1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095 2096 2097 2098 2099 2100 2101 2102 2103 2104 2105 2106 2107 2108 2109 2110 2111 2112 2113 2114 2115 2116 2117 2118 2119 2120 2121 2122 2123 2124 2125 2126 2127 2128 2129 2130 2131 2132 2133 2134 2135 2136 2137 2138 2139 2140 2141 2142 2143 2144 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 2153 2154 2155 2156 2157 2158 2159 2160 2161 2162 2163 2164 2165 2166 2167 2168 2169 2170 2171 2172 2173 2174 2175 2176 2177 2178 2179 2180 2181 2182 2183 2184 2185 2186 2187
|
Network Working Group DeKok, Alan
INTERNET-DRAFT FreeRADIUS
Updates: 2865,3162,6158,6572
Category: Standards Track
<draft-ietf-radext-datatypes-08.txt>
18 October 2016
Data Types in the Remote Authentication
Dial-In User Service Protocol (RADIUS)
Abstract
RADIUS specifications have used data types for two decades without
defining them as managed entities. During this time, RADIUS
implementations have named the data types, and have used them in
attribute definitions. This document updates the specifications to
better follow established practice. We do this by naming the data
types defined in RFC 6158, which have been used since at least the
publication of RFC 2865. We provide an IANA registry for the data
types, and update the RADIUS Attribute Type registry to include a
"Data Type" field for each attribute. Finally, we recommend that
authors of RADIUS specifications use these types in preference to
existing practice. This document updates RFC 2865, 3162, 6158, and
6572.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 18, 2017.
DeKok, Alan Standards Track [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Types in RADIUS 18 October 2016
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
DeKok, Alan Standards Track [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Types in RADIUS 18 October 2016
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ............................................. 4
1.1. Specification Problems with Data Types .............. 4
1.2. Implementation Problems with Data Types ............. 5
1.3. No Mandated Changes ................................. 5
1.4. Requirements Language ............................... 5
2. Use of Data Types ........................................ 6
2.1. Specification Use of Data Types ..................... 6
2.1.1. Field Names for Attribute Values ............... 6
2.1.2. Attribute Definitions using Data Types ......... 7
2.1.3. Format of Attribute Definitions ................ 7
2.1.4. Defining a New Data Type ....................... 8
2.2. Implementation Use of Data Types .................... 9
3. Data Type Definitions .................................... 11
3.1. integer ............................................. 12
3.2. enum ................................................ 12
3.3. time ................................................ 13
3.4. text ................................................ 13
3.5. string .............................................. 14
3.6. concat .............................................. 16
3.7. ifid ................................................ 16
3.8. ipv4addr ............................................ 17
3.9. ipv6addr ............................................ 18
3.10. ipv6prefix ......................................... 18
3.11. ipv4prefix ......................................... 20
3.12. integer64 .......................................... 21
3.13. tlv ................................................ 22
3.14. vsa ................................................ 23
3.15. extended ........................................... 24
3.16. long-extended ...................................... 26
3.17. evs ................................................ 29
4. Updated Registries ....................................... 30
4.1. Create a Data Type Registry ......................... 30
4.2. Updates to the Attribute Type Registry .............. 31
5. Security Considerations .................................. 36
6. IANA Considerations ...................................... 37
7. References ............................................... 37
7.1. Normative References ................................ 37
7.2. Informative References .............................. 38
DeKok, Alan Standards Track [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Types in RADIUS 18 October 2016
1. Introduction
RADIUS specifications have historically defined attributes in terms
of name, value, and data type. Of these three pieces of information,
the name is recorded by IANA in the RADIUS Attribute Type registry,
but not otherwise managed or restricted, as discussed in [RFC6929]
Section 2.7.1. The value is managed by IANA, and recorded in that
registry. The data type is not managed or recorded in the RADIUS
Attribute Type registry. Experience has shown that there is a need
to create well known data types, and have them managed by IANA.
This document defines an IANA RADIUS Data Type registry, and updates
the RADIUS Attribute Type registry to use those newly defined data
types. It recommends how both specifications and implementations
should use the data types. It extends the RADIUS Attribute Type
registry to have a data type for each assigned attribute.
In this section, we review the use of data types in specifications
and implementations. Whe highlight ambiguities and inconsistencies.
The rest of this document is devoted to resolving those problems.
1.1. Specification Problems with Data Types
When attributes are defined in the specifications, the terms "Value"
and "String" are used to refer to the contents of an attribute.
However, these names are used recursively and inconsistently. We
suggest that defining a field to recursively contain itself is
problematic.
A number of data type names and definitions are given in [RFC2865]
Section 5, at the bottom of page 25. These data types are named and
clearly defined. However, this practice was not continued in later
specifications.
Specifically, [RFC2865] defines attributes of data type "address" to
carry IPv4 addresses. Despite this definition, [RFC3162] defines
attributes of data type "Address" to carry IPv6 addresses. We
suggest that the use of the word "address" to refer to disparate data
types is problematic.
Other failures are that [RFC3162] does not give a data type name and
definition for the data types IPv6 address, Interface-Id, or IPv6
prefix. [RFC2869] defines Event-Timestamp to carry a time, but does
not re-use the "time" data type defined in [RFC2865]. Instead, it
just repeats the "time" definition. [RFC6572] defines multiple
attributes which carry IPv4 prefixes. However, an "IPv4 prefix" data
type is not named, defined as a data type, or called out as an
addition to RADIUS. Further, [RFC6572] does not follow the
DeKok, Alan Standards Track [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Types in RADIUS 18 October 2016
recommendations of [RFC6158], and does not explain why it fails to
follow those recommendations.
These ambiguities and inconsistencies need to be resolved.
1.2. Implementation Problems with Data Types
RADIUS implementations often use "dictionaries" to map attribute
names to type values, and to define data types for each attribute.
The data types in the dictionaries are defined by each
implementation, but correspond to the "ad hoc" data types used in the
specifications.
In effect, implementations have seen the need for well-defined data
types, and have created them. It is time for RADIUS specifications
to follow this practice.
1.3. No Mandated Changes
This document mandates no changes to any RADIUS implementation, past,
present, or future. It instead documents existing practice, in order
to simplify the process of writing RADIUS specifications, to clarify
the interpretation of RADIUS standards, and to improve the
communication between specification authors and IANA.
This document suggests that implementations SHOULD use the data types
defined here, in preference to any "ad hoc" data types currently in
use. This suggestion should have minimal effect on implementations,
as most "ad hoc" data types are compatible with the ones defined
here. Any difference will typically be limited to the name of the
data type.
This document updates [RFC6158] to permit the data types defined in
the "Data Type registry" as "basic data types", as per Section 2.1 of
that document. The recommendations of [RFC6158] are otherwise
unchanged.
1.4. 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].
DeKok, Alan Standards Track [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Types in RADIUS 18 October 2016
2. Use of Data Types
The Data Types can be used in two places: specifications, and
implementations. This section discusses both uses, and gives
guidance on using the data types.
2.1. Specification Use of Data Types
In this section, we give recommendations for how specifications
should be written using data types. We first describe how attribute
field names can be consistently named. We then describe how
attribute definitions should use the data types, and deprecate the
use of "ASCII art" for attribute definitions. We suggest a format
for new attribute definitions. This format includes recommended
fields, and suggestions for how those fields should be described.
Finally, we make recommendations for how new data types should be
defined.
2.1.1. Field Names for Attribute Values
Previous specifications used inconsistent and conflicting names for
the contents of RADIUS attributes. For example, the term "Value" is
used in [RFC2865] Section 5 to define a field which carries the
contents of attribute. It is then used in later sections as the sub-
field of attribute contents. The result is that the field is defined
as recursively containing itself. Similarly, "String" is used both
as a data type, and as a sub-field of other data types.
We correct this ambiguity by using context-specific names for various
fields of attributes and data types. It then becomes clear that, for
example, that a field called "VSA-Data" must contain different data
than a field called "EVS-Data". Each new name is defined where it is
used.
We also define the following term:
Attr-Data
The "Value" field of an Attribute as defined in [RFC2865]
Section 5. The contents of this field MUST be of a valid data
type as defined in the RADIUS Data Type registry.
We consistently use "Attr-Data" to refer to the contents of an
attribute, instead of the more ambiguous name "Value". It is
RECOMMENDED that new specifications follow this practice.
We consistently use "Value" to refer to the contents of a data type,
DeKok, Alan Standards Track [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Types in RADIUS 18 October 2016
where that data type is simple. For example, an "integer" can have a
"Value". In contrast, a Vendor-Specific attribute carries complex
information, and thus cannot have a "Value".
For data types which carry complex information, we name the fields
based on the data type. For example, a Vendor-Specific attribute is
defined to carry a "vsa" data type, and the contents of that data
type are described herein as "VSA-Data".
These terms are used in preference to the term "String", which was
previously used in ambiguous ways. It is RECOMMENDED that future
specifications use type-specific names, and the same naming scheme
for new types. This use will maintain consistent definitions, and
help to avoid ambiguities.
2.1.2. Attribute Definitions using Data Types
New RADIUS specifications MUST define attributes using data types
from the RADIUS Data Type registry. The specification may, of
course, define a new data type update the "Data Types" registry, and
use the new data type, all in the same document. The guidelines
given in [RFC6929] MUST be followed when defining a new data type.
Attributes can usually be completely described via the Attribute Type
value, name, and data type. The use of "ASCII art" is then limited
only to the definition of new data types, and for complex data types.
Use of the new extended attributes [RFC6929] makes ASCII art even
more problematic. An attribute can be allocated from any of the
extended spaces, with more than one option for attribute header
format. This allocation decision is made after the specification has
been accepted for publication. As the allocation affects the format
of the attribute header, it is essentially impossible to create the
correct ASCII art prior to final publication. Allocation from the
different spaces also changes the value of the Length field, also
making it difficult to define it correctly prior to final publication
of the document.
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that "ASCII art" diagrams not be used for
new RADIUS attribute specifications.
2.1.3. Format of Attribute Definitions
When defining a new attribute, the following fields SHOULD be given:
Description
DeKok, Alan Standards Track [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Types in RADIUS 18 October 2016
A description of the meaning and interpretation of the
attribute.
Type
The Attribute Type value, given in the "dotted number" notation
from [RFC6929]. Specifications can often leave this as "TBD",
and request that IANA fill in the allocated values.
Length
A description of the length of the attribute. For attributes
of variable length, a maximum length SHOULD be given. Since
the Length may depend on the Type, the definition of Length may
be affected by IANA allocations.
Data Type
One of the named data types from the RADIUS Data Type registry.
Value
A description of any attribute-specific limitations on the
values carried by the specified data type. If there are no
attribute-specific limitations, then the description of this
field can be omitted, so long as the Description field is
sufficiently explanatory.
Where the values are limited to a subset of the possible range,
valid range(s) MUST be defined.
For attributes of data type "enum", a list of enumerated values
and names MUST be given, as with [RFC2865] Section 5.6.
Using a consistent format for attribute definitions helps to make the
definitions clearer.
2.1.4. Defining a New Data Type
When a specification needs to define a new data type, it SHOULD
follow the format used by the definitions in Section 3 of this
document. The text at the start of the data type definition MUST
describe the data type, including the expected use, and why a new
data type is required. That text SHOULD include limits on expected
values, and why those limits exist. The field's "Name", "Value",
"Length", and "Format", MUST be given, along with values.
The "Name" field SHOULD be a single name, all lower-case.
DeKok, Alan Standards Track [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Types in RADIUS 18 October 2016
Contractions such as "ipv4addr" are RECOMMENDED where they add
clarity.
We note that the use of "Value" in the RADIUS Data Type registry can
be confusing. That name is also used in attribute definitions, but
with a different meaning. We trust that the meaning here is clear
from the context.
The "Value" field SHOULD be given as to be determined or "TBD" in
specifications. That number is assigned by IANA.
The "Format" field SHOULD be defined with "ASCII art" in order to
have a precise definition. Machine-readable formats are also
RECOMMENDED.
The definition of a new data type should be done only when absolutely
necessary. We do not expect a need for a large number of new data
types. When defining a new data type, the guideliness of [RFC6929]
with respect to data types MUST be followed.
It is RECOMMENDED that vendors not define "vendor specific" data
types. As discussed in [RFC6929], those data types are rarely
necessary, and can cause interoperability problems.
Any new data type MUST have unique name in the RADIUS Data Type
registry. The number of the data type will be assigned by IANA.
2.2. Implementation Use of Data Types
Implementations not supporting a particular data type MUST treat
attributes of that data type as being of data type "string", as
defined in Section 3.6. It is RECOMMENDED that such attributes be
treated as "invalid attributes", as defined in [RFC6929] Section 2.8.
Where the contents of a data type do not match the definition,
implementations MUST treat the the enclosing attribute as being an
"invalid attribute". This requirement includes, but is not limited
to, the following situations:
* Attributes with values outside of the allowed range(s) for the
data type, e.g. as given in the data types "integer", "ipv4addr",
"ipv6addr", "ipv4prefix", "ipv6prefix", or "enum".
* "text" attributes where the contents do not match the required
format,
* Attributes where the length is shorter or longer than the allowed
length(s) for the given data type,
DeKok, Alan Standards Track [Page 9]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Types in RADIUS 18 October 2016
The requirements for "reserved" fields are more difficult to
quantify. Implementations SHOULD be able to receive and process
attributes where "reserved" fields are non-zero. We do not, however,
define any "correct" processing of such attributes. Instead,
specifications which define new meaning for "reserved" fields SHOULD
describe how the new meaning is compatible with older
implementations. We expect that such descriptions are derived from
practice. Implementations MUST set "reserved" fields to zero when
creating attributes.
DeKok, Alan Standards Track [Page 10]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Types in RADIUS 18 October 2016
3. Data Type Definitions
This section defines the new data types. For each data type, it
gives a definition, a name, a number, a length, and an encoding
format. Where relevant, it describes subfields contained within the
data type. These definitions have no impact on existing RADIUS
implementations. There is no requirement that implementations use
these names.
Where possible, the name of each data type has been taken from
previous specifications. In some cases, a different name has been
chosen. The change of name is sometimes required to avoid ambiguity
(i.e. "address" versus "Address"). Otherwise, the new name has been
chosen to be compatible with [RFC2865], or with use in common
implementations. In some cases, new names are chosen to clarify the
interpretation of the data type.
The numbers assigned herein for the data types have no meaning other
than to permit them to be tracked by IANA. As RADIUS does not encode
information about data types in a packet, the numbers assigned to a
data type will never occur in a packet. It is RECOMMENDED that new
implementations use the names defined in this document, in order to
avoid confusion. Existing implementations may choose to use the
names defined here, but that is not required.
The encoding of each data type is taken from previous specifications.
The fields are transmitted from left to right.
Where the data types have inter-dependencies, the simplest data type
is given first, and dependent ones are given later.
We do not create specific data types for the "tagged" attributes
defined in [RFC2868]. That specification defines the "tagged"
attributes as being backwards compatible with pre-existing data
types. In addition, [RFC6158] Section 2.1 says that "tagged"
attributes should not be used. There is therefore no benefit to
defining additional data types for these attributes. We trust that
implementors will be aware that tagged attributes must be treated
differently from non-tagged attributes of the same data type.
Similarly, we do not create data types for some attributes having
complex structure, such as CHAP-Password, ARAP-Features, or Location-
Information. We need to strike a balance between correcting earlier
mistakes, and making this document more complex. In some cases, it
is better to treat complex attributes as being of type "string", even
though they need to be interpreted by RADIUS implementations. The
guidelines given in Section 6.3 of [RFC6929] were used to make this
determination.
DeKok, Alan Standards Track [Page 11]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Types in RADIUS 18 October 2016
3.1. integer
The "integer" data type encodes a 32-bit unsigned integer in network
byte order. Where the range of values for a particular attribute is
limited to a sub-set of the values, specifications MUST define the
valid range. Attributes with Values outside of the allowed ranges
SHOULD be treated as "invalid attributes".
Name
integer
Value
1
Length
Four octets
Format
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
3.2. enum
The "enum" data type encodes a 32-bit unsigned integer in network
byte order. It differs from the "integer" data type only in that it
is used to define enumerated types, such as Service-Type (Section 5.6
of [RFC2865]). Specifications MUST define a valid set of enumerated
values, along with a unique name for each value. Attributes with
Values outside of the allowed enumerations SHOULD be treated as
"invalid attributes".
Name
enum
Value
2
Length
DeKok, Alan Standards Track [Page 12]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Types in RADIUS 18 October 2016
Four octets
Format
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
3.3. time
The "time" data type encodes time as a 32-bit unsigned value in
network byte order and in seconds since 00:00:00 UTC, January 1,
1970. We note that dates before the year 2016 are likely to indicate
configuration errors, or lack of access to the correct time.
Note that the "time" attribute is defined to be unsigned, which means
it is not subject to a signed integer overflow in the year 2038.
Name
time
Value
3
Length
Four octets
Format
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Time |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
3.4. text
The "text" data type encodes UTF-8 text [RFC3629]. The maximum
length of the text is given by the encapsulating attribute. Where
the range of lengths for a particular attribute is limited to a sub-
set of possible lengths, specifications MUST define the valid
DeKok, Alan Standards Track [Page 13]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Types in RADIUS 18 October 2016
range(s). Attributes with length outside of the allowed values
SHOULD be treated as "invalid attributes".
Attributes of type "text" which are allocated in the standard space
(Section 1.2 of [RFC6929]) are limited to no more than 253 octets of
data. Attributes of type "text" which are allocated in the extended
space can be longer. In both cases, these limits are reduced when
the data is encapsulated inside of an another attribute.
Where the text is intended to carry data in a particular format,
(e.g. Framed-Route), the format MUST be given. The specification
SHOULD describe the format in a machine-readable way, such as via
Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) [RFC5234]. Attributes with values
not matching the defined format SHOULD be treated as "invalid
attributes".
Note that the "text" data type does not terminate with a NUL octet
(hex 00). The Attribute has a Length field and does not use a
terminator. Texts of length zero (0) MUST NOT be sent; omit the
entire attribute instead.
Name
text
Value
4
Length
One or more octets.
Format
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
| Value ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
3.5. string
The "string" data type encodes binary data, as a sequence of
undistinguished octets. Where the range of lengths for a particular
attribute is limited to a sub-set of possible lengths, specifications
MUST define the valid range(s). Attributes with length outside of
DeKok, Alan Standards Track [Page 14]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Types in RADIUS 18 October 2016
the allowed values SHOULD be treated as "invalid attributes".
Attributes of type "string" which are allocated in the standard space
(Section 1.2 of [RFC6929]) are limited to no more than 253 octets of
data. Attributes of type "string" which are allocated in the
extended space can be longer. In both cases, these limits are
reduced when the data is encapsulated inside of an another attribute.
Note that the "string" data type does not terminate with a NUL octet
(hex 00). The Attribute has a Length field and does not use a
terminator. Strings of length zero (0) MUST NOT be sent; omit the
entire attribute instead. a Where there is a need to encapsulate
complex data structures, and TLVs cannot be used, the "string" data
type MUST be used. This requirement includes encapsulation of data
structures defined outside of RADIUS, which are opaque to the RADIUS
infrastucture. It also includes encapsulation of some data
structures which are not opaque to RADIUS, such as the contents of
CHAP-Password.
There is little reason to define a new RADIUS data type for only one
attribute. However, where the complex data type cannot be
represented as TLVs, and is expected to be used in many attributes, a
new data type SHOULD be defined.
These requirements are stronger than [RFC6158], which makes the above
encapsulation a "SHOULD". This document defines data types for use
in RADIUS, so there are few reasons to avoid using them.
Name
string
Value
5
Length
One or more octets.
Format
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
| Octets ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
DeKok, Alan Standards Track [Page 15]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Types in RADIUS 18 October 2016
3.6. concat
The "concat" data type permits the transport of more than 253 octets
of data in a "standard space" [RFC6929] attribute. It is otherwise
identical to the "string" data type.
If multiple attributes of this data type are contained in a packet,
all attributes of the same type code MUST be in order and they MUST
be consecutive attributes in the packet.
The amount of data transported in a "concat" data type can be no more
than the RADIUS packet size. In practice, the requirement to
transport multiple attributes means that the limit may be
substantially smaller than one RADIUS packet. As a rough guide, is
RECOMMENDED that this data type transport no more than 2048 octets of
data.
The "concat" data type MAY be used for "standard space" attributes.
It MUST NOT be used for attributes in the "short extended space" or
the "long extended space". It MUST NOT be used in any field or
subfields of the following data types: "tlv", "vsa", "extended",
"long-extended", or "evs".
Name
concat
Value
6
Length
One or more octets.
Format
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
| Octets ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
3.7. ifid
The "ifid" data type encodes an Interface-Id as an 8 octet IPv6
Interface Identifier network byte order.
DeKok, Alan Standards Track [Page 16]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Types in RADIUS 18 October 2016
Name
ifid
Value
7
Length
Eight octets
Format
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Interface-ID ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
... Interface-ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
3.8. ipv4addr
The "ipv4addr" data type encodes an IPv4 address in network byte
order. Where the range of address for a particular attribute is
limited to a sub-set of possible addresses, specifications MUST
define the valid range(s). Attributes with Addresses outside of the
allowed range(s) SHOULD be treated as "invalid attributes".
Name
ipv4addr
Value
8
Length
Four octets
Format
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
DeKok, Alan Standards Track [Page 17]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Types in RADIUS 18 October 2016
| Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
3.9. ipv6addr
The "ipv6addr" data type encodes an IPv6 address in network byte
order. Where the range of address for a particular attribute is
limited to a sub-set of possible addresses, specifications MUST
define the valid range(s). Attributes with Addresses outside of the
allowed range(s) SHOULD be treated as "invalid attributes".
Name
ipv6addr
Value
9
Length
Sixteen octets
Format
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Address ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
... Address ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
... Address ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
... Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
3.10. ipv6prefix
The "ipv6prefix" data type encodes an IPv6 prefix, using both a
prefix length and an IPv6 address in network byte order. Where the
range of prefixes for a particular attribute is limited to a sub-set
of possible prefixes, specifications MUST define the valid range(s).
Attributes with Addresses outside of the allowed range(s) SHOULD be
treated as "invalid attributes".
DeKok, Alan Standards Track [Page 18]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Types in RADIUS 18 October 2016
Attributes with a Prefix-Length field having value greater than 128
MUST be treated as "invalid attributes".
Name
ipv6prefix
Value
10
Length
At least two, and no more than eighteen octets.
Format
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Prefix-Length | Prefix ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
... Prefix ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
... Prefix ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
... Prefix |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Subfields
Reserved
This field, which is reserved and MUST be present, is always
set to zero. This field is one octet in length.
Prefix-Length
The length of the prefix, in bits. At least 0 and no larger
than 128. This field is one octet in length.
Prefix
The Prefix field is up to 16 octets in length. Bits outside of
the Prefix-Length, if included, MUST be zero.
The Prefix field SHOULD NOT contain more octets than necessary
to encode the Prefix.
DeKok, Alan Standards Track [Page 19]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Types in RADIUS 18 October 2016
3.11. ipv4prefix
The "ipv4prefix" data type encodes an IPv4 prefix, using both a
prefix length and an IPv4 address in network byte order. Where the
range of prefixes for a particular attribute is limited to a sub-set
of possible prefixes, specifications MUST define the valid range(s).
Attributes with Addresses outside of the allowed range(s) SHOULD be
treated as "invalid attributes".
Attributes with a Prefix-Length field having value greater than 32
MUST be treated as "invalid attributes".
Name
ipv4prefix
Value
11
Length
six octets
Format
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Prefix-Length | Prefix ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
... Prefix |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Subfields
Reserved
This field, which is reserved and MUST be present, is always
set to zero. This field is one octet in length.
Note that this definition differs from that given in [RFC6572].
See Prefix-Length, below, for an explanation.
Prefix-Length
The length of the prefix, in bits. The values MUST be no
larger than 32. This field is one octet in length.
DeKok, Alan Standards Track [Page 20]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Types in RADIUS 18 October 2016
Note that this definition differs from that given in [RFC6572].
As compared to [RFC6572], the Prefix-Length field has increased
in size by two bits, both of which must be zero. The Reserved
field has decreased in size by two bits. The result is that
both fields are aligned on octet boundaries, which removes the
need for bit masking of the fields.
Since [RFC6572] required the Reserved field to be zero, the
definition here is compatible with the definition in the
original specification.
Prefix
The Prefix field is 4 octets in length. Bits outside of the
Prefix-Length MUST be zero. Unlike the "ipv6prefix" data type,
this field is fixed length. If the address is all zeros (i.e.
"0.0.0.0", then the Prefix-Length MUST be set to 32.
3.12. integer64
The "integer64" data type encodes a 64-bit unsigned integer in
network byte order. Where the range of values for a particular
attribute is limited to a sub-set of the values, specifications MUST
define the valid range(s). Attributes with Values outside of the
allowed range(s) SHOULD be treated as "invalid attributes".
Name
integer64
Value
12
Length
Eight octets
Format
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Value ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
... Value |
DeKok, Alan Standards Track [Page 21]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Types in RADIUS 18 October 2016
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
3.13. tlv
The "tlv" data type encodes a type-length-value, as defined in
[RFC6929] Section 2.3.
Name
tlv
Value
13
Length
Three or more octets
Format
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| TLV-Type | TLV-Length | TLV-Data ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Subfields
TLV-Type
This field is one octet. Up-to-date values of this field are
specified according to the policies and rules described in
[RFC6929] Section 10. Values of 254-255 are "Reserved" for use
by future extensions to RADIUS. The value 26 has no special
meaning, and MUST NOT be treated as a Vendor Specific
attribute.
The TLV-Type is meaningful only within the context defined by
"Type" fields of the encapsulating Attributes, using the
dotted-number notation introduced in [RFC6929].
A RADIUS server MAY ignore Attributes with an unknown "TLV-
Type".
A RADIUS client MAY ignore Attributes with an unknown "TLV-
Type".
DeKok, Alan Standards Track [Page 22]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Types in RADIUS 18 October 2016
A RADIUS proxy SHOULD forward Attributes with an unknown "TLV-
Type" verbatim.
TLV-Length
The TLV-Length field is one octet, and indicates the length of
this TLV including the TLV-Type, TLV-Length and TLV-Value
fields. It MUST have a value between 3 and 255. If a client
or server receives a TLV with an invalid TLV-Length, then the
attribute which encapsulates that TLV MUST be considered to be
an "invalid attribute", and handled as per [RFC6929] Section
2.8.
TLVs having TLV-Length of two (2) MUST NOT be sent; omit the
entire TLV instead.
TLV-Data
The TLV-Data field is one or more octets and contains
information specific to the Attribute. The format and length
of the TLV-Data field is determined by the TLV-Type and TLV-
Length fields.
The TLV-Data field MUST contain only known RADIUS data types.
The TLV-Data field MUST NOT contain any of the following data
types: "concat", "vsa", "extended", "long-extended", or "evs".
3.14. vsa
The "vsa" data type encodes Vendor-Specific data, as given in
[RFC2865] Section 5.26. It is used only in the Attr-Data field of a
Vendor-Specific Attribute. It MUST NOT appear in the contents of any
other data type.
Where an implementation determines that an attribute of data type
"vsa" contains data which does not match the expected format, it
SHOULD treat that attribute as being an "invalid attribute".
Name
vsa
Value
14
Length
DeKok, Alan Standards Track [Page 23]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Types in RADIUS 18 October 2016
Five or more octets
Format
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Vendor-Id |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| VSA-Data ....
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Subfields
Vendor-Id
The 4 octets are the Network Management Private Enterprise Code
[PEN] of the Vendor in network byte order.
VSA-Data
The VSA-Data field is one or more octets. The actual format of
the information is site or application specific, and a robust
implementation SHOULD support the field as undistinguished
octets.
The codification of the range of allowed usage of this field is
outside the scope of this specification.
The "vsa" data type SHOULD contain as a sequence of "tlv" data
types. The interpretation of the TLV-Type and TLV-Data fields
are dependent on the vendor's definition of that attribute.
The "vsa" data type MUST be used as contents of the Attr-Data
field of the Vendor-Specific attribute. The "vsa" data type
MUST NOT appear in the contents of any other data type.
3.15. extended
The "extended" data type encodes the "Extended Type" format, as given
in [RFC6929] Section 2.1. It is used only in the Attr-Data field of
an Attribute allocated from the "standard space". It MUST NOT appear
in the contents of any other data type.
Name
extended
DeKok, Alan Standards Track [Page 24]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Types in RADIUS 18 October 2016
Value
15
Length
Two or more octets
Format
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Extended-Type | Ext-Data ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Subfields
Extended-Type
The Extended-Type field is one octet. Up-to-date values of
this field are specified according to the policies and rules
described in [RFC6929] Section 10. Unlike the Type field
defined in [RFC2865] Section 5, no values are allocated for
experimental or implementation-specific use. Values 241-255
are reserved and MUST NOT be used.
The Extended-Type is meaningful only within a context defined
by the Type field. That is, this field may be thought of as
defining a new type space of the form "Type.Extended-Type".
See [RFC6929] Section 2.5 for additional discussion.
A RADIUS server MAY ignore Attributes with an unknown
"Type.Extended-Type".
A RADIUS client MAY ignore Attributes with an unknown
"Type.Extended-Type".
Ext-Data
The contents of this field MUST be a valid data type as defined
in the RADIUS Data Type registry. The Ext-Data field MUST NOT
contain any of the following data types: "concat", "vsa",
"extended", "long-extended", or "evs".
The Ext-Data field is one or more octets.
Implementations supporting this specification MUST use the
DeKok, Alan Standards Track [Page 25]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Types in RADIUS 18 October 2016
Identifier of "Type.Extended-Type" to determine the
interpretation of the Ext-Data field.
3.16. long-extended
The "long-extended" data type encodes the "Long Extended Type"
format, as given in [RFC6929] Section 2.2. It is used only in the
Attr-Data field of an Attribute. It MUST NOT appear in the contents
of any other data type.
Name
long-extended
Value
16
Length
Three or more octets
Format
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Extended-Type |M|T| Reserved | Ext-Data ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Subfields
Extended-Type
This field is identical to the Extended-Type field defined
above in Section 3.15.
M (More)
The More field is one (1) bit in length, and indicates whether
or not the current attribute contains "more" than 251 octets of
data. The More field MUST be clear (0) if the Length field has
value less than 255. The More field MAY be set (1) if the
Length field has value of 255.
If the More field is set (1), it indicates that the Ext-Data
field has been fragmented across multiple RADIUS attributes.
DeKok, Alan Standards Track [Page 26]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Types in RADIUS 18 October 2016
When the More field is set (1), the attribute MUST have a
Length field of value 255; there MUST be an attribute following
this one; and the next attribute MUST have both the same Type
and Extended Type. That is, multiple fragments of the same
value MUST be in order and MUST be consecutive attributes in
the packet, and the last attribute in a packet MUST NOT have
the More field set (1).
That is, a packet containing a fragmented attribute needs to
contain all fragments of the attribute, and those fragments
need to be contiguous in the packet. RADIUS does not support
inter-packet fragmentation, which means that fragmenting an
attribute across multiple packets is impossible.
If a client or server receives an attribute fragment with the
"More" field set (1), but for which no subsequent fragment can
be found, then the fragmented attribute is considered to be an
"invalid attribute", and handled as per [RFC6929] Section 2.8.
T (Truncation)
This field is one bit in size and is
called "T" for Truncation. It
indicates that the attribute is
intentionally truncated in this
chunk and is to be continued in the
next chunk of the sequence. The
combination of the M flag and the T
flag indicates that the attribute is
fragmented (M flag) but that all the
fragments are not available in this
chunk (T flag). Proxies
implementing [RFC6929] will see
these attributes as invalid (they
will not be able to reconstruct
them), but they will still forward
them, as Section 5.2 of [RFC6929]
indicates that they SHOULD forward
unknown attributes anyway.
Please see [RFC7499] for further
discussion of the uses of this flag.
Reserved
This field is 6 bits long, and is
reserved for future use.
Implementations MUST set it to zero
DeKok, Alan Standards Track [Page 27]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Types in RADIUS 18 October 2016
(0) when encoding an attribute for
sending in a packet. The contents
SHOULD be ignored on reception.
Future specifications may define
additional meaning for this field.
Implementations therefore MUST NOT
treat this field as invalid if it is
non-zero.
Ext-Data
The contents of this field MUST be a
valid data type as defined in the
RADIUS Data Type registry. The Ext-
Data field MUST NOT contain any of
the following data types: "concat",
"vsa", "extended", "long-extended",
or "evs".
The Ext-Data field is one or more
octets.
Implementations supporting this
specification MUST use the
Identifier of "Type.Extended-Type"
to determine the interpretation of
the Ext-Data field.
The length of the data MUST be taken
as the sum of the lengths of the
fragments (i.e. Ext-Data fields)
from which it is constructed. Any
interpretation of the resulting data
MUST occur after the fragments have
been reassembled. If the
reassembled data does not match the
expected format, each fragment MUST
be treated as an "invalid
attribute", and the reassembled data
MUST be discarded.
We note that the maximum size of a
fragmented attribute is limited only
by the RADIUS packet length
limitation. Implementations MUST be
able to handle the case where one
fragmented attribute completely
DeKok, Alan Standards Track [Page 28]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Types in RADIUS 18 October 2016
fills the packet.
3.17. evs
The "evs" data type encodes an "Extended Vendor-Specific" attribute,
as given in [RFC6929] Section 2.4. The "evs" data type is used
solely to extend the Vendor Specific space. It MAY appear inside of
an "extended" or a "long-extended" data type. It MUST NOT appear in
the contents of any other data type.
Where an implementation determines that an attribute of data type
"evs" contains data which does not match the expected format, it
SHOULD treat that attribute as being an "invalid attribute".
Name
evs
Value
17
Length
Six or more octets
Format
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Vendor-Id |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Vendor-Type | EVS-Data ....
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Subfields
Vendor-Id
The 4 octets are the Network Management Private Enterprise Code
[PEN] of the Vendor in network byte order.
Vendor-Type
The Vendor-Type field is one octet. Values are assigned at the
sole discretion of the Vendor.
DeKok, Alan Standards Track [Page 29]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Types in RADIUS 18 October 2016
EVS-Data
The EVS-Data field is one or more octets. It SHOULD
encapsulate a previously defined RADIUS data type. Non-
standard data types SHOULD NOT be used. We note that the EVS-
Data field may be of data type "tlv".
The actual format of the information is site or application
specific, and a robust implementation SHOULD support the field
as undistinguished octets. We recognise that Vendors have
complete control over the contents and format of the Ext-Data
field, while at the same time recommending that good practices
be followed.
Further codification of the range of allowed usage of this
field is outside the scope of this specification.
4. Updated Registries
This section defines a new IANA registry for RADIUS data types, and
then updates the existing RADIUS Attribute Type registry to use the
data types from the new registry.
4.1. Create a Data Type Registry
This section defines a new registry located under "RADIUS Types",
called "Data Type". The "Registration Procedures" for the Data Type
registry are "Standards Action".
The Data Type registry contains three columns of data, as follows.
Value
The number of the data type. The value field is an artifact of
the registry, and has no on-the-wire meaning.
Name
The name of the data type. The name field is used only for the
registry, and has no on-the-wire meaning.
Reference
The specification where the data type was defined.
The initial contents of the registry are as follows.
DeKok, Alan Standards Track [Page 30]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Types in RADIUS 18 October 2016
Value Description Reference
----- ----------- ----------------
1 integer [RFC2865], TBD
2 enum [RFC2865], TBD
3 time [RFC2865], TBD
4 text [RFC2865], TBD
5 string [RFC2865], TBD
6 concat TBD
7 ifid [RFC3162], TBD
8 ipv4addr [RFC2865], TBD
9 ipv6addr [RFC3162], TBD
10 ipv6prefix [RFC3162], TBD
11 ipv4prefix [RFC6572], TBD
12 integer64 [RFC6929], TBD
13 tlv [RFC6929], TBD
14 evs [RFC6929], TBD
15 extended [RFC6929], TBD
16 long-extended [RFC6929], TBD
4.2. Updates to the Attribute Type Registry
This section updates the RADIUS Attribute Type registry to have a new
column, which is inserted in between the existing "Description" and
"Reference" columns. The new column is named "Data Type". The
contents of that column are the name of a data type, corresponding to
the attribute in that row, or blank if the attribute type is
unassigned. The name of the data type is taken from the RADIUS Data
Type registry, as defined above.
The existing registration requirements for the RADIUS Attribute Type
registry are otherwise unchanged.
NOTE TO RFC EDITOR: Before the document is published, please remove this
note, and the following text in this section.
The updated registry follows in CSV format.
Value,Description,Data Type,Reference
1,User-Name,text,[RFC2865]
2,User-Password,string,[RFC2865]
3,CHAP-Password,string,[RFC2865]
4,NAS-IP-Address,ipv4addr,[RFC2865]
5,NAS-Port,integer,[RFC2865]
6,Service-Type,enum,[RFC2865]
7,Framed-Protocol,enum,[RFC2865]
8,Framed-IP-Address,ipv4addr,[RFC2865]
9,Framed-IP-Netmask,ipv4addr,[RFC2865]
10,Framed-Routing,enum,[RFC2865]
DeKok, Alan Standards Track [Page 31]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Types in RADIUS 18 October 2016
11,Filter-Id,text,[RFC2865]
12,Framed-MTU,integer,[RFC2865]
13,Framed-Compression,enum,[RFC2865]
14,Login-IP-Host,ipv4addr,[RFC2865]
15,Login-Service,enum,[RFC2865]
16,Login-TCP-Port,integer,[RFC2865]
17,Unassigned,,
18,Reply-Message,text,[RFC2865]
19,Callback-Number,text,[RFC2865]
20,Callback-Id,text,[RFC2865]
21,Unassigned,,
22,Framed-Route,text,[RFC2865]
23,Framed-IPX-Network,ipv4addr,[RFC2865]
24,State,string,[RFC2865]
25,Class,string,[RFC2865]
26,Vendor-Specific,vsa,[RFC2865]
27,Session-Timeout,integer,[RFC2865]
28,Idle-Timeout,integer,[RFC2865]
29,Termination-Action,enum,[RFC2865]
30,Called-Station-Id,text,[RFC2865]
31,Calling-Station-Id,text,[RFC2865]
32,NAS-Identifier,text,[RFC2865]
33,Proxy-State,string,[RFC2865]
34,Login-LAT-Service,text,[RFC2865]
35,Login-LAT-Node,text,[RFC2865]
36,Login-LAT-Group,string,[RFC2865]
37,Framed-AppleTalk-Link,integer,[RFC2865]
38,Framed-AppleTalk-Network,integer,[RFC2865]
39,Framed-AppleTalk-Zone,text,[RFC2865]
40,Acct-Status-Type,enum,[RFC2866]
41,Acct-Delay-Time,integer,[RFC2866]
42,Acct-Input-Octets,integer,[RFC2866]
43,Acct-Output-Octets,integer,[RFC2866]
44,Acct-Session-Id,text,[RFC2866]
45,Acct-Authentic,enum,[RFC2866]
46,Acct-Session-Time,integer,[RFC2866]
47,Acct-Input-Packets,integer,[RFC2866]
48,Acct-Output-Packets,integer,[RFC2866]
49,Acct-Terminate-Cause,enum,[RFC2866]
50,Acct-Multi-Session-Id,text,[RFC2866]
51,Acct-Link-Count,integer,[RFC2866]
52,Acct-Input-Gigawords,integer,[RFC2869]
53,Acct-Output-Gigawords,integer,[RFC2869]
54,Unassigned,,
55,Event-Timestamp,time,[RFC2869]
56,Egress-VLANID,integer,[RFC4675]
57,Ingress-Filters,enum,[RFC4675]
58,Egress-VLAN-Name,text,[RFC4675]
DeKok, Alan Standards Track [Page 32]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Types in RADIUS 18 October 2016
59,User-Priority-Table,string,[RFC4675]
60,CHAP-Challenge,string,[RFC2865]
61,NAS-Port-Type,enum,[RFC2865]
62,Port-Limit,integer,[RFC2865]
63,Login-LAT-Port,text,[RFC2865]
64,Tunnel-Type,enum,[RFC2868]
65,Tunnel-Medium-Type,enum,[RFC2868]
66,Tunnel-Client-Endpoint,text,[RFC2868]
67,Tunnel-Server-Endpoint,text,[RFC2868]
68,Acct-Tunnel-Connection,text,[RFC2867]
69,Tunnel-Password,string,[RFC2868]
70,ARAP-Password,string,[RFC2869]
71,ARAP-Features,string,[RFC2869]
72,ARAP-Zone-Access,enum,[RFC2869]
73,ARAP-Security,integer,[RFC2869]
74,ARAP-Security-Data,text,[RFC2869]
75,Password-Retry,integer,[RFC2869]
76,Prompt,enum,[RFC2869]
77,Connect-Info,text,[RFC2869]
78,Configuration-Token,text,[RFC2869]
79,EAP-Message,concat,[RFC2869]
80,Message-Authenticator,string,[RFC2869]
81,Tunnel-Private-Group-ID,text,[RFC2868]
82,Tunnel-Assignment-ID,text,[RFC2868]
83,Tunnel-Preference,integer,[RFC2868]
84,ARAP-Challenge-Response,string,[RFC2869]
85,Acct-Interim-Interval,integer,[RFC2869]
86,Acct-Tunnel-Packets-Lost,integer,[RFC2867]
87,NAS-Port-Id,text,[RFC2869]
88,Framed-Pool,text,[RFC2869]
89,CUI,string,[RFC4372]
90,Tunnel-Client-Auth-ID,text,[RFC2868]
91,Tunnel-Server-Auth-ID,text,[RFC2868]
92,NAS-Filter-Rule,text,[RFC4849]
93,Unassigned,,
94,Originating-Line-Info,string,[RFC7155]
95,NAS-IPv6-Address,ipv6addr,[RFC3162]
96,Framed-Interface-Id,ifid,[RFC3162]
97,Framed-IPv6-Prefix,ipv6prefix,[RFC3162]
98,Login-IPv6-Host,ipv6addr,[RFC3162]
99,Framed-IPv6-Route,text,[RFC3162]
100,Framed-IPv6-Pool,text,[RFC3162]
101,Error-Cause Attribute,enum,[RFC3576]
102,EAP-Key-Name,string,[RFC4072][RFC7268]
103,Digest-Response,text,[RFC5090]
104,Digest-Realm,text,[RFC5090]
105,Digest-Nonce,text,[RFC5090]
106,Digest-Response-Auth,text,[RFC5090]
DeKok, Alan Standards Track [Page 33]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Types in RADIUS 18 October 2016
107,Digest-Nextnonce,text,[RFC5090]
108,Digest-Method,text,[RFC5090]
109,Digest-URI,text,[RFC5090]
110,Digest-Qop,text,[RFC5090]
111,Digest-Algorithm,text,[RFC5090]
112,Digest-Entity-Body-Hash,text,[RFC5090]
113,Digest-CNonce,text,[RFC5090]
114,Digest-Nonce-Count,text,[RFC5090]
115,Digest-Username,text,[RFC5090]
116,Digest-Opaque,text,[RFC5090]
117,Digest-Auth-Param,text,[RFC5090]
118,Digest-AKA-Auts,text,[RFC5090]
119,Digest-Domain,text,[RFC5090]
120,Digest-Stale,text,[RFC5090]
121,Digest-HA1,text,[RFC5090]
122,SIP-AOR,text,[RFC5090]
123,Delegated-IPv6-Prefix,ipv6prefix,[RFC4818]
124,MIP6-Feature-Vector,string,[RFC5447]
125,MIP6-Home-Link-Prefix,ipv6prefix,[RFC5447]
126,Operator-Name,text,[RFC5580]
127,Location-Information,string,[RFC5580]
128,Location-Data,string,[RFC5580]
129,Basic-Location-Policy-Rules,string,[RFC5580]
130,Extended-Location-Policy-Rules,string,[RFC5580]
131,Location-Capable,enum,[RFC5580]
132,Requested-Location-Info,enum,[RFC5580]
133,Framed-Management-Protocol,enum,[RFC5607]
134,Management-Transport-Protection,enum,[RFC5607]
135,Management-Policy-Id,text,[RFC5607]
136,Management-Privilege-Level,integer,[RFC5607]
137,PKM-SS-Cert,concat,[RFC5904]
138,PKM-CA-Cert,concat,[RFC5904]
139,PKM-Config-Settings,string,[RFC5904]
140,PKM-Cryptosuite-List,string,[RFC5904]
141,PKM-SAID,text,[RFC5904]
142,PKM-SA-Descriptor,string,[RFC5904]
143,PKM-Auth-Key,string,[RFC5904]
144,DS-Lite-Tunnel-Name,text,[RFC6519]
145,Mobile-Node-Identifier,string,[RFC6572]
146,Service-Selection,text,[RFC6572]
147,PMIP6-Home-LMA-IPv6-Address,ipv6addr,[RFC6572]
148,PMIP6-Visited-LMA-IPv6-Address,ipv6addr,[RFC6572]
149,PMIP6-Home-LMA-IPv4-Address,ipv4addr,[RFC6572]
150,PMIP6-Visited-LMA-IPv4-Address,ipv4addr,[RFC6572]
151,PMIP6-Home-HN-Prefix,ipv6prefix,[RFC6572]
152,PMIP6-Visited-HN-Prefix,ipv6prefix,[RFC6572]
153,PMIP6-Home-Interface-ID,ifid,[RFC6572]
154,PMIP6-Visited-Interface-ID,ifid,[RFC6572]
DeKok, Alan Standards Track [Page 34]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Types in RADIUS 18 October 2016
155,PMIP6-Home-IPv4-HoA,ipv4prefix,[RFC6572]
156,PMIP6-Visited-IPv4-HoA,ipv4prefix,[RFC6572]
157,PMIP6-Home-DHCP4-Server-Address,ipv4addr,[RFC6572]
158,PMIP6-Visited-DHCP4-Server-Address,ipv4addr,[RFC6572]
159,PMIP6-Home-DHCP6-Server-Address,ipv6addr,[RFC6572]
160,PMIP6-Visited-DHCP6-Server-Address,ipv6addr,[RFC6572]
161,PMIP6-Home-IPv4-Gateway,ipv4addr,[RFC6572]
162,PMIP6-Visited-IPv4-Gateway,ipv4addr,[RFC6572]
163,EAP-Lower-Layer,enum,[RFC6677]
164,GSS-Acceptor-Service-Name,text,[RFC7055]
165,GSS-Acceptor-Host-Name,text,[RFC7055]
166,GSS-Acceptor-Service-Specifics,text,[RFC7055]
167,GSS-Acceptor-Realm-Name,text,[RFC7055]
168,Framed-IPv6-Address,ipv6addr,[RFC6911]
169,DNS-Server-IPv6-Address,ipv6addr,[RFC6911]
170,Route-IPv6-Information,ipv6prefix,[RFC6911]
171,Delegated-IPv6-Prefix-Pool,text,[RFC6911]
172,Stateful-IPv6-Address-Pool,text,[RFC6911]
173,IPv6-6rd-Configuration,tlv,[RFC6930]
174,Allowed-Called-Station-Id,text,[RFC7268]
175,EAP-Peer-Id,string,[RFC7268]
176,EAP-Server-Id,string,[RFC7268]
177,Mobility-Domain-Id,integer,[RFC7268]
178,Preauth-Timeout,integer,[RFC7268]
179,Network-Id-Name,string,[RFC7268]
180,EAPoL-Announcement,concat,[RFC7268]
181,WLAN-HESSID,text,[RFC7268]
182,WLAN-Venue-Info,integer,[RFC7268]
183,WLAN-Venue-Language,string,[RFC7268]
184,WLAN-Venue-Name,text,[RFC7268]
185,WLAN-Reason-Code,integer,[RFC7268]
186,WLAN-Pairwise-Cipher,integer,[RFC7268]
187,WLAN-Group-Cipher,integer,[RFC7268]
188,WLAN-AKM-Suite,integer,[RFC7268]
189,WLAN-Group-Mgmt-Cipher,integer,[RFC7268]
190,WLAN-RF-Band,integer,[RFC7268]
191,Unassigned,,
192-223,Experimental Use,,[RFC3575]
224-240,Implementation Specific,,[RFC3575]
241,Extended-Attribute-1,extended,[RFC6929]
241.1,Frag-Status,integer,[RFC7499]
241.2,Proxy-State-Length,integer,[RFC7499]
241.3,Response-Length,integer,[RFC7930]
241.4,Original-Packet-Code,integer,[RFC7930]
241.{5-25},Unassigned,,
241.26,Extended-Vendor-Specific-1,evs,[RFC6929]
241.{27-240},Unassigned,,
241.{241-255},Reserved,,[RFC6929]
DeKok, Alan Standards Track [Page 35]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Types in RADIUS 18 October 2016
242,Extended-Attribute-2,extended,[RFC6929]
242.{1-25},Unassigned,,
242.26,Extended-Vendor-Specific-2,evs,[RFC6929]
242.{27-240},Unassigned,,
242.{241-255},Reserved,,[RFC6929]
243,Extended-Attribute-3,extended,[RFC6929]
243.{1-25},Unassigned,,
243.26,Extended-Vendor-Specific-3,evs,[RFC6929]
243.{27-240},Unassigned,,
243.{241-255},Reserved,,[RFC6929]
244,Extended-Attribute-4,extended,[RFC6929]
244.{1-25},Unassigned,,
244.26,Extended-Vendor-Specific-4,evs,[RFC6929]
244.{27-240},Unassigned,,
244.{241-255},Reserved,,[RFC6929]
245,Extended-Attribute-5,long-extended,[RFC6929]
245.{1-25},Unassigned,,
245.26,Extended-Vendor-Specific-5,evs,[RFC6929]
245.{27-240},Unassigned,,
245.{241-255},Reserved,,[RFC6929]
246,Extended-Attribute-6,long-extended,[RFC6929]
246.{1-25},Unassigned,,
246.26,Extended-Vendor-Specific-6,evs,[RFC6929]
246.{27-240},Unassigned,,
246.{241-255},Reserved,,[RFC6929]
247-255,Reserved,,[RFC3575]
5. Security Considerations
This specification is concerned solely with updates to IANA
registries. As such, there are no security considerations with the
document itself.
However, the use of inconsistent names and poorly-defined entities in
a protocol is problematic. Inconsistencies in specifications can
lead to security and interoperability problems in implementations.
Further, having one canonical source for the definition of data types
means an implementor has fewer specifications to read. The
implementation work is therefore simpler, and is more likely to be
correct.
The goal of this specification is to reduce ambiguities in the RADIUS
protocol, which we believe will lead to more robust and more secure
implementations.
DeKok, Alan Standards Track [Page 36]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Types in RADIUS 18 October 2016
6. IANA Considerations
IANA is instructed to create one new registry as described above in
Section 4.1. The "TBD" text in that section should be replaced with
the RFC number of this document when it is published.
IANA is instructed to update the RADIUS Attribute Type registry, as
described above in Section 4.2.
IANA is instructed to require that all allocation requests in the
RADIUS Attribute Type registry contain a "Data Type" field. That
field is required to contain one of the "Data Type" names contained
in the RADIUS Data Type registry.
IANA is instructed to require that updates to the RADIUS Data Type
registry contain the following fields, with the associated
instructions:
* Value. IANA is instructed to assign the next unused integer in
sequence to new data type definitions.
* Name. IANA is instructed to require that this name be unique
in the registry.
* Reference. IANA is instructed to update this field with a
reference to the document which defines the data type.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", 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.
[RFC3162]
Aboba, B., Zorn, G., and D. Mitton, "RADIUS and IPv6", RFC 3162,
August 2001.
[RFC3629]
Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646", RFC
3629, November 2003.
DeKok, Alan Standards Track [Page 37]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Types in RADIUS 18 October 2016
[RFC4072]
Eronen, P., et al, "Diameter Extensible Authentication Protocol
(EAP) Application", RFC 4072, February 2013.
[RFC6158]
DeKok, A., and Weber, G., "RADIUS Design Guidelines", RFC 6158,
March 2011.
[RFC6572]
Xia, F., et al, "RADIUS Support for Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 6572,
June 2012.
[RFC7499]
Perez-Mendez, A. Ed., et al, "Support of Fragmentation of RADIUS
Packets", RFC 7499, April 2015.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC2868]
Zorn, G., Leifer, D., Rubens, A., Shriver, J., Holdrege, M., and I.
Goyret, "RADIUS Attributes for Tunnel Protocol Support", RFC 2868,
June 2000.
[RFC2869]
Rigney, C., et al, "RADIUS Extensions", RFC 2869, June 2000.
[RFC5234]
Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", RFC 5234, January 2008.
[RFC6929]
DeKok, A., and Lior, A., "Remote Authentication Dial In User
Service (RADIUS) Protocol Extensions", RFC 6929, April 2013.
[RFC7268]
Aboba, B, et al, "RADIUS Attributes for IEEE 802 Networks", RFC
7268, July 2015.
[RFC7499]
Perez-Mendez A., et al, "Support of Fragmentation of RADIUS
Packets", RFC 7499, April 2015.
[PEN]
http://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers
Acknowledgments
Thanks to the RADEXT WG for patience and reviews of this document.
DeKok, Alan Standards Track [Page 38]
INTERNET-DRAFT Data Types in RADIUS 18 October 2016
Authors' Addresses
Alan DeKok
The FreeRADIUS Server Project
Email: aland@freeradius.org
DeKok, Alan Standards Track [Page 39]
|