Network Working Group D. Mitton Request for Comments: 3127 Nortel Networks Category: Informational M. St.Johns Rainmaker Technologies S. Barkley UUNET D. Nelson Enterasys Networks B. Patil Nokia M. Stevens Ellacoya Networks B. Wolff Databus Inc. June 2001 Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting: Protocol Evaluation Status of this Memo This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. Abstract This memo represents the process and findings of the Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting Working Group (AAA WG) panel evaluating protocols proposed against the AAA Network Access Requirements, RFC 2989. Due to time constraints of this report, this document is not as fully polished as it might have been desired. But it remains mostly in this state to document the results as presented.
Table of Contents 1. Process Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 1.1 WG Co-Chair's Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 1.2 Chairman's Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 1.3 Members Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 1.4 Requirements Validation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 1.5 Proposal Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 1.6 Final Recommendations Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 2. Protocol Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 3. Item Level Compliance Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1 General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2 Authentication Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 3.3 Authorization Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 3.4 Accounting Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 3.5 MOBILE IP Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 4. Protocol Evaluation Summaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 4.1 SNMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 4.2 Radius++ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 4.3 Diameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 4.4 COPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 4.5 Summary Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 7. Authors' Addresses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 A. Appendix A - Summary Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 B. Appendix B - Review of the Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . .18 B.1 General Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 B.2 Authentication Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 B.3 Authorization Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 B.4 Accounting Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 C. Appendix C - Position Briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 C.1 SNMP PRO Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 C.2 SNMP CON Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 C.3 RADIUS+ PRO Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 C.4 RADIUS+ CON Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 C.5 Diameter PRO Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44 C.6 Diameter CON Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 C.7 COPS PRO Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 C.8 COPS CON Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59 D. Appendix D - Meeting Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 D.1 Minutes of 22-Jun-2000 Teleconference . . . . . . . . . . . .66 D.2 Minutes of 27-Jun-2000 Teleconference . . . . . . . . . . . .68 D.3 Minutes of 29-Jun-2000 Teleconference . . . . . . . . . . . .73 D.4 Minutes of 06-Jul-2000 Teleconference . . . . . . . . . . . .78 D.5 Minutes of 11-Jul-2000 Teleconference . . . . . . . . . . . .80 Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84
1. Process Description Due to time constraints, the original draft of this document was rushed to meet the publication deadline of the June 2000 Pittsburgh meeting. Since the meeting has passed, we do not wish to substantially revise the findings within this document, so that we don't give the appearance of changing information after the presentation. Only additional descriptions of the process, formatting, layout editing and errors of fact have been corrected in subsequent revisions. 1.1. WG Co-Chair's Note: After the AAA WG re-charter was approved, and the Network Access Requirements document passed AAA WG Last Call, a Solicitation of Protocol Submissions was issued on 4/13/2000. The Solicitation was sent to the AAA WG mailing list, as well as to other IETF WG mailing lists related to AAA, including NASREQ, Mobile IP, RAP, and SNMPv3. Submissions were solicited effective immediately. Authors of candidate protocols were requested to notify the AAA WG chairs of their intent to submit a candidate protocol. It was suggested that this notification be sent by May 1, 2000. Protocol submissions and compliance description documents were to be submitted in Internet Draft format by email to internet- firstname.lastname@example.org. The deadline for submissions was June 1, 2000. To be considered as a candidate, submissions needed to include an unqualified RFC 2026 statement, as described at: http://www.ietf.org/Sec10.txt In order to assist the AAA WG in evaluating the protocol submissions and compliance description documents, the AAA WG chairs then formed an evaluation team, which was announced on May 20, 2000. The job of the team was be to put together an Internet Draft documenting their evaluation of the protocol submissions. The goal is to have a first draft available prior to the July 14, 2000 submission deadline for IETF 48. In composing the evaluation draft, the evaluation team was asked to draw from the protocol specifications, the compliance descriptions, and other relevant documents, the Network Access Requirements document, RFC 2989. Mike St. Johns was asked to chair the evaluation team. The chairs of WGs related to AAA were also invited to join the team. These included Dave Mitton, co-chair of NASREQ WG, Basavaraj Patil, co- chair of Mobile IP WG, and Mark Stevens, co-chair of the RAP WG.
Additional members of the evaluation team were chosen to represent the interests of network operators as well as developers of AAA client and server software. As usual, the IESG advised the evaluation team. IESG advisors included Randy Bush and Bert Wijnen, Directors of the Operations and Management Area. 1.2. Chairman's Note: This document is the result of 6 weeks of intense work by the panel listed below. Our mission was to evaluate the various AAA proposals and provide recommendations to the AAA working group and to the IESG on the viability of each of the proposals. The evaluation process had three distinct phases. 1) Validate the AAA requirements document [AAAReqts] against the base requirements documents for NASREQ, MOBILEIP and ROAMOPS. 2) Evaluate each of the SNMP, Radius++, Diameter and COPS proposal claims against the validated requirements. 3) Provide final recommendations based on side by side comparison for each proposal on a requirement by requirement basis. In general, the ONLY information the evaluators were allowed to use throughout the process was that provided in the source documents (the requirements document and the proposal) or documents referenced by the source documents. In other words, if it wasn't written down, it generally didn't exist. Our cutoff for acceptance of information was 1 June 2000 - any submissions after that time were not considered in the panel's deliberations. 1.3. Members Statements The group was chaired by Michael St.Johns. David Mitton was the document editor. Following are the background statements and any conflicts of interest from them and the rest of the panel. Michael St. Johns, Rainmaker Technologies I have no known conflicts of interest with respect to the AAA process. I have neither advocated nor participated in the creation of any of the submissions. My company is a service company (ISP) and will not be involved in the manufacture or sale of AAA enabled products. Other than my participation as the chair of the AAA evaluation process, I have not had any contact with the AAA standards process.
David Mitton, Nortel Networks I have been Nasreq WG co-chair and author of several Nasreq drafts. As well as, previously contributed to several RADIUS drafts. I have been a RADIUS NAS implementor and Technical Prime on our Server products, so know it extremely well. In my current job role I am involved with Nortel's IP Mobility products, which support Diameter. I have written a presentation on COPS vs NASreq Requirements for a Nasreq meeting, but have not implemented it, nor consider myself an through expert on the subject. Stuart Barkley, UUNET I've been working for 5 years at UUNET on various parts of our dialup network. I have extensive experience with designing, developing and operating our SNMP based usage data gathering system. I've also been involved in our radius based authentication and authorization systems in an advisory position. I've participated in radius/roamops/nasreq/aaa groups for the past several years. I'm not an author or contributer on any of the requirements or protocol documents being presented although I have been peripherally involved in these working groups. Dave Nelson, Enterasys Networks Very active in the RADIUS WG, especially during the early years. No involvement in the AAA submission. Have not contributed to the development of Diameter. No involvement with SNMPv3 or the AAA submission. David Harrington, a proponent, works in a different group within my company. We have not discussed the submission. No involvement with the COPS protocol. Basavaraj Patil, Nokia I am a contributor to the AAA requirements document (RFC 2977) submitted by the Mobile IP WG. I was a member of the team that was constituted to capture the Mobile IP requirements for AAA services. As part of the co-chairing activity of the Mobile IP WG I have realized the need for AAA services by Mobile IP and hence closely followed the work done in the AAA WG, RADIUS, RoamOps and TR45.6.
My present work at Nokia does involve looking at AAA protocols (to some extent at least) for use in wireless networks. I have also done some work with AAA protocols such as Diameter in my previous job at Nortel Networks. Mark Stevens, Ellacoya Networks I am the co-chair of the IETF RAP working group which is the working group that has developed the COPS protocol. I have not contributed to the documents describing how COPS can satisfy AAA requirements. I participated in early AAA working group meetings, but have not been an active participant since the group's rechartering. The company that currently employees me builds devices might benefit from being AAA enabled. Barney Wolff, Databus Inc. I have implemented RADIUS client, proxy and server software, under contract to AT&T. That software is owned by AT&T and I have no financial interest in it. I have been a member of the RADIUS WG for several years, and consider myself an advocate for RADIUS against what I consider unjustified attacks on it. I've never worked for any of the companies whose staff have produced any of the proposals, although I obviously might at some future time. 1.4. Requirements Validation Process For each of the base requirements documents, the chair assigned a team member to re-validate the requirement. The process was fairly mechanical; the evaluator looked at what was said in [AAAReqts], and verified that the references and supporting text in the basis document supported the requirement in [AAAReqts] as stated. Where the reference was wrong, too general, missing or otherwise did not support the requirement, the evaluator either deleted or downgraded the requirement. The results of that process were sent to the AAA mailing list and are also included in this document in the appendixes. The group's used [AAAReqts] as modified by our validation findings to evaluate the AAA proposals.
1.5. Proposal Evaluation For each of the four proposals, the chair assigned two panel members to write evaluation briefs. One member was assigned to write a 'PRO' brief and could take the most generous interpretation of the proposal; he could grant benefit of doubt. The other member was assigned to write a 'CON' brief and was required to use the strictest criteria when doing his evaluation. Each brief looked at each individual requirement and evaluated how close the proposal came in meeting that requirement. Each item was scored as one of an 'F' for failed to meet the requirement, 'P' for partially meeting the requirement, or 'T' for totally meeting the requirement. The proposals were scored only on the information presented. This means that a particular protocol might actually meet the specifics of a requirement, but if the proposal did not state, describe or reference how that requirement was met, in might be scored lower. The panel met by teleconference to discuss each proposal and the PRO and CON briefs. Each of the briefers discussed the high points of the brief and gave his summary findings for the proposal. We then discussed each individual requirement line-by-line as a group. At the conclusion, the members provided their own line-by-line evaluations which were used to determine the consensus evaluation for the specific requirement relative to that proposal. The meeting notes from those teleconferences as well as the individual briefs are included in the appendixes. 1.6. Final Recommendations Process The panel met for one last time to compare the results for the four proposals and to ensure we'd used consistent evaluation criteria. We did a requirement by requirement discussion, then a discussion of each of the protocols. The final phase was for each member to provide his final summary evaluation for each of the protocols. Each proposal was scored as either Not Acceptable, Acceptable Only For Accounting, Acceptable with Engineering and Fully Acceptable. Where a proposal was acceptable with engineering, the member indicated whether it would be a small, medium or large amount. It should be noted that score indicated the opinion of the team member. And they may have taken into consideration background knowledge or additional issues not captured in the minutes presented here.
Each member's scores were used within the group to develop the group's consensus. 2. Protocol Proposals The following proposal documents were submitted to the AAA WG for consideration by the deadline. - SNMP: [SNMPComp] "Comparison of SNMPv3 Against AAA Network Access Requirements", Work in Progress. - RADIUS Enhancements: [RADComp] "Comparison of RADIUS Against AAA Network Access Requirements", Work in Progress. [RADExt] "Framework for the extension of the RADIUS(v2) protocol", Work in Progress. - Diameter [DIAComp] "Comparison of Diameter Against AAA Network Access Requirements", Work in Progress. - COPS for AAA: [COPSComp] "Comparison of COPS Against the AAA NA Requirements", Work in Progress. [COPSAAA] "COPS Usage for AAA", Work in Progress. 3. Item Level Compliance Evaluation For each requirement item, the group reviewed the proposal's level of compliance. Where the proposal was lacking, the evaluators may have made supposition on how hard it would be to resolve the problem. The following shows the consensus results for each requirement item. Key: T = Total Compliance, Meets all requirements fully P = Partial Compliance, Meets some requirements F = Failed Compliance, Does not meet requirements acceptably Where two are shown eg: P/T, there was a tie.
The sub-section numbering corresponds to the requirements document section and item numbers. This relative numbering was also used in the Protocol Position presentations, here in the appendices. 3.1 General Requirements 3.1.1 Scalability - SNMP:P, RADIUS:P, Diameter:T, COPS:T SNMP was downgraded due to a lack of detail of how the current agent model would be adapted to a client request based transaction. The RADIUS proposal did not address the problem adequately. There are open issues in all proposals with respect to webs of proxies. 3.1.2 Fail-over - SNMP:P, RADIUS:P, Diameter:P, COPS:T/P The group particularly noted that it didn't think any protocol did well in this requirement. Insufficient work has been done to specify link failure detection and primary server recovery in most submissions. COPS has some mechanisms but not all. How these mechanisms would work in a web of proxies has not been addressed. 3.1.3 Mutual Authentication - SNMP:T, RADIUS:T/P, Diameter:T, COPS:T Many of the submissions missed the point of the requirement. There should be a way for the peers to authenticate each other, end-to-end, or user-to-server. However, the group questions who really needs this feature, and if it could be done at a different level. Mutual authentication in RADIUS is only between hops. 3.1.4 Transmission Level Security - SNMP:T, RADIUS:P, Diameter:T, COPS:T All protocols have methods of securing the message data. 3.1.5 Data Object Confidentiality - SNMP:P, RADIUS:P, Diameter:T, COPS:T This requirement usually comes from third-party situations, such as access outsourcing. Diameter and COPS both use CMS formats to secure data objects. The group is concerned if this method and it's support is perhaps too heavy weight for NAS and some types of edge systems.
3.1.6 Data Object Integrity - SNMP:F, RADIUS:P, Diameter:T, COPS:T How to guard the data object from changes was not adequately described in the SNMP proposal. The RADIUS solution was not very strong either. 3.1.7 Certificate Transport - SNMP:T, RADIUS:T, Diameter:T, COPS:T All protocols can figure out some way to transport a certificate. 3.1.8 Reliable AAA Transport - SNMP:P, RADIUS:P, Diameter:T, COPS:T The requirement does not give a definition of "how reliable" it must be. The SNMP and RADIUS proposals lacked in providing solutions to message retransmission and recovery. 3.1.9 Run over IPv4 - SNMP:T, RADIUS:T, Diameter:T, COPS:T 3.1.10 Run over IPv6 - SNMP:P, RADIUS:T, Diameter:T, COPS:T The SNMP proposal indicated that this area is still in the experimental stages. 3.1.11 Support Proxy and Routing Brokers - SNMP:F, RADIUS:P, Diameter:T, COPS:P The SNMP proposal did not address this requirement. COPS claims support, but does not work through some of the issues. Diameter was the only protocol that attempted to address this area to a fair extent. 3.1.12 Auditability - SNMP:F, RADIUS:F, Diameter:T, COPS:P We treated this requirement as something like "non-repudiation". There is a concern that digital signatures may be too computationally expensive for some equipment, and not well deployed on those platforms. The SNMP and RADIUS proposals did not attempt to work this requirement. COPS suggests that a History PIB will help solve this problem but gives no description.
3.1.13 Shared Secret Not Required - SNMP:P/T, RADIUS:T, Diameter:T, COPS:T The requirement is interpreted to mean that any application level security can be turned off in the presence of transport level security. Pretty much every protocol can use an enveloping secure transport that would allow them not to use an internal secret. 3.1.14 Ability to Carry Service Specific Attributes - SNMP:T, RADIUS:T, Diameter:T, COPS:T 3.2 Authentication Requirements 3.2.1 NAI Support - SNMP:T, RADIUS:T, Diameter:T, COPS:T 3.2.2 CHAP Support - SNMP:T, RADIUS:T, Diameter:T, COPS:T 3.2.3 EAP Support - SNMP:T, RADIUS:T, Diameter:T, COPS:T 3.2.4 PAP/Clear-text Passwords - SNMP:T, RADIUS:T, Diameter:T, COPS:T The requirement for clear-text passwords comes from one-time-password systems and hard-token (SecurID) systems. 3.2.5 Reauthentication on demand - SNMP:T, RADIUS:P, Diameter:P, COPS:T To supply this, the proposal must have asynchronous peer-to-peer capabilities, and there must defined operation for such state changes. We also distinguished event-driven Reauthentication from timer-driven (or lifetime-driven). Also concerned about how this would work in a proxy environment. 3.2.6 Authorization w/o Authentication - SNMP:P, RADIUS:T/P, Diameter:T, COPS:T This requirement really means authorization with trivial authentications (e.g. by assertion or knowledge).
3.3 Authorization Requirements 3.3.1 Static and Dynamic IP Addr Assignment - SNMP:P/F, RADIUS:T, Diameter:T, COPS:T There is difficulty in interpreting what is static or dynamic with respect to the viewpoint of the client, server, administrator or user. 3.3.2 RADIUS Gateway Capability - SNMP:P, RADIUS:P, Diameter:T/P, COPS:P It was noted that any new capability in a new AAA protocol would not be able to map directly back to RADIUS. But this is already a problem within a RADIUS environment. 3.3.3 Reject Capability - SNMP:T/P/F, RADIUS:T, Diameter:T, COPS:P 3.3.4 Preclude Layer 2 Tunneling - SNMP:F, RADIUS:T, Diameter:T, COPS:T 3.3.5 Reauthorization on Demand - SNMP:P/F, RADIUS:P, Diameter:T/P, COPS:T Some evaluators wondered how the server will know that re- authorization is supposed to be done? Will it interface to something external, or have sufficient internals? 3.3.6 Support for Access Rules & Filters - SNMP:P, RADIUS:P, Diameter:P, COPS:T/P Only the Diameter proposal actually tackled this issue, but the group felt that the rules as designed were too weak to be useful. There was also concern about standardizing syntax without defining semantics. 3.3.7 State Reconciliation - SNMP:F, RADIUS:P/F, Diameter:P, COPS:T/P All of the protocols were weak to non-existent on specifying how this would be done in a web of proxies situation. 3.3.8 Unsolicited Disconnect - SNMP:T, RADIUS:P, Diameter:T, COPS:T 3.4 Accounting Requirements 3.4.1 Real Time Accounting - SNMP:T, RADIUS:T, Diameter:T, COPS:T
3.4.2 Mandatory Compact Encoding - SNMP:T, RADIUS:T, Diameter:T, COPS:T 3.4.3 Accounting Record Extensibility - SNMP:T, RADIUS:T, Diameter:T, COPS:T 3.4.4 Batch Accounting - SNMP:T, RADIUS:F, Diameter:P, COPS:P Some members of the group are not sure how this fits into the rest of the AAA protocol, which is primarily real-time and event driven. Would this be better met with FTP? 3.4.5 Guaranteed Delivery - SNMP:T, RADIUS:T, Diameter:T, COPS:T 3.4.6 Accounting Timestamps - SNMP:T, RADIUS:T, Diameter:T, COPS:T 3.4.7 Dynamic Accounting - SNMP:T, RADIUS:T, Diameter:T, COPS:T 3.5 MOBILE IP Requirements 3.5.1 Encoding of MOBILE IP Registration Messages - SNMP:T, RADIUS:T/P, Diameter:T, COPS:T 3.5.2 Firewall Friendly - SNMP:F, RADIUS:T, Diameter:P, COPS:P There was considerable discussion about what it means to be "firewall friendly". It was suggested that not making the firewall look into packets much beyond the application port number. Protocols such as SNMP and COPS are at a disadvantage, as you must look far into the packet to understand the intended operation. Diameter will have the disadvantage of SCTP, which is not well deployed or recognized at the moment. SNMP and COPS also have the problem that they are used for other types of operations than just AAA. Should firewalls have AAA Proxy engines? We didn't look at "NAT friendly" issues either. COPS:T The group is not clear on how this requirement impacts the actual protocol. Raj explained it to us, but we mostly took it on faith.
4. Protocol Evaluation Summaries 4.1. SNMP SNMP is generally not acceptable as a general AAA protocol. There may be some utility in its use for accounting, but the amount of engineering to turn it into a viable A&A protocol argues against further consideration. 4.2. Radius++ Radius++ is not considered acceptable as an AAA protocol. There is a fairly substantial amount of engineering required to make it meet all requirements, and that engineering would most likely result in something close to the functionality of Diameter. 4.3. Diameter Diameter is considered acceptable as an AAA protocol. There is some minor engineering required to bring it into complete compliance with the requirements but well within short term capabilities. Diameter might also benefit from the inclusion of a broader data model ala COPS. 4.4. COPS COPS is considered acceptable as an AAA protocol. There is some minor to medium engineering required to bring it into complete compliance with the requirements. 4.5. Summary Recommendation The panel expresses a slight preference for Diameter based on the perception that the work for Diameter is further along than for COPS. However, using SCTP as the transport mechanism for Diameter places SCTP on the critical path for Diameter. This may ultimately result in COPS being a faster approach if SCTP is delayed in any way. 5. Security Considerations AAA protocols enforce the security of access to the Internet. The design of these protocols and this evaluation process took many security requirements as critical issues for evaluation. A candidate protocol must meet the security requirements as documented, and must be engineered and reviewed properly as developed and deployed.
6. References [AAAReqts] Aboba, B., Clahoun, P., Glass, S., Hiller, T., McCann, P., Shiino, H., Walsh, P., Zorn, G., Dommety, G., Perkins, C., Patil, B., Mitton, D., Manning, S., Beadles, M., Chen, X., Sivalingham, S., Hameed, A., Munson, M., Jacobs, S., Lim, B., Hirschman, B., Hsu, R., Koo, H., Lipford, M., Campbell, E., Xu, Y., Baba, S. and E. Jaques, "Criteria for Evaluating AAA Protocols for Network Access", RFC 2989, April 2000. [AAAComp] Ekstein, TJoens, Sales and Paridaens, "AAA Protocols: Comparison between RADIUS, Diameter and COPS", Work in Progress. [SNMPComp] Natale, "Comparison of SNMPv3 Against AAA Network Access Requirements", Work in Progress. [RADComp] TJoens and DeVries, "Comparison of RADIUS Against AAA Network Access Requirements", Work in Progress. [RADExt] TJoens, Ekstein and DeVries, "Framework for the extension of the RADIUS (v2) protocol", Work in Progress, [DIAComp] Calhoun, "Comparison of Diameter Against AAA Network Access Requirements", Work in Progress. [COPSComp] Khosravi, Durham and Walker, "Comparison of COPS Against the AAA NA Requirements", Work in Progress. [COPSAAA] Durham, Khosravi, Weiss and Filename, "COPS Usage for AAA", Work in Progress. 7. Authors' Addresses David Mitton Nortel Networks 880 Technology Park Drive Billerica, MA 01821 Phone: 978-288-4570 EMail: email@example.com
Michael StJohns Rainmaker Technologies 19050 Pruneridge Ave, Suite 150 Cupertino, CA 95014 Phone: 408-861-9550 x5735 EMail: firstname.lastname@example.org Stuart Barkley UUNET F1-1-612 22001 Loudoun County Parkway Ashburn, VA 20147 US Phone: 703-886-5645 EMail: email@example.com David B. Nelson Enterasys Networks, Inc. (a Cabletron Systems company) 50 Minuteman Road Andover, MA 01810-1008 Phone: 978-684-1330 EMail: firstname.lastname@example.org Basavaraj Patil Nokia 6000 Connection Dr. Irving, TX 75039 Phone: +1 972-894-6709 EMail: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com Mark Stevens Ellacoya Networks 7 Henry Clay Drive Merrimack, NH 03054 Phone: 603-577-5544 ext. 325 EMail: email@example.com Barney Wolff, Pres. Databus Inc. 15 Victor Drive Irvington, NY 10533-1919 USA Phone: 914-591-5677 EMail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Appendix A - Summary Evaluations Consensus Results by Requirement and Protocol Requirement Section SNMP Radius++ Diameter COPS 1.1.1 P P T T 1.1.2 P P P T/P 1.1.3 T T/P T T 1.1.4 T P T T 1.1.5 P P T T 1.1.6 F P T T 1.1.7 T T T T 1.1.8 P P T T 1.1.9 T T T T 1.1.10 P T T T 1.1.11 F P T P 1.1.12 F F T P 1.1.13 P/T T T T 1.1.14 T T T T 1.2.1 T T T T 1.2.2 T T T T 1.2.3 T T T T 1.2.4 T T T T 1.2.5 T P P T 1.2.6 P T/P T T 1.3.1 P/F T T T 1.3.2 P T T/P P 1.3.3 T/P/F T T P 1.3.4 F T T T 1.3.5 P/F P T/P T 1.3.6 P P P T/P 1.3.7 F P/F P T/P 1.3.8 T P T T 1.4.1 T T T T 1.4.2 T T T T 1.4.3 T T T T 1.4.4 T F P P 1.4.5 T T T T 1.4.6 T T T T 1.4.7 T T T T 1.5.1 T T/P T T 1.5.2 F T P P 1.5.3 F P T T
Appendix B - Review of the Requirements Comments from the Panel on then work in progress, "Criteria for Evaluating AAA Protocols for Network Access" now revised and published as RFC 2989. This became the group standard interpretation of the requirements at the time. B.1 General Requirements Scalability - In clarification [a], delete "and tens of thousands of simultaneous requests." This does not appear to be supported by any of the three base documents. Transmission level security - [Table] Delete the ROAMOPS "M" and footnote "6". This appears to be an over generalization of the roaming protocol requirement not necessarily applicable to AAA. Data object confidentiality - [Table] Delete the MOBILE IP "S" and footnote "33". The base document text does not appear to support this requirement. Reliable AAA transport mechanism - In clarification [h] delete everything after the "...packet loss" and replace with a ".". The requirements listed here are not necessarily supported by the base document and could be mistakenly taken as requirements for the AAA protocol in their entirety. Run over IPv4 - [Table] Replace the MOBILE IP footnote "17" with footnote "33". This appears to be a incorrect reference. Run over IPv6 - [Table] Replace the MOBILE IP footnote "18" with a footnote pointing to section 8 of . This appears to be an incorrect reference. Auditability - Clarification [j] does not appear to coincide with the NASREQ meaning of Auditability. Given that NASREQ is the only protocol with an auditability requirement, this section should be aligned with that meaning. Shared secret not required - [Table] General - This section is misleadingly labeled. Our team has chosen to interpret it as specified in clarification [k] rather than any of the possible interpretations of "shared secret not required". We recommend the tag in the table be replaced with "Dual App and Transport Security Not Required" or something at least somewhat descriptive of [k]. Delete the NASREQ "S" and footnote "28" as not supported by the NASREQ document. Delete the MOBILE IP "O" and footnotes "34" and 39" as not supported.
B.2 Authentication Requirements NAI Support - [Table] Replace MOBILE IP footnote "38" with "39". This appears to be a more appropriate reference. CHAP Support - [Table] Delete MOBILE IP "O" as unsupported. EAP Support - [Table] Delete MOBILE IP "O" as unsupported. PAP/Clear-Text Support - [Table] Replace NASREQ footnote "10" with "26" as being more appropriate. Replace ROAMOPS "B" with "O". The reference text appears to not explicitly ban this and specifically references clear text for OTP applications. Delete MOBILE IP "O" as unsupported. Re-authentication on demand - Clarification [e] appears to go beyond the requirements in NASREQ and MOBILE IP. [Table] Delete MOBILE IP footnote "30" as inapplicable. Authorization Only without Authentication - Clarification [f] does not include all NASREQ requirements, specifically that unneeded credentials MUST NOT be required to be filled in. Given that there are no other base requirements (after deleting the MOBILE IP requirement) we recommend that clarification [f] be brought in line with NASREQ. [Table] Delete MOBILE IP "O" and footnote "30". The referenced text does not appear to support the requirement. B.3 Authorization Requirements Static and Dynamic... - Clarification [a] appears to use a particularly strange definition of static and dynamic addressing. Recommend clarification here identifying who (e.g. client or server) thinks address is static/dynamic. [Table] ROAMOPS "M" appears to be a derived requirement instead of directly called out. The footnote "1" should be changed to "5" as being more appropriate. A text clarification should be added to this document identifying the derived requirement. RADIUS Gateway capability - [Table] Delete the MOBILE IP "O" and footnote "30". The referenced text does not appear to support the requirement. Reject capability - [Table] Delete the NASREQ "M" and footnote "12". The NASREQ document does not appear to require this capability.
Reauthorization on Demand - [Table] Delete the MOBILE IP "S" and footnotes "30,33" The referenced text does not support this requirement. Support for Access Rules... - Clarification [e] has a overbroad list of requirements. NASREQ only requires 5-8 on the list, and as The MOBILE IP requirement is not supported by its references, this clarification should match NASREQ requirements. [Table] Delete the MOBILE IP "O" and footnotes "30,37" as not supported. State Reconciliation - Clarification [f] should be brought in line with NASREQ requirements. The clarification imposes overbroad requirements not required by NASREQ and NASREQ is the only service with requirements in this area. B.4 Accounting Requirements Real-Time accounting - [Table] Replace MOBILE IP footnote  with a footnote pointing to section 3.1 of  as being more appropriate. Mandatory Compact Encoding - [Table] Delete MOBILE IP "M" and footnote "33" as the reference does not support the requirement. Accounting Record Extensibility - [Table] Delete NASREQ "M" and footnote "15" as the reference does not support the requirement. Accounting Time Stamps - [Table] Delete MOBILE IP "S" and footnote "30" as they don't support the requirement. Replace MOBILE IP footnote "40" with a footnote pointing to section 3.1 of  as being more appropriate. Dynamic Accounting - [Table] Replace the NASREQ footnote "18" with a footnote pointing to section 126.96.36.199 of . Delete the MOBILE IP "S" and footnote "30" as the reference does not support the requirement. Footnote section.  should be pointing to 6.1 of .  should be pointing to 6.2.2 of .  should be pointing to 6.4 of .  should be pointing to 8 of .