being a requirements document, does not have any security concerns. The security requirements on protocols to be evaluated using this document are described in the referenced documents.
5. IANA Considerations
5. IANA Considerations
This memo does not create any new number spaces for IANA administration.
This memo does not create any new number spaces for IANA administration.
6. Acknowledgments
6. Acknowledgments
Thanks to the members of the Mobile IP, AAA, and NASREQ working groups who have discussed and commented on these requirements. We would also like to thank the members of the AAA evaluation team, Mike St. Johns, Barney Wolf, Mark Stevens, David Nelson, Dave Mitton, Basavaraj Patil and Stuart Barkley for their thorough review of this document.
Thanks to the members of the Mobile IP, AAA, and NASREQ working groups who have discussed and commented on these requirements. We would also like to thank the members of the AAA evaluation team, Mike St. Johns, Barney Wolf, Mark Stevens, David Nelson, Dave Mitton, Basavaraj Patil and Stuart Barkley for their thorough review of this document.
7. Authors' Addresses
7. Authors' Addresses
Bernard Aboba Microsoft Corporation One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052
Bernard Aboba Microsoft Corporation One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052
Phone: +1 425-936-6605 Fax: +1 425-936-7329 EMail: bernarda@microsoft.com
Phone: +1 425-936-6605 Fax: +1 425-936-7329 EMail: bernarda@microsoft.com
Pat R. Calhoun Network and Security Research Center, Sun Labs Sun Microsystems, Inc. 15 Network Circle Menlo Park, CA 94025
Pat R. Calhoun Network and Security Research Center, Sun Labs Sun Microsystems, Inc. 15 Network Circle Menlo Park, CA 94025
Phone: +1 650-786-7733 EMail: pcalhoun@eng.sun.com
Phone: +1 650-786-7733 EMail: pcalhoun@eng.sun.com
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 21] RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 21] RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Steven M. Glass Sun Microsystems 1 Network Drive Burlington, MA 01845
Steven M. Glass Sun Microsystems 1 Network Drive Burlington, MA 01845
Phone: +1 781-442-0504 Fax: +1 781-442-1677 EMail: steven.glass@sun.com
Phone: +1 781-442-0504 Fax: +1 781-442-1677 EMail: steven.glass@sun.com
Tom Hiller Wireless Data Standards & Architectures Lucent Technologies 263 Shuman Drive Room 1HP2F-218 Naperville, IL 60563
Tom Hiller Wireless Data Standards & Architectures Lucent Technologies 263 Shuman Drive Room 1HP2F-218 Naperville, IL 60563
Phone: +1 630-976-7673 EMail: tom.hiller@lucent.com
Phone: +1 630-976-7673 EMail: tom.hiller@lucent.com
Peter J. McCann Lucent Technologies Rm 2Z-305 263 Shuman Blvd Naperville, IL 60566
Peter J. McCann Lucent Technologies Rm 2Z-305 263 Shuman Blvd Naperville, IL 60566
Phone: +1 630-713 9359 EMail: mccap@lucent.com
Phone: +1 630-713 9359 EMail: mccap@lucent.com
Hajime Shiino Lucent Technologies Japan Ltd. 25 Mori Bldg. 1-4-30 Roppongi, Minato-ku Tokyo Japan
Hajime Shiino Lucent Technologies Japan Ltd. 25 Mori Bldg. 1-4-30 Roppongi, Minato-ku Tokyo Japan
Phone: +81-3-5561-3695 EMail: hshiino@lucent.com
Phone: +81-3-5561-3695 EMail: hshiino@lucent.com
Glen Zorn Cisco Systems, Inc. 500 108th Avenue N.E., Suite 500 Bellevue, WA 98004
Glen Zorn Cisco Systems, Inc. 500 108th Avenue N.E., Suite 500 Bellevue, WA 98004
Phone: +1 425-468-0955 EMail: gwz@cisco.com
Phone: +1 425-468-0955 EMail: gwz@cisco.com
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 22] RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 22] RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Gopal Dommety IOS Network Protocols Cisco Systems, Inc. 170 West Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95134-1706
Gopal Dommety IOS Network Protocols Cisco Systems, Inc. 170 West Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95134-1706
Phone: +1 408-525-1404 Fax: +1 408-526-4952 EMail: gdommety@cisco.com
Phone: +1 408-525-1404 Fax: +1 408-526-4952 EMail: gdommety@cisco.com
Charles E. Perkins Communications Systems Lab Nokia Research Center 313 Fairchild Drive Mountain View, CA
Charles E. Perkins Communications Systems Lab Nokia Research Center 313 Fairchild Drive Mountain View, CA
Phone: +1 650-625-2986 Fax: +1-650-625-2502 EMail: charliep@iprg.nokia.com
Phone: +1 650-625-2986 Fax: +1-650-625-2502 EMail: charliep@iprg.nokia.com
Basavaraj Patil Nokia Networks 6000 Connection Dr. Irving, TX 75039
Basavaraj Patil Nokia Networks 6000 Connection Dr. Irving, TX 75039
Phone: +1 972-894-6709 Fax: +1 972-894-5349 EMail: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com
Phone: +1 972-894-6709 Fax: +1 972-894-5349 EMail: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com
David Mitton Nortel Networks 880 Technology Park Drive Billerica, MA 01821
David Mitton Nortel Networks 880 Technology Park Drive Billerica, MA 01821
Phone: +1 978-288-4570 EMail: dmitton@nortelnetworks.com
Phone: +1 978-288-4570 EMail: dmitton@nortelnetworks.com
Serge Manning Nortel Networks 2201 Lakeside Blvd Richardson, TX 75082-4399
Serge Manning Nortel Networks 2201 Lakeside Blvd Richardson, TX 75082-4399
Phone: +1 972-684-7277 EMail: smanning@nortelnetworks.com
Phone: +1 972-684-7277 EMail: smanning@nortelnetworks.com
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 23] RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 23] RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Mark Anthony Beadles SmartPipes, Inc. 565 Metro Place South Suite 300 Dublin, OH 43017
Mark Anthony Beadles SmartPipes, Inc. 565 Metro Place South Suite 300 Dublin, OH 43017
Phone: +1 614-923-5657 EMail: mbeadles@smartpipes.com
Phone: +1 614-923-5657 EMail: mbeadles@smartpipes.com
Pat Walsh Lucent Technologies 263 Shuman Blvd. 1F-545 Naperville, IL
Pat Walsh Lucent Technologies 263 Shuman Blvd. 1F-545 Naperville, IL
Phone: +1 630-713-5063 EMail: walshp@lucent.com
Phone: +1 630-713-5063 EMail: walshp@lucent.com
Xing Chen Alcatel USA 1000 Coit Road Plano, TX 75075
Xing Chen Alcatel USA 1000 Coit Road Plano, TX 75075
Phone: +1 972-519-4142 Fax: +1 972-519-3300 EMail: xing.chen@usa.alcatel.com
Phone: +1 972-519-4142 Fax: +1 972-519-3300 EMail: xing.chen@usa.alcatel.com
Sanjeevan Sivalingham Ericsson Wireless Communications Inc., Rm Q-356C 6455 Lusk Blvd San Diego, CA 92126
Sanjeevan Sivalingham Ericsson Wireless Communications Inc., Rm Q-356C 6455 Lusk Blvd San Diego, CA 92126
Phone: +1 858-332-5670 EMail: s.sivalingham@ericsson.com
Phone: +1 858-332-5670 EMail: s.sivalingham@ericsson.com
Alan Hameed Fujitsu 2801 Telecom Parkway Richardson, TX 75082
Alan Hameed Fujitsu 2801 Telecom Parkway Richardson, TX 75082
Phone: +1 972-479-2089
Phone: +1 972-479-2089
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 24] RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 24] RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Mark Munson GTE Wireless One GTE Place Alpharetta, GA 30004
Mark Munson GTE Wireless One GTE Place Alpharetta, GA 30004
Phone: +1 678-339-4439 EMail: mmunson@mobilnet.gte.com
Phone: +1 678-339-4439 EMail: mmunson@mobilnet.gte.com
Stuart Jacobs Secure Systems Department GTE Laboratories 40 Sylvan Road, Waltham, MA 02451-1128
Stuart Jacobs Secure Systems Department GTE Laboratories 40 Sylvan Road, Waltham, MA 02451-1128
Phone: +1 781-466-3076 Fax: +1 781-466-2838 EMail: sjacobs@gte.com
Phone: +1 781-466-3076 Fax: +1 781-466-2838 EMail: sjacobs@gte.com
Byung-Keun Lim LG Electronics, Ltd. 533, Hogye-dong, Dongan-ku, Anyang-shi, Kyungki-do,431-080 Korea
Byung-Keun Lim LG Electronics, Ltd. 533, Hogye-dong, Dongan-ku, Anyang-shi, Kyungki-do,431-080 Korea
Phone: +82-31-450-7199 Fax: +82-31-450-7050 EMail: bklim@lgic.co.kr
Phone: +82-31-450-7199 Fax: +82-31-450-7050 EMail: bklim@lgic.co.kr
Brent Hirschman 1501 Shure Dr. Arlington Hieghts, IL 60006
Brent Hirschman 1501 Shure Dr. Arlington Hieghts, IL 60006
Phone: +1 847-632-1563 EMail: qa4053@email.mot.com
Phone: +1 847-632-1563 EMail: qa4053@email.mot.com
Raymond T. Hsu Qualcomm Inc. 6455 Lusk Blvd. San Diego, CA 92121
Raymond T. Hsu Qualcomm Inc. 6455 Lusk Blvd. San Diego, CA 92121
Phone: +1 619-651-3623 EMail: rhsu@qualcomm.com
Phone: +1 619-651-3623 EMail: rhsu@qualcomm.com
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 25] RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 25] RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Haeng S. Koo Samsung Telecommunications America, Inc. 1130 E. Arapaho Road Richardson, TX 75081
Haeng S. Koo Samsung Telecommunications America, Inc. 1130 E. Arapaho Road Richardson, TX 75081
Phone: +1 972-761-7755 EMail: hskoo@sta.samsung.com
Phone: +1 972-761-7755 EMail: hskoo@sta.samsung.com
Mark A. Lipford Sprint PCS 8001 College Blvd.; Suite 210 Overland Park, KS 66210
Mark A. Lipford Sprint PCS 8001 College Blvd.; Suite 210 Overland Park, KS 66210
Phone: +1 913-664-8335 EMail: mlipfo01@sprintspectrum.com
Phone: +1 913-664-8335 EMail: mlipfo01@sprintspectrum.com
Ed Campbell 3Com Corporation 1800 W. Central Rd. Mount Prospect, IL 60056
Ed Campbell 3Com Corporation 1800 W. Central Rd. Mount Prospect, IL 60056
Phone: +1 847-342-6769 EMail: ed_campbell@3com.com
Phone: +1 847-342-6769 EMail: ed_campbell@3com.com
Name: Yingchun Xu WaterCove Networks One Century Centre, Suite 550 1750 E. Golf Road Schaumburg, IL
Name: Yingchun Xu WaterCove Networks One Century Centre, Suite 550 1750 E. Golf Road Schaumburg, IL
Phone: +1 847-477-9280 EMail: yxu@watercove.com
以下に電話をしてください。 +1 847-477-9280 メールしてください: yxu@watercove.com
Shinichi Baba Toshiba America Research, Inc. PO Box 136, Convent Station, NJ 07961-0136
新市ラム酒入りケーキ東芝アメリカ研究Inc.私書箱136、修道院駅、ニュージャージー07961-0136
Phone: +1 973-829-4795 EMail: sbaba@tari.toshiba.com
以下に電話をしてください。 +1 973-829-4795 メールしてください: sbaba@tari.toshiba.com
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 26] RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Aboba、他 情報[26ページ]のRFC2989は2000年11月にアクセスAAA評価基準をネットワークでつなぎます。
Eric Jaques Vodafone AirTouch 2999 Oak Road, MS-750 Walnut Creek, CA 94596
エリックジャキュースボーダフォンエアタッチ2999オーク道路、ウォールナットクリーク、MS-750カリフォルニア 94596
Phone: +1 925-279-6142 EMail: ejaques@akamail.com
以下に電話をしてください。 +1 925-279-6142 メールしてください: ejaques@akamail.com
8. Intellectual Property Statement
8. 知的所有権声明
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.
IETFはどんな知的所有権の正当性か範囲、実現に関係すると主張されるかもしれない他の権利、本書では説明された技術の使用またはそのような権利の下におけるどんなライセンスも利用可能であるかもしれない、または利用可能でないかもしれない範囲に関しても立場を全く取りません。 どちらも、それはそれを表しません。いずれもどんなそのような権利も特定するための努力にしました。 BCP-11で標準化過程の権利と規格関連のドキュメンテーションに関するIETFの手順に関する情報を見つけることができます。 権利のクレームのコピーで利用可能に作られるべきライセンスの保証、または一般的なライセンスか許可が作成者によるそのような所有権の使用に得させられた試みの結果が公表といずれにも利用可能になったか、またはIETF事務局からこの仕様のユーザを得ることができます。
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.
IETFはこの規格を練習するのに必要であるかもしれない技術をカバーするかもしれないどんな著作権もその注目していただくどんな利害関係者、特許、特許出願、または他の所有権も招待します。 IETF専務に情報を記述してください。
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 27] RFC 2989 Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria November 2000
Aboba、他 情報[27ページ]のRFC2989は2000年11月にアクセスAAA評価基準をネットワークでつなぎます。
9. Full Copyright Statement
9. 完全な著作権宣言文
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
Copyright(C)インターネット協会(2000)。 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.
それに関するこのドキュメントと翻訳は、コピーして、それが批評するか、またはそうでなければわかる他のもの、および派生している作品に提供するか、または準備されているかもしれなくて、コピーされて、発行されて、全体か一部広げられた実現を助けるかもしれません、どんな種類の制限なしでも、上の版権情報とこのパラグラフがそのようなすべてのコピーと派生している作品の上に含まれていれば。 しかしながら、このドキュメント自体は何らかの方法で変更されないかもしれません、インターネット協会か他のインターネット組織の版権情報か参照を取り除くのなどように、それを英語以外の言語に翻訳するのが著作権のための手順がインターネットStandardsの過程で定義したどのケースに従わなければならないか、必要に応じてさもなければ、インターネット標準を開発する目的に必要であるのを除いて。
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
上に承諾された限られた許容は、永久であり、インターネット協会、後継者または案配によって取り消されないでしょう。
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.
このドキュメントとそして、「そのままで」という基礎とインターネットの振興発展を目的とする組織に、インターネット・エンジニアリング・タスク・フォースが速達の、または、暗示しているすべての保証を放棄するかどうかというここにことであり、他を含んでいて、含まれて、情報の使用がここに侵害しないどんな保証も少しもまっすぐになるという情報か市場性か特定目的への適合性のどんな黙示的な保証。
Acknowledgement
承認
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.
RFC Editor機能のための基金は現在、インターネット協会によって提供されます。
Aboba, et al. Informational [Page 28]
Aboba、他 情報[28ページ]
一覧
スポンサーリンク
