File: rfc2989.txt

package info (click to toggle)
doc-rfc 20181229-2
  • links: PTS, VCS
  • area: non-free
  • in suites: buster
  • size: 570,944 kB
  • sloc: xml: 285,646; sh: 107; python: 90; perl: 42; makefile: 14
file content (1571 lines) | stat: -rw-r--r-- 53,197 bytes parent folder | download | duplicates (5)
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






Network Working Group                                 B. Aboba, Microsoft
Request for Comments: 2989   P. Calhoun, S. Glass, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Category: Informational T. Hiller, P. McCann, H. Shiino, P. Walsh, Lucent
                                 G. Zorn, G. Dommety, Cisco Systems, Inc.
                           C. Perkins, B. Patil, Nokia Telecommunications
                                   D. Mitton, S. Manning, Nortel Networks
                                              M. Beadles, SmartPipes Inc.
                                                         X. Chen, Alcatel
                         S. Sivalingham, Ericsson Wireless Communications
                                                       A. Hameed, Fujitsu
                                                  M. Munson, GTE Wireless
                                              S. Jacobs, GTE Laboratories
                            B. Lim, LG Information & Communications, Ltd.
                                                   B. Hirschman, Motorola
                                                   R. Hsu, Qualcomm, Inc.
                         H. Koo, Samsung Telecommunications America, Inc.
                                                   M. Lipford, Sprint PCS
                                            E. Campbell, 3Com Corporation
                                                Y. Xu, Watercove Networks
                                  S. Baba, Toshiba America Research, Inc.
                                            E. Jaques, Vodaphone Airtouch
                                                            November 2000


        Criteria for Evaluating AAA Protocols for Network Access

Status of this Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
   memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This document represents a summary of Authentication, Authorization,
   Accounting (AAA) protocol requirements for network access.  In
   creating this document, inputs were taken from documents produced by
   the Network Access Server Requirements Next Generation (NASREQ),
   Roaming Operations (ROAMOPS), and MOBILEIP working groups, as well as
   from TIA 45.6.







Aboba, et al.                Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 2989         Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria    November 2000


   This document summarizes the requirements collected from those
   sources, separating requirements for authentication, authorization
   and accounting.  Details on the requirements are available in the
   original documents.

1.  Introduction

   This document represents a summary of AAA protocol requirements for
   network access.  In creating this documents, inputs were taken from
   documents produced by the NASREQ [3], ROAMOPS [2], and MOBILEIP [5]
   working groups, as well as from TIA 45.6 [4].  This document
   summarizes the requirements collected from those sources, separating
   requirements for authentication, authorization and accounting.
   Details on the requirements are available in the original documents.

1.1.  Requirements language

   In this document, the key words "MAY", "MUST, "MUST NOT", "optional",
   "recommended", "SHOULD", and "SHOULD NOT", are to be interpreted as
   described in [1].

   Please note that the requirements specified in this document are to
   be used in evaluating AAA protocol submissions.  As such, the
   requirements language refers to capabilities of these protocols; the
   protocol documents will specify whether these features are required,
   recommended, or optional.  For example, requiring that a protocol
   support confidentiality is NOT the same thing as requiring that all
   protocol traffic be encrypted.

   A protocol submission is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or
   more of the MUST or MUST NOT requirements for the capabilities that
   it implements.  A protocol submission that satisfies all the MUST,
   MUST NOT, SHOULD and SHOULD NOT requirements for its capabilities is
   said to be "unconditionally compliant"; one that satisfies all the
   MUST and MUST NOT requirements but not all the SHOULD or SHOULD NOT
   requirements for its protocols is said to be "conditionally
   compliant."














Aboba, et al.                Informational                      [Page 2]

RFC 2989         Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria    November 2000


1.2.  Terminology

   Accounting
             The act of collecting information on resource usage for the
             purpose of trend analysis, auditing, billing, or cost
             allocation.

   Administrative Domain
             An internet, or a collection of networks, computers, and
             databases under a common administration.  Computer entities
             operating in a common administration may be assumed to
             share administratively created security associations.

   Attendant A node designed to provide the service interface between a
             client and the local domain.

   Authentication
             The act of verifying a claimed identity, in the form of a
             pre-existing label from a mutually known name space, as the
             originator of a message (message authentication) or as the
             end-point of a channel (entity authentication).

   Authorization
             The act of determining if a particular right, such as
             access to some resource, can be granted to the presenter of
             a particular credential.

   Billing   The act of preparing an invoice.

   Broker    A Broker is an entity that is in a different administrative
             domain from both the home AAA server and the local ISP, and
             which provides services, such as facilitating payments
             between the local ISP and home administrative entities.
             There are two different types of brokers; proxy and
             routing.

   Client    A node wishing to obtain service from an attendant within
             an administrative domain.

   End-to-End
             End-to-End is the security model that requires that
             security information be able to traverse, and be validated
             even when an AAA message is processed by intermediate nodes
             such as proxies, brokers, etc.







Aboba, et al.                Informational                      [Page 3]

RFC 2989         Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria    November 2000


   Foreign Domain
             An administrative domain, visited by a Mobile IP client,
             and containing the AAA infrastructure needed to carry out
             the necessary operations enabling Mobile IP registrations.
             From the point of view of the foreign agent, the foreign
             domain is the local domain.

   Home Domain
             An administrative domain, containing the network whose
             prefix matches that of a mobile node's home address, and
             containing the AAA infrastructure needed to carry out the
             necessary operations enabling Mobile IP registrations.
             From the point of view of the home agent, the home domain
             is the local domain.

   Hop-by-hop
             Hop-by-hop is the security model that requires that each
             direct set of peers in a proxy network share a security
             association, and the security information does not traverse
             a AAA entity.

   Inter-domain Accounting
             Inter-domain accounting is the collection of information on
             resource usage of an entity within an administrative
             domain, for use within another administrative domain.  In
             inter-domain accounting, accounting packets and session
             records will typically cross administrative boundaries.

   Intra-domain Accounting
             Intra-domain accounting is the collection of information on
             resource within an administrative domain, for use within
             that domain.  In intra-domain accounting, accounting
             packets and session records typically do not cross
             administrative boundaries.

   Local Domain
             An administrative domain containing the AAA infrastructure
             of immediate interest to a Mobile IP client when it is away
             from home.

   Proxy     A AAA proxy is an entity that acts as both a client and a
             server.  When a request is received from a client, the
             proxy acts as a AAA server.  When the same request needs to
             be forwarded to another AAA entity, the proxy acts as a AAA
             client.






Aboba, et al.                Informational                      [Page 4]

RFC 2989         Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria    November 2000


   Local Proxy
             A Local Proxy is a AAA server that satisfies the definition
             of a Proxy, and exists within the same administrative
             domain as the network device (e.g., NAS) that issued the
             AAA request.  Typically, a local proxy will enforce local
             policies prior to forwarding responses to the network
             devices, and are generally used to multiplex AAA messages
             from a large number of network devices.

   Network Access Identifier
             The Network Access Identifier (NAI) is the userID submitted
             by the client during network access authentication.  In
             roaming, the purpose of the NAI is to identify the user as
             well as to assist in the routing of the authentication
             request.  The NAI may not necessarily be the same as the
             user's e-mail address or the user-ID submitted in an
             application layer authentication.

   Routing Broker
             A Routing Broker is a AAA entity that satisfies the
             definition of a Broker, but is NOT in the transmission path
             of AAA messages between the local ISP and the home domain's
             AAA servers.  When a request is received by a Routing
             Broker, information is returned to the AAA requester that
             includes the information necessary for it to be able to
             contact the Home AAA server directly.  Certain
             organizations providing Routing Broker services MAY also
             act as a Certificate Authority, allowing the Routing Broker
             to return the certificates necessary for the local ISP and
             the home AAA servers to communicate securely.

   Non-Proxy Broker
             A Routing Broker is occasionally referred to as a Non-Proxy
             Broker.

   Proxy Broker
             A Proxy Broker is a AAA entity that satisfies the
             definition of a Broker, and acts as a Transparent Proxy by
             acting as the forwarding agent for all AAA messages between
             the local ISP and the home domain's AAA servers.

   Real-time Accounting
             Real-time accounting involves the processing of information
             on resource usage within a defined time window.  Time
             constraints are typically imposed in order to limit
             financial risk.





Aboba, et al.                Informational                      [Page 5]

RFC 2989         Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria    November 2000


   Roaming Capability
             Roaming capability can be loosely defined as the ability to
             use any one of multiple Internet service providers (ISPs),
             while maintaining a formal, customer-vendor relationship
             with only one.  Examples of cases where roaming capability
             might be required include ISP "confederations" and ISP-
             provided corporate network access support.

   Session record
             A session record represents a summary of the resource
             consumption of a user over the entire session.  Accounting
             gateways creating the session record may do so by
             processing interim accounting events.

   Transparent Proxy
             A Transparent Proxy is a AAA server that satisfies the
             definition of a Proxy, but does not enforce any local
             policies (meaning that it does not add, delete or modify
             attributes or modify information within messages it
             forwards).

2.  Requirements Summary

   The AAA protocol evaluation criteria for network access are
   summarized below.  For details on the requirements, please consult
   the documents referenced in the footnotes.

























Aboba, et al.                Informational                      [Page 6]

RFC 2989         Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria    November 2000


2.1.  General requirements

   These requirements apply to all aspects of AAA and thus are
   considered general requirements.

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           |         |         |         |
   |  General                  | NASREQ  | ROAMOPS | MOBILE  |
   |  Reqts.                   |         |         |   IP    |
   |                           |         |         |         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           |         |         |         |
   |   Scalability             |    M    |   M     |    M    |
   |      a                    |   12    |   3     |  30 39  |
   |                           |         |         |         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           |         |         |         |
   |   Fail-over               |    M    |         |    M    |
   |      b                    |   12    |         |   31    |
   |                           |         |         |         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           |         |         |         |
   |   Mutual auth             |    M    |         |    M    |
   |   AAA client/server       |   16    |         |   30    |
   |      c                    |         |         |         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           |         |         |         |
   |   Transmission level      |         |   M     |    S    |
   |   security                |         |   6     |  31 39  |
   |      d                    |         |         |         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           |         |         |         |
   |  Data object              |    M    |   M     |    M    |
   |  Confidentiality          |   26    |   6     |   40    |
   |      e                    |         |         |         |
   |                           |         |         |         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           |         |         |         |
   |  Data object              |    M    |   M     |    M    |
   |  Integrity                |   16    |   6     |  31 39  |
   |      f                    |         |         |         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           |         |         |         |
   |  Certificate transport    |    M    |         |  S/M    |
   |      g                    |   42    |         |31,33/46 |
   |                           |         |         |         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+




Aboba, et al.                Informational                      [Page 7]

RFC 2989         Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria    November 2000


   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           |         |         |         |
   |  Reliable AAA transport   |    M    |         |    M    |
   |  mechanism                |   22    |         |  31 32  |
   |      h                    |         |         |         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           |         |         |         |
   |   Run Over IPv4           |    M    |   M     |    M    |
   |                           |   11    |   1     |   33    |
   |                           |         |         |         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           |         |         |         |
   |   Run Over IPv6           |    M    |         |    S    |
   |                           |   11    |   1     |   47    |
   |                           |         |         |         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           |         |         |         |
   |  Support Proxy and        |    M    |         |    M    |
   |  Routing Brokers          |   12    |         |  31 39  |
   |      i                    |         |         |         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           |         |         |         |
   |  Auditability             |    S    |         |         |
   |      j                    |   25    |         |         |
   |                           |         |         |         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           |         |         |         |
   |   Dual App and Transport  |         |   O     |     M   |
   |    Security not required  |         |   6     |    40   |
   |      k                    |         |         |         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           |         |         |         |
   |  Ability to carry         |    M    |         |    S    |
   |  service-specific attr.   |   43    |         |  31 33  |
   |      l                    |         |         |         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Key
   M = MUST
   S = SHOULD
   O = MAY
   N = MUST NOT
   B = SHOULD NOT








Aboba, et al.                Informational                      [Page 8]

RFC 2989         Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria    November 2000


   Clarifications

   [a]  The AAA protocol must be capable of supporting millions of users
        and tens of thousands of simultaneous requests.  The AAA
        architecture and protocol MUST be capable of supporting tens of
        thousands of devices, AAA servers, proxies and brokers.

   [b]  In the event of failure to communicate with a given server, the
        protocol must provide a mechanism to change service to another
        backup or secondary server.

   [c]  This requirement refers to the ability to support mutual
        authentication between the AAA client and server.

   [d]  The AAA protocol requires authentication, integrity protection
        and confidentiality at the transmission layer.  This security
        model is also referred to as hop-by-hop security, whereas the
        security is established between two communicating peers.  All of
        the security is removed when the AAA message is processed by a
        receiving AAA entity.

   [e]  The AAA protocol requires confidentiality at the object level,
        where an object consists of one or more attributes.  Object
        level confidentiality implies that only the target AAA entity
        for whom the data is ultimately destined may decrypt the data,
        regardless of the fact that the message may traverse one or more
        intermediate AAA entities (e.g., proxies, brokers).

   [f]  The AAA protocol requires authentication and integrity
        protection at the object level, which consists of one or more
        attributes.  Object level authentication must be persistent
        across one or more intermediate AAA entity (e.g., proxy, broker,
        etc), meaning that any AAA entity in a proxy chain may verify
        the authentication.  This implies that data that is covered by
        object level security CANNOT be modified by intermediate
        servers.

   [g]  The AAA protocol MUST be capable of transporting certificates.
        This requirement is intended as an optimization, in lieu of
        requiring that an out-of-band protocol be used to fetch
        certificates.

   [h]  This requirement refers to resilience against packet loss,
        including:

        1. Hop-by-hop retransmission and fail-over so that reliability
           does not solely depend on single hop transport
           retransmission.



Aboba, et al.                Informational                      [Page 9]

RFC 2989         Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria    November 2000


        2. Control of the retransmission mechanism by the AAA
           application.
        3. Acknowledgment by the transport that a message was delivered
           successfully, separate from message semantics or syntax
           evaluation.
        5. Piggy-backing of acknowledgments in AAA messages.
        6. Timely delivery of AAA responses.

   [i]  In the Mobile IP AAA architecture, brokers can be in the
        forwarding path, in which case they act as transparent proxies
        (proxy brokers).  Alternatively, it is also possible to conceive
        of brokers operating as certifying authorities outside of the
        forwarding path (routing brokers).

   [j]  An auditable process is one in which it is possible to
        definitively determine what actions have been performed on AAA
        packets as they travel from the home AAA server to the network
        device and back.

   [k]  The AAA protocol MUST allow communication to be secured.
        However, the AAA protocol MUST also allow an underlying security
        service (e.g., IP Security) to be used.  When the latter is
        used, the former MUST NOT be required.

   [l]  The AAA protocol MUST be extensible by third parties (e.g.,
        other IETF Working Groups), in order to define attributes that
        are specific to the service being defined.  This requirement
        simply means that the AAA protocol MUST allow groups other than
        the AAA WG to define standard attributes.






















Aboba, et al.                Informational                     [Page 10]

RFC 2989         Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria    November 2000


2.2.  Authentication Requirements

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           |         |         |         |
   | Authentication            | NASREQ  | ROAMOPS | MOBILE  |
   | Reqts.                    |         |         |   IP    |
   |                           |         |         |         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           |         |         |         |
   |   NAI Support             |    M    |   M     |   S/M   |
   |      a                    |    9    |   2     |32,34,39/|
   |                           |         |         |   40    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           |         |         |         |
   |   CHAP Support            |    M    |   M     |         |
   |      b                    |   10    |   3     |         |
   |                           |         |         |         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           |         |         |         |
   |   EAP Support             |    M    |   S     |         |
   |      c                    |   10    |   3     |         |
   |                           |         |         |         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           |         |         |         |
   |   PAP/Clear-Text Support  |    M    |   B     |         |
   |      d                    |   26    |   3     |         |
   |                           |         |         |         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           |         |         |         |
   |   Re-authentication       |    M    |         |    S    |
   |   on demand               |   17    |         |   33    |
   |      e                    |         |         |         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           |         |         |         |
   |   Authorization Only      |    M    |         |         |
   |   without Authentication  |    9    |         |         |
   |      f                    |         |         |         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Key
   M = MUST
   S = SHOULD
   O = MAY
   N = MUST NOT
   B = SHOULD NOT






Aboba, et al.                Informational                     [Page 11]

RFC 2989         Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria    November 2000


   Clarifications

   [a]  The AAA protocol MUST allow the use of Network Access
        Identifiers (NAI) [8] to identify users and/or devices.

   [b]  The AAA protocol MUST allow CHAP [20] authentication information
        to be transported.  This is commonly used by Network Access
        Servers that request authentication of a PPP user.

   [c]  The AAA protocol MUST allow for Extensible Authentication
        Protocol (EAP) [14] payload to be transported.  Since some EAP
        authentication mechanisms require more than one round trip, the
        AAA protocol must allow for such authentication mechanisms to be
        used.  The actual EAP authentication mechanism negotiated MUST
        be transparent to the AAA protocol.  When EAP is used,
        authentication typically occurs between the user being
        authenticated and his/her home AAA server.

   [d]  While PAP is deprecated, it is still in widespread use for its
        original intended purpose, which is support of clear-text
        passwords.  As a result, a AAA protocol will need to be able to
        securely transport clear-text passwords.  This includes
        providing for confidentiality of clear-text passwords traveling
        over the wire, as well as protecting against disclosure of
        clear-text passwords to proxies in the forwarding path.

   [e]  The AAA protocol MUST allow for a user to be re-authenticated
        on-demand.  The protocol MUST allow for this event to be
        triggered by either the user, access device (AAA client), or the
        home or visited AAA server.

   [f]  The AAA protocol MUST NOT require that credentials of the user
        be provided during authorization.  The AAA protocol supports
        authorization by identification or assertion only.

















Aboba, et al.                Informational                     [Page 12]

RFC 2989         Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria    November 2000


2.3.  Authorization Requirements

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           |         |         |         |
   | Authorization             | NASREQ  | ROAMOPS | MOBILE  |
   | Reqts.                    |         |         |   IP    |
   |                           |         |         |         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Static and Dynamic      |         |         |         |
   |   IPv4/6 Address Assign.  |    M    |   M     |   M     |
   |      a                    |   11    |   5     | 32 36   |
   |                           |         |         |         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           |         |         |         |
   |   RADIUS gateway          |    M    |   M     |    M    |
   |   capability              |   44    |   3     |    45   |
   |      b                    |         |         |         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           |         |         |         |
   |   Reject                  |    M    |   M     |   M     |
   |   capability              |   12    |   4     |  39     |
   |      c                    |         |         |         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           |         |         |         |
   |   Precludes layer 2       |    N    |   N     |         |
   |   tunneling               |   11    |   5     |         |
   |                           |         |         |         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           |         |         |         |
   |  Re-Authorization on      |    M    |         |   S     |
   |   demand                  |   18    |         | 30 33   |
   |      d                    |         |         |         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           |         |         |         |
   |  Support for Access Rules,|    M    |         |         |
   |  Restrictions, Filters    | 11, 19  |         |         |
   |      e                    |         |         |         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           |         |         |         |
   |  State Reconciliation     |    M    |         |         |
   |      f                    |   20    |         |         |
   |                           |         |         |         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           |         |         |         |
   |  Unsolicited Disconnect   |    M    |         |         |
   |      g                    |   18    |         |         |
   |                           |         |         |         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



Aboba, et al.                Informational                     [Page 13]

RFC 2989         Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria    November 2000


   Key
   M = MUST
   S = SHOULD
   O = MAY
   N = MUST NOT
   B = SHOULD NOT

   Clarifications

   [a]  The AAA protocol MUST allow a server to provide a static or
        dynamic address during the authorization phase of a user and/or
        device.  The address assigned MUST be either of type IPv4 or
        IPv6.  If both the client AND the server are aware of a pre-
        configured address, then it is considered static.  Anything else
        is dynamic.

   [b]  This requirement refers to the ability of a new AAA protocol be
        sufficiently compatible with the large installed base of
        attributes for existing approaches (RADIUS), such that a server
        implementation could speak both protocols, or translate between
        them.

   [c]  This requirement refers to the ability of a proxy broker to deny
        access without forwarding the access request to the AAA server,
        or to deny access after receiving an access accept from the AAA
        server.

   [d]  This requirement refers to the ability of the AAA client or
        server to trigger re-authorization, or to the ability of the
        server to send updated authorization information to the device,
        such as "stop service."  Authorization can allow for a time
        period, then additional authorization can be sought to continue.
        A server can initially authorize a user to connect and receive
        services, but later decide the user is no longer allowed use of
        the service, for example after N minutes.  Authorizations can
        have a time limit.  Re-authorization does not necessarily imply
        re-authentication.

   [e]  This requirement refers to the ability to of the protocol to
        describe access operational limitations and authorization
        restrictions to usage to the NAS which includes (but is not
        limited to):

        1. Session expirations and Idle Timeouts
        2. Packet filters
        3. Static routes
        4. QoS parameters




Aboba, et al.                Informational                     [Page 14]

RFC 2989         Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria    November 2000


   [f]  This requirement refers to the ability of the NAS to use the AAA
        server to manage resource allocation state.  This capability can
        assist with, but it is not synonymous with, simultaneous user
        login control, port usage limitations, or IP address pooling.

        The design must provide for recovery from data loss due to a
        variety of faults, including NAS and AAA server reboots, and
        NAS/AAA server communication outages, and MUST be independent of
        the accounting stream.  The granularity of the recovery of state
        information after an outage may be on the order of a fraction of
        a minute.  In order to provide for state recovery, explicit
        session/resource status and update and disconnect messages will
        be required.

        Because of potential multi-domain issues, only systems that
        allocate or use a resource should track its state.

   [g]  This requirement refers to the ability of the AAA server to
        request the NAS to disconnect an active session for
        authorization policy reasons.































Aboba, et al.                Informational                     [Page 15]

RFC 2989         Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria    November 2000


2.4.  Accounting Requirements

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           |         |         |         |
   | Accounting                | NASREQ  | ROAMOPS | MOBILE  |
   | Reqts.                    |         |         |   IP    |
   |                           |         |         |         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           |         |         |         |
   |   Real-time accounting    |    M    |    M    |   M     |
   |      a                    |   14    |    7    |  31     |
   |                           |         |         |         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           |         |         |         |
   |   Mandatory Compact       |         |    M    |         |
   |    Encoding               |         |    7    |         |
   |      b                    |         |         |         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           |         |         |         |
   |   Accounting Record       |         |    M    |   M     |
   |    Extensibility          |         |    7    |  33     |
   |                           |         |         |         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           |         |         |         |
   |   Batch Accounting        |    S    |         |         |
   |      c                    |   21    |         |         |
   |                           |         |         |         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           |         |         |         |
   |   Guaranteed Delivery     |    M    |         |    M    |
   |      d                    |   22    |         |   31    |
   |                           |         |         |         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           |         |         |         |
   |   Accounting Time Stamps  |    M    |         |    M    |
   |      e                    |   23    |         |   40    |
   |                           |         |         |         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           |         |         |         |
   |  Dynamic Accounting       |    M    |         |         |
   |      f                    |   48    |         |         |
   |                           |         |         |         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+








Aboba, et al.                Informational                     [Page 16]

RFC 2989         Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria    November 2000


   Key
   M = MUST
   S = SHOULD
   O = MAY
   N = MUST NOT
   B = SHOULD NOT

   Clarifications

   [a]  This requirement may be loosely defined as reporting
        synchronously with events.  Typically the time window is on the
        order of seconds, not milliseconds.

   [b]  The AAA protocol's Accounting data format MUST NOT be bloated,
        imposing a large overhead for one or more accounting data
        elements.

   [c]  This requirement refers to the ability to buffer or store
        multiple accounting records, and send them together at some
        later time.

   [d]  This is an application layer acknowledgment.  This is sent when
        the receiving server is willing to take responsibility for the
        message data.

   [e]  This requirement refers to the ability to reflect the time of
        occurrence of events such as log-on, logoff, authentication,
        authorization and interim accounting.  It also implies the
        ability to provide for unambiguous time-stamps.

   [f]  This requirement refers to the ability to account for dynamic
        authentication and authorization.  To support this, there can be
        multiple accounting records for a single session.

2.5.  Unique Mobile IP requirements

   In addition to the above requirements, Mobile IP also has the
   following additional requirements:













Aboba, et al.                Informational                     [Page 17]

RFC 2989         Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria    November 2000


   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           |         |         |         |
   |  Encoding of Mobile IP    |         |         |   M     |
   |  registration messages    |         |         |   33    |
   |                           |         |         |         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           |         |         |         |
   |  Firewall friendly        |         |         |   M     |
   |      a                    |         |         |   35    |
   |                           |         |         |         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           |         |         |         |
   |  Allocation of local Home |         |         |   S/M   |
   |  agent                    |         |         |  37/41  |
   |                           |         |         |         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Key
   M = MUST
   S = SHOULD
   O = MAY
   N = MUST NOT
   B = SHOULD NOT

   Clarifications

   [a]  A firewall friendly protocol is one which is designed to
        accommodate a firewall acting as a proxy.  For example, this
        would permit a Home Agent AAA server situated behind a firewall
        to be reachable from the Internet for the purposes of providing
        AAA services to a Mobile IP Foreign Agent.

        Notes

        [1] Section 4.2.1 of [2]
        [2] Section 4.2.2 of [2]. Also see [8].
        [3] Section 4.2.3 of [2]. Also see [14].
        [4] Section 4.2.4 of [2].
        [5] Section 4.2.5 of [2].
        [6] Section 4.2.6 of [2].
        [7] Section 4.3 of [2].
        [8] Section 6 of [3].  Also see [6].
        [9] Section 8.2.2.2 of [3].  Also see [14].
        [10] Section 8.2.2.1 of [3].  Also see [14].
        [11] Section 8.3.2.2 of [3].  Also see [7].
        [12] Section 8.1.1 of [3].
        [13] Section 8.1.4.4 of [3].
        [14] Section 8.4.1.2 of [3].



Aboba, et al.                Informational                     [Page 18]

RFC 2989         Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria    November 2000


        [15] Section 8.4.2 of [3].
        [16] Section 8.1.3 of [3].
        [17] Section 8.2.1.2 of [3].
        [18] Section 8.3.1.1 of [3].
        [19] Section 8.3.2.1 of [3].  Also see [7].
        [20] Section 8.3.2.3 of [3].  Also see [6], [7].
        [21] Section 8.4.1.3 of [3].
        [22] Section 8.4.1.1 of [3].
        [23] Section 8.4.1.4 of [3].
        [24] Section 8.4.3.1 of [3].
        [25] Section 8.4.3.2 of [3].
        [26] Section 8.2.3.1 of [3].
        [27] Section 8.3.3.1 of [3].
        [28] Section 8.1.4.1 of [3].
        [29] Refer [15]
        [30] Section 3 of [5]
        [31] Section 3.1 of [5]
        [32] Section 4 of [5]
        [33] Section 5 of [5]
        [34] Section 5.1 of [5]
        [35] Section 5.2 of [5]
        [36] Section 5.3 of [5]
        [37] Section 5.4 of [5]
        [38] Section 5.5 of [5]
        [39] Section 6 of [5]
        [40] Section 5.1 of [4]
        [41] Section 5.2.2 of [4]
        [42] Section 8.2.2.2 of [3]
        [43] Section 8.1.2.3 of [3]
        [44] Section 8.1.2.2 of [3]
        [45] Section 5.4 of [4]
        [46] Section 7 of [4]
        [47] Section 8 of [5]
        [48] Section 8.4.1.5 of [3]

3.  References

   [1]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
        Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [2]  Aboba, B. and G. Zorn, "Criteria for Evaluating Roaming
        Protocols", RFC 2477, January 1999.

   [3]  Beadles, M. and D. Mitton, "Criteria for Evaluating Network
        Access Server Protocols", Work in Progress.

   [4]  Hiller, T., et al., "Cdma2000 Wireless Data Requirements for
        AAA", Work in Progress.



Aboba, et al.                Informational                     [Page 19]

RFC 2989         Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria    November 2000


   [5]  Glass, S., Hiller, T., Jacobs, S. and C. Perkins, "Mobile IP
        Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting Requirements", RFC
        2977, October 2000.

   [6]  Mitton, D., Beadles, M., "Network Access Server Requirements
        Next Generation (NASREQNG) NAS Model", RFC 2881, July 2000.

   [7]  Mitton, D., "Network Access Server Requirements: Extended RADIUS
        Practices", RFC 2882, July 2000.

   [8]  Aboba,  B. and M. Beadles, "The Network Access Identifier", RFC
        2486, January 1999.

   [9]  Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A. and W. Simpson, "Remote
        Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 2865, June
        2000.

   [10] Rigney, C., "RADIUS Accounting", RFC 2866, June 2000.

   [11] Simpson, W., Editor, "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)", STD
        51, RFC 1661, July 1994.

   [12] Sklower, K., Lloyd, B., McGregor, G., Carr, D. and T. Coradetti,
        "The PPP Multilink Protocol (MP)", RFC 1990, August 1996.

   [13] Simpson, W., Editor, "PPP LCP Extensions", RFC 1570, January
        1994.

   [14] Blunk, L. and J. Vollbrecht, "PPP Extensible Authentication
        Protocol (EAP)", RFC 2284, March 1998.

   [15] Solomon, J. and S. Glass, "Mobile-IPv4 Configuration Option for
        PPP IPCP", RFC 2290, Feb 1998

   [16] Calhoun, P. and C. Perkins, "Mobile IP Network Access Identifier
        Extension for IPv4", RFC 2794, March 2000.

   [17] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support", RFC 2002, Oct 1996.

   [18] Johnson, D. and C. Perkins, "Mobility Support in IPv6", Work in
        Progress.

   [19] Aboba, B. and J. Vollbrecht, "Proxy Chaining and Policy
        Implementation in Roaming", RFC 2607, June 1999.

   [20] Simpson, W., "PPP Challenge Handshake Authentication Protocol
        (CHAP)", RFC 1994, August 1996.




Aboba, et al.                Informational                     [Page 20]

RFC 2989         Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria    November 2000


4.  Security Considerations

   This document, being a requirements document, does not have any
   security concerns.  The security requirements on protocols to be
   evaluated using this document are described in the referenced
   documents.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This memo does not create any new number spaces for IANA
   administration.

6.  Acknowledgments

   Thanks to the members of the Mobile IP, AAA, and NASREQ working
   groups who have discussed and commented on these requirements. We
   would also like to thank the members of the AAA evaluation team, Mike
   St. Johns, Barney Wolf, Mark Stevens, David Nelson, Dave Mitton,
   Basavaraj Patil and Stuart Barkley for their thorough review of this
   document.

7.  Authors' Addresses

   Bernard Aboba
   Microsoft Corporation
   One Microsoft Way
   Redmond, WA 98052

   Phone: +1 425-936-6605
   Fax:   +1 425-936-7329
   EMail: bernarda@microsoft.com


   Pat R. Calhoun
   Network and Security Research Center, Sun Labs
   Sun Microsystems, Inc.
   15 Network Circle
   Menlo Park, CA 94025

   Phone: +1 650-786-7733
   EMail: pcalhoun@eng.sun.com










Aboba, et al.                Informational                     [Page 21]

RFC 2989         Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria    November 2000


   Steven M. Glass
   Sun Microsystems
   1 Network Drive
   Burlington, MA 01845

   Phone: +1 781-442-0504
   Fax:   +1 781-442-1677
   EMail: steven.glass@sun.com


   Tom Hiller
   Wireless Data Standards & Architectures
   Lucent Technologies
   263 Shuman Drive
   Room 1HP2F-218
   Naperville, IL 60563

   Phone: +1 630-976-7673
   EMail: tom.hiller@lucent.com


   Peter J. McCann
   Lucent Technologies
   Rm 2Z-305
   263 Shuman Blvd
   Naperville, IL  60566

   Phone: +1 630-713 9359
   EMail: mccap@lucent.com


   Hajime Shiino
   Lucent Technologies Japan Ltd.
   25 Mori Bldg. 1-4-30 Roppongi,
   Minato-ku Tokyo
   Japan

   Phone: +81-3-5561-3695
   EMail: hshiino@lucent.com

   Glen Zorn
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   500 108th Avenue N.E., Suite 500
   Bellevue, WA 98004

   Phone: +1 425-468-0955
   EMail: gwz@cisco.com




Aboba, et al.                Informational                     [Page 22]

RFC 2989         Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria    November 2000


   Gopal Dommety
   IOS Network Protocols
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA 95134-1706

   Phone: +1 408-525-1404
   Fax:   +1 408-526-4952
   EMail: gdommety@cisco.com


   Charles E. Perkins
   Communications Systems Lab
   Nokia Research Center
   313 Fairchild Drive
   Mountain View, CA

   Phone: +1 650-625-2986
   Fax:   +1-650-625-2502
   EMail: charliep@iprg.nokia.com


   Basavaraj Patil
   Nokia Networks
   6000 Connection Dr.
   Irving, TX 75039

   Phone: +1 972-894-6709
   Fax:   +1 972-894-5349
   EMail: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com


   David Mitton
   Nortel Networks
   880 Technology Park Drive
   Billerica, MA 01821

   Phone: +1 978-288-4570
   EMail: dmitton@nortelnetworks.com


   Serge Manning
   Nortel Networks
   2201 Lakeside Blvd
   Richardson, TX  75082-4399

   Phone: +1 972-684-7277
   EMail: smanning@nortelnetworks.com



Aboba, et al.                Informational                     [Page 23]

RFC 2989         Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria    November 2000


   Mark Anthony Beadles
   SmartPipes, Inc.
   565 Metro Place South
   Suite 300
   Dublin, OH 43017

   Phone: +1 614-923-5657
   EMail: mbeadles@smartpipes.com


   Pat Walsh
   Lucent Technologies
   263 Shuman Blvd.
   1F-545
   Naperville, IL

   Phone: +1 630-713-5063
   EMail: walshp@lucent.com


   Xing Chen
   Alcatel USA
   1000 Coit Road
   Plano, TX 75075

   Phone: +1 972-519-4142
   Fax:   +1 972-519-3300
   EMail: xing.chen@usa.alcatel.com


   Sanjeevan Sivalingham
   Ericsson Wireless Communications Inc.,
   Rm Q-356C
   6455 Lusk Blvd
   San Diego, CA 92126

   Phone: +1 858-332-5670
   EMail: s.sivalingham@ericsson.com


   Alan Hameed
   Fujitsu
   2801 Telecom Parkway
   Richardson, TX 75082

   Phone: +1 972-479-2089





Aboba, et al.                Informational                     [Page 24]

RFC 2989         Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria    November 2000


   Mark Munson
   GTE Wireless
   One GTE Place
   Alpharetta, GA  30004

   Phone: +1 678-339-4439
   EMail: mmunson@mobilnet.gte.com


   Stuart Jacobs
   Secure Systems Department
   GTE Laboratories
   40 Sylvan Road,
   Waltham, MA 02451-1128

   Phone: +1 781-466-3076
   Fax:   +1 781-466-2838
   EMail: sjacobs@gte.com


   Byung-Keun Lim
   LG Electronics, Ltd.
   533, Hogye-dong, Dongan-ku, Anyang-shi,
   Kyungki-do,431-080
   Korea

   Phone: +82-31-450-7199
   Fax:   +82-31-450-7050
   EMail: bklim@lgic.co.kr


   Brent Hirschman
   1501 Shure Dr.
   Arlington Hieghts, IL 60006

   Phone: +1 847-632-1563
   EMail: qa4053@email.mot.com


   Raymond T. Hsu
   Qualcomm Inc.
   6455 Lusk Blvd.
   San Diego, CA 92121

   Phone: +1 619-651-3623
   EMail: rhsu@qualcomm.com





Aboba, et al.                Informational                     [Page 25]

RFC 2989         Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria    November 2000


   Haeng S. Koo
   Samsung Telecommunications America, Inc.
   1130 E. Arapaho Road
   Richardson, TX 75081

   Phone: +1 972-761-7755
   EMail: hskoo@sta.samsung.com


   Mark A. Lipford
   Sprint PCS
   8001 College Blvd.; Suite 210
   Overland Park, KS  66210

   Phone: +1 913-664-8335
   EMail: mlipfo01@sprintspectrum.com


   Ed Campbell
   3Com Corporation
   1800 W. Central Rd.
   Mount Prospect, IL 60056

   Phone: +1 847-342-6769
   EMail: ed_campbell@3com.com


   Name: Yingchun Xu
   WaterCove Networks
   One Century Centre, Suite 550
   1750 E. Golf Road
   Schaumburg, IL

   Phone: +1 847-477-9280
   EMail: yxu@watercove.com


   Shinichi Baba
   Toshiba America Research, Inc.
   PO Box 136,
   Convent Station, NJ 07961-0136

   Phone: +1 973-829-4795
   EMail: sbaba@tari.toshiba.com







Aboba, et al.                Informational                     [Page 26]

RFC 2989         Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria    November 2000


   Eric Jaques
   Vodafone AirTouch
   2999 Oak Road, MS-750
   Walnut Creek, CA 94596

   Phone: +1 925-279-6142
   EMail: ejaques@akamail.com

8.  Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
   has made any effort to identify any such rights.  Information on the
   IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
   standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11.  Copies of
   claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
   licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
   obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
   proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
   be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF Executive
   Director.






















Aboba, et al.                Informational                     [Page 27]

RFC 2989         Network Access AAA Evaluation Criteria    November 2000


9.  Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000).  All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.



















Aboba, et al.                Informational                     [Page 28]