Network Working Group | G. Zorn |
Internet-Draft | Network Zen |
Intended status: Standards Track | Q. Wu |
Expires: December 19, 2011 | Huawei |
V. Cakulev | |
Alcatel Lucent | |
June 17, 2011 |
Diameter Attribute-Value Pairs for Cryptographic Key Transport
draft-ietf-dime-local-keytran-11
Some Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) applications require the transport of cryptographic keying material. This document specifies a set of Attribute-Value Pairs (AVPs) providing native Diameter support of cryptographic key delivery.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 19, 2011.
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
The Diameter EAP application [RFC4072] defines the EAP-Master-Session-Key and EAP-Key-Name AVPs for the purpose of transporting cryptographic keying material derived during the execution of certain Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) [RFC3748] methods (for example, EAP-TLS [RFC5216]). At most one instance of either of these AVPs is allowed in any Diameter message.
However, recent work (see, for example, [RFC5295]) has specified methods to derive other keys from the keying material created during EAP method execution that may require transport in addition to the MSK. In addition, the EAP Re-authentication Protocol (ERP) [RFC5296] specifies new keys that may need to be transported between Diameter nodes.
This note specifies a set of AVPs allowing the transport of multiple cryptographic keys in a single Diameter message.
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
This section defines new AVPs for the transport of cryptographic keys in the Diameter EAP application [RFC4072], as well as other Diameter applications.
The Key AVP (AVP Code <AC1>) is of type Grouped. It contains the type and keying material and, optionally, an indication of the usable lifetime of the key, the name of the key and a Security Parameter Index (SPI) with which the key is associated.
Key ::= < AVP Header: AC1 > < Key-Type > { Keying-Material } [ Key-Lifetime ] [ Key-Name ] [ Key-SPI ] * [ AVP ]
The Key-Type AVP (AVP Code <AC2>) is of type Enumerated. This AVP identifies the type of the key being sent. The following decimal values are defined in this document: Section 5.2,
If additional values are needed, they are to be assigned by IANA according to the policy stated in
The Key-Name AVP (AVP Code <AC6>) is of type OctetString. It contains an opaque key identifier. Exactly how this name is generated and used depends on the key type and usage in question, and is beyond the scope of this document (see [RFC5247] and [RFC5295] for discussions of key name generation in the context of EAP).
The Keying-Material AVP (AVP Code <AC3>) is of type OctetString. The exact usage of this keying material depends upon several factors, including the link layer in use and the type of the key and is beyond the scope of this document.
The Key-Lifetime AVP (AVP Code <AC4>) is of type Unsigned32 and represents the period of time (in seconds) for which the contents of the Keying-Material AVP (Section 3.1.3) is valid.
The Key-SPI AVP (AVP Code <AC5>) is of type Unsigned32 and contains a SPI value that can be used with other parameters for identifying associated keying material.
The security considerations applicable to the Diameter Base Protocol [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis] are also applicable to this document, as are those in Section 8.4 of RFC 4072 [RFC4072].
Upon publication of this memo as an RFC, IANA is requested to assign values as described in the following sections.
Codes must be assigned for the following AVPs using the policy specified in [I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis], Section 11.1.1:
IANA is requested to create a new registry for values assigned to the Key-Type AVP and populated with the decimal values defined in this document (Section 3.1.1). New values may be assigned for the Key-Type AVP using the "Specification Required" policy [RFC5226]; once values have been assigned, they MUST NOT be deleted, replaced or modified.
Thanks to Niclas Comstedt, Semyon Mizikovsky, Hannes Tschofenig, Joe Salowey, Tom Taylor, Frank Xia, Lionel Morand, Dan Romascanu, Bernard Aboba, Jouni Korhonen and Sebastien Decugis for useful comments, suggestions and review.
[RFC2119] | Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. |
[RFC3748] | Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J. and H. Levkowetz, "Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)", RFC 3748, June 2004. |
[I-D.ietf-dime-rfc3588bis] | Fajardo, V, Arkko, J, Loughney, J and G Zorn, "Diameter Base Protocol", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-dime-rfc3588bis-29, August 2011. |
[RFC4072] | Eronen, P., Hiller, T. and G. Zorn, "Diameter Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Application", RFC 4072, August 2005. |
[RFC5226] | Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008. |