draft-ietf-radext-crypto-agility-requirements-01.txt   draft-ietf-radext-crypto-agility-requirements-02.txt 
Network Working Group D. Nelson Network Working Group D. Nelson
Internet-Draft Elbrys Networks, Inc. Internet-Draft Elbrys Networks, Inc.
Intended status: Informational November 19, 2008 Intended status: Informational March 3, 2011
Expires: May 23, 2009 Expires: September 3, 2011
Crypto-Agility Requirements for Remote Dial-In User Service (RADIUS) Crypto-Agility Requirements for Remote Dial-In User Service (RADIUS)
draft-ietf-radext-crypto-agility-requirements-01.txt draft-ietf-radext-crypto-agility-requirements-02.txt
Abstract
This memo describes the requirements for a crypto-agility solution
for Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS).
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 23, 2009. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 3, 2011.
Abstract
This memo describes the requirements for a crypto-agility solution
for Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS).
Requirements Language Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
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
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.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. The Charge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. The Charge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. A Working Definition of Crypto-Agility . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. A Working Definition of Crypto-Agility . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. The Current State of RADIUS Encryption . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. The Current State of RADIUS Encryption . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. The Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4. The Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Overall Solution Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.1. Overall Solution Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Security Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.2. Security Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.3. Backwards Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.3. Backwards Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.4. Interoperability and Change Control . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.4. Interoperability and Change Control . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.5. Scope of Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.5. Scope of Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.6. Applicability of Automated Key Management Requirements . . 6 4.6. Applicability of Automated Key Management Requirements . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
1.1. General 1.1. General
This memo describes the requirements for a crypto-agility solution This memo describes the requirements for a crypto-agility solution
for Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS). This memo, for Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS). This memo,
when approved, reflects the consensus of the RADIUS Extensions when approved, reflects the consensus of the RADIUS Extensions
Working Group of the IETF (RADEXT) as to the features, properties and Working Group of the IETF (RADEXT) as to the features, properties and
limitations of the crypto-agility work item for RADIUS. It also limitations of the crypto-agility work item for RADIUS. It also
skipping to change at page 6, line 35 skipping to change at page 6, line 35
Proposals MUST discuss any inherent assumptions about, or limitations Proposals MUST discuss any inherent assumptions about, or limitations
on, client/server operations or deployment and SHOULD provide on, client/server operations or deployment and SHOULD provide
recommendations for transition of deployments from legacy RADIUS to recommendations for transition of deployments from legacy RADIUS to
crypto-agile RADIUS. Issues regarding ciper-suite negotiation, crypto-agile RADIUS. Issues regarding ciper-suite negotiation,
legacy interoperability and the potential for biding down attacks, legacy interoperability and the potential for biding down attacks,
SHOULD be among these discussions. SHOULD be among these discussions.
4.6. Applicability of Automated Key Management Requirements 4.6. Applicability of Automated Key Management Requirements
[RFC 4107] provides guidelines for when automated key management is [RFC4107] provides guidelines for when automated key management is
necessary. At the IETF-70 meeting, and leading up to that meeting, necessary. At the IETF-70 meeting, and leading up to that meeting,
the RADEXT WG debated whether or not RFC 4107 would require a RADIUS the RADEXT WG debated whether or not RFC 4107 would require a RADIUS
Crypto-Agility solution to feature Automated Key Management (AKM). Crypto-Agility solution to feature Automated Key Management (AKM).
The working group determined that AKM was not inherently required for The working group determined that AKM was not inherently required for
RADIUS based on the following points: RADIUS based on the following points:
o RFC 4107 requires AKM for protocols that involve O(n^2) keys. o RFC 4107 requires AKM for protocols that involve O(n^2) keys.
This does not apply to RADIUS deployments, which require O(n) keys This does not apply to RADIUS deployments, which require O(n) keys
o RADIUS does not require the encryption of large amounts of data in o RADIUS does not require the encryption of large amounts of data in
skipping to change at page 8, line 9 skipping to change at page 8, line 9
[RFC4107] Bellovin, S. and R. Housley, "Guidelines for Cryptographic [RFC4107] Bellovin, S. and R. Housley, "Guidelines for Cryptographic
Key Management", BCP 107, RFC 4107, June 2005. Key Management", BCP 107, RFC 4107, June 2005.
[RFC4962] Housley, R. and B. Aboba, "Guidance for Authentication, [RFC4962] Housley, R. and B. Aboba, "Guidance for Authentication,
Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Key Management", Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) Key Management",
BCP 132, RFC 4962, July 2007. BCP 132, RFC 4962, July 2007.
Author's Address Author's Address
David Nelson David B. Nelson
Elbrys Networks, Inc. Elbrys Networks, Inc.
75 Rochester Ave, Unit #3, 75 Rochester Avenue, Unit 3
Portsmouth, NH 03801 Portsmouth, NH 03801
USA USA
Phone: +1.603.570.2636 Email: d.b.nelson@comcast.net
Email: dnelson@elbrysnetworks.com
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights 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; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
 End of changes. 10 change blocks. 
17 lines changed or deleted 29 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/