<pre>Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                         M. Cullen
Request for Comments: 7652                                    S. Hartman
Updates: <a href="./rfc6887">6887</a>                                          Painless Security
Category: Standards Track                                       D. Zhang
ISSN: 2070-1721
                                                                T. Reddy
                                                                   Cisco
                                                          September 2015


          <span class="h1">Port Control Protocol (PCP) Authentication Mechanism</span>

Abstract

   An IPv4 or IPv6 host can use the Port Control Protocol (PCP) to
   flexibly manage the IP address-mapping and port-mapping information
   on Network Address Translators (NATs) or firewalls to facilitate
   communication with remote hosts.  However, the uncontrolled
   generation or deletion of IP address mappings on such network devices
   may cause security risks and should be avoided.  In some cases, the
   client may need to prove that it is authorized to modify, create, or
   delete PCP mappings.  This document describes an in-band
   authentication mechanism for PCP that can be used in those cases.
   The Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) is used to perform
   authentication between PCP devices.

   This document updates <a href="./rfc6887">RFC 6887</a>.

Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in <a href="./rfc5741#section-2">Section&nbsp;2 of RFC 5741</a>.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7652">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7652</a>.










<span class="grey">Cullen, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7652">RFC 7652</a>                   PCP Authentication             September 2015</span>


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a> and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (<a href="http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info">http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info</a>) 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.





































<span class="grey">Cullen, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7652">RFC 7652</a>                   PCP Authentication             September 2015</span>


Table of Contents

   <a href="#section-1">1</a>.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   <a href="#page-4">4</a>
   <a href="#section-2">2</a>.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   <a href="#page-5">5</a>
   <a href="#section-3">3</a>.  Protocol Details  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   <a href="#page-6">6</a>
     <a href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>.  Session Initiation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   <a href="#page-6">6</a>
       <a href="#section-3.1.1">3.1.1</a>.  Authentication Triggered by the Client  . . . . . . .   <a href="#page-6">6</a>
       <a href="#section-3.1.2">3.1.2</a>.  Authentication Triggered by the Server  . . . . . . .   <a href="#page-7">7</a>
       <a href="#section-3.1.3">3.1.3</a>.  Authentication Using EAP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   <a href="#page-8">8</a>
     <a href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>.  Recovery from Lost PA Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-10">10</a>
     <a href="#section-3.3">3.3</a>.  Session Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-11">11</a>
     <a href="#section-3.4">3.4</a>.  Session Re-authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-11">11</a>
   <a href="#section-4">4</a>.  PA Security Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-12">12</a>
   <a href="#section-5">5</a>.  Packet Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-14">14</a>
     <a href="#section-5.1">5.1</a>.  Packet Format of PCP Auth Messages  . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-14">14</a>
     <a href="#section-5.2">5.2</a>.  Opcode-Specific Information of AUTHENTICATION Opcode  . .  <a href="#page-16">16</a>
     <a href="#section-5.3">5.3</a>.  NONCE Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-16">16</a>
     <a href="#section-5.4">5.4</a>.  AUTHENTICATION_TAG Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-17">17</a>
     <a href="#section-5.5">5.5</a>.  PA_AUTHENTICATION_TAG Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-18">18</a>
     <a href="#section-5.6">5.6</a>.  EAP_PAYLOAD Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-19">19</a>
     <a href="#section-5.7">5.7</a>.  PRF Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-19">19</a>
     <a href="#section-5.8">5.8</a>.  MAC_ALGORITHM Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-20">20</a>
     <a href="#section-5.9">5.9</a>.  SESSION_LIFETIME Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-20">20</a>
     <a href="#section-5.10">5.10</a>. RECEIVED_PAK Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-21">21</a>
     <a href="#section-5.11">5.11</a>. ID_INDICATOR Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-21">21</a>
   <a href="#section-6">6</a>.  Processing Rules  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-22">22</a>
     <a href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>.  Authentication Data Generation  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-22">22</a>
     <a href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>.  Authentication Data Validation  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-23">23</a>
     <a href="#section-6.3">6.3</a>.  Retransmission Policies for PA Messages . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-24">24</a>
     <a href="#section-6.4">6.4</a>.  Sequence Numbers for PCP Auth Messages  . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-25">25</a>
     <a href="#section-6.5">6.5</a>.  Sequence Numbers for Common PCP Messages  . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-26">26</a>
     <a href="#section-6.6">6.6</a>.  MTU Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-26">26</a>
   <a href="#section-7">7</a>.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-27">27</a>
     <a href="#section-7.1">7.1</a>.  NONCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-28">28</a>
     <a href="#section-7.2">7.2</a>.  AUTHENTICATION_TAG  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-28">28</a>
     <a href="#section-7.3">7.3</a>.  PA_AUTHENTICATION_TAG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-29">29</a>
     <a href="#section-7.4">7.4</a>.  EAP_PAYLOAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-29">29</a>
     <a href="#section-7.5">7.5</a>.  PRF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-29">29</a>
     <a href="#section-7.6">7.6</a>.  MAC_ALGORITHM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-30">30</a>
     <a href="#section-7.7">7.7</a>.  SESSION_LIFETIME  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-30">30</a>
     <a href="#section-7.8">7.8</a>.  RECEIVED_PAK  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-30">30</a>
     <a href="#section-7.9">7.9</a>.  ID_INDICATOR  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-31">31</a>
   <a href="#section-8">8</a>.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-31">31</a>
   <a href="#section-9">9</a>.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-32">32</a>
     <a href="#section-9.1">9.1</a>.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-32">32</a>
     <a href="#section-9.2">9.2</a>.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-33">33</a>
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-33">33</a>
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  <a href="#page-34">34</a>



<span class="grey">Cullen, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7652">RFC 7652</a>                   PCP Authentication             September 2015</span>


<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>.  Introduction</span>

   Using the Port Control Protocol (PCP) [<a href="./rfc6887" title="&quot;Port Control Protocol (PCP)&quot;">RFC6887</a>], an application can
   flexibly manage the IP address-mapping information on its network
   address translators (NATs) and firewalls and can control their
   policies in processing incoming and outgoing IP packets.  Because
   NATs and firewalls both play important roles in network security
   architectures, there are many situations in which authentication and
   access control are required to prevent unauthorized users from
   accessing such devices.  This document defines a PCP security
   extension that enables PCP servers to authenticate their clients with
   the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP).  The EAP messages are
   encapsulated within PCP messages during transmission.

   The following issues are considered in the design of this extension:

   o  Loss of EAP messages during transmission.

   o  Reordered delivery of EAP messages.

   o  Generation of transport keys.

   o  Integrity protection and data origin authentication for
      PCP messages.

   o  Algorithm agility.

   The mechanism described in this document meets the security
   requirements to address the Advanced Threat Model described in the
   base PCP specification [<a href="./rfc6887" title="&quot;Port Control Protocol (PCP)&quot;">RFC6887</a>].  This mechanism can be used to
   secure PCP in the following situations:

   o  On security infrastructure equipment, such as corporate firewalls,
      that does not create implicit mappings for specific traffic.

   o  On equipment (such as Carrier-Grade NATs (CGNs) or service
      provider firewalls) that serves multiple administrative domains
      and do not have a mechanism to securely partition traffic from
      those domains.

   o  For any implementation that wants to be more permissive in
      authorizing applications to create mappings for successful inbound
      communications destined to machines located behind a NAT or a
      firewall.







<span class="grey">Cullen, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7652">RFC 7652</a>                   PCP Authentication             September 2015</span>


<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>.  Terminology</span>

   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 <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a> [<a href="./rfc2119" title="&quot;Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels&quot;">RFC2119</a>].

   Most of the terms used in this document are introduced in [<a href="./rfc6887" title="&quot;Port Control Protocol (PCP)&quot;">RFC6887</a>].

   PCP client: A PCP software instance that is responsible for issuing
   PCP requests to a PCP server.  In this document, a PCP client is also
   an EAP peer [<a href="./rfc3748" title="&quot;Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)&quot;">RFC3748</a>], and it is the responsibility of a PCP client
   to provide the credentials when authentication is required.

   PCP server: A PCP software instance that resides on the
   PCP-controlled device that receives PCP requests from the PCP client
   and creates appropriate state in response to that request.  In this
   document, a PCP server is integrated with an EAP authenticator
   [<a href="./rfc3748" title="&quot;Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)&quot;">RFC3748</a>].  Therefore, when necessary, a PCP server can verify the
   credentials provided by a PCP client and make an access control
   decision based on the authentication result.

   PCP-Authentication (PA) session: A series of PCP message exchanges
   transferred between a PCP client and a PCP server.  The PCP messages
   that are part of a given session include the PA messages used to
   perform EAP authentication, key distribution, and session management,
   as well as the common PCP messages secured with the keys distributed
   during authentication.  Each PA session is assigned a distinctive
   Session ID.

   Session partner: A PCP implementation involved in a PA session.  Each
   PA session has two session partners (a PCP server and a PCP client).

   PCP device: A PCP client or a PCP server.

   Session lifetime: The lifetime associated with a PA session.  The
   session lifetime of the PA session decides the lifetime of the
   current authorization given to the PCP client.

   PA Security Association (PCP SA): An association formed between a
   PCP client and a PCP server by sharing cryptographic keying material
   and associated context.  The formed duplex security association is
   used to protect the bidirectional PCP signaling traffic between the
   PCP client and PCP server.

   Master Session Key (MSK): A key derived by the partners of a
   PA session, using an EAP key-generating method (e.g., the method
   defined in [<a href="./rfc5448" title="&quot;Improved Extensible Authentication Protocol Method for 3rd Generation Authentication and Key Agreement (EAP-AKA')&quot;">RFC5448</a>]).




<span class="grey">Cullen, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7652">RFC 7652</a>                   PCP Authentication             September 2015</span>


   PCP-Authentication (PA) message: A PCP message containing an
   AUTHENTICATION Opcode.  Specifically, a PA message sent from a
   PCP server to a PCP client is referred to as a PA-Server message,
   while a PA message sent from a PCP client to a PCP server is referred
   to as a PA-Client message.  Therefore, a PA-Server message is
   actually a PCP response message as specified in [<a href="./rfc6887" title="&quot;Port Control Protocol (PCP)&quot;">RFC6887</a>], and a
   PA-Client message is a PCP request message.  This document specifies
   an option -- the PA_AUTHENTICATION_TAG option defined in <a href="#section-5.5">Section 5.5</a>
   for PCP authentication -- to provide integrity protection and message
   origin authentication for PA messages.

   Common PCP message: A PCP message that does not contain an
   AUTHENTICATION Opcode.  This document specifies an AUTHENTICATION_TAG
   option to provide integrity protection and message origin
   authentication for the common PCP messages.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>.  Protocol Details</span>

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1" href="#section-3.1">3.1</a>.  Session Initiation</span>

   At the beginning of a PA session, a PCP client and a PCP server need
   to exchange a series of PA messages in order to perform an EAP
   authentication process.  Each PA message MUST contain an
   AUTHENTICATION Opcode and may optionally contain a set of options for
   various purposes (e.g., transporting authentication messages and
   session management).  The Opcode-specific information in an
   AUTHENTICATION Opcode consists of two fields: Session ID and Sequence
   Number.  The Session ID field is used to identify the PA session to
   which the message belongs.  The Sequence Number field is used to
   detect whether reordering or duplication occurred during message
   delivery.

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1.1" href="#section-3.1.1">3.1.1</a>.  Authentication Triggered by the Client</span>

   When a PCP client intends to proactively initiate a PA session with a
   PCP server, it sends a PA-Initiation message (a PA-Client message
   with the result code INITIATION) to the PCP server.  <a href="#section-5.1">Section 5.1</a>
   updates the PCP request message format with result codes for the PCP
   authentication mechanism.  In the Opcode-specific information of the
   message, the Session ID and Sequence Number fields are set to zero.
   The PA-Client message MUST also contain a NONCE option (defined in
   <a href="#section-5.3">Section 5.3</a>) that consists of a random nonce.

   After receiving the PA-Initiation message, if the PCP server agrees
   to initiate a PA session with the PCP client, it will reply with a
   PA-Server message that contains an EAP request, and the Result Code
   field of this PA-Server message is set to AUTHENTICATION_REQUEST.  In
   addition, the server MUST assign a unique session identifier to



<span class="grey">Cullen, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 6]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-7" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7652">RFC 7652</a>                   PCP Authentication             September 2015</span>


   distinctly identify this session and insert the identifier into the
   Session ID field in the Opcode-specific information of the PA-Server
   message.  The Sequence Number field of the message is set to zero.
   The PA-Server message MUST contain a NONCE option so as to send the
   nonce value back.  The nonce will then be used by the PCP client to
   check the freshness of this message.  Subsequent PCP messages within
   this PA session MUST contain this session identifier.

          PCP                                               PCP
         client                                            server
           |-- PA-Initiation -------------------------------&gt;|
           |    (Seq=0, rc=INITIATION, Session ID=0)         |
           |                                                 |
           |&lt;-- PA-Server -----------------------------------|
           |     (Seq=0, Session ID=X, EAP request,          |
           |      rc=AUTHENTICATION_REQUEST)                 |
           |                                                 |
           |-- PA-Client -----------------------------------&gt;|
           |    (Seq=1, Session ID=X, EAP response,          |
           |     rc=AUTHENTICATION_REPLY)                    |
           |                                                 |
           |&lt;-- PA-Server -----------------------------------|
           |     (Seq=1, Session ID=X, EAP request,          |
           |      rc=AUTHENTICATION_REQUEST)                 |

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1.2" href="#section-3.1.2">3.1.2</a>.  Authentication Triggered by the Server</span>

   In the scenario where a PCP server receives a common PCP request
   message from a PCP client that needs to be authenticated, the
   PCP server rejects the request with an AUTHENTICATION_REQUIRED error
   code and can reply with an unsolicited PA-Server message to initiate
   a PA session.  The Result Code field of this PA-Server message is set
   to AUTHENTICATION_REQUEST.  In addition, the PCP server MUST assign a
   Session ID for the session and transfer it within the PA-Server
   message.  The Sequence Number field in the PA-Server message is set
   to zero.  If the PCP client retries the common request before EAP
   authentication is successful, then it will receive an
   AUTHENTICATION_REQUIRED error code from the PCP server.  In
   subsequent PA messages exchanged during this session, the Session ID
   will be used in order to help session partners distinguish the
   messages within this session from those not within it.  When the
   PCP client receives this initial PA-Server message from the
   PCP server, it can reply with a PA-Client message or silently discard
   the request message, according to its local policies.  In the
   PA-Client message, a NONCE option that consists of a random nonce MAY
   be appended.  If so, in the next PA-Server message, the PCP server
   MUST forward the nonce back within a NONCE option.




<span class="grey">Cullen, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 7]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-8" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7652">RFC 7652</a>                   PCP Authentication             September 2015</span>


          PCP                                               PCP
         client                                            server
           |-- Common PCP request --------------------------&gt;|
           |                                                 |
           |&lt;- Common PCP response --------------------------|
           |    (rc=AUTHENTICATION_REQUIRED)                 |
           |                                                 |
           |&lt;-- PA-Server -----------------------------------|
           |     (Seq=0, Session ID=X, EAP request,          |
           |      rc=AUTHENTICATION_REQUEST)                 |
           |                                                 |
           |-- PA-Client -----------------------------------&gt;|
           |    (Seq=0, Session ID=X, EAP response,          |
           |     rc=AUTHENTICATION_REPLY)                    |
           |                                                 |
           |&lt;-- PA-Server -----------------------------------|
           |     (Seq=1, Session ID=X, EAP request,          |
           |      rc=AUTHENTICATION_REQUEST)                 |

<span class="h4"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.1.3" href="#section-3.1.3">3.1.3</a>.  Authentication Using EAP</span>

   In a PA session, an EAP request message is transported within a
   PA-Server message and an EAP response message is transported within a
   PA-Client message.  EAP relies on the underlying protocol to provide
   reliable transmission; any reordered delivery or loss of packets
   occurring during transmission must be detected and addressed.
   Therefore, after sending out a PA-Server message, the PCP server will
   not send a new PA-Server message in the same PA session until it
   receives a PA-Client message with a proper sequence number from the
   PCP client, and vice versa.  If a PCP client receives a PA message
   containing an EAP request and for some reason cannot generate an EAP
   response immediately (e.g., waiting for human input in order to
   construct an EAP message, or waiting for the additional PA messages
   in order to assemble a complete EAP message from fragmented packets),
   the PCP device MUST reply with a PA-Acknowledgement message (a
   PA message with a RECEIVED_PAK option) to indicate that the message
   has been received.  This approach not only can avoid unnecessary
   retransmission of the PA message but also can guarantee reliable
   message delivery in conditions where a PCP device needs to receive
   multiple PA messages carrying the fragmented EAP request before
   generating an EAP response.  The number of EAP messages exchanged
   between the PCP client and PCP server depends on the EAP method used
   for authentication.

   In this approach, a PCP client and a PCP server MUST perform a
   key-generating EAP method in authentication.  Specifically, a PCP
   authentication implementation MUST support Extensible Authentication
   Protocol Tunneled Transport Layer Security (EAP-TTLS) [<a href="./rfc5281" title="&quot;Extensible Authentication Protocol Tunneled Transport Layer Security Authenticated Protocol Version 0 (EAP-TTLSv0)&quot;">RFC5281</a>] and



<span class="grey">Cullen, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 8]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-9" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7652">RFC 7652</a>                   PCP Authentication             September 2015</span>


   SHOULD support the Tunnel Extensible Authentication Protocol (TEAP)
   [<a href="./rfc7170" title="&quot;Tunnel Extensible Authentication Protocol (TEAP) Version 1&quot;">RFC7170</a>].  Therefore, after a successful authentication procedure, a
   Master Session Key (MSK) will be generated.  If the PCP client and
   the PCP server want to generate a transport key using the MSK, they
   need to agree upon a Pseudorandom Function (PRF) for the transport
   key derivation and a Message Authentication Code (MAC) algorithm to
   provide data origin authentication for subsequent PCP messages.  In
   order to do this, the PCP server needs to append a set of PRF options
   and MAC_ALGORITHM options to the initial PA-Server message.  Each PRF
   option contains a PRF that the PCP server supports, and each
   MAC_ALGORITHM option contains a MAC algorithm that the PCP server
   supports.  Moreover, in the first PA-Server message, the server MAY
   also attach an ID_INDICATOR option (defined in <a href="#section-5.11">Section 5.11</a>) to
   direct the client to choose correct credentials.  After receiving the
   options, the PCP client MUST select the PRF and the MAC algorithm
   that it would like to use; it then MUST add the associated PRF and
   MAC Algorithm options to the next PA-Client message.

   After the EAP authentication, the PCP server sends out a PA-Server
   message to indicate the EAP authentication and PCP authorization
   results.  If the EAP authentication succeeds, the result code of the
   PA-Server message is AUTHENTICATION_SUCCEEDED.  In this case, before
   sending out the PA-Server message, the PCP server MUST update the
   PCP SA with the MSK and transport key and MUST use the derived
   transport key to generate a digest for the message.  The digest is
   transported within a PA_AUTHENTICATION_TAG option for PCP Auth.  A
   more detailed description of generating the authentication data can
   be found in <a href="#section-6.1">Section 6.1</a>.  In addition, the PA-Server message MUST
   also contain a SESSION_LIFETIME option (defined in <a href="#section-5.9">Section 5.9</a>) that
   indicates the lifetime of the PA session (i.e., the lifetime of the
   MSK).  After receiving the PA-Server message, the PCP client then
   needs to generate a PA-Client message in response.  If the PCP client
   also authenticates the PCP server, the result code of the PA-Client
   message is AUTHENTICATION_SUCCEEDED.  In addition, the PCP client
   needs to update the PCP SA with the MSK and transport key, and it
   uses the derived transport key to secure the message.  From then on,
   all the PCP messages within the session are secured with the
   transport key and the MAC algorithm specified in the PCP SA.  The
   first secure PA-Client message from the client MUST include the set
   of PRF and MAC_ALGORITHM options received from the PCP server.  The
   PCP server determines if the set of algorithms conveyed by the client
   matches the set it had initially sent, to detect an algorithm
   downgrade attack.  If the server detects a downgrade attack, then it
   MUST send a PA-Server message with result code
   DOWNGRADE_ATTACK_DETECTED and terminate the session.  If the
   PCP client sends a common PCP request within the PA session without
   an AUTHENTICATION_TAG option, then the PCP server rejects the request
   by returning an AUTHENTICATION_REQUIRED error code.



<span class="grey">Cullen, et al.               Standards Track                    [Page 9]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-10" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7652">RFC 7652</a>                   PCP Authentication             September 2015</span>


   If a PCP client/server cannot authenticate its session partner, the
   device sends out a PA message with the result code
   AUTHENTICATION_FAILED.  If the EAP authentication succeeds but
   authorization fails, the device making the decision sends out a
   PA message with the result code AUTHORIZATION_FAILED.  In these two
   cases, after the PA message is sent out, the PA session MUST be
   terminated immediately.  It is possible for independent PCP clients
   on the host to create multiple PA sessions with the PCP server.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.2" href="#section-3.2">3.2</a>.  Recovery from Lost PA Session</span>

   If a PCP server resets or loses the PCP SA due to reboot, power
   failure, or any other reason, then it sends an unsolicited ANNOUNCE
   response, as explained in <a href="./rfc6887#section-14.1.3">Section&nbsp;14.1.3 of [RFC6887]</a>, to the
   PCP client.  Upon receiving the ANNOUNCE response with an anomalous
   Epoch Time, the PCP client deduces that the server may have lost
   state.  The ANNOUNCE is either bogus (an attack), legitimate, or not
   seen by the client.  These three cases are described below:

   o  The PCP client sends an integrity-protected unicast ANNOUNCE
      request to the PCP server to see whether the PCP server has indeed
      lost state or an attacker has sent the ANNOUNCE response.

      *  If an integrity-protected success response is received from the
         PCP server, then the PCP client determines that the PCP server
         has not lost the PA session, and the unsolicited ANNOUNCE
         response was sent by an attacker.

      *  If the PCP server responds to the ANNOUNCE request with an
         UNKNOWN_SESSION_ID error code, then the PCP client MUST
         initiate full EAP authentication with the PCP server, as
         explained in <a href="#section-3.1.1">Section 3.1.1</a>.  After EAP authentication is
         successful, the PCP client updates the PCP SA and issues new
         common PCP requests to recreate any lost mapping state.

   o  In a scenario where the PCP server has lost the PCP SA but did not
      inform the PCP client, if the PCP client sends an integrity-
      protected PCP request, then the PCP server rejects the request
      with an UNKNOWN_SESSION_ID error code.  The PCP client then
      initiates full EAP authentication with the PCP server, as
      explained in <a href="#section-3.1.1">Section 3.1.1</a>, and updates the PCP SA after
      successful authentication.

   If the PCP client resets or loses the PCP SA due to reboot, power
   failure, or any other reason and sends a common PCP request, then the
   PCP server rejects the request with an AUTHENTICATION_REQUIRED error
   code.  The PCP client MUST authenticate with the PCP server and,
   after EAP authentication is successful, retry the common PCP request



<span class="grey">Cullen, et al.               Standards Track                   [Page 10]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-11" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7652">RFC 7652</a>                   PCP Authentication             September 2015</span>


   with an AUTHENTICATION_TAG option.  The PCP server MUST update the
   PCP SA after successful EAP authentication.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.3" href="#section-3.3">3.3</a>.  Session Termination</span>

   A PA session can be explicitly terminated by either session partner.
   A PCP server may explicitly request termination of the session by
   sending an unsolicited termination-indicating PA response (a
   PA response with a result code of SESSION_TERMINATED).  Upon
   receiving a termination-indicating message, the PCP client MUST
   respond with a termination-indicating PA message and MUST then remove
   the associated PCP SA.  To accommodate packet loss, the PCP server
   MAY transmit the termination-indicating PA response up to ten times
   (with an appropriate Epoch Time value in each to reflect the passage
   of time between transmissions), provided that (1) the interval
   between the first two notifications is at least 250 ms and (2) each
   interval between subsequent notifications at least doubles.

   A PCP client may explicitly request termination of the session by
   sending a termination-indicating PA request (a PA request with a
   result code of SESSION_TERMINATED).  After receiving a termination-
   indicating message from the PCP client, a PCP server MUST respond
   with a termination-indicating PA message and remove the PCP SA
   immediately.  When the PCP client receives the termination-indicating
   PA response, it MUST remove the associated PCP SA immediately.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-3.4" href="#section-3.4">3.4</a>.  Session Re-authentication</span>

   A session partner may choose to perform EAP re-authentication if it
   would like to update the PCP SA without initiating a new PA session.
   For example, a re-authentication procedure could be triggered for the
   following reasons:

   o  The session lifetime needs to be extended.

   o  The sequence number is going to reach the maximum value.
      Specifically, when the sequence number reaches 2**32 - 2**16, the
      session partner MUST trigger re-authentication.

   When the PCP server would like to initiate a re-authentication, it
   sends the PCP client a PA-Server message.  The result code of the
   message is set to RE-AUTHENTICATION, which indicates that the message
   is for a re-authentication process.  If the PCP client would like to
   start the re-authentication, it will send a PA-Client message to the
   PCP server, with the result code of the PA-Client message set to
   RE-AUTHENTICATION.  Then, the session partners exchange PA messages
   to transfer EAP messages for the re-authentication.  During the
   re-authentication procedure, the session partners protect the



<span class="grey">Cullen, et al.               Standards Track                   [Page 11]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-12" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7652">RFC 7652</a>                   PCP Authentication             September 2015</span>


   integrity of PA messages with the key and MAC algorithm specified in
   the current PCP SA; the sequence numbers associated with the message
   will continue to keep increasing as specified in <a href="#section-6.4">Section 6.4</a>.  The
   result code for a PA-Server message carrying an EAP request will be
   set to AUTHENTICATION_REQUIRED, and a PA-Client message carrying an
   EAP response will be set to AUTHENTICATION_REPLY.

   If the EAP re-authentication succeeds, the result code of the last
   PA-Server message is AUTHENTICATION_SUCCEEDED.  In this case, before
   sending out the PA-Server message, the PCP server MUST update the SA
   and use the new key to generate a digest for the PA-Server message
   and subsequent PCP messages.  In addition, the PA-Server message MUST
   be appended with a SESSION_LIFETIME option that indicates the new
   lifetime of the PA session.  PA and PCP message sequence numbers must
   also be reset to zero.

   If the EAP authentication fails, the result code of the last
   PA-Server message is AUTHENTICATION_FAILED.  If the EAP
   authentication succeeds but authorization fails, the result code of
   the last PA-Server message is AUTHORIZATION_FAILED.  In the latter
   two cases, the PA session MUST be terminated immediately after the
   last PA message exchange.  If for some unknown reason
   re-authentication is not performed and the session lifetime has
   expired, then the PA session MUST be terminated immediately.

   During re-authentication, the session partners can also exchange
   common PCP messages in parallel.  The common PCP messages MUST be
   protected with the current SA until the new SA has been generated.
   The sequence of EAP messages exchanged for re-authentication will not
   change, regardless of the PCP device triggering re-authentication.
   If the PCP server receives a re-authentication request from the
   PCP client after the PCP server itself had sent a re-authentication
   request, then it should discard its request and respond to the
   re-authentication request from the PCP client.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>.  PA Security Association</span>

   At the beginning of a new PA session, each PCP device must create and
   initialize state information for a new PA Security Association
   (PCP SA) to maintain its state information for the duration of the
   PA session.  The parameters of a PCP SA are as follows:

   o  IP address and UDP port number of the PCP client.

   o  IP address and UDP port number of the PCP server.

   o  Session identifier.




<span class="grey">Cullen, et al.               Standards Track                   [Page 12]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-13" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7652">RFC 7652</a>                   PCP Authentication             September 2015</span>


   o  Sequence number for the next outgoing PA message.

   o  Sequence number for the next incoming PA message.

   o  Sequence number for the next outgoing common PCP message.

   o  Sequence number for the next incoming common PCP message.

   o  Last outgoing message payload.

   o  Retransmission interval.

   o  The Master Session Key (MSK) generated by the EAP method.

   o  The MAC algorithm that the transport key should use to generate
      digests for PCP messages.

   o  The pseudorandom function negotiated in the initial PA-Server and
      PA-Client message exchange for the transport key derivation.

   o  The transport key derived from the MSK to provide integrity
      protection and data origin authentication for the messages in the
      PA session.  The lifetime of the transport key SHOULD be identical
      to the lifetime of the session.

   o  The nonce selected by the PCP client at the initiation of the
      session.

   o  The key ID associated with the transport key.

   Specifically, the transport key is computed in the following way:
   transport key = prf(MSK, "IETF PCP" || Session ID || Nonce ||
   key ID), where:

   o  prf is the pseudorandom function assigned in the PRF option
      (<a href="#section-5.7">Section 5.7</a>).

   o  MSK is the master session key generated by the EAP method.

   o  "IETF PCP" is the ASCII code representation of the
      non-null-terminated string (excluding the double quotes
      around it).

   o  '||' is the concatenation operator.

   o  Session ID is the ID of the session from which the MSK is derived.





<span class="grey">Cullen, et al.               Standards Track                   [Page 13]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-14" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7652">RFC 7652</a>                   PCP Authentication             September 2015</span>


   o  Nonce is the nonce selected by the client and transported in the
      initial PA-Client message.

   o  Key ID is the ID assigned for the transport key.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>.  Packet Format</span>

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.1" href="#section-5.1">5.1</a>.  Packet Format of PCP Auth Messages</span>

   The format of the PA-Server message is identical to the response
   message format specified in <a href="./rfc6887#section-7.2">Section&nbsp;7.2 of [RFC6887]</a>.  The result
   code for a PA-Server message carrying an EAP request MUST be set to
   AUTHENTICATION_REQUEST.

   This document updates the Reserved field (see Figure 1) in the
   Request header specified in <a href="./rfc6887#section-7.1">Section&nbsp;7.1 of [RFC6887]</a> to carry
   Opcode-specific data.

      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |  Version = 2  |R|   Opcode    |   Reserved    |Opcode-specific|
     |               | |             |               |   data        |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                 Requested Lifetime (32 bits)                  |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     |            PCP Client's IP Address (128 bits)                 |
     |                                                               |
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     :                                                               :
     :                  Opcode-specific information                  :
     :                                                               :
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     :                                                               :
     :                   (optional) PCP Options                      :
     :                                                               :
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                      Figure 1: Request Packet Format










<span class="grey">Cullen, et al.               Standards Track                   [Page 14]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-15" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7652">RFC 7652</a>                   PCP Authentication             September 2015</span>


   The PA-Client messages (as shown in Figure 2) use the Request header
   specified in Figure 1.  The Opcode-specific data is used to transfer
   the result codes (e.g., INITIATION, AUTHENTICATION_FAILED).  Other
   fields in Figure 2 are described in <a href="./rfc6887#section-7.1">Section&nbsp;7.1 of [RFC6887]</a>.  The
   result code for a PA-Client message carrying an EAP response MUST be
   set to AUTHENTICATION_REPLY.

      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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |  Version = 2  |R|   Opcode    |   Reserved    |  Result Code  |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                 Requested Lifetime (32 bits)                  |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     |            PCP Client's IP Address (128 bits)                 |
     |                                                               |
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     :                                                               :
     :                  Opcode-specific information                  :
     :                                                               :
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     :                                                               :
     :                   (optional) PCP Options                      :
     :                                                               :
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                    Figure 2: PA-Client Message Format

   The Requested Lifetime field of a PA-Client message and the Lifetime
   field of a PA-Server message are both set to zero on transmission and
   ignored on reception.


















<span class="grey">Cullen, et al.               Standards Track                   [Page 15]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-16" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7652">RFC 7652</a>                   PCP Authentication             September 2015</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.2" href="#section-5.2">5.2</a>.  Opcode-Specific Information of AUTHENTICATION Opcode</span>

   The following diagram shows the format of the Opcode-specific
   information for the AUTHENTICATION Opcode.

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                       Session ID                              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                     Sequence Number                           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Session ID: This field contains a 32-bit PA session identifier.

      Sequence Number: This field contains a 32-bit sequence number.  A
      sequence number needs to be incremented on every new
      (non-retransmission) outgoing PA message in order to provide an
      ordering guarantee for PA messages.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.3" href="#section-5.3">5.3</a>.  NONCE Option</span>

   Because the session identifier of a PA session is determined by the
   PCP server, a PCP client does not know the session identifier that
   will be used when it sends out a PA-Initiation message.  In order to
   prevent an attacker from interrupting the authentication process by
   sending spoofed PA-Server messages, the PCP client needs to generate
   a random number as a nonce in the PA-Initiation message.  The
   PCP server will append the nonce within the initial PA-Server
   message.  If the PA-Server message does not carry the correct nonce,
   the message MUST be silently discarded.

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  Option Code  |  Reserved     |       Option-Length           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         Nonce                                 |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Option Code: 4.

      Reserved: 8 bits.  MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be
      ignored on reception.

      Option-Length: 4 octets.





<span class="grey">Cullen, et al.               Standards Track                   [Page 16]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-17" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7652">RFC 7652</a>                   PCP Authentication             September 2015</span>


      Nonce: A random 32-bit number that is transported within a
      PA-Initiation message and the corresponding reply message from the
      PCP server.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.4" href="#section-5.4">5.4</a>.  AUTHENTICATION_TAG Option</span>

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  Option Code  |  Reserved     |       Option-Length           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                       Session ID                              |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                     Sequence Number                           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                          Key ID                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |                Authentication Data (Variable)                 |
      ~                                                               ~
      |                                                               |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Because there is no authentication Opcode in common PCP messages, the
   authentication tag for common PCP messages needs to carry the
   Session ID and Sequence Number.

      Option Code: 5.

      Reserved: 8 bits.  MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be
      ignored on reception.

      Option-Length: The length of the AUTHENTICATION_TAG option for the
      common PCP message (in octets), including the 12-octet
      fixed-length header and the variable-length authentication data.

      Session ID: A 32-bit field used to identify the session to which
      the message belongs and identify the secret key used to create the
      message digest appended to the PCP message.

      Sequence Number: A 32-bit sequence number.  In this option, a
      sequence number needs to be incremented on every new
      (non-retransmission) outgoing common PCP message in order to
      provide an ordering guarantee for common PCP messages.






<span class="grey">Cullen, et al.               Standards Track                   [Page 17]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-18" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7652">RFC 7652</a>                   PCP Authentication             September 2015</span>


      Key ID: The ID associated with the transport key used to generate
      authentication data.  This field is filled with zeros if the MSK
      is directly used to secure the message.

      Authentication Data: A variable-length field that carries the
      Message Authentication Code for the common PCP message.  The
      generation of the digest varies according to the algorithms
      specified in different PCP SAs.  This field MUST end on a 32-bit
      boundary, padded with zeros when necessary.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.5" href="#section-5.5">5.5</a>.  PA_AUTHENTICATION_TAG Option</span>

   This option is used to provide message authentication for
   PA messages.  In contrast to the AUTHENTICATION_TAG option for common
   PCP messages, the Session ID field and the Sequence Number field are
   removed because such information is provided in the Opcode-specific
   information of the AUTHENTICATION Opcode.

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  Option Code  |  Reserved     |       Option-Length           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                          Key ID                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |                Authentication Data (Variable)                 |
      ~                                                               ~
      |                                                               |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Option Code: 6.

      Reserved: 8 bits.  MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be
      ignored on reception.

      Option-Length: The length of the PA_AUTHENTICATION option for the
      PCP Auth message (in octets), including the 4-octet fixed-length
      header and the variable-length authentication data.

      Key ID: The ID associated with the transport key used to generate
      authentication data.  This field is filled with zeros if the MSK
      is directly used to secure the message.

      Authentication Data: A variable-length field that carries the
      Message Authentication Code for the PCP Auth message.  The
      generation of the digest varies according to the algorithms



<span class="grey">Cullen, et al.               Standards Track                   [Page 18]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-19" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7652">RFC 7652</a>                   PCP Authentication             September 2015</span>


      specified in different PCP SAs.  This field MUST end on a 32-bit
      boundary, padded with null characters when necessary.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.6" href="#section-5.6">5.6</a>.  EAP_PAYLOAD Option</span>

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  Option Code  |  Reserved     |       Option-Length           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |                           EAP Message                         |
      ~                                                               ~
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Option Code: 7.

      Reserved: 8 bits.  MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be
      ignored on reception.

      Option-Length: Variable.

      EAP Message: The EAP message transferred.  Note that this field
      MUST end on a 32-bit boundary, padded with zeros when necessary.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.7" href="#section-5.7">5.7</a>.  PRF Option</span>

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  Option Code  |  Reserved     |       Option-Length           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                          PRF                                  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Option Code: 8.

      Reserved: 8 bits.  MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be
      ignored on reception.

      Option-Length: 4 octets.

      PRF: The pseudorandom function that the sender supports to
      generate an MSK.  This field contains a value indicating Internet
      Key Exchange Protocol version 2 (IKEv2) Transform Type 2 [<a href="./rfc7296" title="&quot;Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)&quot;">RFC7296</a>]
      [<a href="./rfc4868" title="&quot;Using HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA- 384, and HMAC-SHA-512 with IPsec&quot;">RFC4868</a>].  A PCP implementation MUST support PRF_HMAC_SHA2_256
      (transform ID = 5).



<span class="grey">Cullen, et al.               Standards Track                   [Page 19]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-20" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7652">RFC 7652</a>                   PCP Authentication             September 2015</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.8" href="#section-5.8">5.8</a>.  MAC_ALGORITHM Option</span>

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  Option Code  |  Reserved     |       Option-Length           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                    MAC Algorithm ID                           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Option Code: 9.

      Reserved: 8 bits.  MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be
      ignored on reception.

      Option-Length: 4 octets.

      MAC Algorithm ID: Indicates the MAC algorithm that the sender
      supports to generate authentication data.  The MAC Algorithm ID
      field contains a value indicating IKEv2 Transform Type 3 [<a href="./rfc7296" title="&quot;Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)&quot;">RFC7296</a>]
      [<a href="./rfc4868" title="&quot;Using HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA- 384, and HMAC-SHA-512 with IPsec&quot;">RFC4868</a>].  A PCP implementation MUST support
      AUTH_HMAC_SHA2_256_128 (transform ID = 12).

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.9" href="#section-5.9">5.9</a>.  SESSION_LIFETIME Option</span>

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  Option Code  |  Reserved     |       Option-Length           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                   Session Lifetime                            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Option Code: 10.

      Reserved: 8 bits.  MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be
      ignored on reception.

      Option-Length: 4 octets.

      Session Lifetime: An unsigned 32-bit integer, in seconds, ranging
      from 0 to 2^32-1 seconds.  The lifetime of the PA session, which
      is decided by the authorization result.








<span class="grey">Cullen, et al.               Standards Track                   [Page 20]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-21" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7652">RFC 7652</a>                   PCP Authentication             September 2015</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.10" href="#section-5.10">5.10</a>.  RECEIVED_PAK Option</span>

   This option is used in a PA-Acknowledgement message to indicate that
   a PA message with the contained sequence number has been received.

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  Option Code  |  Reserved     |       Option-Length           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                   Received Sequence Number                    |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Option Code: 11.

      Reserved: 8 bits.  MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be
      ignored on reception.

      Option-Length: 4 octets.

      Received Sequence Number: The sequence number of the last received
      PA message.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-5.11" href="#section-5.11">5.11</a>.  ID_INDICATOR Option</span>

   The ID_INDICATOR option is used by the PCP client to determine which
   credentials to provide to the PCP server.

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |  Option Code  |  Reserved     |       Option-Length           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |                          ID Indicator                         |
      ~                                                               ~
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

      Option Code: 12.

      Reserved: 8 bits.  MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be
      ignored on reception.

      Option-Length: Variable.

      ID Indicator: The identity of the authority that issued the EAP
      credentials to be used to authenticate the client.  The field



<span class="grey">Cullen, et al.               Standards Track                   [Page 21]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-22" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7652">RFC 7652</a>                   PCP Authentication             September 2015</span>


      MUST NOT be null terminated, and its length is indicated by the
      Option-Length field.  In particular, when a client receives an
      ID_INDICATOR option, it MUST NOT rely on the presence of a null
      character in the wire format data to identify the end of the
      ID Indicator field.

      The field MUST end on a 32-bit boundary, padded with zeros when
      necessary.  The ID Indicator field is a UTF-8 encoded [<a href="./rfc3629" title="&quot;UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646&quot;">RFC3629</a>]
      Unicode string conforming to the UsernameCaseMapped profile of the
      PRECIS IdentifierClass [<a href="./rfc7613" title="&quot;Preparation, Enforcement, and Comparison of Internationalized Strings Representing Usernames and Passwords&quot;">RFC7613</a>].  The PCP client validates that
      the ID Indicator field conforms to the UsernameCaseMapped profile
      of the PRECIS IdentifierClass.  The PCP client enforces the rules
      specified in <a href="./rfc7613#section-3.2.2">Section&nbsp;3.2.2 of [RFC7613]</a> to map the ID Indicator
      field.  The PCP client compares the resulting string with the ID
      indicators stored locally on the PCP client to pick the
      credentials for authentication.  The two indicator strings are to
      be considered equivalent by the client if and only if they are an
      exact octet-for-octet match.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>.  Processing Rules</span>

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.1" href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>.  Authentication Data Generation</span>

   After a successful EAP authentication process, every subsequent
   PCP message within the PA session MUST carry an authentication tag
   that contains the digest of the PCP message for data origin
   authentication and integrity protection.

   o  Before generating a digest for a PA message, a device needs to
      first locate the PCP SA according to the session identifier and
      then get the transport key.  Then, the device appends a
      PA_AUTHENTICATION_TAG option for PCP Auth at the end of the
      PCP Auth message.  The length of the Authentication Data field is
      decided by the MAC algorithm adopted in the session.  The device
      then fills the Key ID field with the key ID of the transport key
      and sets the Authentication Data field to zero.  After this, the
      device generates a digest for the entire PCP message (including
      the PCP header and PA_AUTHENTICATION_TAG option) using the
      transport key and the associated MAC algorithm, and inserts the
      generated digest into the Authentication Data field.

   o  Similar to generating a digest for a PA message, before generating
      a digest for a common PCP message, a device needs to first locate
      the PCP SA according to the session identifier and then get the
      transport key.  Then, the device appends the AUTHENTICATION_TAG
      option at the end of the common PCP message.  The length of the
      Authentication Data field is decided by the MAC algorithm adopted
      in the session.  The device then uses the corresponding values



<span class="grey">Cullen, et al.               Standards Track                   [Page 22]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-23" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7652">RFC 7652</a>                   PCP Authentication             September 2015</span>


      derived from the SA to fill the Session ID field, the Sequence
      Number field, and the Key ID field, and sets the Authentication
      Data field to zero.  After this, the device generates a digest for
      the entire PCP message (including the PCP header and
      AUTHENTICATION_TAG option) using the transport key and the
      associated MAC algorithm, and inserts the generated digest into
      the Authentication Data field.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.2" href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>.  Authentication Data Validation</span>

   When a device receives a common PCP message with an
   AUTHENTICATION_TAG option for common PCP messages, the device needs
   to use the Session ID transported in the option to locate the proper
   SA and then find the associated transport key (using the key ID in
   the option) and the MAC algorithm.  If no proper SA or transport key
   is found or the sequence number is invalid (see <a href="#section-6.5">Section 6.5</a>), the PCP
   device stops processing the PCP message and silently discards the
   message.  After storing the value of the Authentication field of the
   AUTHENTICATION_TAG option, the device fills the Authentication field
   with zeros.  Then, the device generates a digest for the message
   (including the PCP header and AUTHENTICATION_TAG option) with the
   transport key and the MAC algorithm.  If the value of the newly
   generated digest is identical to the stored one, the device can
   ensure that the message has not been tampered with, and the
   validation succeeds.  Otherwise, the PCP device stops processing the
   PCP message and silently discards the message.

   Similarly, when a device receives a PA message with a
   PA_AUTHENTICATION_TAG option for PCP authentication, the device needs
   to use the Session ID transported in the Opcode to locate the proper
   SA and then find the associated transport key (using the key ID in
   the option) and the MAC algorithm.  If no proper SA or transport key
   is found or the sequence number is invalid (see <a href="#section-6.4">Section 6.4</a>), the PCP
   device stops processing the PCP message and silently discards the
   message.  After storing the value of the Authentication field of the
   PA_AUTHENTICATION_TAG option, the device fills the Authentication
   field with zeros.  Then, the device generates a digest for the
   message (including the PCP header and PA_AUTHENTICATION_TAG option)
   with the transport key and the MAC algorithm.  If the value of the
   newly generated digest is identical to the stored one, the device can
   ensure that the message has not been tampered with, and the
   validation succeeds.  Otherwise, the PCP device stops processing the
   PCP message and silently discards the message.








<span class="grey">Cullen, et al.               Standards Track                   [Page 23]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-24" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7652">RFC 7652</a>                   PCP Authentication             September 2015</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.3" href="#section-6.3">6.3</a>.  Retransmission Policies for PA Messages</span>

   Because EAP relies on the underlying protocols to provide reliable
   transmission, after sending a PA message, a PCP client/server
   MUST NOT send out any subsequent messages until it has received a
   PA message with a proper sequence number from the peer.  If no such
   message is received, the PCP device will resend the last message
   according to retransmission policies.  This specification uses the
   retransmission policies specified in <a href="#section-8.1.1">Section 8.1.1</a> of the base PCP
   specification [<a href="./rfc6887" title="&quot;Port Control Protocol (PCP)&quot;">RFC6887</a>].  In base PCP, such retransmission policies
   are only applied by PCP clients.  However, in this specification,
   such retransmission policies are also applied by the PCP servers.  If
   the "maximum retransmission" duration (in seconds) has elapsed and no
   expected response is received, the device will terminate the session
   and discard the current SA.

   As discussed in <a href="#section-3.1.3">Section 3.1.3</a>, in order to avoid unnecessary
   retransmission, the device receiving a PA message MUST send a
   PA-Acknowledgement message to the sender of the PA message when it
   cannot send a PA response immediately.  The PA-Acknowledgement
   message is used to indicate the receipt of the PA message.  When the
   sender receives the PA-Acknowledgement message, it will stop the
   retransmission.

   Note that the last PA messages transported within the phases of
   session initiation, session re-authentication, and session
   termination do not have to follow the above policies, since the
   devices sending out those messages do not expect any further
   PA messages.

   When a device receives a retransmitted last incoming PA message from
   its session partner, it MUST try to answer it by sending the last
   outgoing PA message again.  However, if the duplicate message has the
   same sequence number but is not bitwise identical to the original
   message, then the device MUST discard it.  In order to perform this
   function, the device may need to maintain the last incoming message
   and the associated outgoing messages.  In this case, if no outgoing
   PA message has been generated for the received duplicate PA message
   yet, the device needs to send a PA-Acknowledgement message.  The rate
   of replying to duplicate PA messages MUST be limited to provide
   robustness against denial-of-service (DoS) attacks.  The details of
   rate limiting are outside the scope of this specification.









<span class="grey">Cullen, et al.               Standards Track                   [Page 24]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-25" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7652">RFC 7652</a>                   PCP Authentication             September 2015</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.4" href="#section-6.4">6.4</a>.  Sequence Numbers for PCP Auth Messages</span>

   PCP uses UDP to transport signaling messages.  As an unreliable
   transport protocol, UDP does not guarantee ordered packet delivery
   and does not provide any protection from packet loss.  In order to
   ensure that the EAP messages are exchanged in a reliable way, every
   PCP message exchanged during EAP authentication must carry a
   monotonically increasing sequence number.  During a PA session, a PCP
   device needs to maintain two sequence numbers for PA messages: one
   for incoming PA messages and one for outgoing PA messages.  When
   generating an outgoing PA message, the device adds the associated
   outgoing sequence number to the message and increments the sequence
   number maintained in the SA by 1.  When receiving a PA message from
   its session partner, the device will not accept it if the sequence
   number carried in the message does not match the incoming sequence
   number maintained in the device.  After confirming that the received
   message is valid, the device increments the incoming sequence number
   maintained in the SA by 1.

   The above rules are not applicable to PA-Acknowledgement messages
   (i.e., PA messages containing a RECEIVED_PAK option).  A
   PA-Acknowledgement message does not transport any EAP message and
   only indicates that a PA message is received.  Therefore, reliable
   transmission of PA-Acknowledgement messages is not required.  For
   instance, after sending out a PA-Acknowledgement message, a device
   generates an EAP response.  In this case, the device does not have to
   confirm whether the PA-Acknowledgement message has been received by
   its session partner or not.  Therefore, when receiving or sending out
   a PA-Acknowledgement message, the device MUST NOT increase the
   corresponding sequence number stored in the SA.  Otherwise, loss of a
   PA-Acknowledgement message will cause a mismatch in sequence numbers.

   Another exception is the message retransmission scenario.  As
   discussed in <a href="#section-6.3">Section 6.3</a>, when a PCP device does not receive any
   response from its session partner, it needs to retransmit the last
   outgoing PA message, following the retransmission procedure specified
   in <a href="./rfc6887#section-8.1.1">Section&nbsp;8.1.1 of [RFC6887]</a>.  The original message and duplicate
   messages MUST be bitwise identical.  When the device receives such a
   duplicate PA message from its session partner, it MUST send the last
   outgoing PA message again.  In such cases, the maintained incoming
   and outgoing sequence numbers will not be affected by the message
   retransmission.









<span class="grey">Cullen, et al.               Standards Track                   [Page 25]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-26" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7652">RFC 7652</a>                   PCP Authentication             September 2015</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.5" href="#section-6.5">6.5</a>.  Sequence Numbers for Common PCP Messages</span>

   When transporting common PCP messages within a PA session, a PCP
   device needs to maintain a sequence number for outgoing common
   PCP messages and a sequence number for incoming common PCP messages.
   When generating a new outgoing PCP message, the PCP device updates
   the Sequence Number field in the AUTHENTICATION_TAG option with the
   outgoing sequence number maintained in the SA and increments the
   outgoing sequence number by 1.

   When receiving a PCP message from its session partner, the PCP device
   will not accept it if the sequence number carried in the message is
   smaller than the incoming sequence number maintained in the device.
   This approach can protect the PCP device from replay attacks.  After
   confirming that the received message is valid, the PCP device will
   update the incoming sequence number maintained in the PCP SA with the
   sequence number of the incoming message.

   Note that the sequence number in the incoming message may not exactly
   match the incoming sequence number maintained locally.  As discussed
   in the base PCP specification [<a href="./rfc6887" title="&quot;Port Control Protocol (PCP)&quot;">RFC6887</a>], if a PCP client is no longer
   interested in the PCP transaction and has not yet received a
   PCP response from the server, then it will stop retransmitting the
   PCP request.  After that, the PCP client might generate new
   PCP requests for other purposes, using the current SA.  In this case,
   the sequence number in the new request will be larger than the
   sequence number in the old request and so will be larger than the
   incoming sequence number maintained in the PCP server.

   Note that, as discussed in the base PCP specification [<a href="./rfc6887" title="&quot;Port Control Protocol (PCP)&quot;">RFC6887</a>], a
   PCP client needs to select a nonce in each MAP or PEER request, and
   the nonce is sent back in the response.  However, it is possible for
   a client to use the same nonce in multiple MAP or PEER requests, and
   this may cause a potential risk of replay attacks.  This attack is
   addressed by using the sequence number in the PCP response.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.6" href="#section-6.6">6.6</a>.  MTU Considerations</span>

   EAP methods are responsible for MTU handling, so no special
   facilities are required in PCP to deal with MTU issues.
   Specifically, EAP lower layers indicate to EAP methods and
   Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) servers the MTU
   of the lower layer.  EAP methods such as EAP-TLS [<a href="./rfc5216" title="&quot;The EAP-TLS Authentication Protocol&quot;">RFC5216</a>], TEAP
   [<a href="./rfc7170" title="&quot;Tunnel Extensible Authentication Protocol (TEAP) Version 1&quot;">RFC7170</a>], and others that are likely to exceed reasonable MTUs
   provide support for fragmentation and reassembly.  Others, such as
   EAP - Generalized Pre-Shared Key (EAP-GPSK) [<a href="./rfc5433" title="&quot;Extensible Authentication Protocol - Generalized Pre-Shared Key (EAP-GPSK) Method&quot;">RFC5433</a>], assume that
   they will never send packets larger than the MTU and use small EAP
   packets.



<span class="grey">Cullen, et al.               Standards Track                   [Page 26]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-27" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7652">RFC 7652</a>                   PCP Authentication             September 2015</span>


   If an EAP message is too long to be transported within a single
   PA message, it will be divided into multiple sections and sent within
   different PA messages.  Note that the receiver may not be able to
   know what to do in the next step until it has received all the
   sections and reconstructed the complete EAP message.  In this case,
   in order to guarantee reliable message transmission, after receiving
   a PA message, the receiver replies with a PA-Acknowledgement message
   to notify the sender to send the next PA message.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-7" href="#section-7">7</a>.  IANA Considerations</span>

   The following PCP Opcode has been allocated from the Standards Action
   range of the "PCP Opcodes" registry (which is maintained in
   &lt;<a href="http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcp-parameters">http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcp-parameters</a>&gt;):

      3 AUTHENTICATION.

   The following PCP result codes have been allocated from the Standards
   Action range of the "PCP Result Codes" registry (which is maintained
   in &lt;<a href="http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcp-parameters">http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcp-parameters</a>&gt;):

      14 INITIATION: The client includes this PCP result code in its
      request to the server for authentication.

      15 AUTHENTICATION_REQUIRED: This error response is sent to the
      client if EAP authentication is required.

      16 AUTHENTICATION_FAILED: This error response is sent to the
      client if EAP authentication failed.

      17 AUTHENTICATION_SUCCEEDED: This success response is sent to the
      client if EAP authentication succeeded.

      18 AUTHORIZATION_FAILED: This error response is sent to the client
      if EAP authentication succeeded but authorization failed.

      19 SESSION_TERMINATED: This PCP result code indicates to the
      partner that the PA session must be terminated.

      20 UNKNOWN_SESSION_ID: This error response is sent from the
      PCP server if there is no known PA session associated with the
      Session ID sent in the PA request or common PCP request from the
      PCP client.

      21 DOWNGRADE_ATTACK_DETECTED: This PCP result code indicates to
      the client that the server detected a downgrade attack.





<span class="grey">Cullen, et al.               Standards Track                   [Page 27]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-28" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7652">RFC 7652</a>                   PCP Authentication             September 2015</span>


      22 AUTHENTICATION_REQUEST: The server indicates to the client that
      the PA message contains an EAP request.

      23 AUTHENTICATION_REPLY: The client indicates to the server that
      the PA message contains an EAP response.

   The following PCP options have been allocated from the Standards
   Action range (the registry for PCP options is maintained in
   &lt;<a href="http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcp-parameters">http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcp-parameters</a>&gt;):

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-7.1" href="#section-7.1">7.1</a>.  NONCE</span>

   Name:  NONCE.

   Value:  4.

   Purpose:  See <a href="#section-5.3">Section 5.3</a>.

   Valid for Opcodes:  AUTHENTICATION.

   Length:  4 octets.

   May appear in:  Request and response.

   Maximum occurrences:  1.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-7.2" href="#section-7.2">7.2</a>.  AUTHENTICATION_TAG</span>

   Name:  AUTHENTICATION_TAG.

   Value:  5.

   Purpose:  See <a href="#section-5.4">Section 5.4</a>.

   Valid for Opcodes:  MAP, PEER, ANNOUNCE.

   Length:  variable.

   May appear in:  Request and response.

   Maximum occurrences:  1.










<span class="grey">Cullen, et al.               Standards Track                   [Page 28]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-29" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7652">RFC 7652</a>                   PCP Authentication             September 2015</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-7.3" href="#section-7.3">7.3</a>.  PA_AUTHENTICATION_TAG</span>

   Name:  PA_AUTHENTICATION_TAG.

   Value:  6.

   Purpose:  See <a href="#section-5.5">Section 5.5</a>.

   Valid for Opcodes:  AUTHENTICATION.

   Length:  variable.

   May appear in:  Request and response.

   Maximum occurrences:  1.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-7.4" href="#section-7.4">7.4</a>.  EAP_PAYLOAD</span>

   Name:  EAP_PAYLOAD.

   Value:  7.

   Purpose:  See <a href="#section-5.6">Section 5.6</a>.

   Valid for Opcodes:  AUTHENTICATION.

   Length:  variable.

   May appear in:  Request and response.

   Maximum occurrences:  1.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-7.5" href="#section-7.5">7.5</a>.  PRF</span>

   Name:  PRF.

   Value:  8.

   Purpose:  See <a href="#section-5.7">Section 5.7</a>.

   Valid for Opcodes:  AUTHENTICATION.

   Length:  4 octets.

   May appear in:  Request and response.

   Maximum occurrences:  as many as fit within maximum PCP message size.




<span class="grey">Cullen, et al.               Standards Track                   [Page 29]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-30" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7652">RFC 7652</a>                   PCP Authentication             September 2015</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-7.6" href="#section-7.6">7.6</a>.  MAC_ALGORITHM</span>

   Name:  MAC_ALGORITHM.

   Value:  9.

   Purpose:  See <a href="#section-5.8">Section 5.8</a>.

   Valid for Opcodes:  AUTHENTICATION.

   Length:  4 octets.

   May appear in:  Request and response.

   Maximum occurrences:  as many as fit within maximum PCP message size.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-7.7" href="#section-7.7">7.7</a>.  SESSION_LIFETIME</span>

   Name:  SESSION_LIFETIME.

   Value:  10.

   Purpose:  See <a href="#section-5.9">Section 5.9</a>.

   Valid for Opcodes:  AUTHENTICATION

   Length:  4 octets.

   May appear in:  Response.

   Maximum occurrences:  1.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-7.8" href="#section-7.8">7.8</a>.  RECEIVED_PAK</span>

   Name:  RECEIVED_PAK.

   Value:  11.

   Purpose:  See <a href="#section-5.10">Section 5.10</a>.

   Valid for Opcodes:  AUTHENTICATION.

   Length:  4 octets.

   May appear in:  Request and response.

   Maximum occurrences:  1.




<span class="grey">Cullen, et al.               Standards Track                   [Page 30]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-31" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7652">RFC 7652</a>                   PCP Authentication             September 2015</span>


<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-7.9" href="#section-7.9">7.9</a>.  ID_INDICATOR</span>

   Name:  ID_INDICATOR.

   Value:  12.

   Purpose:  See <a href="#section-5.11">Section 5.11</a>.

   Valid for Opcodes:  AUTHENTICATION.

   Length:  variable.

   May appear in:  Response.

   Maximum occurrences:  1.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-8" href="#section-8">8</a>.  Security Considerations</span>

   As described in this specification, after a successful EAP
   authentication process is performed between two PCP devices, an MSK
   will be exported.  The MSK will be used to derive the transport keys
   to generate MAC digests for subsequent PCP message exchanges.
   However, before a transport key has been generated, the PA messages
   exchanged within a PA session have little cryptographic protection,
   and if there is no already-established security channel between two
   session partners, these messages are subject to man-in-the-middle
   attacks and DoS attacks.  For instance, the initial PA-Server and
   PA-Client message exchange is vulnerable to spoofing attacks, as
   these messages are not authenticated and integrity protected.  In
   addition, because the PRF and MAC algorithms are transported at this
   stage, an attacker may try to remove the PRF and MAC options
   containing strong algorithms from the initial PA-Server message and
   force the client to choose the weakest algorithms.  Therefore, the
   server needs to guarantee that all the PRF and MAC algorithms for
   which it provides support are strong enough.

   In order to prevent very basic DoS attacks, a PCP device SHOULD
   generate state information as little as possible in the initial
   PA-Server and PA-Client message exchanges.  The choice of EAP method
   is also very important.  The selected EAP method must (1) be
   resilient to attacks that are possible in an insecure network
   environment, (2) provide user-identity confidentiality and protection
   against dictionary attacks, and (3) support session-key
   establishment.

   When a PCP proxy [<a href="./rfc7648" title="&quot;Port Control Protocol (PCP) Proxy Function&quot;">RFC7648</a>] is located between a PCP server and
   PCP clients, the proxy may perform authentication with the PCP server
   before it processes requests from the clients.  In addition,



<span class="grey">Cullen, et al.               Standards Track                   [Page 31]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-32" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7652">RFC 7652</a>                   PCP Authentication             September 2015</span>


   re-authentication between the PCP proxy and PCP server will not
   interrupt the service that the proxy provides to the clients, since
   the proxy is still allowed to send common PCP messages to the
   PCP server during that period.

<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-9" href="#section-9">9</a>.  References</span>

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-9.1" href="#section-9.1">9.1</a>.  Normative References</span>

   [<a id="ref-RFC2119">RFC2119</a>]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a>,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              &lt;<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC3629">RFC3629</a>]  Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
              10646", STD 63, <a href="./rfc3629">RFC 3629</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November
              2003, &lt;<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC3748">RFC3748</a>]  Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J., and H.
              Levkowetz, Ed., "Extensible Authentication Protocol
              (EAP)", <a href="./rfc3748">RFC 3748</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC3748, June 2004,
              &lt;<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3748">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3748</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC4868">RFC4868</a>]  Kelly, S. and S. Frankel, "Using HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA-
              384, and HMAC-SHA-512 with IPsec", <a href="./rfc4868">RFC 4868</a>,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4868, May 2007,
              &lt;<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4868">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4868</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC5281">RFC5281</a>]  Funk, P. and S. Blake-Wilson, "Extensible Authentication
              Protocol Tunneled Transport Layer Security Authenticated
              Protocol Version 0 (EAP-TTLSv0)", <a href="./rfc5281">RFC 5281</a>,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5281, August 2008,
              &lt;<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5281">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5281</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC6887">RFC6887</a>]  Wing, D., Ed., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and
              P. Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", <a href="./rfc6887">RFC 6887</a>,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6887, April 2013,
              &lt;<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6887">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6887</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC7170">RFC7170</a>]  Zhou, H., Cam-Winget, N., Salowey, J., and S. Hanna,
              "Tunnel Extensible Authentication Protocol (TEAP) Version
              1", <a href="./rfc7170">RFC 7170</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC7170, May 2014,
              &lt;<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7170">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7170</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC7296">RFC7296</a>]  Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T.
              Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2
              (IKEv2)", STD 79, <a href="./rfc7296">RFC 7296</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC7296, October
              2014, &lt;<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7296">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7296</a>&gt;.



<span class="grey">Cullen, et al.               Standards Track                   [Page 32]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-33" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7652">RFC 7652</a>                   PCP Authentication             September 2015</span>


   [<a id="ref-RFC7613">RFC7613</a>]  Saint-Andre, P. and A. Melnikov, "Preparation,
              Enforcement, and Comparison of Internationalized Strings
              Representing Usernames and Passwords", <a href="./rfc7613">RFC 7613</a>,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7613, August 2015,
              &lt;<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7613">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7613</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC7648">RFC7648</a>]  Perreault, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., Wing, D., and S.
              Cheshire, "Port Control Protocol (PCP) Proxy Function",
              <a href="./rfc7648">RFC 7648</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC7648, September 2015,
              &lt;<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7648">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7648</a>&gt;.

<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-9.2" href="#section-9.2">9.2</a>.  Informative References</span>

   [<a id="ref-RFC5216">RFC5216</a>]  Simon, D., Aboba, B., and R. Hurst, "The EAP-TLS
              Authentication Protocol", <a href="./rfc5216">RFC 5216</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC5216,
              March 2008, &lt;<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5216">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5216</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC5433">RFC5433</a>]  Clancy, T. and H. Tschofenig, "Extensible Authentication
              Protocol - Generalized Pre-Shared Key (EAP-GPSK) Method",
              <a href="./rfc5433">RFC 5433</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC5433, February 2009,
              &lt;<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5433">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5433</a>&gt;.

   [<a id="ref-RFC5448">RFC5448</a>]  Arkko, J., Lehtovirta, V., and P. Eronen, "Improved
              Extensible Authentication Protocol Method for 3rd
              Generation Authentication and Key Agreement (EAP-AKA')",
              <a href="./rfc5448">RFC 5448</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC5448, May 2009,
              &lt;<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5448">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5448</a>&gt;.

Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Dan Wing, Prashanth Patil, Dave Thaler, Peter Saint-Andre,
   Carlos Pignataro, Brian Haberman, Paul Kyzivat, Jouni Korhonen,
   Stephen Farrell, and Terry Manderson for their valuable comments.


















<span class="grey">Cullen, et al.               Standards Track                   [Page 33]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-34" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7652">RFC 7652</a>                   PCP Authentication             September 2015</span>


Authors' Addresses

   Margaret Cullen
   Painless Security
   356 Abbott Street
   North Andover, MA  01845
   United States

   Phone: +1 781 405 7464
   Email: margaret@painless-security.com
   URI:   <a href="http://www.painless-security.com">http://www.painless-security.com</a>


   Sam Hartman
   Painless Security
   356 Abbott Street
   North Andover, MA  01845
   United States

   Email: hartmans@painless-security.com
   URI:   <a href="http://www.painless-security.com">http://www.painless-security.com</a>

   Dacheng Zhang
   Beijing, China
   China

   Email: zhang_dacheng@hotmail.com


   Tirumaleswar Reddy
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Cessna Business Park, Varthur Hobli
   Sarjapur Marathalli Outer Ring Road
   Bangalore, Karnataka  560103
   India

   Email: tireddy@cisco.com














Cullen, et al.               Standards Track                   [Page 34]
</pre>