Tech-invite3GPPspaceIETF RFCsSIP
93929190898887868584838281807978777675747372717069686766656463626160595857565554535251504948474645444342414039383736353433323130292827262524232221201918171615141312111009080706050403020100
in Index   Prev   Next

RFC 4675

RADIUS Attributes for Virtual LAN and Priority Support

Pages: 15
Proposed Standard
Errata

Top   ToC   RFC4675 - Page 1
Network Working Group                                         P. Congdon
Request for Comments: 4675                                    M. Sanchez
Category: Standards Track                        Hewlett-Packard Company
                                                                B. Aboba
                                                   Microsoft Corporation
                                                          September 2006


         RADIUS Attributes for Virtual LAN and Priority Support

Status of This Memo

   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 (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

This document proposes additional Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS) attributes for dynamic Virtual LAN assignment and prioritization, for use in provisioning of access to IEEE 802 local area networks. These attributes are usable within either RADIUS or Diameter.
Top   ToC   RFC4675 - Page 2

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ....................................................3 1.1. Terminology ................................................3 1.2. Requirements Language ......................................3 1.3. Attribute Interpretation ...................................3 2. Attributes ......................................................4 2.1. Egress-VLANID ..............................................4 2.2. Ingress-Filters ............................................6 2.3. Egress-VLAN-Name ...........................................7 2.4. User-Priority-Table ........................................8 3. Table of Attributes ............................................10 4. Diameter Considerations ........................................10 5. IANA Considerations ............................................11 6. Security Considerations ........................................11 7. References .....................................................12 7.1. Normative References ......................................12 7.2. Informative References ....................................13 8. Acknowledgements ...............................................13
Top   ToC   RFC4675 - Page 3

1. Introduction

This document describes Virtual LAN (VLAN) and re-prioritization attributes that may prove useful for provisioning of access to IEEE 802 local area networks [IEEE-802] with the Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS) or Diameter. While [RFC3580] enables support for VLAN assignment based on the tunnel attributes defined in [RFC2868], it does not provide support for a more complete set of VLAN functionality as defined by [IEEE-802.1Q]. The attributes defined in this document provide support within RADIUS and Diameter analogous to the management variables supported in [IEEE-802.1Q] and MIB objects defined in [RFC4363]. In addition, this document enables support for a wider range of [IEEE-802.1X] configurations.

1.1. Terminology

This document uses the following terms: Network Access Server (NAS) A device that provides an access service for a user to a network. Also known as a RADIUS client. RADIUS server A RADIUS authentication server is an entity that provides an authentication service to a NAS. RADIUS proxy A RADIUS proxy acts as an authentication server to the NAS, and a RADIUS client to the RADIUS server.

1.2. Requirements Language

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

1.3. Attribute Interpretation

The attributes described in this document apply to a single instance of a NAS port, or more specifically an IEEE 802.1Q bridge port. [IEEE-802.1Q], [IEEE-802.1D], and [IEEE-802.1X] do not recognize finer management granularity than "per port". In some cases, such as with IEEE 802.11 wireless LANs, the concept of a "virtual port" is used in place of the physical port. Such virtual ports are typically based on security associations and scoped by station, or Media Access Control (MAC) address.
Top   ToC   RFC4675 - Page 4
   The attributes defined in this document are applied on a per-user
   basis and it is expected that there is a single user per port;
   however, in some cases that port may be a "virtual port".  If a NAS
   implementation conforming to this document supports "virtual ports",
   it may be possible to provision those "virtual ports" with unique
   values of the attributes described in this document, allowing
   multiple users sharing the same physical port to each have a unique
   set of authorization parameters.

   If a NAS conforming to this specification receives an Access-Accept
   packet containing an attribute defined in this document that it
   cannot apply, it MUST act as though it had received an Access-Reject.
   [RFC3576] requires that a NAS receiving a Change of Authorization
   Request (CoA-Request) reply with a CoA-NAK if the Request contains an
   unsupported attribute.  It is recommended that an Error-Cause
   attribute with the value set to "Unsupported Attribute" (401) be
   included in the CoA-NAK.  As noted in [RFC3576], authorization
   changes are atomic so that this situation does not result in session
   termination and the preexisting configuration remains unchanged.  As
   a result, no accounting packets should be generated.

2. Attributes

2.1. Egress-VLANID

Description The Egress-VLANID attribute represents an allowed IEEE 802 Egress VLANID for this port, indicating if the VLANID is allowed for tagged or untagged frames as well as the VLANID. As defined in [RFC3580], the VLAN assigned via tunnel attributes applies both to the ingress VLANID for untagged packets (known as the PVID) and the egress VLANID for untagged packets. In contrast, the Egress-VLANID attribute configures only the egress VLANID for either tagged or untagged packets. The Egress-VLANID attribute MAY be included in the same RADIUS packet as [RFC3580] tunnel attributes; however, the Egress-VLANID attribute is not necessary if it is being used to configure the same untagged VLANID included in tunnel attributes. To configure an untagged VLAN for both ingress and egress, the tunnel attributes of [RFC3580] MUST be used. Multiple Egress-VLANID attributes MAY be included in Access- Request, Access-Accept, CoA-Request, or Accounting-Request packets; this attribute MUST NOT be sent within an Access- Challenge, Access-Reject, Disconnect-Request, Disconnect-ACK,
Top   ToC   RFC4675 - Page 5
      Disconnect-NAK, CoA-ACK, or CoA-NAK.  Each attribute adds the
      specified VLAN to the list of allowed egress VLANs for the port.

      The Egress-VLANID attribute is shown below.  The fields are
      transmitted from left to right:

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |     Type      |    Length     |            Value
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
              Value (cont)            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Type

      56

   Length

      6

   Value

      The Value field is four octets.  The format is described below:

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  Tag Indic.   |        Pad            |       VLANID          |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      The Tag Indication field is one octet in length and indicates
      whether the frames on the VLAN are tagged (0x31) or untagged
      (0x32).  The Pad field is 12 bits in length and MUST be 0 (zero).
      The VLANID is 12 bits in length and contains the [IEEE-802.1Q]
      VLAN VID value.
Top   ToC   RFC4675 - Page 6

2.2. Ingress-Filters

Description The Ingress-Filters attribute corresponds to the Ingress Filter per-port variable defined in [IEEE-802.1Q] clause 8.4.5. When the attribute has the value "Enabled", the set of VLANs that are allowed to ingress a port must match the set of VLANs that are allowed to egress a port. Only a single Ingress-Filters attribute MAY be sent within an Access-Request, Access-Accept, CoA-Request, or Accounting-Request packet; this attribute MUST NOT be sent within an Access-Challenge, Access-Reject, Disconnect-Request, Disconnect-ACK, Disconnect-NAK, CoA-ACK, or CoA-NAK. The Ingress-Filters attribute is shown below. The fields are transmitted from left to right: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | Value +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Value (cont) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type 57 Length 6 Value The Value field is four octets. Supported values include: 1 - Enabled 2 - Disabled
Top   ToC   RFC4675 - Page 7

2.3. Egress-VLAN-Name

Description Clause 12.10.2.1.3 (a) in [IEEE-802.1Q] describes the administratively assigned VLAN Name associated with a VLAN-ID defined within an IEEE 802.1Q bridge. The Egress-VLAN-Name attribute represents an allowed VLAN for this port. It is similar to the Egress-VLANID attribute, except that the VLAN-ID itself is not specified or known; rather, the VLAN name is used to identify the VLAN within the system. The tunnel attributes described in [RFC3580] and the Egress-VLAN- Name attribute both can be used to configure the egress VLAN for untagged packets. These attributes can be used concurrently and MAY appear in the same RADIUS packet. When they do appear concurrently, the list of allowed VLANs is the concatenation of the Egress-VLAN-Name and the Tunnel-Private-Group-ID (81) attributes. The Egress-VLAN-Name attribute does not alter the ingress VLAN for untagged traffic on a port (also known as the PVID). The tunnel attributes from [RFC3580] should be relied upon instead to set the PVID. The Egress-VLAN-Name attribute contains two parts; the first part indicates if frames on the VLAN for this port are to be represented in tagged or untagged format, the second part is the VLAN name. Multiple Egress-VLAN-Name attributes MAY be included within an Access-Request, Access-Accept, CoA-Request, or Accounting-Request packet; this attribute MUST NOT be sent within an Access- Challenge, Access-Reject, Disconnect-Request, Disconnect-ACK, Disconnect-NAK, CoA-ACK, or CoA-NAK. Each attribute adds the named VLAN to the list of allowed egress VLANs for the port. The Egress-VLAN-Name attribute is shown below. The fields are transmitted from left to right: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | Tag Indic. | String... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type 58
Top   ToC   RFC4675 - Page 8
   Length

      >=4

   Tag Indication

      The Tag Indication field is one octet in length and indicates
      whether the frames on the VLAN are tagged (0x31, ASCII '1') or
      untagged (0x32, ASCII '2').  These values were chosen so as to
      make them easier for users to enter.

   String

      The String field is at least one octet in length and contains the
      VLAN Name as defined in [IEEE-802.1Q] clause 12.10.2.1.3 (a).
      [RFC3629] UTF-8 encoded 10646 characters are RECOMMENDED, but a
      robust implementation SHOULD support the field as undistinguished
      octets.

2.4. User-Priority-Table

Description [IEEE-802.1D] clause 7.5.1 discusses how to regenerate (or re-map) user priority on frames received at a port. This per-port configuration enables a bridge to cause the priority of received traffic at a port to be mapped to a particular priority. [IEEE-802.1D] clause 6.3.9 describes the use of remapping: The ability to signal user priority in IEEE 802 LANs allows user priority to be carried with end-to-end significance across a Bridged Local Area Network. This, coupled with a consistent approach to the mapping of user priority to traffic classes and of user priority to access_priority, allows consistent use of priority information, according to the capabilities of the Bridges and MACs in the transmission path... Under normal circumstances, user priority is not modified in transit through the relay function of a Bridge; however, network management can control how user priority is propagated. Table 7-1 provides the ability to map incoming user priority values on a per-Port basis. By default, the regenerated user priority is identical to the incoming user priority. This attribute represents the IEEE 802 prioritization that will be applied to frames arriving at this port. There are eight possible user priorities, according to the [IEEE-802] standard. [IEEE-802.1D] clause 14.6.2.3.3 specifies the regeneration table
Top   ToC   RFC4675 - Page 9
      as 8 values, each an integer in the range 0-7.  The management
      variables are described in clause 14.6.2.2.

      A single User-Priority-Table attribute MAY be included in an
      Access-Accept or CoA-Request packet; this attribute MUST NOT be
      sent within an Access-Request, Access-Challenge, Access-Reject,
      Disconnect-Request, Disconnect-ACK, Disconnect-NAK, CoA-ACK, CoA-
      NAK or Accounting-Request.  Since the regeneration table is only
      maintained by a bridge conforming to [IEEE-802.1D], this attribute
      should only be sent to a RADIUS client supporting that
      specification.

      The User-Priority-Table attribute is shown below.  The fields are
      transmitted from left to right:

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |     Type      |  Length       |          String
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                    String
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                    String            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Type

      59

   Length

      10

   String

      The String field is 8 octets in length and includes a table that
      maps the incoming priority (if it is set -- the default is 0) into
      one of eight regenerated priorities.  The first octet maps to
      incoming priority 0, the second octet to incoming priority 1, etc.
      The values in each octet represent the regenerated priority of the
      frame.

      It is thus possible to either remap incoming priorities to more
      appropriate values; to honor the incoming priorities; or to
      override any incoming priorities, forcing them to all map to a
      single chosen priority.
Top   ToC   RFC4675 - Page 10
      The [IEEE-802.1D] specification, Annex G, provides a useful
      description of traffic type - traffic class mappings.

3. Table of Attributes

The following table provides a guide to which attributes may be found in which kinds of packets, and in what quantity. Access- Access- Access- Access- CoA- Acct- Request Accept Reject Challenge Req Req # Attribute 0+ 0+ 0 0 0+ 0+ 56 Egress-VLANID 0-1 0-1 0 0 0-1 0-1 57 Ingress-Filters 0+ 0+ 0 0 0+ 0+ 58 Egress-VLAN-Name 0 0-1 0 0 0-1 0 59 User-Priority-Table The following table defines the meaning of the above table entries. 0 This attribute MUST NOT be present in the packet. 0+ Zero or more instances of this attribute MAY be present in the packet. 0-1 Zero or one instance of this attribute MAY be present in the packet.

4. Diameter Considerations

When used in Diameter, the attributes defined in this specification can be used as Diameter attribute-value pair (AVPs) from the Code space 1-255 (RADIUS attribute compatibility space). No additional Diameter Code values are therefore allocated. The data types and flag rules for the attributes are as follows: +---------------------+ | AVP Flag rules | |----+-----+----+-----|----+ | | |SHLD| MUST| | Attribute Name Value Type |MUST| MAY | NOT| NOT|Encr| -------------------------------|----+-----+----+-----|----| Egress-VLANID OctetString| M | P | | V | Y | Ingress-Filters Enumerated | M | P | | V | Y | Egress-VLAN-Name UTF8String | M | P | | V | Y | User-Priority-Table OctetString| M | P | | V | Y | -------------------------------|----+-----+----+-----|----| The attributes in this specification have no special translation requirements for Diameter to RADIUS or RADIUS to Diameter gateways; they are copied as is, except for changes relating to headers, alignment, and padding. See also [RFC3588] Section 4.1 and [RFC4005] Section 9.
Top   ToC   RFC4675 - Page 11
   What this specification says about the applicability of the
   attributes for RADIUS Access-Request packets applies in Diameter to
   AA-Request [RFC4005] or Diameter-EAP-Request [RFC4072].  What is said
   about Access-Challenge applies in Diameter to AA-Answer [RFC4005] or
   Diameter-EAP-Answer [RFC4072] with Result-Code AVP set to
   DIAMETER_MULTI_ROUND_AUTH.

   What is said about Access-Accept applies in Diameter to AA-Answer or
   Diameter-EAP-Answer messages that indicate success.  Similarly, what
   is said about RADIUS Access-Reject packets applies in Diameter to
   AA-Answer or Diameter-EAP-Answer messages that indicate failure.

   What is said about COA-Request applies in Diameter to Re-Auth-Request
   [RFC4005].

   What is said about Accounting-Request applies to Diameter
   Accounting-Request [RFC4005] as well.

5. IANA Considerations

This specification does not create any new registries. This document uses the RADIUS [RFC2865] namespace; see <http://www.iana.org/assignments/radius-types>. Allocation of four updates for the section "RADIUS Attribute Types" has been made by the IANA. The RADIUS attributes are: 56 - Egress-VLANID 57 - Ingress-Filters 58 - Egress-VLAN-Name 59 - User-Priority-Table

6. Security Considerations

This specification describes the use of RADIUS and Diameter for purposes of authentication, authorization, and accounting in IEEE 802 local area networks. RADIUS threats and security issues for this application are described in [RFC3579] and [RFC3580]; security issues encountered in roaming are described in [RFC2607]. For Diameter, the security issues relating to this application are described in [RFC4005] and [RFC4072]. This document specifies new attributes that can be included in existing RADIUS packets, which are protected as described in [RFC3579] and [RFC3576]. In Diameter, the attributes are protected as specified in [RFC3588]. See those documents for a more detailed description.
Top   ToC   RFC4675 - Page 12
   The security mechanisms supported in RADIUS and Diameter are focused
   on preventing an attacker from spoofing packets or modifying packets
   in transit.  They do not prevent an authorized RADIUS/Diameter server
   or proxy from inserting attributes with malicious intent.

   VLAN attributes sent by a RADIUS/Diameter server or proxy may enable
   access to unauthorized VLANs.  These vulnerabilities can be limited
   by performing authorization checks at the NAS.  For example, a NAS
   can be configured to accept only certain VLANIDs from a given
   RADIUS/Diameter server/proxy.

   Similarly, an attacker gaining control of a RADIUS/Diameter server or
   proxy can modify the user priority table, causing either degradation
   of quality of service (by downgrading user priority of frames
   arriving at a port), or denial of service (by raising the level of
   priority of traffic at multiple ports of a device, oversubscribing
   the switch or link capabilities).

7. References

7.1. Normative References

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC2865] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson, "Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 2865, June 2000. [RFC3588] Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J. Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, September 2003. [RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003. [RFC4363] Levi, D. and D. Harrington, "Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges with Traffic Classes, Multicast Filtering, and Virtual LAN Extensions", RFC 4363, January 2006. [IEEE-802] IEEE Standards for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Overview and Architecture, ANSI/IEEE Std 802, 1990. [IEEE-802.1D] IEEE Standards for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges, IEEE Std 802.1D-2004, June 2004.
Top   ToC   RFC4675 - Page 13
   [IEEE-802.1Q] IEEE Standards for Local and Metropolitan Area
                 Networks: Draft Standard for Virtual Bridged Local Area
                 Networks, P802.1Q-2003, January 2003.

7.2. Informative References

[IEEE-802.1X] IEEE Standards for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Port based Network Access Control, IEEE Std 802.1X-2004, December 2004. [RFC2607] Aboba, B. and J. Vollbrecht, "Proxy Chaining and Policy Implementation in Roaming", RFC 2607, June 1999. [RFC2868] Zorn, G., Leifer, D., Rubens, A., Shriver, J., Holdrege, M., and I. Goyret, "RADIUS Attributes for Tunnel Protocol Support", RFC 2868, June 2000. [RFC3576] Chiba, M., Dommety, G., Eklund, M., Mitton, D., and B. Aboba, "Dynamic Authorization Extensions to Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 3576, July 2003. [RFC3579] Aboba, B. and P. Calhoun, "RADIUS (Remote Authentication Dial In User Service) Support For Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)", RFC 3579, September 2003. [RFC3580] Congdon, P., Aboba, B., Smith, A., Zorn, G., and J. Roese, "IEEE 802.1X Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) Usage Guidelines", RFC 3580, September 2003. [RFC4005] Calhoun, P., Zorn, G., Spence, D., and D. Mitton, "Diameter Network Access Server Application", RFC 4005, August 2005. [RFC4072] Eronen, P., Hiller, T., and G. Zorn, "Diameter Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Application", RFC 4072, August 2005.

8. Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Joseph Salowey of Cisco, David Nelson of Enterasys, Chuck Black of Hewlett-Packard, and Ashwin Palekar of Microsoft.
Top   ToC   RFC4675 - Page 14

Authors' Addresses

Paul Congdon Hewlett-Packard Company HP ProCurve Networking 8000 Foothills Blvd, M/S 5662 Roseville, CA 95747 Phone: +1 916 785 5753 Fax: +1 916 785 8478 EMail: paul.congdon@hp.com Mauricio Sanchez Hewlett-Packard Company HP ProCurve Networking 8000 Foothills Blvd, M/S 5559 Roseville, CA 95747 Phone: +1 916 785 1910 Fax: +1 916 785 1815 EMail: mauricio.sanchez@hp.com Bernard Aboba Microsoft Corporation One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052 Phone: +1 425 706 6605 Fax: +1 425 936 7329 EMail: bernarda@microsoft.com
Top   ToC   RFC4675 - Page 15
Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

   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 AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).