File: draft-ietf-radext-datatypes-08.txt

package info (click to toggle)
doc-rfc 20170121-1
  • links: PTS, VCS
  • area: non-free
  • in suites: stretch
  • size: 541,932 kB
  • ctags: 32
  • sloc: xml: 267,963; sh: 101; python: 90; perl: 42; makefile: 13
file content (2187 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 73,312 bytes parent folder | download
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]