draft-ietf-radext-filter-08.txt   rfc4849.txt 
Network Working Group Paul Congdon Network Working Group P. Congdon
INTERNET-DRAFT Mauricio Sanchez Request for Comments: 4849 M. Sanchez
Category: Proposed Standard Hewlett-Packard Company Category: Standards Track ProCurve Networking by HP
<draft-ietf-radext-filter-08.txt> Bernard Aboba B. Aboba
13 January 2007 Microsoft Corporation Microsoft Corporation
RADIUS Filter Rule Attribute RADIUS Filter Rule Attribute
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any Status of This Memo
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
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
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 18, 2007. This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). All rights reserved. Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
Abstract Abstract
While RFC 2865 defines the Filter-Id attribute, this requires that While RFC 2865 defines the Filter-Id attribute, it requires that the
the Network Access Server (NAS) be pre-populated with the desired Network Access Server (NAS) be pre-populated with the desired
filters. However, in situations where the server operator does not filters. However, in situations where the server operator does not
know which filters have been pre-populated, it is useful to specify know which filters have been pre-populated, it is useful to specify
filter rules explicitly. This document defines the NAS-Filter-Rule filter rules explicitly. This document defines the NAS-Filter-Rule
attribute within the Remote Authentication Dial In User Service attribute within the Remote Authentication Dial In User Service
(RADIUS). This attribute is based on the Diameter NAS-Filter-Rule (RADIUS). This attribute is based on the Diameter NAS-Filter-Rule
Attribute Value Pair (AVP) described in RFC 4005, and the Attribute Value Pair (AVP) described in RFC 4005, and the
IPFilterRule syntax defined in RFC 3588. IPFilterRule syntax defined in RFC 3588.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction .......................................... 3 1. Introduction ....................................................2
1.1 Terminology ..................................... 3 1.1. Terminology ................................................2
1.2 Requirements Language ........................... 3 1.2. Requirements Language ......................................3
1.3 Attribute Interpretation ........................ 3 1.3. Attribute Interpretation ...................................3
2. NAS-Filter-Rule Attribute ............................. 4 2. NAS-Filter-Rule Attribute .......................................3
3. Table of Attributes ................................... 5 3. Table of Attributes .............................................5
4. Diameter Considerations ............................... 5 4. Diameter Considerations .........................................5
5. IANA Considerations ................................... 6 5. IANA Considerations .............................................6
6. Security Considerations ............................... 6 6. Security Considerations .........................................6
7. References ............................................ 7 7. References ......................................................7
7.1 Normative References ............................ 7 7.1. Normative References .......................................7
7.2 Informative References .......................... 7 7.2. Informative References .....................................7
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................. 8 8. Acknowledgments .................................................7
AUTHORS' ADDRESSES ........................................... 8
Intellectual Property Statement............................... 9
Disclaimer of Validity........................................ 9
Full Copyright Statement ..................................... 9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document defines the NAS-Filter-Rule attribute within the Remote This document defines the NAS-Filter-Rule attribute within the Remote
Authentication Dialin User Service (RADIUS). This attribute has the Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS). This attribute has the
same functionality as the Diameter NAS-Filter-Rule AVP (400) defined same functionality as the Diameter NAS-Filter-Rule AVP (400) defined
in [RFC4005] Section 6.6 and the same syntax as an IPFilterRule in [RFC4005], Section 6.6, and the same syntax as an IPFilterRule
defined in [RFC3588] Section 4.3. This attribute may prove useful defined in [RFC3588], Section 4.3. This attribute may prove useful
for provisioning of filter rules. for provisioning of filter rules.
While [RFC2865] Section 5.11 defines the Filter-Id attribute (11), While [RFC2865], Section 5.11, defines the Filter-Id attribute (11),
this requires that the Network Access Server (NAS) be pre-populated it requires that the Network Access Server (NAS) be pre-populated
with the desired filters. However, in situations where the server with the desired filters. However, in situations where the server
operator does not know which filters have been pre-populated, it operator does not know which filters have been pre-populated, it is
useful to specify filter rules explicitly. useful to specify filter rules explicitly.
1.1. Terminology 1.1. Terminology
This document uses the following terms: This document uses the following terms:
Network Access Server (NAS) Network Access Server (NAS)
A device that provides an access service for a user to a network. A device that provides an access service for a user to a network.
RADIUS server RADIUS server
skipping to change at page 3, line 44 skipping to change at page 3, line 14
1.2. Requirements Language 1.2. 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].
1.3. Attribute Interpretation 1.3. Attribute Interpretation
If a NAS conforming to this specification receives an Access-Accept If a NAS conforming to this specification receives an Access-Accept
packet containing a NAS-Filter-Rule attribute which it cannot apply, packet containing a NAS-Filter-Rule attribute that it cannot apply,
it MUST act as though it had received an Access-Reject. [RFC3576] it MUST act as though it had received an Access-Reject. [RFC3576]
requires that a NAS receiving a Change of Authorization Request requires that a NAS receiving a Change of Authorization Request
(CoA-Request) reply with a CoA-NAK if the Request contains an (CoA-Request) reply with a CoA-NAK if the Request contains an
unsupported attribute. It is RECOMMENDED that an Error-Cause unsupported attribute. It is RECOMMENDED that an Error-Cause
attribute with value set to "Unsupported Attribute" (401) be included attribute with value set to "Unsupported Attribute" (401) be included
in the CoA-NAK. As noted in [RFC3576], authorization changes are in the CoA-NAK. As noted in [RFC3576], authorization changes are
atomic so that this situation does not result in session termination atomic so that this situation does not result in session termination,
and the pre-existing configuration remains unchanged. As a result, and the pre-existing configuration remains unchanged. As a result,
no accounting packets should be generated as a result of the CoA- no accounting packets should be generated because of the CoA-Request.
Request.
2. NAS-Filter-Rule Attribute 2. NAS-Filter-Rule Attribute
Description Description
This attribute indicates filter rules to be applied for this user. This attribute indicates filter rules to be applied for this user.
Zero or more NAS-Filter-Rule attributes MAY be sent in Access- Zero or more NAS-Filter-Rule attributes MAY be sent in Access-Accept,
Accept, CoA-Request, or Accounting-Request packets. CoA-Request, or Accounting-Request packets.
The NAS-Filter-Rule attribute is not intended to be used The NAS-Filter-Rule attribute is not intended to be used concurrently
concurrently with any other filter rule attribute, including with any other filter rule attribute, including Filter-Id (11) and
Filter-Id (11) and NAS-Traffic-Rule [Traffic] attributes. NAS- NAS-Traffic-Rule [Traffic] attributes. NAS-Filter-Rule and NAS-
Filter-Rule and NAS-Traffic-Rule attributes MUST NOT appear in the Traffic-Rule attributes MUST NOT appear in the same RADIUS packet.
same RADIUS packet. If a NAS-Traffic-Rule attribute is present, a If a NAS-Traffic-Rule attribute is present, a NAS implementing this
NAS implementing this specification MUST silently discard NAS- specification MUST silently discard any NAS-Filter-Rule attributes
Filter-Rule attributes, if present. Filter-Id and NAS-Filter-Rule that are present. Filter-Id and NAS-Filter-Rule attributes SHOULD
attributes SHOULD NOT appear in the same RADIUS packet. Given the NOT appear in the same RADIUS packet. Given the absence in [RFC4005]
absence in [RFC4005] of well-defined precedence rules for of well-defined precedence rules for combining Filter-Id and NAS-
combining Filter-Id and NAS-Filter-Rule attributes into a single Filter-Rule attributes into a single rule set, the behavior of NASes
rule set, the behavior of NASes receiving both attributes is receiving both attributes is undefined, and therefore a RADIUS server
undefined, and therefore a RADIUS server implementation cannot implementation cannot assume a consistent behavior.
assume a consistent behavior.
Where multiple NAS-Filter-Rule attributes are included in a RADIUS Where multiple NAS-Filter-Rule attributes are included in a RADIUS
packet, the String field of the attributes are to be concatenated packet, the String field of the attributes are to be concatenated to
to form a set of filter rules. As noted in [RFC2865] Section 2.3, form a set of filter rules. As noted in [RFC2865], Section 2.3, "the
"the forwarding server MUST NOT change the order of any attributes forwarding server MUST NOT change the order of any attributes of the
of the same type", so that RADIUS proxies will not reorder NAS- same type", so that RADIUS proxies will not reorder NAS-Filter-Rule
Filter-Rule attributes. attributes.
A summary of the NAS-Filter-Rule Attribute format is shown below. A summary of the NAS-Filter-Rule Attribute format is shown below.
The fields are transmitted from left to right. The fields are transmitted from left to right.
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | String... | Type | Length | String...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type Type
TBD 92
Length Length
>=3 >=3
String String
The String field is one or more octets. It contains filter rules The String field is one or more octets. It contains filter rules
in the IPFilterRule syntax defined in [RFC3588] Section 4.3, with in the IPFilterRule syntax defined in [RFC3588], Section 4.3, with
individual filter rules separated by a NUL (0x00). A NAS-Filter- individual filter rules separated by a NUL (0x00). A NAS-Filter-
Rule attribute may contain a partial rule, one rule, or more than Rule attribute may contain a partial rule, one rule, or more than
one rule. Filter rules may be continued across attribute one rule. Filter rules may be continued across attribute
boundaries, so implementations cannot assume that individual boundaries, so implementations cannot assume that individual
filter rules begin or end on attribute boundaries. filter rules begin or end on attribute boundaries.
The set of NAS-Filter-Rule attributes SHOULD be created by The set of NAS-Filter-Rule attributes SHOULD be created by
concatenating the individual filter rules, separated by a NUL concatenating the individual filter rules, separated by a NUL
(0x00) octet. The resulting data should be split on 253 byte (0x00) octet. The resulting data should be split on 253-octet
boundaries to obtain a set of NAS-Filter-Rule attributes. On boundaries to obtain a set of NAS-Filter-Rule attributes. On
reception, the individual filter rules are determined by reception, the individual filter rules are determined by
concatenating the contents of all NAS-Filter-Rule attributes, and concatenating the contents of all NAS-Filter-Rule attributes, and
then splitting individual filter rules with the the NUL octet then splitting individual filter rules with the NUL octet (0x00)
(0x00) as a delimeter. as a delimiter.
3. Table of Attributes 3. Table of Attributes
The following table provides a guide to which attributes may be found The following table provides a guide to which attributes may be found
in which kinds of packets, and in what quantity. in which kinds of packets, and in what quantity.
Access- Access- Access- Access- CoA- Acct- Access- Access- Access- Access- CoA- Acct-
Request Accept Reject Challenge Req Req # Attribute Request Accept Reject Challenge Req Req # Attribute
0 0+ 0 0 0+ 0+ TBD NAS-Filter-Rule 0 0+ 0 0 0+ 0+ 92 NAS-Filter-Rule
The following table defines the meaning of the above table entries. The following table defines the meaning of the above table entries.
0 This attribute MUST NOT be present in the packet. 0 This attribute MUST NOT be present in the packet.
0+ Zero or more instances of this attribute MAY be 0+ Zero or more instances of this attribute MAY be
present in the packet. present in the packet.
0-1 Zero or one instance of this attribute MAY be 0-1 Zero or one instance of this attribute MAY be
present in the packet. present in the packet.
4. Diameter Considerations 4. Diameter Considerations
[RFC4005] Section 6.6 defines the NAS-Filter-Rule AVP (400) with the [RFC4005], Section 6.6, defines the NAS-Filter-Rule AVP (400) with
same functionality as the RADIUS NAS-Filter-Rule attribute. In order the same functionality as the RADIUS NAS-Filter-Rule attribute. In
to support interoperability, Diameter/RADIUS gateways will need to be order to support interoperability, Diameter/RADIUS gateways will need
configured to translate RADIUS attribute TBD to Diameter AVP 400 and to be configured to translate RADIUS attribute 92 to Diameter NAS-
vice-versa. Filter-Rule AVP (400) and vice versa.
When translating Diameter NAS-Filter-Rule AVPs to RADIUS NAS-Filter- When translating Diameter NAS-Filter-Rule AVPs to RADIUS NAS-Filter-
Rule attributes, the set of NAS-Filter-Rule attributes is created by Rule attributes, the set of NAS-Filter-Rule attributes is created by
concatenating the individual filter rules, separated by a NUL octet. concatenating the individual filter rules, separated by a NUL octet.
The resulting data SHOULD then be split on 253 byte boundaries. The resulting data SHOULD then be split on 253-octet boundaries.
When translating RADIUS NAS-Filter-Rule attributes to Diameter NAS- When translating RADIUS NAS-Filter-Rule attributes to Diameter NAS-
Filter-Rule AVPs, the individual rules are determined by Filter-Rule AVPs, the individual rules are determined by
concatenating the contents of all NAS-Filter-Rule attributes, and concatenating the contents of all NAS-Filter-Rule attributes, and
then splitting individual filter rules with the NUL octet as a then splitting individual filter rules with the NUL octet as a
delimeter. Each rule is then encoded as a single Diameter NAS- delimiter. Each rule is then encoded as a single Diameter NAS-
Filter-Rule AVP. Filter-Rule AVP.
Note that a translated Diameter message can be larger than the Note that a translated Diameter message can be larger than the
maximum RADIUS packet size (4096). Where a Diameter/RADIUS gateway maximum RADIUS packet size (4096 bytes). Where a Diameter/RADIUS
receives a Diameter message containing a NAS-Filter-Rule AVP that is gateway receives a Diameter message containing a NAS-Filter-Rule AVP
too large to fit into a RADIUS packet, the Diameter/RADIUS gateway that is too large to fit into a RADIUS packet, the Diameter/RADIUS
will respond to the originating Diameter peer with a Result-Code AVP gateway will respond to the originating Diameter peer with a Result-
with the value DIAMETER_RADIUS_AVP_UNTRANSLATABLE (TBD), and with a Code AVP with the value DIAMETER_RADIUS_AVP_UNTRANSLATABLE (5018),
Failed-AVP AVP containing the NAS-Filter-Rule AVP. Since repairing and with a Failed-AVP AVP containing the NAS-Filter-Rule AVP. Since
the error will probably require re-working the filter rules, the repairing the error will probably require re-working the filter
originating peer should treat the combination of a Result-Code AVP rules, the originating peer should treat the combination of a
with value DIAMETER_RADIUS_AVP_UNTRANSLATABLE and a Failed-AVP AVP Result-Code AVP with value DIAMETER_RADIUS_AVP_UNTRANSLATABLE and a
containing a NAS-Filter-Rule AVP as a terminal error. Failed-AVP AVP containing a NAS-Filter-Rule AVP as a terminal error.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
This specification does not create any new registries. This specification does not create any new registries.
This document uses the RADIUS [RFC2865] namespace, see This document uses the RADIUS [RFC2865] namespace, see
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/radius-types>. Allocation of one <http://www.iana.org/assignments/radius-types>. One value has been
update for the section "RADIUS Attribute Types" is requested. The allocated in the section "RADIUS Attribute Types". The RADIUS
RADIUS attribute for which a value is requested is: attribute for which a value has been assigned is:
TBD - NAS-Filter-Rule 92 - NAS-Filter-Rule
This document also utilizes the Diameter [RFC3588] namespace. This document also utilizes the Diameter [RFC3588] namespace. A
Allocation of a Diameter Result-Code AVP value for the Diameter Result-Code AVP value for the
DIAMETER_RADIUS_AVP_UNTRANSLATABLE error is requested. Since this is DIAMETER_RADIUS_AVP_UNTRANSLATABLE error has been allocated. Since
a permanent failure, an allocation should be provided in the 5xxx this is a permanent failure, the allocation (5018) is in the 5xxx
range. range.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
This specification describes the use of RADIUS for purposes of This specification describes the use of RADIUS for purposes of
authentication, authorization and accounting. Threats and security authentication, authorization and accounting. Threats and security
issues for this application are described in [RFC3579] and [RFC3580]; issues for this application are described in [RFC3579] and [RFC3580];
security issues encountered in roaming are described in [RFC2607]. security issues encountered in roaming are described in [RFC2607].
This document specifies a new attribute that can be included in This document specifies a new attribute that can be included in
existing RADIUS packets, which are protected as described in existing RADIUS packets, which are protected as described in
[RFC3579] and [RFC3576]. See those documents for a more detailed [RFC3579] and [RFC3576]. See those documents for a more detailed
description. description.
The security mechanisms supported in RADIUS and Diameter are focused The security mechanisms supported in RADIUS and Diameter are focused
on preventing an attacker from spoofing packets or modifying packets on preventing an attacker from spoofing packets or modifying packets
in transit. They do not prevent an authorized RADIUS/Diameter server in transit. They do not prevent an authorized RADIUS/Diameter server
or proxy from modifying, inserting or removing attributes with or proxy from modifying, inserting, or removing attributes with
malicious intent. Filter attributes modified or removed by a malicious intent. Filter attributes modified or removed by a
RADIUS/Diameter proxy may enable a user to obtain network access RADIUS/Diameter proxy may enable a user to obtain network access
without the appropriate filters; if the proxy were also to modify without the appropriate filters; if the proxy were also to modify
accounting packets, then the modification would not be reflected in accounting packets, then the modification would not be reflected in
the accounting server logs. the accounting server logs.
Since the RADIUS protocol currently does not support capability Since the RADIUS protocol currently does not support capability
negotiation, a RADIUS server cannot automatically discover whether a negotiation, a RADIUS server cannot automatically discover whether a
NAS supports the NAS-Filter-Rule attribute. A legacy NAS not NAS supports the NAS-Filter-Rule attribute. A legacy NAS not
compliant with this specification may silently discard the NAS- compliant with this specification may silently discard the NAS-
Filter-Rule attribute while permitting the user to access the Filter-Rule attribute while permitting the user to access the
network. This can lead to users improperly receiving unfiltered network. This can cause users to improperly receive unfiltered
access to the network. As a result, the NAS-Filter-Rule attribute access to the network. As a result, the NAS-Filter-Rule attribute
SHOULD only be sent to a NAS that is known to support it. SHOULD only be sent to a NAS that is known to support it.
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative references 7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, March, 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March, 1997.
[RFC2865] Rigney, C., Rubens, A., Simpson, W. and S. Willens, "Remote [RFC2865] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson,
Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 2865, June "Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC
2000. 2865, June 2000.
[RFC3588] Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J. [RFC3588] Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J.
Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, September 2003. Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, September 2003.
[RFC4005] Calhoun, P., Zorn, G., Spence, D. and D. Mitton, "Diameter [RFC4005] Calhoun, P., Zorn, G., Spence, D., and D. Mitton, "Diameter
Network Access Server Application", RFC 4005, August 2005. Network Access Server Application", RFC 4005, August 2005.
7.2. Informative references 7.2. Informative References
[RFC2607] Aboba, B. and J. Vollbrecht, "Proxy Chaining and Policy [RFC2607] Aboba, B. and J. Vollbrecht, "Proxy Chaining and Policy
Implementation in Roaming", RFC 2607, June 1999. Implementation in Roaming", RFC 2607, June 1999.
[RFC3576] Chiba, M., Dommety, G., Eklund, M., Mitton, D. and B. Aboba, [RFC3576] Chiba, M., Dommety, G., Eklund, M., Mitton, D., and B.
"Dynamic Authorization Extensions to Remote Authentication Aboba, "Dynamic Authorization Extensions to Remote
Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 3576, July 2003. Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 3576,
July 2003.
[RFC3579] Aboba, B. and P. Calhoun, "RADIUS Support for Extensible [RFC3579] Aboba, B. and P. Calhoun, "RADIUS (Remote Authentication
Authentication Protocol (EAP)", RFC 3579, September 2003. Dial In User Service) Support For Extensible Authentication
Protocol (EAP)", RFC 3579, September 2003.
[RFC3580] Congdon, P., Aboba, B., Smith, A., Zorn, G., Roese, J., "IEEE [RFC3580] Congdon, P., Aboba, B., Smith, A., Zorn, G., and J. Roese,
802.1X Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) "IEEE 802.1X Remote Authentication Dial In User Service
Usage Guidelines", RFC3580, September 2003. (RADIUS) Usage Guidelines", RFC 3580, September 2003.
[Traffic] Congdon, P., Sanchez, M., Lior, A., Adrangi, F. and B. Aboba, [Traffic] Congdon, P., Sanchez, M., Lior, A., Adrangi, F., and B.
"RADIUS Attributes for Filtering and Redirection", Internet Aboba, "RADIUS Attributes for Filtering and Redirection",
draft (work in progress), draft-ietf-radext-filter- Work in Progress, March 2007.
rules-01.txt, June 2006.
Acknowledgments 8. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge Emile Bergen, Alan DeKok, Greg The authors would like to acknowledge Emile Bergen, Alan DeKok, Greg
Weber, Glen Zorn, Pasi Eronen, David Mitton and David Nelson for Weber, Glen Zorn, Pasi Eronen, David Mitton, and David Nelson for
contributions to this document. contributions to this document.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Paul Congdon Paul Congdon
Hewlett Packard Company Hewlett Packard Company
HP ProCurve Networking ProCurve Networking by HP
8000 Foothills Blvd, M/S 5662 8000 Foothills Blvd, M/S 5662
Roseville, CA 95747 Roseville, CA 95747
EMail: paul.congdon@hp.com EMail: paul.congdon@hp.com
Phone: +1 916 785 5753 Phone: +1 916 785 5753
Fax: +1 916 785 8478 Fax: +1 916 785 8478
Mauricio Sanchez Mauricio Sanchez
Hewlett Packard Company Hewlett Packard Company
HP ProCurve Networking ProCurve Networking by HP
8000 Foothills Blvd, M/S 5559 8000 Foothills Blvd, M/S 5559
Roseville, CA 95747 Roseville, CA 95747
EMail: mauricio.sanchez@hp.com EMail: mauricio.sanchez@hp.com
Phone: +1 916 785 1910 Phone: +1 916 785 1910
Fax: +1 916 785 1815 Fax: +1 916 785 1815
Bernard Aboba Bernard Aboba
Microsoft Corporation Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052 Redmond, WA 98052
EMail: bernarda@microsoft.com EMail: bernarda@microsoft.com
Phone: +1 425 706 6605 Phone: +1 425 706 6605
Fax: +1 425 936 7329 Fax: +1 425 936 7329
Intellectual Property Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).
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 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 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 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 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 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr. http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ipr@ietf.org. ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
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.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). 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.
Acknowledgment Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society. Internet Society.
Open issues
Open issues relating to this specification are tracked on the
following web site:
http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/
 End of changes. 48 change blocks. 
153 lines changed or deleted 133 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.33. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/