Network Working Group T. Hardjono Request for Comments: 3740 Verisign Category: Informational B. Weis Cisco March 2004 The Multicast Group Security Architecture 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 (2004). All Rights Reserved.
AbstractThis document provides an overview and rationale of the multicast security architecture used to secure data packets of large multicast groups. The document begins by introducing a Multicast Security Reference Framework, and proceeds to identify the security services that may be part of a secure multicast solution. 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1. Scope. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.2. Summary of Contents of Document. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.3. Audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.4. Terminology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Architectural Design: The Multicast Security Reference Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. The Reference Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. Elements of the Centralized Reference Framework. . . . . 5 2.2.1. Group Controller and Key Server. . . . . . . . . 6 2.2.2. Sender and Receiver. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2.3. Policy Server. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.3. Elements of the Distributed Reference Framework. . . . . 8 3. Functional Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.1. Multicast Data Handling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2. Group Key Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.3. Multicast Security Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4. Group Security Associations (GSA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.1. The Security Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2. Structure of a GSA: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.3. Structure of a GSA: Reasoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.4. Definition of GSA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.5. Typical Compositions of a GSA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5. Security Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.1. Multicast Data Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.2. Multicast Source Authentication and Data Integrity . . . 18 5.3. Multicast Group Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.4. Multicast Group Membership Management. . . . . . . . . . 19 5.5. Multicast Key Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 5.6. Multicast Policy Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 6. Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 6.1. Multicast Data Handling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 6.2. Group Key Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 6.3. Multicast Security Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 9. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 10. Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 STW]) can be more efficient for small ad-hoc group communication. This architecture is "end to end", and does not require multicast routing protocols (e.g., PIM [RFC2362]) to participate in this architecture. Inappropriate routing may cause denial of service to application layer groups conforming to this architecture. However the routing cannot affect the authenticity or secrecy of group data or management packets. The multicast routing protocols could themselves use this architecture to protect their own multicast and group packets. However, this would be independent of any secure application layer group.
This architecture does not require IP multicast admission control protocols (e.g., IGMP [RFC3376], MLD [RFC3019]) to be a part of secure multicast groups. As such, a "join" or "leave" operation for a secure group is independent of a "join" or "leave" of an IP multicast group. For example, the process of joining a secure group requires being authenticated and authorized by a security device, while the process of joining an IP multicast group entails contacting a multicast-aware router. Admission control protocols could themselves use this architecture to protect their own multicast packets. However, this would be independent of any secure application layer group. This architecture does not explicitly describe how secure multicast groups deal with Network Address Translation (NAT) [RFC2663]. Multicast routing protocols generally require the source and destination addresses and ports of an IP multicast packet to remain unchanged. This allows consistent multicast distribution trees to be created throughout the network. If NAT is used in a network, then the connectivity of senders and receivers may be adversely affected. This situation is neither improved or degraded as a result of deploying this architecture. This architecture does not require the use of reliable mechanisms, for either data or management protocols. The use of reliable multicast routing techniques (e.g., FEC [RFC3453]) enhance the availability of secure multicast groups. However the authenticity or secrecy of group data or management packets is not affected by the omission of that capability from a deployment.
the inter-relations among them. It also expresses multicast security from the perspective of multicast group types (1-to-N and M-to-N), and classes of protocols (the exchanged messages) needed to secure multicast packets. The aim of the Reference Framework is to provide some general context around the functional areas, and the relationships between the functional areas. Note that some issues span more than one functional area. In fact, the framework encourages the precise identification and formulation of issues that involve more than one functional area or those which are difficult to express in terms of a single functional area. An example of such a case is the expression of policies concerning group keys, which involves both the functional areas of group key management and multicast policies. When considering the Reference Framework diagrams, it is important to realize that the singular "boxes" in the framework do not necessarily imply a corresponding singular entity implementing a given function. Rather, a box in the framework should be interpreted loosely as pertaining to a given function related to a functional area. Whether that function is in reality implemented as one or more physical entities is dependent on the particular solution. As an example, the box labeled "Key Server" must be interpreted in broad terms as referring to the functions of key management. Similarly, the Reference Framework acknowledges that some implementations may in fact merge a number of the "boxes" into a single physical entity. This could be true even across functional areas. For example, an entity in a group could act as both a Group Controller and a Sender to a group. The protocols to be standardized are depicted in the Reference Framework diagrams by the arrows that connect the various boxes. See more details in Section 4, below. Figure 1 contains boxes and arrows. The boxes are the functional entities and the arrows are the interfaces between them. Standard protocols are needed for the interfaces, which support the multicast services between the functional entities. In some cases, a system implementing the multicast security architecture may not need to implement protocols to account for every interface. Rather, those interfaces may be satisfied through the use of manual configuration, or even omitted if they are not necessary for the application.
There are three sets of functional entities. Each is discussed below. +--------------------------------------+ | | | | | FUNCTIONAL | | AREAS | | | | +------+ | | Multicast |Policy| | | Security |Server| | | Policies +------+ | | ^ | | | | | | | | v | | +------+ | | Group |Group | | | Key |Ctrl/ |<---------+ | | Management |Key | | | | |Server| V | | +------+ +--------+ | | ^ | | | | | |Receiver| | | | | | | | v +--------+ | | +------+ ^ | | | | | | | Multicast |Sender|----------+ | | Data | | | | Handling | | | | +------+ | | | +--------------------------------------+ Figure 1: Centralized Multicast Security Reference Framework
The Key Server (KS) and the Group Controller (GC) have somewhat different functionality and may in principle be regarded as separate entities. Currently the framework regards the two entities as one "box" in order to simplify the design, and in order not to mandate standardization of the protocol between the KS and the GC. It is stressed that the KS and GC need not be co-located. Furthermore, future designs may choose to standardize the protocol between the GC and the KS, without altering other components.
Figure 2 shows how distributed designs supporting large group scalability fit into the Reference Framework. +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ | | | | | FUNCTIONAL | | AREAS | | +------+ +------+ | | Multicast |Policy|<-------------------------------->|Policy| | | Security |Server| |Server| | | Policies +------+ +------+ | | ^ ^ | | | | | | | | | | v v | | +------+ +------+ | | Group |Group |<-------------------------------> |Group | | | Key |Ctrl/ |<---------+ |Ctlr/ | | | Management |Key | | |Key | | | |Server| V |Server| | | +------+ +--------+ +------+ | | ^ | | ^ | | | |Receiver| | | | | | | | | | v +--------+ | | | +------+ ^ V | | | | | +--------+ | | Multicast |Sender|----------+ | | | | Data | |-------------------------------->|Receiver| | | Handling | | | | | | +------+ +--------+ | +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ Figure 2: Distributed Multicast Security Reference Framework In a distributed design the GCKS entity interacts with other GCKS entities to achieve scalability in the key management related services. GCKS entities will require a means of authenticating their peer GCKS entities, a means of authorization, and a means of interacting securely to pass keys and policy.
Similarly, Policy Servers must interact with each other securely to allow the communication and enforcement of policies across the Internet. Two Receiver boxes are displayed corresponding to the situation where both the Sender and Receiver employ the same GCKS entity (centralized architecture) and where the Sender and Receiver employ different GCKS entities (distributed architecture). In the distributed design, all Receivers must obtain identical keys and policy. Each member of a multicast group may interact with a primary GCKS entity (e.g., the "nearest" GCKS entity, measured in terms of a well-defined and consistent metric). Similarly, a GCKS entity may interact with one or more Policy Servers, also arranged in a distributed architecture. Section 3.1. - Group Key Management. This area is concerned with the secure distribution and refreshment of keying material. This functional area is further discussed in Section 3.2. - Multicast Security Policies. This area covers aspects of policy in the context of multicast security, taking into consideration the fact that policies may be expressed in different ways: that they may exist at different levels in a given multicast security architecture, and that they may be interpreted differently according to the context in which they are specified and implemented. This functional area is further discussed in Section 3.3.
b. Group authentication. This type of authentication only guarantees that the data was generated (or last modified) by some group member. It does not guarantee data integrity unless all group members are trusted. While multicast encryption and group authentication are fairly standard and similar to encrypting and authenticating a point-to- point communication, source authentication for multicast is considerably more involved. Consequently, off-the-shelf solutions (e.g., taken from IPsec [RFC2406]) may be sufficient for encryption and group authentication. For source authentication, however, special-purpose transformations are necessary. See [CCPRRS] for further elaboration on the concerns regarding the data transforms. Multicast data encrypted and/or authenticated by a sender should be handled the same way by both centralized and distributed receivers, (as shown in Figure 2). The "Multicast Encapsulating Security Payload" [BCCR] provides the definition for Multicast ESP for data traffic. The "Multicast Source Authentication Transform Specification" [PCW] defines the use of the TESLA algorithm for source authentication in multicast.
Core to the area of key management is Security Association (SA) Management, which will be discussed further below. A "Group Key Management Architecture" document [BCDL] further defines the key management architecture for multicast security. It builds on the Group Security Association (GSA) concept, and further defines the roles of the Key Server and Group Controller. "The Group Domain of Interpretation" [RFC3547], "GSAKMP" [GSAKMP], and "MIKEY" [ACLNM] are three instances of protocols implementing the group key management function. Din], Group Key Management Protocol [Har1, Har2], and Antigone [McD]. Policy creation for secure multicast has several more dimensions than the single administrator specified policy assumed in the existing unicast policy frameworks. Secure multicast groups are usually large and by their very nature extend over several administrative domains,
if not spanning a different domain for each user. There are several methods that need to be considered in the creation of a single, coherent group security policy. They include a top-down specification of the group policy from the group initiator and negotiation of the policy between the group members (or prospective members). Negotiation can be as simple as a strict intersection of the policies of the members or extremely complicated using weighted voting systems. The translation of policy rules from one data model to another is much more difficult in a multicast group environment. This is especially true when group membership spans multiple administrative domains. Policies specified at a high level with a Policy Management tool must be translated into more precise rules that the available security policy mechanisms can both understand and implement. When dealing with multicast communication and its multiple participants, it is essential that the individual translation performed for each participant result in the use of a mechanism that is interoperable with the results of all of the other translations. Typically, the translation from high-level policy to specific policy objects must result in the same objects in order to achieve communication between all of the group members. The requirement that policy translation results in the same objects places constraints on the use and representations in the high-level policies. It is also important that policy negotiation and translation be performed as an integral part of joining a group. Adding a member to a group is meaningless if they will not be able to participate in the group communications. RFC2401, RFC2406bis, RFC2409]). This document uses the term to mean any set of policy and cryptographic keys that provide security services for the network traffic matching that policy. A Security Association usually contains the following attributes: - selectors, such as source and destination transport addresses. - properties, such as an security parameter index (SPI) or cookie pair, and identities. - cryptographic policy, such as the algorithms, modes, key lifetimes, and key lengths used for authentication or confidentiality. - keys, such as authentication, encryption and signing keys.
Group key management uses a different set of abstractions than point-to-point key management systems (such as IKE [RFC2409]). Notwithstanding, the abstractions used in the Group Key Management functional area may be built from the point-to-point key management abstractions. Figure 3, the GSA builds on the SA in two distinct ways. - First, the GSA is a superset of an SA (Figure 3(a)). A GSA has group policy attributes. For example, the kind of signed credentials needed for group membership, whether group members will be given new keys when a member is added (called "backward re-key" below), or whether group members will be given new keys when a member is removed from the group ("forward re-key"). A GSA also includes an SA as an attribute of itself. - Second, the GSA is an aggregation of SAs (Figure 3(b)). A GSA is comprised of multiple SAs, and these SAs may be used for several independent purposes. +---------------+ +-------------------+ | GSA | | GSA | | | | +-----+ +-----+ | | | | | SA1 | | SA2 | | | +----+ | | +-----+ +-----+ | | | SA | | | +-----+ | | +----+ | | | SA3 | | | | | +-----+ | +---------------+ +-------------------+ (a) superset (b) aggregation Figure 3: Relationship of GSA to SA
Figure 4 shows three categories of SAs that can be aggregated into a GSA. +------------------------------------------------------------+ | | | +------------------+ | | | GCKS | | | | | | | | REG REG | | | | / REKEY \ | | | +---/-----|----\---+ | | / | \ | | / | \ | | / | \ | | / | \ | | / | \ | | +----------/------+ | +------\----------+ | | | REG | | | REG | | | | REKEY-----+----REKEY | | | | Sender | | Receiver | | | | DATA----------DATA | | | +-----------------+ +-----------------+ | | | | | +------------------------------------------------------------+ Figure 4: GSA Structure and 3 categories of SAs The three categories of SAs are: - Registration SA (REG): A separate unicast SA between the GCKS and each group member, regardless of whether the group member is a sender or a receiver or acting in both roles. - Re-key SA (REKEY): A single multicast SA between the GCKS and all of the group members. - Data Security SA (DATA): A multicast SA between each multicast source speaker and the group's receivers. There may be as many data SAs as there are multicast sources allowed by the group's policy. Each of these SAs are defined in more detail in the next section.
Figure 4 in detail. - Registration SA (REG): An SA is required for (bi-directional) unicast communications between the GCKS and a group member (be it a Sender or Receiver). This SA is established only between the GCKS and a Member. The GCKS entity is charged with access control to the group keys, with policy distribution to members (or prospective members), and with group key dissemination to Sender and Receiver members. This use of a (unicast) SA as a starting point for key management is common in a number of group key management environments [RFC3547, GSAKMP, CCPRRS, RFC2627, BMS]. The Registration SA is initiated by the member to pull GSA information from the GCKS. This is how the member requests to join the secure group, or has its GSA keys re-initialized after being disconnected from the group (e.g., when its host computer has been turned off during re-key operations). The GSA information pulled down from the GCKS is related to the other two SAs defined as part of the GSA. Note that this (unicast) SA is used to protect the other elements of the GSA. As such, the Registration SA is crucial and is inseparable from the other two SAs in the definition of a GSA. However, the requirement of a registration SA does not imply the need of a registration protocol to create that Registration SA. The registration SA could instead be setup through some manual means, such as distributed on a smart card. Thus, what is important is that a Registration SA exists, and is used to protect the other SAs. From the perspective of one given GCKS, there are as many unique registration SAs as there are members (Senders and/or Receivers) in the group. This may constitute a scalability concern for some applications. A registration SA may be established on-demand with a short lifetime, whereas re-key and data security SAs are established at least for the life of the sessions that they support. Conversely the registration SA could be left in place for the duration of the group lifetime, if scalability is not an issue. Such a long term registration SA would be useful for re- synchronization or deregistration purposes.
- Re-key SA (REKEY): In some cases, a GCKS needs the ability to "push" new SAs as part of the GSA. These new SAs must be sent to all group members. In other cases, the GCKS needs the ability to quickly revoke access to one or more group members. Both of these needs are satisfied with the Re-key SA. This Re-key SA is a unidirectional multicast transmission of key management messages from the GCKS to all group members. As such, this SA is known by the GCKS and by all members of the group. This SA is not negotiated, since all the group members must share it. Thus, the GCKS must be the authentic source and act as the sole point of contact for the group members to obtain this SA. A rekey SA is not absolutely required to be part of a GSA. For example, the lifetime of some groups may be short enough such that a rekey is not necessary. Conversely, the policy for the group could specify multiple rekey SAs of different types. For example, if the GC and KS are separate entities, the GC may deliver rekey messages that adjust the group membership, and the KS may deliver rekey messages with new DATA SAs. - Data Security SA (DATA): The Data Security SA protects data between member senders and member receivers. One or more SAs are required for the multicast transmission of data-messages from the Sender to other group members. This SA is known by the GCKS and by all members of the group. Regardless of the number of instances of this third category of SA, this SA is not negotiated. Rather, all group members obtain it from the GCKS. The GCKS itself does not use this category of SA. From the perspective of the Receivers, there is at least one data security SA for the member sender (one or more) in the group. If the group has more than one data security SA, the data security protocol must have a means of differentiating the SAs (e.g., with a SPI).
There are a number of possibilities with respect to the number of data security SAs: 1. Each sender in the group could be assigned a unique data security SA, thereby resulting in each receiver having to maintain as many data security SAs as there are senders in the group. In this case, each sender may be verified using source origin authentication techniques. 2. The entire group deploys a single data security SA for all senders. Receivers would then be able to maintain only one data security SA. 3. A combination of 1. and 2. Figure 2. Distinct security services are assigned to specific interfaces. For example, multicast source authentication, data authentication, and confidentiality occur on the multicast data interface between Senders and Receivers in Figure 2. Authentication and confidentiality services may also be needed between the Key Server and group members (i.e., the Senders and Receivers of Figure 2), but the services that are needed for multicast key management may be unicast as well as multicast. A security service in the Multicast Security Reference Framework therefore identifies a specific function along one or more Figure 2 interfaces.
This paper does not attempt to analyze the trust relationships, detailed functional requirements, performance requirements, suitable algorithms, and protocol specifications for IP multicast and application-layer multicast security. Instead, that work will occur as the security services are further defined and realized in algorithms and protocols. Figure 2, the Multicast Data Confidentiality security service is placed in Multicast Data Handling Area along the interface between Senders and Receivers. The algorithms and protocols that are realized from work on this security service may be applied to other interfaces and areas of Figure 2 when multicast data confidentiality is needed.
requirements of many IP multicast applications. There are classes of application-layer multicast security, however, where offline source and data authentication will suffice. As discussed previously, not all multicast applications require real-time authentication and data-packet integrity. A robust solution to multicast source and data authentication, however, is necessary for a complete solution to multicast security. In Figure 2, the Multicast Source and Data Authentication security service is placed in Multicast Data Handling Area along the interface between Senders and Receivers. The algorithms and protocols that are produced for this functional area may have applicability to security services in other functional area that use multicast services such as Group Key Management. RFC3376], MLD [RFC3019]). Registration includes member authentication, notification and negotiation of security parameters, and logging of information according to the policies of the group controller and the would-be
member. (Typically, an out-of-band advertisement of group information would occur before the registration takes place. The registration process will typically be invoked by the would-be member.) De-registration may occur either at the initiative of the member or at the initiative of the group controller. It would result in logging of the de-registration event by the group controller and an invocation of the appropriate mechanism for terminating the membership of the de-registering member (see Section 5.5). This security service also describes the functionality of the communication related to group membership among different GCKS servers in a distributed group design. In Figure 2, the Multicast Group Membership security service is placed in the Group Key Management Area and has interfaces to Senders and Receivers. RFC2627, BMS]. Key Servers and group members may take advantage of a common Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) for increased scalability of authentication and authorization. To allow for an interoperable and secure IP multicast security protocol, this security service may need to specify host abstractions such as a group security association database (GSAD) and a group security policy database (GSPD) for IP multicast security. The degree of overlap between IP multicast and application-layer multicast key management needs to be considered. Thus, this security service takes into account the key management requirements for IP
multicast, the key management requirements for application-layer multicast, and to what degree specific realizations of a Multicast Key Management security service can satisfy both. ISAKMP, moreover, has been designed to be extensible to multicast key management for both IP multicast and application-layer multicast security [RFC2408]. Thus, multicast key management protocols may use the existing ISAKMP standard's Phase 1 and Phase 2 protocols, possibly with needed extensions (such as GDOI [RFC3547] or application-layer multicast security). This security service also describes the functionality of the communication related to key management among different GCKS servers in a distributed group design. Multicast Key Management appears in both the centralized and distributed designs as shown in Figure 2 and is placed in the Group Key Management Area. RFC2748]. Thus, it may not be necessary to re-invent a separate architecture for multicast security policy. At minimum, however, this security service will be realized in a set of policy definitions, such as multicast security conditions and actions. The Multicast Policy Management security service describes the functionality of the communication between an instance of a GCKS to an instance of the Policy Server. The information transmitted may include policies concerning groups, memberships, keying material definition and their permissible uses, and other information. This security service also describes communication between and among Policy Servers. Group members are not expected to directly participate in this security service. However, this option is not ruled out.
Section 1.1 describes the relationship of the network infrastructure to the multicast group security architecture. Section 3.1 elaborates on the security requirements for this area. Section 3.2 describes the security requirements of this area in more detail.
[RFC2401] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998. [RFC2408] Maughan, D., Shertler, M., Schneider, M. and J. Turner, "Internet Security Association and Key Management Protocol", RFC 2408, November 1998. [ACLNM] J. Arkko, et. al., "MIKEY: Multimedia Internet KEYing", Work in Progress, December 2003. [BCCR] M. Baugher, R. Canetti, P. Cheng, P. Rohatgi, "MESP: A Multicast Framework for the IPsec ESP", Work in Progress, October 2002. [BCDL] M. Baugher, R. Canetti, L. Dondeti, F. Lindholm, "Group Key Management Architecture", Work in Progress, September 2003. [BMS] D. Balenson, D. McGrew, A. Sherman, Key Management for Large Dynamic Groups: One-Way Function Trees and Amortized Initialization, http://www.securemulticast.org/draft-balenson- groupkeymgmt-oft-00.txt, Work in Progress, February 1999. [CCPRRS] Canetti, R., Cheng P. C., Pendarakis D., Rao, J., Rohatgi P., Saha D., "An IPSec-based Host Architecture for Secure Internet Multicast", http://www.isoc.org/isoc/conferences/ndss/2000/ proceedings/028.pdf, NDSS 2000.
[Din] Dinsmore, P., Balenson, D., Heyman, M., Kruus, P., Scace, C., and Sherman, A., "Policy-Based Security Management for Large Dynamic Groups: An Overview of the DCCM Project," DARPA Information Survivability Conference and Exposition, http://download.nai.com/products/media/nai/doc/discex- 110199.doc. [GSAKMP] H. Harney, et. al., "GSAKMP", Work in Progress, October 2003. [Har1] Harney, H. and C. Muckenhirn, "Group Key Management Protocol (GKMP) Specification", RFC 2093, July 1997. [Har2] Harney, H. and C. Muckenhirn, "Group Key Management Protocol (GKMP) Architecture", RFC 2094, July 1997. [McD] McDaniel, P., Honeyman, P., and Prakash, A., "Antigone: A Flexible Framework for Secure Group Communication," Proceedings of the Eight USENIX Security Symposium, pp 99-113, August, 1999. [PCW] Perrig, A., Canetti, R. and B. Whillock, TESLA: Multicast Source Authentication Transform Specification", Work in Progress, October 2002. [RFC2362] Estrin, D., Farinacci, D., Helmy, A., Thaler, D., Deering, S., Handley, M., Jacobson, V., Liu, C., Sharma, P. and L. Wei, "Protocol Independent Multicast-Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification", RFC 2362, June 1998. [RFC2406] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", RFC 2406, November 1998. [RFC2406bis] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", Work in Progress, March 2003. [RFC2409] Harkins, D. and D. Carrel, "The Internet Key Exchange (IKE)", RFC 2409, November 1998. [RFC2627] Wallner, D., Harder, E. and R. Agee, "Key Management for Multicast: Issues and Architectures", RFC 2627, September 1998. [RFC2663] Srisuresh, P. and M. Holdrege, "IP Network Address Translator (NAT) Terminology and Considerations", RFC 2663, August 1999.
[RFC2748] Durham, D., Ed., Boyle, J., Cohen, R., Herzong, S., Rajan, R. and A. Sastry, "COPS (Common Open Policy Service) Protocol", RFC 2748, January 2000. [RFC3019] Haberman, B. and R. Worzella, "IP Version 6 Management Information Base for The Multicast Listener Discovery Protocol", RFC 3019, January 2001. [RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B. and A. Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 3", RFC 3376, October 2002. [RFC3453] Luby, M., Vicisano, L., Gemmell, J., Rizzo, M., Handley, M. and J. Crowcroft, "The Use of Forward Error Correction (FEC) in Reliable Multicast", RFC 3453, December 2002. [RFC3547] Baugher, M., Weis, B., Hardjono, T. and H. Harney, "The Group Domain of Interpretation", RFC 3547, December 2002. [STW] M., Steiner, Tsudik, G., Waidner, M., CLIQUES: A New Approach to Group key Agreement, IEEE ICDCS'98 , May 1998.
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 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- email@example.com. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.