<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc [
  <!ENTITY nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
<!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc version 1.7.21 (Ruby 2.6.10) -->
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-ietf-radext-reverse-coa-05" category="std" consensus="true" submissionType="IETF" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true" version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.24.0 -->
  <front>
    <title abbrev="Reverse CoA">Reverse Change of Authorization (CoA) in RADIUS/TLS</title>
    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-radext-reverse-coa-05"/>
    <author initials="A." surname="DeKok" fullname="Alan DeKok">
      <organization>InkBridge</organization>
      <address>
        <email>alan.dekok@inkbridge.io</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="V." surname="Cargatser" fullname="Vadim Cargatser">
      <organization>Cisco</organization>
      <address>
        <email>vcargats@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date year="2025" month="May" day="16"/>
    <area>Internet</area>
    <workgroup>RADEXT Working Group</workgroup>
    <keyword>Internet-Draft</keyword>
    <abstract>
      <?line 48?>

<t>This document defines a "reverse Change of Authorization (CoA)" path for RADIUS packets.  This specification allows a home server to send CoA packets in "reverse" down a RADIUS/TLS connection.  Without this capability, it is impossible for a home server to send CoA packets to a NAS which is behind a firewall or NAT gateway.  The reverse CoA functionality extends the available transport methods for CoA packets, but it does not change anything else about how CoA packets are handled.</t>
    </abstract>
    <note removeInRFC="true">
      <name>About This Document</name>
      <t>
        Status information for this document may be found at <eref target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-radext-reverse-coa/"/>.
      </t>
      <t>
        Discussion of this document takes place on the
        RADEXT Working Group mailing list (<eref target="mailto:radext@ietf.org"/>),
        which is archived at <eref target="https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/radext/"/>.
        Subscribe at <eref target="https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/radext/"/>.
      </t>
      <t>Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
        <eref target="https://github.com//radext-wg/draft-ietf-radext-reverse-coa"/>.</t>
    </note>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <?line 52?>

<section anchor="introduction">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t><xref target="RFC5176"/> defines the ability to change a users authorization, or disconnect the user via what are generally called "Change of Authorization" or "CoA" packets.  This term refers to either of the RADIUS packet types CoA-Request or Disconnect-Request.  The initial transport protocol for all RADIUS was the User Datagram Protocol (UDP).</t>
      <t><xref target="RFC6614"/> updated previous specifications to allow packets to be sent over the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol.  Section 2.5 of that document explicitly allows all packets (including CoA) to be sent over a TLS connection:</t>
      <t><tt>
Due to the use of one single TCP port for all packet types, it is
required that a RADIUS/TLS server signal which types of packets are
supported on a server to a connecting peer.  See also Section 3.4 for
a discussion of signaling.
</tt></t>
      <t>These specifications assume that a RADIUS client can directly contact a RADIUS server, which is the normal "forward" path for packets between a client and server.  However, it is not always possible for the RADIUS server to send CoA packets to the RADIUS client. If a RADIUS server wishes to act as a CoA client, and send CoA packets to the NAS (CoA server), the "reverse" path can be blocked by a firewall, NAT gateway, etc.  That is, a RADIUS server has to be reachable by a NAS, but there is usually no requirement that the NAS is reachable from a public system.  To the contrary, there is usually a requirement that the NAS is not publicly accessible.</t>
      <t>This scenario is most evident in a roaming / federated environment such as Eduroam or OpenRoaming.  It is in general impossible for a home server to signal the NAS to disconnect a user.  There is no direct reverse path from the home server to the NAS, as the NAS is not publicly addressible.  Even if there was a public reverse path, it would generally be unknowable, as intermediate proxies can (and do) attribute rewriting to hide NAS identies.</t>
      <t>These limitations can result in business losses and security problems, such as the inability to disconnect an online user when their account has been terminated.</t>
      <t>As the reverse path is usally blocked, it means that it is in general possible only to send CoA packets to a NAS when the NAS and RADIUS server share the same private network (private IP space or IPSec).  Even though <xref target="RFC8559"/> defines CoA proxying, that specification does not address the issue of NAS reachability.</t>
      <t>This specification solves that problem.  The solution is to simply allow CoA packets to go in "reverse" down an existing RADIUS/TLS connection.  That is, when a NAS connects to a RADIUS server it normally sends request packets (Access-Request, etc.) and expects to receive response packets (Access-Accept, etc.).  This specification extends RADIUS/TLS by permitting a RADIUS server to re-use an existing TLS connection to send CoA packets to the NAS, and permitting the NAS to send CoA response packets to the RADIUS server over that same connection.</t>
      <t>We note that while this document specifically mentions RADIUS/TLS, it should be possible to use the same mechanisms on RADIUS/DTLS <xref target="RFC7360"/>.  However at the time of writing this specification, no implementations exist for "reverse CoA" over RADIUS/DTLS.  As such, when we refer to "TLS" here, or "RADIUS/TLS", we implicitly include RADIUS/DTLS in that description.</t>
      <t>This mechanism does not depend on the underlying transport protocol, or interact with it.  It is therefore compatible not only with <xref target="RFC6614"/>, and <xref target="RFC7360"/>, but also with <xref target="I-D.ietf-radext-radiusdtls-bis"/> which will replace those earlier standards.</t>
      <t>This mechanism is not needed for RADIUS/UDP, as UDP is connectionless.  <xref target="RFC8559"/> suffices for CoA when using RADIUS/UDP.  For RADIUS/TCP, while this same mechanism could theoretically be used there, RADIUS/TCP is being deprecated by <xref target="I-D.ietf-radext-deprecating-radius"/>. Therefore for practial purposes, "reverse CoA" means RADIUS/TLS and RADIUS/DTLS.</t>
      <t>There are additional considerations for proxies.  While <xref target="RFC8559"/> describes CoA proxying, there are still issues which need to be addressed for the "reverse CoA" use-case.  This specification describes how those systems can implement "reverse CoA" proxying, including processing packets through both an intermediate proxy network, and at the visited network.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="terminology">
      <name>Terminology</name>
      <t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED",
"MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as
described in BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they
appear in all capitals, as shown here.
<?line -6?>
      </t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>CoA</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <ul empty="true">
        <li>
          <t>Change of Authorization packets.  For brevity, when this document refers to "CoA" packets, it means either or both of CoA-Request and Disconnect-Request packets.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>ACK</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <ul empty="true">
        <li>
          <t>Change of Authorization "positive acknowlegement" packets.  For brevity, when this document refers to "ACK" packets, it means either or both of CoA-ACK and Disconnect-ACK packets.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>NAK</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <ul empty="true">
        <li>
          <t>Change of Authorization "negative acknowlegement" packets.  For brevity, when this document refers to "NAK" packets, it means either or both of CoA-NAK and Disconnect-NAK packets.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>RADIUS/TLS</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <ul empty="true">
        <li>
          <t>RADIUS over the Transport Layer Security protocol <xref target="RFC6614"/></t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>RADIUS/DTLS</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <ul empty="true">
        <li>
          <t>RADIUS over the Datagram Transport Layer Security protocol  <xref target="RFC7360"/></t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>TLS</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <ul empty="true">
        <li>
          <t>Either RADIUS/TLS or RADIUS/DTLS.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>reverse CoA</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
      <ul empty="true">
        <li>
          <t>CoA, ACK, or NAK packets sent over a RADIUS/TLS or RADIUS/DTLS connection which was made from a RADIUS client to a RADIUS server.</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
    </section>
    <section anchor="concepts">
      <name>Concepts</name>
      <t>The reverse CoA functionality is based on two additions to RADIUS.  The first addition is a configuration and signalling, to indicate that a RADIUS client is capable of accepting reverse CoA packets.  The second addition is an extension to the "reverse" routing table for CoA packets which was first described in Section 2.1 of <xref target="RFC8559"/>.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="capability-configuration-and-signalling">
      <name>Capability Configuration and Signalling</name>
      <t>In order for a RADIUS server to send reverse CoA packets to a client, it must first know that the client is capable of accepting these packets.</t>
      <t>Clients and servers implementing reverse CoA MUST have a configuration flag which indicates that the other party supports the reverse CoA functionality.  That is, the client has a per-server flag enabling (or not) reverse CoA functionality.  The server has a similar per-client flag.</t>
      <t>The flag can be used where the parties are known to each other.  The flag can also be used in conjunction with dynamic discovery (<xref target="RFC7585"/>), so long as the server associates the flag with the client identity and not with any particular IP address.  That is, the flag can be associated with any method of identifying a particular client such as TLS PSK identity, information in a client certificate, etc.</t>
      <t>The configuration flag allows administators to statically enable this functionality, based on out-of-band discussions with other administators.  This process is best used in an environment where all RADIUS proxies are known (or required) to have a particular set of functionality, as with a roaming consortium.</t>
      <t>This specification does not define a way for clients and servers to negotiate this functionality on a per-connection basis.  The RADIUS protocol has little, if any, provisions for capability negotiations, and this specification is not the place to add that functionality.</t>
      <t>Without notification, however, it is possible for clients and servers to have mismatched configurations.  Where a client is configured to accept reverse CoA packets and the next hop server is not configured to send them, no packets will be sent.  Where a client is configured to not accept reverse CoA packets and the next hop server is configured to send them, the client will silently discard these packets as per <xref section="3" sectionFormat="comma" target="RFC2865"/>.  In both of those situations, reverse CoA packets will not flow, but there will be no other issues with this misconfiguration.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="reverse-routing">
      <name>Reverse Routing</name>
      <t>In normal RADIUS proxying. the forward routing table uses the User-Name attribute (via the Network Access Identifiers (NAIs) <xref target="RFC7542"/>) to map realms to next hop servers.  For reverse CoA, <xref section="2.1" sectionFormat="comma" target="RFC8559"/> uses the Operator-Name attribute to map operator identifiers to next hop servers.</t>
      <t>This specification extends the <xref section="2.1" sectionFormat="comma" target="RFC8559"/> reverse routing table to allow the next hop to be found via an open TLS connection, rather than a destination hostname or IP address.  A server which needs to send reverse CoA packets to clients maintains a list of open TLS connections from clients.  It also associates both a reverse CoA capability, and one or more operator identifiers with each connection.</t>
      <t>A server MUST support associating one operator identifier with multiple connections.  A server MUST support associating multiple operator identifiers with one connection.  That is, the "operator identifier to connection" mapping is not one-to-one, or 1:N, or M:1, it is N:M or many-to-many.</t>
      <t>This process occurs for all RADIUS proxies, except for the final one which sends the CoA packet to the client.  That proxy forwards the reverse CoA packet to the client based on the Operator-NAS-Identifier attribute (<xref section="3.4" sectionFormat="comma" target="RFC8559"/>) and/or other NAS identification attributes such as NAS-Identifier, NAS-IP-Address, or NAS-IPv6-Address.  The result is that there is a complete forwarding path from the home network back to the visited network.</t>
      <section anchor="errors-and-fail-over">
        <name>Errors and Fail Over</name>
        <t>When the server receives a reverse CoA packet, but cannot forward it, the server MUST return a NAK packet that contains an Error-Cause Attribute having value 502 ("Request Not Routable").</t>
        <t>As with normal proxying, a particular packet can sometimes have the choice more than one connection which can be used to reach a destination.  In that case, issues of load-balancing, fail-over, etc. are implementation-defined, and are not discussed here.  The server simply chooses one connection, and sends the reverse CoA packet down that connection.</t>
        <t>A server can also use RADIUS/UDP to send the reverse CoA packet; there is no requirement that all CoA packets use a "reversed" TLS connection.</t>
        <t>After sending a packet, the server then waits for a reply, doing retransmission if necessary.  For all issues other than the connection being used, reverse CoA packets are handled as defined in <xref target="RFC5176"/> and in <xref target="RFC8559"/>.  This specification permits reverse CoA packets to be sent on what would otherwise be a client to server TLS connection.  It does not change the basic functionality of proxying CoA packets.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="retransmissions">
        <name>Retransmissions</name>
        <t>Retransmissions of reverse CoA packets are handled identically to normal CoA packets.  That is, the reverse CoA functionality extends the available transport methods for CoA packets, it does not change anything else about how CoA packets are handled.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="implementation-status">
      <name>Implementation Status</name>
      <t>FreeRADIUS supports CoA proxying using Vendor-Specific attributes.</t>
      <t>Cisco supports reverse CoA as of Cisco IOS XE Bengaluru 17.6.1 via Vendor-Specific attributes.  https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/switches/lan/catalyst9300/software/release/17-6/configuration_guide/sec/b_176_sec_9300_cg/configuring_radsec.pdf</t>
      <t>Aruba documentation states that "Instant supports dynamic CoA (RFC 3576) over RadSec and the RADIUS server uses an existing TLS connection opened by the Instant AP to send the request." https://www.arubanetworks.com/techdocs/Instant_83_WebHelp/Content/Instant_UG/Authentication/ConfiguringRadSec.htm</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="privacy-considerations">
      <name>Privacy Considerations</name>
      <t>This document does not change or add any privacy considerations over previous RADIUS specifications.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="security-considerations">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>This document increases network security by removing the requirement for non-standard "reverse" paths for CoA-Request and Disconnect-Request packets.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="iana-considerations">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <t>This document requests no action from IANA.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="acknowledgements">
      <name>Acknowledgements</name>
      <t>Thanks to Heikki Vatiainen for testing a preliminary implementation in Radiator, and for verifying interoperability with NAS equipment.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="changelog">
      <name>Changelog</name>
      <t>RFC Editor: This section may be removed before publication.</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>
          <t>00 - taken from draft-dekok-radext-reverse-coa-01</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>01 - Bumped to avoid expiry</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>02 - Bumped to avoid expiry</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>03 - remove dynamic negotiation and cleanups</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>04 - shephards review</t>
        </li>
        <li>
          <t>05 - tweak refs</t>
        </li>
      </ul>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>
    <references anchor="sec-combined-references">
      <name>References</name>
      <references anchor="sec-normative-references">
        <name>Normative References</name>
        <reference anchor="RFC2865">
          <front>
            <title>Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)</title>
            <author fullname="C. Rigney" initials="C." surname="Rigney"/>
            <author fullname="S. Willens" initials="S." surname="Willens"/>
            <author fullname="A. Rubens" initials="A." surname="Rubens"/>
            <author fullname="W. Simpson" initials="W." surname="Simpson"/>
            <date month="June" year="2000"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document describes a protocol for carrying authentication, authorization, and configuration information between a Network Access Server which desires to authenticate its links and a shared Authentication Server. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2865"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2865"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8559">
          <front>
            <title>Dynamic Authorization Proxying in the Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS) Protocol</title>
            <author fullname="A. DeKok" initials="A." surname="DeKok"/>
            <author fullname="J. Korhonen" initials="J." surname="Korhonen"/>
            <date month="April" year="2019"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>RFC 5176 defines Change-of-Authorization (CoA) and Disconnect Message (DM) behavior for RADIUS. RFC 5176 also suggests that proxying these messages is possible, but it does not provide guidance as to how that is done. This specification updates RFC 5176 to correct that omission for scenarios where networks use realm-based proxying as defined in RFC 7542. This specification also updates RFC 5580 to allow the Operator-Name attribute in CoA-Request and Disconnect-Request packets.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8559"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8559"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC2119">
          <front>
            <title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
            <author fullname="S. Bradner" initials="S." surname="Bradner"/>
            <date month="March" year="1997"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2119"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8174">
          <front>
            <title>Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</title>
            <author fullname="B. Leiba" initials="B." surname="Leiba"/>
            <date month="May" year="2017"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8174"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8174"/>
        </reference>
      </references>
      <references anchor="sec-informative-references">
        <name>Informative References</name>
        <reference anchor="RFC5176">
          <front>
            <title>Dynamic Authorization Extensions to Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)</title>
            <author fullname="M. Chiba" initials="M." surname="Chiba"/>
            <author fullname="G. Dommety" initials="G." surname="Dommety"/>
            <author fullname="M. Eklund" initials="M." surname="Eklund"/>
            <author fullname="D. Mitton" initials="D." surname="Mitton"/>
            <author fullname="B. Aboba" initials="B." surname="Aboba"/>
            <date month="January" year="2008"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document describes a currently deployed extension to the Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) protocol, allowing dynamic changes to a user session, as implemented by network access server products. This includes support for disconnecting users and changing authorizations applicable to a user session. This memo provides information for the Internet community.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5176"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5176"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC6614">
          <front>
            <title>Transport Layer Security (TLS) Encryption for RADIUS</title>
            <author fullname="S. Winter" initials="S." surname="Winter"/>
            <author fullname="M. McCauley" initials="M." surname="McCauley"/>
            <author fullname="S. Venaas" initials="S." surname="Venaas"/>
            <author fullname="K. Wierenga" initials="K." surname="Wierenga"/>
            <date month="May" year="2012"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document specifies a transport profile for RADIUS using Transport Layer Security (TLS) over TCP as the transport protocol. This enables dynamic trust relationships between RADIUS servers. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6614"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6614"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC7360">
          <front>
            <title>Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) as a Transport Layer for RADIUS</title>
            <author fullname="A. DeKok" initials="A." surname="DeKok"/>
            <date month="September" year="2014"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>The RADIUS protocol defined in RFC 2865 has limited support for authentication and encryption of RADIUS packets. The protocol transports data in the clear, although some parts of the packets can have obfuscated content. Packets may be replayed verbatim by an attacker, and client-server authentication is based on fixed shared secrets. This document specifies how the Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) protocol may be used as a fix for these problems. It also describes how implementations of this proposal can coexist with current RADIUS systems.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7360"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7360"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC7585">
          <front>
            <title>Dynamic Peer Discovery for RADIUS/TLS and RADIUS/DTLS Based on the Network Access Identifier (NAI)</title>
            <author fullname="S. Winter" initials="S." surname="Winter"/>
            <author fullname="M. McCauley" initials="M." surname="McCauley"/>
            <date month="October" year="2015"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document specifies a means to find authoritative RADIUS servers for a given realm. It is used in conjunction with either RADIUS over Transport Layer Security (RADIUS/TLS) or RADIUS over Datagram Transport Layer Security (RADIUS/DTLS).</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7585"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7585"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="I-D.ietf-radext-deprecating-radius">
          <front>
            <title>Deprecating Insecure Practices in RADIUS</title>
            <author fullname="Alan DeKok" initials="A." surname="DeKok">
              <organization>InkBridge Networks</organization>
            </author>
            <date day="26" month="November" year="2024"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>   RADIUS crypto-agility was first mandated as future work by RFC 6421.
   The outcome of that work was the publication of RADIUS over TLS (RFC
   6614) and RADIUS over DTLS (RFC 7360) as experimental documents.
   Those transport protocols have been in wide-spread use for many years
   in a wide range of networks.  They have proven their utility as
   replacements for the previous UDP (RFC 2865) and TCP (RFC 6613)
   transports.  With that knowledge, the continued use of insecure
   transports for RADIUS has serious and negative implications for
   privacy and security.

   The recent publication of the "BlastRADIUS" exploit has also shown
   that RADIUS security needs to be updated.  It is no longer acceptable
   for RADIUS to rely on MD5 for security.  It is no longer acceptable
   to send device or location information in clear text across the wider
   Internet.  This document therefore deprecates many insecure practices
   in RADIUS, and mandates support for secure TLS-based transport
   layers.  We also discuss related security issues with RADIUS, and
   give recommendations for practices which increase both security and
   privacy.

              </t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-radext-deprecating-radius-05"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="I-D.ietf-radext-radiusdtls-bis">
          <front>
            <title>(Datagram) Transport Layer Security ((D)TLS) Encryption for RADIUS</title>
            <author fullname="Jan-Frederik Rieckers" initials="J." surname="Rieckers">
              <organization>Deutsches Forschungsnetz | German National Research and Education Network</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Stefan Winter" initials="S." surname="Winter">
              <organization>Fondation Restena | Restena Foundation</organization>
            </author>
            <date day="3" month="March" year="2025"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>   This document specifies a transport profile for RADIUS using
   Transport Layer Security (TLS) over TCP or Datagram Transport Layer
   Security (DTLS) over UDP as the transport protocol.  This enables
   encrypting the RADIUS traffic as well as dynamic trust relationships
   between RADIUS servers.  The specification obsoletes the experimental
   specifications in RFC 6614 (RADIUS/TLS) and RFC 7360 (RADIUS/DTLS)
   and combines them in this specification.

              </t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-radext-radiusdtls-bis-05"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC7542">
          <front>
            <title>The Network Access Identifier</title>
            <author fullname="A. DeKok" initials="A." surname="DeKok"/>
            <date month="May" year="2015"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>In order to provide inter-domain authentication services, it is necessary to have a standardized method that domains can use to identify each other's users. This document defines the syntax for the Network Access Identifier (NAI), the user identifier submitted by the client prior to accessing resources. This document is a revised version of RFC 4282. It addresses issues with international character sets and makes a number of other corrections to RFC 4282.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7542"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7542"/>
        </reference>
      </references>
    </references>
    <?line 205?>



  </back>
  <!-- ##markdown-source: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-->

</rfc>
