Movatterモバイル変換

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                        J. HowlettRequest for Comments: 7831                                          JiscCategory: Informational                                       S. HartmanISSN: 2070-1721                                        Painless Security                                                           H. Tschofenig                                                                ARM Ltd.                                                               J. Schaad                                                          August Cellars                                                                May 2016Application Bridging for Federated Access Beyond Web (ABFAB)ArchitectureAbstract   Over the last decade, a substantial amount of work has occurred in   the space of federated access management.  Most of this effort has   focused on two use cases: network access and web-based access.   However, the solutions to these use cases that have been proposed and   deployed tend to have few building blocks in common.   This memo describes an architecture that makes use of extensions to   the commonly used security mechanisms for both federated and non-   federated access management, including the Remote Authentication   Dial-In User Service (RADIUS), the Generic Security Service   Application Program Interface (GSS-API), the Extensible   Authentication Protocol (EAP), and the Security Assertion Markup   Language (SAML).  The architecture addresses the problem of federated   access management to primarily non-web-based services, in a manner   that will scale to large numbers of Identity Providers, Relying   Parties, and federations.Status of This Memo   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is   published for informational purposes.   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).  Not all documents   approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet   Standard; seeSection 2 of RFC 5741.   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained athttp://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7831.Howlett, et al.               Informational                     [Page 1]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 2016Copyright Notice   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the   document authors.  All rights reserved.   This document is subject toBCP 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.Howlett, et al.               Informational                     [Page 2]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 2016Table of Contents1. Introduction ....................................................41.1. Terminology ................................................51.1.1. Channel Binding .....................................61.2. An Overview of Federation ..................................81.3. Challenges for Contemporary Federation ....................111.4. An Overview of ABFAB-Based Federation .....................111.5. Design Goals ..............................................142. Architecture ...................................................152.1. Relying Party to Identity Provider ........................162.1.1. AAA, RADIUS, and Diameter ..........................172.1.2. Discovery and Rules Determination ..................192.1.3. Routing and Technical Trust ........................202.1.4. AAA Security .......................................212.1.5. SAML Assertions ....................................222.2. Client to Identity Provider ...............................242.2.1. Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) ...........242.2.2. EAP Channel Binding ................................262.3. Client to Relying Party ...................................262.3.1. GSS-API ............................................272.3.2. Protocol Transport .................................282.3.3. Re-authentication ..................................293. Application Security Services ..................................293.1. Authentication ............................................293.2. GSS-API Channel Binding ...................................313.3. Host-Based Service Names ..................................323.4. Additional GSS-API Services ...............................334. Privacy Considerations .........................................344.1. Entities and Their Roles ..................................354.2. Privacy Aspects of ABFAB Communication Flows ..............364.2.1. Client to RP .......................................364.2.2. Client to IdP (via Federation Substrate) ...........374.2.3. IdP to RP (via Federation Substrate) ...............384.3. Relationship between User and Entities ....................394.4. Accounting Information ....................................394.5. Collection and Retention of Data and Identifiers ..........394.6. User Participation ........................................405. Security Considerations ........................................406. References .....................................................416.1. Normative References ......................................416.2. Informative References ....................................42   Acknowledgments ...................................................46   Authors' Addresses ................................................46Howlett, et al.               Informational                     [Page 3]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 20161.  Introduction   Numerous security mechanisms have been deployed on the Internet to   manage access to various resources.  These mechanisms have been   generalized and scaled over the last decade through mechanisms such   as the Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) with the   Generic Security Server Application Program Interface (GSS-API)   (known as the GS2 family) [RFC5801]; the Security Assertion Markup   Language (SAML) [OASIS.saml-core-2.0-os]; and the Authentication,   Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) architecture as embodied in   RADIUS [RFC2865] and Diameter [RFC6733].   A Relying Party (RP) is the entity that manages access to some   resource.  The entity that is requesting access to that resource is   often described as the client.  Many security mechanisms are   manifested as an exchange of information between these entities.   The RP is therefore able to decide whether the client is authorized   or not.   Some security mechanisms allow the RP to delegate aspects of the   access management decision to an entity called the Identity Provider   (IdP).  This delegation requires technical signaling, trust, and a   common understanding of semantics between the RP and IdP.  These   aspects are generally managed within a relationship known as a   "federation".  This style of access management is accordingly   described as "federated access management".   Federated access management has evolved over the last decade through   specifications like SAML [OASIS.saml-core-2.0-os], OpenID   (http://www.openid.net), OAuth [RFC6749], and WS-Trust [WS-TRUST].   The benefits of federated access management include:   Single or simplified sign-on:      An Internet service can delegate access management, and the      associated responsibilities such as identity management and      credentialing, to an organization that already has a long-term      relationship with the client.  This is often attractive, as RPs      frequently do not want these responsibilities.  The client also      requires fewer credentials, which is also desirable.Howlett, et al.               Informational                     [Page 4]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 2016   Data minimization and user participation:      Often, an RP does not need to know the identity of a client to      reach an access management decision.  It is frequently only      necessary for the RP to know specific attributes about the client      -- for example, that the client is affiliated with a particular      organization or has a certain role or entitlement.  Sometimes, the      RP only needs to know a pseudonym of the client.      Prior to the release of attributes to the RP from the IdP, the IdP      will check configuration and policy to determine if the attributes      are to be released.  There is currently no direct client      participation in this decision.   Provisioning:      Sometimes, an RP needs, or would like, to know more about a client      than an affiliation or a pseudonym.  For example, an RP may want      the client's email address or name.  Some federated access      management technologies provide the ability for the IdP to supply      this information, either on request by the RP or unsolicited.   This memo describes the Application Bridging for Federated Access   Beyond web (ABFAB) architecture.  This architecture addresses the   problem of federated access management primarily for non-web-based   services.  This architecture makes use of extensions to the commonly   used security mechanisms for both federated and non-federated access   management, including RADIUS, the Generic Security Service (GSS), the   Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP), and SAML.  The architecture   should be extended to use Diameter in the future.  It does so in a   manner that is designed to scale to large numbers of IdPs, RPs, and   federations.1.1.  Terminology   This document uses identity management and privacy terminology from   [RFC6973].  In particular, this document uses the terms   "identity provider", "relying party", "identifier", "pseudonymity",   "unlinkability", and "anonymity".   In this architecture, the IdP consists of the following components:   an EAP server, a RADIUS server, and, optionally, a SAML Assertion   service.   This document uses the term "Network Access Identifier" (NAI) as   defined in [RFC7542].  An NAI consists of a realm identifier, which   is associated with a AAA server, and thus an IdP and a username, that   are associated with a specific client of the IdP.Howlett, et al.               Informational                     [Page 5]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 2016   One of the problems some people have found with reading this document   is that the terminology sometimes appears to be inconsistent.  This   is because the various standards that we refer to use different terms   for the same concept.  In general, this document uses either the   ABFAB term or the term associated with the standard under discussion,   as appropriate.  For reference, we include Table 1 below, which   provides a mapping for these different terms.  (Note that items   marked "N/A" (not applicable) indicate that there is no name that   represents the entity.)   +----------+-----------+--------------------+-----------------------+   | Protocol | Client    | Relying Party      | Identity Provider     |   +----------+-----------+--------------------+-----------------------+   | ABFAB    | N/A       | Relying Party (RP) | Identity Provider     |   |          |           |                    | (IdP)                 |   |          |           |                    |                       |   |          | Initiator | Acceptor           | N/A                   |   |          |           |                    |                       |   |          | Client    | Server             | N/A                   |   |          |           |                    |                       |   | SAML     | Subject   | Service provider   | Issuer                |   |          |           |                    |                       |   | GSS-API  | Initiator | Acceptor           | N/A                   |   |          |           |                    |                       |   | EAP      | EAP peer  | EAP authenticator  | EAP server            |   |          |           |                    |                       |   | AAA      | N/A       | AAA client         | AAA server            |   |          |           |                    |                       |   | RADIUS   | user      | NAS                | N/A                   |   |          |           |                    |                       |   |          | N/A       | RADIUS client      | RADIUS server         |   +----------+-----------+--------------------+-----------------------+                           Table 1: Terminology1.1.1.  Channel Binding   This document uses the term "channel binding" in two different   contexts; this term has a different meaning in each of these   contexts.   EAP channel binding is used to implement GSS-API naming semantics.   EAP channel binding sends a set of attributes from the peer to the   EAP server either as part of the EAP conversation or as part of a   secure association protocol.  In addition, attributes are sent in the   back-end protocol from the EAP authenticator to the EAP server.  TheHowlett, et al.               Informational                     [Page 6]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 2016   EAP server confirms the consistency of these attributes and provides   the confirmation back to the peer.  In this document, channel binding   without qualification refers to EAP channel binding.   GSS-API channel binding provides protection against man-in-the-middle   attacks when GSS-API is used for authentication inside of some   tunnel; it is similar to a facility called "cryptographic binding" in   EAP.  The binding works by each side deriving a cryptographic value   from the tunnel itself and then using that cryptographic value to   prove to the other side that it knows the value.   See [RFC5056] for a discussion of the differences between these two   facilities.  These differences can be summarized as follows:   o  GSS-API channel binding specifies that there is nobody between the      client and the EAP authenticator.   o  EAP channel binding allows the client to have knowledge of such      EAP authenticator attributes as the EAP authenticator's name.   Typically, when considering both EAP and GSS-API channel binding,   people think of channel binding in combination with mutual   authentication.  This is sufficiently common that, without additional   qualification, channel binding should be assumed to imply mutual   authentication.  In GSS-API, without mutual authentication, only the   acceptor has authenticated the initiator.  Similarly, in EAP, only   the EAP server has authenticated the peer.  Sometimes, one-way   authentication is useful.  Consider, for example, a user who wishes   to access a protected resource for a shared whiteboard in a   conference room.  The whiteboard is the acceptor; it knows that the   initiator is authorized to give it a presentation, and the user can   validate that the whiteboard got the correct presentation by visual   means.  (The presentation should not be confidential in this case.)   If channel binding is used without mutual authentication, it is   effectively a request to disclose the resource in the context of a   particular channel.  Such an authentication would be similar in   concept to a holder-of-key SAML Assertion.  However, note also that   although it is not happening in the protocol, mutual authentication   is happening in the overall system: the user is able to visually   authenticate the content.  This is consistent with all uses of   channel binding without protocol-level mutual authentication found   so far.Howlett, et al.               Informational                     [Page 7]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 20161.2.  An Overview of Federation   In the previous section, we introduced the following entities:   o  the client,   o  the IdP, and   o  the RP.   The final entity that needs to be introduced is the Individual.  An   Individual is a human being that is using the client.  In any given   situation, an Individual may or may not exist.  Clients can act as   front ends for Individuals, or clients may be independent entities   that are set up and allowed to run autonomously.  An example of such   an independent entity can be found in the Trust Router Protocol   (https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/slides/slides-86-rtgarea-0.pdf),   where the routers use ABFAB to authenticate to each other.   These entities and their relationships are illustrated graphically in   Figure 1.             ,----------\                        ,---------\             | Identity |       Federation       | Relying |             | Provider + <--------------------> + Party   |             `----------'                        '---------'                    <                     \                      \ Authentication                       \                        \                         \                          \                           \  +---------+                            \ |         |  O                             v| Client  | \|/ Individual                              |         |  |                              +---------+ / \                Figure 1: Entities and Their RelationshipsHowlett, et al.               Informational                     [Page 8]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 2016   The relationships between the entities in Figure 1 are as follows:   Federation      The IdP and the RPs are part of a federation.  The relationship      may be direct (they have an explicit trust relationship) or      transitive (the trust relationship is mediated by one or more      entities).  The federation relationship is governed by a      federation agreement.  Within a single federation, there may be      multiple IdPs as well as multiple RPs.   Authentication      There is a direct relationship between the client and the IdP.      This relationship provides the means by which they trust each      other and can securely authenticate each other.   A federation agreement typically encompasses operational   specifications and legal rules:   Operational Specifications:      The goal of operational specifications is to provide enough      definition that the system works and interoperability is possible.      These include the technical specifications (e.g., protocols used      to communicate between the three parties), process standards,      policies, identity proofing, credential and authentication      algorithm requirements, performance requirements, assessment and      audit criteria, etc.   Legal Rules:      The legal rules take the legal framework into consideration and      provide contractual obligations for each entity.  The rules define      the responsibilities of each party and provide further      clarification of the operational specifications.  These legal      rules regulate the operational specifications, make operational      specifications legally binding to the participants, and define and      govern the rights and responsibilities of the participants.  The      legal rules may, for example, describe liability for losses,      termination rights, enforcement mechanisms, measures of damage,      dispute resolution, warranties, etc.Howlett, et al.               Informational                     [Page 9]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 2016   The operational specifications can demand the usage of a specific   technical infrastructure, including requirements on the message   routing intermediaries, to offer the required technical   functionality.  In other environments, the operational specifications   require fewer technical components in order to meet the required   technical functionality.   The legal rules include many non-technical aspects of federation,   such as business practices and legal arrangements, which are outside   the scope of the IETF.  The legal rules can still have an impact on   the architectural setup or on how to ensure the dynamic establishment   of trust.   While a federation agreement is often discussed within the context of   formal relationships, such as between an enterprise and an employee   or between a government and a citizen, a federation agreement does   not have to require any particular level of formality.  For an IdP   and a client, it is sufficient for a relationship to be established   by something as simple as using a web form and confirmation email.   For an IdP and an RP, it is sufficient for the IdP to publish contact   information along with a public key and for the RP to use that data.   Within the framework of ABFAB, it will generally be required that a   mechanism exist for the IdP to be able to trust the identity of the   RP; if this is not present, then the IdP cannot provide the   assurances to the client that the identity of the RP has been   established.   The nature of federation dictates that there exists some form of   relationship between the IdP and the RP.  This is particularly   important when the RP wants to use information obtained from the IdP   for access management decisions and when the IdP does not want to   release information to every RP (or only under certain conditions).   While it is possible to have a bilateral agreement between every IdP   and every RP, on an Internet scale, this setup requires the   introduction of the multilateral federation concept, as the   management of such pair-wise relationships would otherwise prove   burdensome.   The IdP will typically have a long-term relationship with the client.   This relationship typically involves the IdP positively identifying   and credentialing the client (for example, at the time of employment   within an organization).  When dealing with Individuals, this process   is called "identity proofing" [NIST-SP.800-63-2].  The relationship   will often be instantiated within an agreement between the IdP and   the client (for example, within an employment contract or terms of   use that stipulate the appropriate use of credentials and so forth).Howlett, et al.               Informational                    [Page 10]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 2016   The nature and quality of the relationship between the client and the   IdP are important contributors to the level of trust that an RP may   assign to an assertion describing a client made by an IdP.  This is   sometimes described as the level of assurance [NIST-SP.800-63-2].   Federation does not require an a priori relationship or a long-term   relationship between the RP and the client; it is this property of   federation that yields many of its benefits.  However, federation   does not preclude the possibility of a pre-existing relationship   between the RP and the client or the possibility that the RP and   client may use the introduction to create a new long-term   relationship independent of the federation.   Finally, it is important to reiterate that in some scenarios there   might indeed be an Individual behind the client and in other cases   the client may be autonomous.1.3.  Challenges for Contemporary Federation   As federated IdPs and RPs (services) proliferate, the role of an   Individual can become ambiguous in certain circumstances.  For   example, a school might provide online access for a student's grades   to their parents for review and to the student's teacher for   modification.  A teacher who is also a parent must clearly   distinguish their role upon access.   Similarly, as federations proliferate, it becomes increasingly   difficult to discover which IdP(s) a user is associated with.  This   is true for both the web and non-web case but is particularly acute   for the latter, as many non-web authentication systems are not   semantically rich enough on their own to allow for such ambiguities.   For instance, in the case of an email provider, SMTP and IMAP do not   have the ability for the server to request information from the   client, beyond the client NAI, that the server would then use to   decide between the multiple federations it is associated with.   However, the building blocks do exist to add this functionality.1.4.  An Overview of ABFAB-Based Federation   The previous section described the general model of federation and   the application of access management within the federation.  This   section provides a brief overview of ABFAB in the context of this   model.Howlett, et al.               Informational                    [Page 11]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 2016   In this example, a client is attempting to connect to a server in   order to either get access to some data or perform some type of   transaction.  In order for the client to mutually authenticate with   the server, the following steps are taken in an ABFAB architecture (a   graphical view of the steps can be found in Figure 2):   1.   Client configuration: The client is configured with an NAI        assigned by the IdP.  It is also configured with any keys,        certificates, passwords, or other secret and public information        needed to run the EAP protocols between it and the IdP.   2.   Authentication mechanism selection: The client is configured to        use the GSS-EAP GSS-API mechanism for authentication/        authorization.   3.   Client provides an NAI to RP: The client sets up a transport to        the RP and begins GSS-EAP authentication.  In response, the RP        sends an EAP request message (nested in GSS-EAP) asking for the        client's name.  The client sends an EAP response with an NAI        name form that, at a minimum, contains the realm portion of its        full NAI.   4.   Discovery of federated IdP: The RP uses preconfigured        information or a federation proxy to determine what IdP to use,        based on policy and the realm portion of the provided client        NAI.  This is discussed in detail below (Section 2.1.2).   5.   Request from RP to IdP: Once the RP knows who the IdP is, it (or        its agent) will send a RADIUS request to the IdP.  The RADIUS        Access-Request encapsulates the EAP response.  At this stage,        the RP will likely have no idea who the client is.  The RP sends        its identity to the IdP in AAA attributes, and it may send a        SAML request in a AAA attribute.  The AAA network checks to see        that the identity claimed by the RP is valid.   6.   IdP begins EAP with the client: The IdP sends an EAP message to        the client with an EAP method to be used.  The IdP should not        re-request the client's name in this message, but clients need        to be able to handle it.  In this case, the IdP must accept a        realm only in order to protect the client's name from the RP.        The available and appropriate methods are discussed below        (Section 2.2.1).   7.   EAP is run: A bunch of EAP messages are passed between the        client (EAP peer) and the IdP (EAP server), until the result of        the authentication protocol is determined.  The number and        content of those messages depend on the EAP method selected.  If        the IdP is unable to authenticate the client, the IdP sends anHowlett, et al.               Informational                    [Page 12]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 2016        EAP failure message to the RP.  As part of the EAP method, the        client sends an EAP channel-binding message to the IdP        (Section 2.2.2).  In the channel-binding message, the client        identifies, among other things, the RP to which it is attempting        to authenticate.  The IdP checks the channel-binding data from        the client against the data provided by the RP via the AAA        protocol.  If the bindings do not match, the IdP sends an EAP        failure message to the RP.   8.   Successful EAP authentication: At this point, the IdP (EAP        server) and client (EAP peer) have mutually authenticated each        other.  As a result, the client and the IdP hold two        cryptographic keys: a Master Session Key (MSK) and an Extended        MSK (EMSK).  At this point, the client has a level of assurance        regarding the identity of the RP, based on the name checking the        IdP has done, using the RP naming information from the AAA        framework and from the client (by the channel-binding data).   9.   Local IdP policy check: At this stage, the IdP checks local        policy to determine whether the RP and client are authorized for        a given transaction/service and, if so, what attributes, if any,        will be released to the RP.  If the IdP gets a policy failure,        it sends an EAP failure message to the RP and client.  (The RP        will have done its policy checks during the discovery process.)   10.  IdP provides the RP with the MSK: The IdP sends a success result        EAP to the RP, along with an optional set of AAA attributes        associated with the client (usually as one or more SAML        Assertions).  In addition, the EAP MSK is returned to the RP.   11.  RP processes results: When the RP receives the result from the        IdP, it should have enough information to either grant or refuse        a resource Access-Request.  It may have information that        associates the client with specific authorization identities.        If additional attributes are needed from the IdP, the RP may        make a new SAML request to the IdP.  It will apply these results        in an application-specific way.   12.  RP returns results to client: Once the RP has a response, it        must inform the client of the result.  If all has gone well, all        are authenticated, and the application proceeds with appropriate        authorization levels.  The client can now complete the        authentication of the RP by using the EAP MSK value.Howlett, et al.               Informational                    [Page 13]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 2016        Relying         Client         Identity        Party                          Provider        |              (1)             | Client configuration        |               |              |        |<-----(2)----->|              | Mechanism selection        |               |              |        |<-----(3)-----<|              | NAI transmitted to RP        |               |              |        |<=====(4)====================>| IdP Discovery        |               |              |        |>=====(5)====================>| Access-Request from RP to IdP        |               |              |        |               |< - - (6) - -<| EAP method to client        |               |              |        |               |< - - (7) - ->| EAP exchange to authenticate        |               |              | client        |               |              |        |               |           (8 & 9) Local policy check        |               |              |        |<====(10)====================<| Results to RP        |               |              |      (11)              |              | RP processes results        |               |              |        |>----(12)----->|              | Results to client        Legend:          -----: Between client and RP          =====: Between RP and IdP          - - -: Between client and IdP (via RP)                   Figure 2: ABFAB Authentication Steps1.5.  Design Goals   Our key design goals are as follows:   o  Each party in a transaction will be authenticated, although      perhaps not identified, and the client will be authorized for      access to a specific resource.   o  The means of authentication is decoupled from the application      protocol so as to allow for multiple authentication methods with      minimal changes to the application.   o  The architecture requires no sharing of long-term private keys      between clients and RPs.Howlett, et al.               Informational                    [Page 14]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 2016   o  The system will scale to large numbers of IdPs, RPs, and users.   o  The system will be designed primarily for non-web-based      authentication.   o  The system will build upon existing standards, components, and      operational practices.   Designing new three-party authentication and authorization protocols   is difficult and fraught with the risk of cryptographic flaws.   Achieving widespread deployment is even more difficult.  A lot of   attention on federated access has been devoted to the web.  This   document instead focuses on a non-web-based environment and focuses   on those protocols where HTTP is not used.  Despite the growing trend   to layer every protocol on top of HTTP, there are still a number of   protocols available that do not use HTTP-based transports.  Many of   these protocols are lacking a native authentication and authorization   framework of the style shown in Figure 1.2.  Architecture   We have already introduced the federated access architecture, with   the illustration of the different actors that need to interact.  This   section expands on the specifics of providing support for   non-web-based applications and provides motivations for design   decisions.  The main theme of the work described in this document is   focused on reusing existing building blocks that have been deployed   already and to rearrange them in a novel way.   Although this architecture assumes updates to the RP, the client, and   the IdP, those changes are kept at a minimum.  A mechanism that can   demonstrate deployment benefits (based on ease of updates to existing   software, low implementation effort, etc.) is preferred, and there   may be a need to specify multiple mechanisms to support the range of   different deployment scenarios.   There are a number of ways to encapsulate EAP into an application   protocol.  For ease of integration with a wide range of non-web-based   application protocols, GSS-API was chosen.  The technical   specification of GSS-EAP can be found in [RFC7055].   The architecture consists of several building blocks, as shown   graphically in Figure 3.  In the following sections, we discuss the   data flow between each of the entities, the protocols used for that   data flow, and some of the trade-offs made in choosing the protocols.Howlett, et al.               Informational                    [Page 15]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 2016                                    +--------------+                                    |   Identity   |                                    |   Provider   |                                    |    (IdP)     |                                    +-^----------^-+                                      * EAP      o RADIUS                                      *          o                                    --v----------v--                                 ///                \\\                               //                      \\                              |        Federation        |                              |        Substrate         |                               \\                      //                                 \\\                ///                                    --^----------^--                                      * EAP      o RADIUS                                      *          o   +-------------+                  +-v----------v--+   |             |                  |               |   | Client      |  EAP/EAP Method  | Relying Party |   | Application |<****************>|     (RP)      |   |             |  GSS-API         |               |   |             |<---------------->|               |   |             |  Application     |               |   |             |  Protocol        |               |   |             |<================>|               |   +-------------+                  +---------------+   Legend:     <****>: Client-to-IdP Exchange     <---->: Client-to-RP Exchange     <oooo>: RP-to-IdP Exchange     <====>: Protocol through which GSS-API/GS2 exchanges are tunneled                  Figure 3: ABFAB Protocol Instantiation2.1.  Relying Party to Identity Provider   Communication between the RP and the IdP is done by the Federation   Substrate.  This communication channel is responsible for:   o  Establishing the trust relationship between the RP and the IdP.   o  Determining the rules governing the relationship.   o  Conveying authentication packets from the client to the IdP      and back.Howlett, et al.               Informational                    [Page 16]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 2016   o  Providing the means of establishing a trust relationship between      the RP and the client.   o  Providing a means for the RP to obtain attributes about the client      from the IdP.   The ABFAB working group has chosen the AAA framework for the messages   transported between the RP and IdP.  The AAA framework supports the   requirements stated above, as follows:   o  The AAA backbone supplies the trust relationship between the RP      and the IdP.   o  The agreements governing a specific AAA backbone contain the rules      governing the relationships within the AAA federation.   o  A method exists for carrying EAP packets within RADIUS [RFC3579]      and Diameter [RFC4072].   o  The use of EAP channel binding [RFC6677] along with the core ABFAB      protocol provide the pieces necessary to establish the identities      of the RP and the client, while EAP provides the cryptographic      methods for the RP and the client to validate that they are      talking to each other.   o  A method exists for carrying SAML packets within RADIUS [RFC7833];      this method allows the RP to query attributes about the client      from the IdP.   Protocols that support the same framework but do different routing   are expected to be defined and used in the future.  One such effort,   called the Trust Router, is to set up a framework that creates a   trusted point-to-point channel on the fly   (https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/slides/slides-86-rtgarea-0.pdf).2.1.1.  AAA, RADIUS, and Diameter   The usage of the AAA framework with RADIUS [RFC2865] and Diameter   [RFC6733] for network access authentication has been successful from   a deployment point of view.  To map the terminology used in Figure 1   to the AAA framework, the IdP corresponds to the AAA server; the RP   corresponds to the AAA client; and the technical building blocks of a   federation are AAA proxies, relays, and redirect agents (particularly   if they are operated by third parties, such as AAA brokers and   clearinghouses).  In the case of network access authentication, the   front end, i.e., the communication path between the end host and the   AAA client, is offered by link-layer protocols that forwardHowlett, et al.               Informational                    [Page 17]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 2016   authentication protocol exchanges back and forth.  An example of a   large-scale RADIUS-based federation is eduroam   (https://www.eduroam.org).   By using the AAA framework, ABFAB can be built on the federation   agreements that already exist; the agreements can then merely be   expanded to cover the ABFAB architecture.  The AAA framework has   already addressed some of the problems outlined above.  For example,   o  It already has a method for routing requests based on a domain.   o  It already has an extensible architecture allowing for new      attributes to be defined and transported.   o  Pre-existing relationships can be reused.   The astute reader will notice that RADIUS and Diameter have   substantially similar characteristics.  Why not pick one?  RADIUS and   Diameter are deployed in different environments.  RADIUS can often be   found in enterprise and university networks; RADIUS is also used by   operators of fixed networks.  Diameter, on the other hand, is   deployed by operators of mobile networks.  Another key difference is   that today RADIUS is largely transported over UDP.  The decision   regarding which protocol will be appropriate to deploy is left to   implementers.  The protocol defines all the necessary new AAA   attributes as RADIUS attributes.  A future document could define the   same AAA attributes for a Diameter environment.  We also note that   there exist proxies that convert from RADIUS to Diameter and back.   This makes it possible for both to be deployed in a single Federation   Substrate.   Through the integrity-protection mechanisms in the AAA framework, the   IdP can establish technical trust that messages are being sent by the   appropriate RP.  Any given interaction will be associated with one   federation at the policy level.  The legal or business relationship   defines what statements the IdP is trusted to make and how these   statements are interpreted by the RP.  The AAA framework also permits   the RP or elements between the RP and IdP to make statements about   the RP.   The AAA framework provides transport for attributes.  Statements made   about the client by the IdP, statements made about the RP, and other   information are transported as attributes.   One demand that the AAA substrate makes of the upper layers is that   they must properly identify the endpoints of the communication.  It   must be possible for the AAA client at the RP to determine where to   send each RADIUS or Diameter message.  Without this requirement, itHowlett, et al.               Informational                    [Page 18]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 2016   would be the RP's responsibility to determine the identity of the   client on its own, without the assistance of an IdP.  This   architecture makes use of the Network Access Identifier (NAI), where   the IdP is indicated by the realm component [RFC7542].  The NAI is   represented and consumed by the GSS-API layer as GSS_C_NT_USER_NAME,   as specified in [RFC2743].  The GSS-API EAP mechanism includes the   NAI in the EAP Response/Identity message.   At the time of this writing, no profiles for the use of Diameter have   been created.2.1.2.  Discovery and Rules Determination   While we are using the AAA protocols to communicate with the IdP, the   RP may have multiple Federation Substrates to select from.  The RP   has a number of criteria that it will use in selecting which of the   different federations to use.  The federation selected must   o  be able to communicate with the IdP.   o  match the business rules and technical policies required for the      RP security requirements.   The RP needs to discover which federation will be used to contact the   IdP.  The first selection criterion used during discovery is going to   be the name of the IdP to be contacted.  The second selection   criterion used during discovery is going to be the set of business   rules and technical policies governing the relationship; this is   called "rules determination".  The RP also needs to establish   technical trust in the communications with the IdP.   Rules determination covers a broad range of decisions about the   exchange.  One of these is whether the given RP is permitted to talk   to the IdP using a given federation at all, so rules determination   encompasses the basic authorization decision.  Other factors are   included, such as what policies govern release of information about   the client to the RP and what policies govern the RP's use of this   information.  While rules determination is ultimately a business   function, it has a significant impact on the technical exchanges.   The protocols need to communicate the result of authorization.  When   multiple sets of rules are possible, the protocol must disambiguate   which set of rules are in play.  Some rules have technical   enforcement mechanisms; for example, in some federations,   intermediaries validate information that is being communicated within   the federation.Howlett, et al.               Informational                    [Page 19]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 2016   At the time of this writing, no protocol mechanism has been specified   to allow a AAA client to determine whether a AAA proxy will indeed be   able to route AAA requests to a specific IdP.  The AAA routing is   impacted by business rules and technical policies that may be quite   complex; at the present time, the route selection is based on manual   configuration.2.1.3.  Routing and Technical Trust   Several approaches to having messages routed through the Federation   Substrate are possible.  These routing methods can most easily be   classified based on the mechanism for technical trust that is used.   The choice of technical trust mechanism constrains how rules   determination is implemented.  Regardless of what deployment strategy   is chosen, it is important that the technical trust mechanism be able   to validate the identities of both parties to the exchange.  The   trust mechanism must ensure that the entity acting as the IdP for a   given NAI is permitted to be the IdP for that realm and that any   service name claimed by the RP is permitted to be claimed by that   entity.  Here are the categories of technical trust determination:   AAA Proxy:      The simplest model is that an RP is a AAA client and can send the      request directly to a AAA proxy.  The hop-by-hop integrity      protection of the AAA fabric provides technical trust.  An RP can      submit a request directly to the correct federation.      Alternatively, a federation disambiguation fabric can be used.      Such a fabric takes information about what federations the RP is      part of and what federations the IdP is part of, and it routes a      message to the appropriate federation.  The routing of messages      across the fabric, plus attributes added to requests and      responses, together provide rules determination.  For example,      when a disambiguation fabric routes a message to a given      federation, that federation's rules are chosen.  Name validation      is enforced as messages travel across the fabric.  The entities      near the RP confirm its identity and validate names it claims.      The fabric routes the message towards the appropriate IdP,      validating the name of the IdP in the process.  The routing can be      statically configured.  Alternatively, a routing protocol could be      developed to exchange reachability information about a given IdP      and to apply policy across the AAA fabric.  Such a routing      protocol could flood naming constraints to the appropriate points      in the fabric.Howlett, et al.               Informational                    [Page 20]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 2016   Trust Broker:      Instead of routing messages through AAA proxies, some trust broker      could establish keys between entities near the RP and entities      near the IdP.  The advantage of this approach is efficiency of      message handling.  Fewer entities are needed to be involved for      each message.  Security may be improved by sending individual      messages over fewer hops.  Rules determination involves decisions      made by trust brokers about what keys to grant.  Also, associated      with each credential is context about rules and about other      aspects of technical trust, including names that may be claimed.      A routing protocol similar to the one for AAA proxies is likely to      be useful to trust brokers in flooding rules and naming      constraints.   Global Credential:      A global credential such as a public key and certificate in a      public key infrastructure can be used to establish technical      trust.  A directory or distributed database such as the Domain      Name System is used by the RP to discover the endpoint to contact      for a given NAI.  Either the database or certificates can provide      a place to store information about rules determination and naming      constraints.  Provided that no intermediates are required (or      appear to be required) and that the RP and IdP are sufficient to      enforce and determine rules, rules determination is reasonably      simple.  However, applying certain rules is likely to be quite      complex.  For example, if multiple sets of rules are possible      between an IdP and RP, confirming that the correct set is used may      be difficult.  This is particularly true if intermediates are      involved in making the decision.  Also, to the extent that      directory information needs to be trusted, rules determination may      be more complex.   Real-world deployments are likely to be mixtures of these basic   approaches.  For example, it will be quite common for an RP to route   traffic to a AAA proxy within an organization.  That proxy could then   use any of the above three methods to get closer to the IdP.  It is   also likely that, rather than being directly reachable, the IdP may   have a proxy on the edge of its organization.  Federations will   likely provide a traditional AAA proxy interface even if they also   provide another mechanism for increased efficiency or security.2.1.4.  AAA Security   For the AAA framework, there are two different places where security   needs to be examined.  The first is the security that is in place for   the links in the AAA backbone being used.  The second are the nodes   that form the AAA backbone.Howlett, et al.               Informational                    [Page 21]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 2016   The default link security for RADIUS is showing its age, as it uses   MD5 and a shared secret to both obfuscate passwords and provide   integrity on the RADIUS messages.  While some EAP methods include the   ability to protect the client authentication credentials, the MSK   returned from the IdP to the RP is protected only by RADIUS security.   In many environments, this is considered to be insufficient,   especially as not all attributes are obfuscated and can thus leak   information to a passive eavesdropper.  The use of RADIUS with   Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC6614] and/or Datagram Transport   Layer Security (DTLS) [RFC7360] addresses these attacks.  The same   level of security is included in the base Diameter specifications.2.1.5.  SAML Assertions   For the traditional use of AAA frameworks, i.e., granting access to a   network, an affirmative response from the IdP is sufficient.  In the   ABFAB world, the RP may need to get significantly more additional   information about the client before granting access.  ABFAB therefore   has a requirement that it can transport an arbitrary set of   attributes about the client from the IdP to the RP.   The Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML)   [OASIS.saml-core-2.0-os] was designed in order to carry an extensible   set of attributes about a subject.  Since SAML is extensible in the   attribute space, ABFAB has no immediate needs to update the core SAML   specifications for our work.  It will be necessary to update IdPs   that need to return SAML Assertions to RPs and for both the IdP and   the RP to implement a new SAML profile designed to carry SAML   Assertions in AAA.  The new profile can be found in [RFC7833].  As   SAML statements will frequently be large, RADIUS servers and clients   that deal with SAML statements will need to implement [RFC7499].   There are several issues that need to be highlighted:   o  The security of SAML Assertions.   o  Namespaces and mapping of SAML attributes.   o  Subject naming of entities.   o  Making multiple queries about the subject(s).   o  Level of assurance for authentication.   SAML Assertions have an optional signature that can be used to   protect and provide the origination of the assertion.  These   signatures are normally based on asymmetric key operations and   require that the verifier be able to check not only the cryptographicHowlett, et al.               Informational                    [Page 22]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 2016   operation but also the binding of the originator's name and the   public key.  In a federated environment, it will not always be   possible for the RP to validate the binding; for this reason, the   technical trust established in the federation is used as an alternate   method of validating the origination and integrity of the SAML   Assertion.   Attributes in a SAML Assertion are identified by a name string.  The   name string is either assigned by the SAML issuer context or scoped   by a namespace (for example, a URI or object identifier (OID)).  This   means that the same attribute can have different name strings used to   identify it.  In many cases, but not all, the federation agreements   will determine what attributes and names can be used in a SAML   statement.  This means that the RP needs to map from the SAML issuer   or federation name, type, and semantic to the name, type, and   semantics that the policies of the RP are written in.  In other   cases, the Federation Substrate, in the form of proxies, will modify   the SAML Assertions in transit to do the necessary name, type, and   value mappings as the assertion crosses boundaries in the federation.   If the proxies are modifying the SAML Assertion, then they will   remove any signatures on the SAML Assertion, as changing the content   of the SAML Assertion would invalidate the signature.  In this case,   the technical trust is the required mechanism for validating the   integrity of the assertion.  (The proxy could re-sign the SAML   Assertion, but the same issues of establishing trust in the proxy   would still exist.)  Finally, the attributes may still be in the   namespace of the originating IdP.  When this occurs, the RP will need   to get the required mapping operations from the federation agreements   and do the appropriate mappings itself.   [RFC7833] has defined a new SAML name format that corresponds to the   NAI name form defined by [RFC7542].  This allows for easy name   matching in many cases, as the name form in the SAML statement and   the name form used in RADIUS or Diameter will be the same.  In   addition to the NAI name form, [RFC7833] also defines a pair of   implicit name forms corresponding to the client and the client's   machine.  These implicit name forms are based on the Identity-Type   enumeration defined in the Tunnel Extensible Authentication Protocol   (TEAP) specification [RFC7170].  If the name form returned in a SAML   statement is not based on the NAI, then it is a requirement on the   EAP server that it validate that the subject of the SAML Assertion,   if any, is equivalent to the subject identified by the NAI used in   the RADIUS or Diameter session.   RADIUS has the ability to deal with multiple SAML queries for those   EAP servers that follow [RFC5080].  In this case, a State attribute   will always be returned with the Access-Accept.  The EAP client can   then send a new Access-Request with the State attribute and the newHowlett, et al.               Informational                    [Page 23]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 2016   SAML request.  Multiple SAML queries can then be done by making a new   Access-Request, using the State attribute returned in the last   Access-Accept to link together the different RADIUS sessions.   Some RPs need to ensure that specific criteria are met during the   authentication process.  This need is met by using levels of   assurance.  A level of assurance is communicated to the RP from the   EAP server by using a SAML Authentication Request, using the   Authentication Profile described in [RFC7833].  When crossing   boundaries between different federations, (1) the policy specified   will need to be shared between the two federations, (2) the policy   will need to be mapped by the proxy server on the boundary, or   (3) the proxy server on the boundary will need to supply information   to the EAP server so that the EAP server can do the required mapping.   If this mapping is not done, then the EAP server will not be able to   enforce the desired level of assurance, as it will not understand the   policy requirements.2.2.  Client to Identity Provider   Looking at the communications between the client and the IdP, the   following items need to be dealt with:   o  The client and the IdP need to mutually authenticate each other.   o  The client and the IdP need to mutually agree on the identity of      the RP.   ABFAB selected EAP for the purposes of mutual authentication and   assisted in creating some new EAP channel-binding documents for   dealing with determining the identity of the RP.  A framework for the   channel-binding mechanism has been defined in [RFC6677] that allows   the IdP to check the identity of the RP provided by the AAA framework   against the identity provided by the client.2.2.1.  Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)   Traditional web federation does not describe how a client interacts   with an IdP for authentication.  As a result, this communication is   not standardized.  There are several disadvantages to this approach.   Since the communication is not standardized, it is difficult for   machines to recognize which entity is going to do the authentication,   and thus which credentials to use and where in the authentication   form the credentials are to be entered.  It is much easier for humans   to correctly deal with these problems.  The use of browsers for   authentication restricts the deployment of more secure forms of   authentication beyond plaintext usernames and passwords known by the   server.  In a number of cases, the authentication interface may beHowlett, et al.               Informational                    [Page 24]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 2016   presented before the client has adequately validated that they are   talking to the intended server.  By giving control of the   authentication interface to a potential attacker, the security of the   system may be reduced, and opportunities for phishing may be   introduced.   As a result, it is desirable to choose some standardized approach for   communication between the client's end host and the IdP.  There are a   number of requirements this approach must meet, as noted below.   Experience has taught us one key security and scalability   requirement: it is important that the RP not get possession of the   long-term secret of the client.  Aside from a valuable secret being   exposed, a synchronization problem can develop when the client   changes keys with the IdP.   Since there is no single authentication mechanism that will be used   everywhere, another associated requirement is that the authentication   framework must allow for the flexible integration of authentication   mechanisms.  For instance, some IdPs require hardware tokens, while   others use passwords.  A service provider wants to provide support   for both authentication methods and also for other methods from IdPs   not yet seen.   These requirements can be met by utilizing standardized and   successfully deployed technology, namely the EAP framework [RFC3748].   Figure 3 illustrates the integration graphically.   EAP is an end-to-end framework; it provides for two-way communication   between a peer (i.e., client or Individual) through the EAP   authenticator (i.e., RP) to the back end (i.e., IdP).  This is   precisely -- and conveniently -- the communication path that is   needed for federated identity.  Although EAP support is already   integrated in AAA systems (see [RFC3579] and [RFC4072]), several   challenges remain:   o  The first is how to carry EAP payloads from the end host to      the RP.   o  Another is to verify statements the RP has made to the client,      confirm that these statements are consistent with statements made      to the IdP, and confirm that all of the above are consistent with      the federation and any federation-specific policy or      configuration.   o  Another challenge is choosing which IdP to use for which service.Howlett, et al.               Informational                    [Page 25]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 2016   The EAP method used for ABFAB needs to meet the following   requirements:   o  It needs to provide mutual authentication of the client and IdP.   o  It needs to support channel binding.   As of this writing, the only EAP method that meets these criteria is   TEAP [RFC7170], either alone (if client certificates are used) or   with an inner EAP method that does mutual authentication.2.2.2.  EAP Channel Binding   EAP channel binding is easily confused with a facility in GSS-API   that is also called "channel binding".  GSS-API channel binding   provides protection against man-in-the-middle attacks when GSS-API is   used for authentication inside of some tunnel; it is similar to a   facility called "cryptographic binding" in EAP.  See [RFC5056] for a   discussion of the differences between these two facilities.   The client knows, in theory, the name of the RP that it attempted to   connect to; however, in the event that an attacker has intercepted   the protocol, the client and the IdP need to be able to detect this   situation.  A general overview of the problem, along with a   recommended way to deal with the channel-binding issues, can be found   in [RFC6677].   Since the time that [RFC6677] was published, a number of possible   attacks were found.  Methods to address these attacks have been   outlined in [RFC7029].2.3.  Client to Relying Party   The final set of interactions between the parties to consider are   those between the client and the RP.  In some ways, this is the most   complex set, since at least part of it is outside the scope of the   ABFAB work.  The interactions between these parties include:   o  Running the protocol that implements the service that is provided      by the RP and desired by the client.   o  Authenticating the client to the RP and the RP to the client.   o  Providing the necessary security services to the service protocol      that it needs, beyond authentication.   o  Dealing with client re-authentication where desired.Howlett, et al.               Informational                    [Page 26]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 20162.3.1.  GSS-API   One of the remaining layers is responsible for integration of   federated authentication with the application.  Applications have   adopted a number of approaches for providing security, so multiple   strategies for integration of federated authentication with   applications may be needed.  To this end, we start with a strategy   that provides integration with a large number of application   protocols.   Many applications, such as Secure Shell (SSH) [RFC4462], NFS   [RFC7530], DNS [RFC3645], and several non-IETF applications, support   GSS-API [RFC2743].  Many applications, such as IMAP, SMTP, the   Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP), and the   Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP), support the Simple   Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) [RFC4422] framework.  These   two approaches work together nicely: by creating a GSS-API mechanism,   SASL integration is also addressed.  In effect, using a GSS-API   mechanism with SASL simply requires placing some headers before the   mechanism's messages and constraining certain GSS-API options.   GSS-API is specified in terms of an abstract set of operations that   can be mapped into a programming language to form an API.  When   people are first introduced to GSS-API, they focus on it as an API.   However, from the perspective of authentication for non-web   applications, GSS-API should be thought of as a protocol as well as   an API.  When looked at as a protocol, it consists of abstract   operations such as the initial context exchange, which includes two   sub-operations (GSS_Init_sec_context and GSS_Accept_sec_context)   [RFC2743].  An application defines which abstract operations it is   going to use and where messages produced by these operations fit into   the application architecture.  A GSS-API mechanism will define what   actual protocol messages result from that abstract message for a   given abstract operation.  So, since this work is focusing on a   particular GSS-API mechanism, we generally focus on protocol elements   rather than the API view of GSS-API.   The API view of GSS-API does have significant value as well; since   the abstract operations are well defined, the information that a   mechanism gets from the application is well defined.  Also, the set   of assumptions the application is permitted to make is generally well   defined.  As a result, an application protocol that supports GSS-API   or SASL is very likely to be usable with a new approach to   authentication, including the authentication mechanism defined in   this document, with no required modifications.  In some cases,   support for a new authentication mechanism has been added using   plugin interfaces to applications without the application being   modified at all.  Even when modifications are required, they canHowlett, et al.               Informational                    [Page 27]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 2016   often be limited to supporting a new naming and authorization model.   For example, this work focuses on privacy; an application that   assumes that it will always obtain an identifier for the client will   need to be modified to support anonymity, unlinkability, or   pseudonymity.   So, we use GSS-API and SASL because a number of the application   protocols we wish to federate support these strategies for security   integration.  What does this mean from a protocol standpoint, and how   does this relate to other layers?  This means that we need to design   a concrete GSS-API mechanism.  We have chosen to use a GSS-API   mechanism that encapsulates EAP authentication.  So, GSS-API (and   SASL) encapsulates EAP between the end host and the service.  The AAA   framework encapsulates EAP between the RP and the IdP.  The GSS-API   mechanism includes rules about how initiators and services are named   as well as per-message security and other facilities required by the   applications we wish to support.2.3.2.  Protocol Transport   The transport of data between the client and the RP is not provided   by GSS-API.  GSS-API creates and consumes messages, but it does not   provide the transport itself; instead, the protocol using GSS-API   needs to provide the transport.  In many cases, HTTP or HTTPS is used   for this transport, but other transports are perfectly acceptable.   The core GSS-API document [RFC2743] provides some details on what   requirements exist.   In addition, we highlight the following:   o  The transport does not need to provide either confidentiality or      integrity.  After GSS-EAP has finished negotiation, GSS-API can be      used to provide both services.  If the negotiation process itself      needs protection from eavesdroppers, then the transport would need      to provide the necessary services.   o  The transport needs to provide reliable transport of the messages.   o  The transport needs to ensure that tokens are delivered in order      during the negotiation process.   o  GSS-API messages need to be delivered atomically.  If the      transport breaks up a message, it must also reassemble the message      before delivery.Howlett, et al.               Informational                    [Page 28]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 20162.3.3.  Re-authentication   There are circumstances where the RP will want to have the client   re-authenticate itself.  These include very long sessions, where the   original authentication is time limited or cases where in order to   complete an operation a different authentication is required.   GSS-EAP does not have any mechanism for the server to initiate a   re-authentication, as all authentication operations start from the   client.  If a protocol using GSS-EAP needs to support   re-authentication that is initiated by the server, then a request   from the server to the client for the re-authentication to start   needs to be placed in the protocol.   Clients can reuse the existing secure connection established by   GSS-API, and run the new authentication in that connection, by   calling GSS_Init_sec_context.  At this point, a full   re-authentication will be done.3.  Application Security Services   One of the key goals is to integrate federated authentication with   existing application protocols and, where possible, existing   implementations of these protocols.  Another goal is to perform this   integration while meeting the best security practices of the   technologies used to perform the integration.  This section describes   security services and properties required by the EAP GSS-API   mechanism in order to meet these goals.  This information could be   viewed as specific to that mechanism.  However, other future   application integration strategies are very likely to need similar   services.  So, it is likely that these services will be expanded   across application integration strategies if new application   integration strategies are adopted.3.1.  Authentication   GSS-API provides an optional security service called "mutual   authentication".  This service means that in addition to the   initiator providing (potentially anonymous or pseudonymous) identity   to the acceptor, the acceptor confirms its identity to the initiator.   In the context of ABFAB in particular, the naming of this service is   confusing.  We still say that mutual authentication is provided when   the identity of an acceptor is strongly authenticated to an anonymous   initiator.Howlett, et al.               Informational                    [Page 29]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 2016   Unfortunately, [RFC2743] does not explicitly talk about what mutual   authentication means.  Within this document, we therefore define   mutual authentication as follows:   o  If a target name is configured for the initiator, then the      initiator trusts that the supplied target name describes the      acceptor.  This implies that (1) appropriate cryptographic      exchanges took place for the initiator to make such a trust      decision and (2) after evaluating the results of these exchanges,      the initiator's policy trusts that the target name is accurate.   o  If no target name is configured for the initiator, then the      initiator trusts that the acceptor name, supplied by the acceptor,      correctly names the entity it is communicating with.   o  Both the initiator and acceptor have the same key material for      per-message keys, and both parties have confirmed that they      actually have the key material.  In EAP terms, there is a      protected indication of success.   Mutual authentication is an important defense against certain aspects   of phishing.  Intuitively, clients would like to assume that if some   party asks for their credentials as part of authentication,   successfully gaining access to the resource means that they are   talking to the expected party.  Without mutual authentication, the   server could "grant access" regardless of what credentials are   supplied.  Mutual authentication better matches this user intuition.   It is important, therefore, that the GSS-EAP mechanism implement   mutual authentication.  That is, an initiator needs to be able to   request mutual authentication.  When mutual authentication is   requested, only EAP methods capable of providing the necessary   service can be used, and appropriate steps need to be taken to   provide mutual authentication.  While a broader set of EAP methods   could be supported by not requiring mutual authentication, it was   decided that the client needs to always have the ability to request   it.  In some cases, the IdP and the RP will not support mutual   authentication; however, the client will always be able to detect   this and make an appropriate security decision.   The AAA infrastructure may hide the initiator's identity from the   GSS-API acceptor, providing anonymity between the initiator and the   acceptor.  At this time, whether the identity is disclosed is   determined by EAP server policy rather than by an indication from the   initiator.  Also, initiators are unlikely to be able to determine   whether anonymous communication will be provided.  For this reason,   initiators are unlikely to set the anonymous return flag from   GSS_Init_sec_context (Section 2.2.1 of [RFC2743]).Howlett, et al.               Informational                    [Page 30]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 20163.2.  GSS-API Channel Binding   [RFC5056] defines a concept of channel binding that is used to   prevent man-in-the-middle attacks.  This type of channel binding   works by taking a cryptographic value from the transport security   layer and checks to see that both sides of the GSS-API conversation   know this value.  Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC5246] is the   most common transport security layer used for this purpose.   It needs to be stressed that channel binding as described in   [RFC5056] (also called "GSS-API channel binding" when GSS-API is   involved) is not the same thing as EAP channel binding.  GSS-API   channel binding is used for detecting man-in-the-middle attacks.  EAP   channel binding is used for mutual authentication and acceptor naming   checks.  See [RFC7055] for details.  A more detailed description of   the differences between the facilities can be found in [RFC5056].   The use of TLS can provide both encryption and integrity on the   channel.  It is common to provide SASL and GSS-API with these other   security services.   One of the benefits that the use of TLS provides is that a client has   the ability to validate the name of the server.  However, this   validation is predicated on a couple of things.  The TLS session   needs to be using certificates and not be an anonymous session.  The   client and the TLS server need to share a common trust point for the   certificate used in validating the server.  TLS provides its own   server authentication.  However, there are a variety of situations   where, for policy or usability reasons, this authentication is not   checked.  When the TLS authentication is checked, if the trust   infrastructure behind the TLS authentication is different from the   trust infrastructure behind the GSS-API mutual authentication, then   confirming the endpoints using both trust infrastructures is likely   to enhance security.  If the endpoints of the GSS-API authentication   are different than the endpoints of the lower layer, this is a strong   indication of a problem, such as a man-in-the-middle attack.  Channel   binding provides a facility to determine whether these endpoints are   the same.   The GSS-EAP mechanism needs to support channel binding.  When an   application provides channel-binding data, the mechanism needs to   confirm that this is the same on both sides, consistent with the   GSS-API specification.Howlett, et al.               Informational                    [Page 31]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 20163.3.  Host-Based Service Names   IETF security mechanisms typically take a host name and perhaps a   service, entered by a user, and make some trust decision about   whether the remote party in the interaction is the intended party.   This decision can be made via the use of certificates, preconfigured   key information, or a previous leap of trust.  GSS-API has defined a   relatively flexible naming convention; however, most of the IETF   applications that use GSS-API (including SSH, NFS, IMAP, LDAP, and   XMPP) have chosen to use a more restricted naming convention based on   the host name.  The GSS-EAP mechanism needs to support host-based   service names in order to work with existing IETF protocols.   The use of host-based service names leads to a challenging trust   delegation problem.  Who is allowed to decide whether a particular   host name maps to a specific entity?  Possible solutions to this   problem have been looked at.   o  The Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) used by the web has chosen to      have a number of trust anchors (root certificate authorities),      each of which can map any host name to a public key.   o  A number of GSS-API mechanisms, such as Kerberos [RFC1964], have      split the problem into two parts.  [RFC1964] introduced a new      concept called a realm; the realm is responsible for host mapping      within itself.  The mechanism then decides what realm is      responsible for a given name.  This is the approach adopted by      ABFAB.   GSS-EAP defines a host naming convention that takes into account the   host name, the realm, the service, and the service parameters.  An   example of a GSS-API service name is "xmpp/foo@example.com".  This   identifies the XMPP service on the host foo in the realm example.com.   Any of the components, except for the service name, may be omitted   from a name.  When omitted, a local default would be used for that   component of the name.   While there is no requirement that realm names map to Fully Qualified   Domain Names (FQDNs) within DNS, in practice this is normally true.   Doing so allows the realm portion of service names and the portion of   NAIs to be the same.  It also allows for the use of DNS in locating   the host of a service while establishing the transport channel   between the client and the RP.   It is the responsibility of the application to determine the server   that it is going to communicate with; GSS-API has the ability to help   confirm that the server is the desired server but not to determine   the name of the server to use.  It is also the responsibility of theHowlett, et al.               Informational                    [Page 32]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 2016   application to determine how much of the information identifying the   service needs to be validated by the ABFAB system.  The information   that needs to be validated is used to construct the service name   passed into the GSS-EAP mechanism.  What information is to be   validated will depend on (1) what information was provided by the   client and (2) what information is considered significant.  If the   client only cares about getting a specific service, then it does not   need to validate the host and realm that provides the service.   Applications may retrieve information about providers of services   from DNS.  Service Records (SRVs) [RFC2782] and Naming Authority   Pointer (NAPTR) [RFC3401] records are used to help find a host that   provides a service; however, the necessity of having DNSSEC on the   queries depends on how the information is going to be used.  If the   host name returned is not going to be validated by EAP channel   binding because only the service is being validated, then DNSSEC   [RFC4033] is not required.  However, if the host name is going to be   validated by EAP channel binding, then DNSSEC needs to be used to   ensure that the correct host name is validated.  In general, if the   information that is returned from the DNS query is to be validated,   then it needs to be obtained in a secure manner.   Another issue that needs to be addressed for host-based service names   is that they do not work ideally when different instances of a   service are running on different ports.  If the services are   equivalent, then it does not matter.  However, if there are   substantial differences in the quality of the service, that   information needs to be part of the validation process.  If one has   just a host name and not a port in the information being validated,   then this is not going to be a successful strategy.3.4.  Additional GSS-API Services   GSS-API provides per-message security services that can provide   confidentiality and/or integrity.  Some IETF protocols, such as NFS   and SSH, take advantage of these services.  As a result, GSS-EAP   needs to support these services.  As with mutual authentication,   per-message security services will limit the set of EAP methods that   can be used to those that generate a Master Session Key (MSK).  Any   EAP method that produces an MSK is able to support per-message   security services as described in [RFC2743].   GSS-API provides a pseudorandom function.  This function generates a   pseudorandom sequence using the shared session key as the seed for   the bytes generated.  This provides an algorithm that both the   initiator and acceptor can run in order to arrive at the same key   value.  The use of this feature allows an application to generate   keys or other shared secrets for use in other places in the protocol.Howlett, et al.               Informational                    [Page 33]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 2016   In this regard, it is similar in concept to the mechanism (formerly   known as "TLS Extractors") described in [RFC5705].  While no current   IETF protocols require this feature, non-IETF protocols are expected   to take advantage of it in the near future.  Additionally, a number   of protocols have found the mechanism described in [RFC5705] to be   useful in this regard, so it is highly probable that IETF protocols   may also start using this feature.4.  Privacy Considerations   As an architecture designed to enable federated authentication and   allow for the secure transmission of identity information between   entities, ABFAB obviously requires careful consideration regarding   privacy and the potential for privacy violations.   This section examines the privacy-related information presented in   this document, summarizing the entities that are involved in ABFAB   communications and what exposure they have to identity information.   In discussing these privacy considerations in this section, we use   terminology and ideas from [RFC6973].   Note that the ABFAB architecture uses at its core several existing   technologies and protocols; detailed privacy discussion regarding   these topics is not examined.  This section instead focuses on   privacy considerations specifically related to the overall   architecture and usage of ABFAB.      +--------+       +---------------+       +--------------+      | Client | <---> |      RP       | <---> | AAA Client   |      +--------+       +---------------+       +--------------+                                                     ^                                                     |                                                     v                       +---------------+       +----------------+                       | SAML Server   |       | AAA Proxy      |                       +---------------+       | (or Proxies)   |                                ^              +----------------+                                |                       ^                                |                       |                                v                       v      +------------+       +---------------+       +--------------+      | EAP Server | <---> |   IdP         | <---> | AAA Server   |      +------------+       +---------------+       +--------------+                     Figure 4: Entities and Data FlowHowlett, et al.               Informational                    [Page 34]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 20164.1.  Entities and Their Roles   Categorizing the ABFAB entities shown in Figure 4 according to the   taxonomy of terms from [RFC6973] is somewhat complicated, as the   roles of each entity will change during the various phases of ABFAB   communications.  The three main phases of relevance are the   client-to-RP communication phase, the client-to-IdP (via the   Federation Substrate) communication phase, and the IdP-to-RP (via the   Federation Substrate) communication phase.   In the client-to-RP communication phase, we have:   Initiator:  Client.   Observers:  Client, RP.   Recipient:  RP.   In the client-to-IdP (via the Federation Substrate) communication   phase, we have:   Initiator:  Client.   Observers:  Client, RP, AAA Client, AAA Proxy (or Proxies), AAA      Server, IdP.   Recipient:  IdP   In the IdP-to-RP (via the Federation Substrate) communication phase,   we have:   Initiator:  RP.   Observers:  IdP, AAA Server, AAA Proxy (or Proxies), AAA Client, RP.   Recipient:  IdP   Eavesdroppers and attackers can reside on any or all communication   links between the entities shown in Figure 4.Howlett, et al.               Informational                    [Page 35]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 2016   The various entities in the system might also collude or be coerced   into colluding.  Some of the significant collusions to look at are as   follows:   o  If two RPs are colluding, they have the information available to      both nodes.  This can be analyzed as if a single RP were offering      multiple services.   o  If an RP and a AAA proxy are colluding, then the trust of the      system is broken, as the RP would be able to lie about its own      identity to the IdP.  There is no known way to deal with this      situation.   o  If multiple AAA proxies are colluding, they can be treated as a      single node for analysis.   The Federation Substrate consists of all of the AAA entities.  In   some cases, the AAA proxies may not exist, as the AAA client can talk   directly to the AAA server.  Specifications such as the Trust Router   Protocol (https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/slides/slides-86-rtgarea-0.pdf) and RADIUS dynamic discovery [RFC7585] can   be used to shorten the path between the AAA client and the AAA server   (and thus stop these AAA proxies from being observers); however, even   in these circumstances, there may be AAA proxies in the path.   In Figure 4, the IdP has been divided into multiple logical pieces;   in actual implementations, these pieces will frequently be tightly   coupled.  The links between these pieces provide the greatest   opportunity for attackers and eavesdroppers to acquire information;   however, as they are all under the control of a single entity, they   are also the easiest to have tightly secured.4.2.  Privacy Aspects of ABFAB Communication Flows   In the ABFAB architecture, there are a few different types of data   and identifiers in use.  The best way to understand them, and their   potential privacy impacts, is to look at each phase of communication   in ABFAB.4.2.1.  Client to RP   The flow of data between the client and the RP is divided into two   parts.  The first part consists of all of the data exchanged as part   of the ABFAB authentication process.  The second part consists of all   of the data exchanged after the authentication process has been   finished.Howlett, et al.               Informational                    [Page 36]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 2016   During the initial communication phase, the client sends an NAI (see   [RFC7542]) to the RP.  Many EAP methods (but not all) allow the   client to disclose an NAI to the RP in a form that includes only a   realm component during this communication phase.  This is the minimum   amount of identity information necessary for ABFAB to work -- it   indicates an IdP that the principal has a relationship with.  EAP   methods that do not allow this will necessarily also reveal an   identifier for the principal in the IdP realm (e.g., a username).   The data shared during the initial communication phase may be   protected by a channel protocol such as TLS.  This will prevent the   leakage of information to passive eavesdroppers; however, an active   attacker may still be able to set itself up as a man-in-the-middle.   The client may not be able to validate the certificates (if any)   provided by the service, deferring the check of the identity of the   RP until the completion of the ABFAB authentication protocol (using   EAP channel binding rather than certificates).   The data exchanged after the authentication process can have privacy   and authentication using the GSS-API services.  If the overall   application protocol allows for the process of re-authentication,   then the same privacy implications as those discussed in previous   paragraphs apply.4.2.2.  Client to IdP (via Federation Substrate)   This phase includes a secure TLS tunnel set up between the client and   the IdP via the RP and Federation Substrate.  The process is   initiated by the RP using the realm information given to it by the   client.  Once set up, the tunnel is used to send credentials to the   IdP to authenticate.   Various operational information is transported between the RP and the   IdP over the AAA infrastructure -- for example, using RADIUS headers.   As no end-to-end security is provided by AAA, all AAA entities on the   path between the RP and IdP have the ability to eavesdrop on this   information.  Some of this information may form identifiers or   explicit identity information:   o  The RP knows the IP address of the client.  It is possible that      the RP could choose to expose this IP address by including it in a      RADIUS header (e.g., using the Calling-Station-Id).  This is a      privacy consideration to take into account for the application      protocol.   o  The EAP MSK is transported between the IdP and the RP over the AAA      infrastructure -- for example, through RADIUS headers.  This is a      particularly important privacy consideration, as any AAA proxyHowlett, et al.               Informational                    [Page 37]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 2016      that has access to the EAP MSK is able to decrypt and eavesdrop on      any traffic encrypted using that EAP MSK (i.e., all communications      between the client and RP).  This problem can be mitigated if the      application protocol sets up a secure tunnel between the client      and the RP and performs a cryptographic binding between the tunnel      and EAP MSK.   o  Related to the bullet point above, the AAA server has access to      the material necessary to derive the session key; thus, the AAA      server can observe any traffic encrypted between the client and      RP.  This "feature" was chosen as a simplification and to make      performance faster; if it was decided that this trade-off was not      desirable for privacy and security reasons, then extensions to      ABFAB that make use of techniques such as Diffie-Hellman key      exchange would mitigate this.   The choice of EAP method used has other potential privacy   implications.  For example, if the EAP method in use does not   support mutual authentication, then there are no guarantees that the   IdP is who it claims to be, and thus the full NAI, including a   username and a realm, might be sent to any entity masquerading as a   particular IdP.   Note that ABFAB has not specified any AAA accounting requirements.   Implementations that use the accounting portion of AAA should   consider privacy appropriately when designing this aspect.4.2.3.  IdP to RP (via Federation Substrate)   In this phase, the IdP communicates with the RP, informing it as to   the success or failure of authentication of the user and, optionally,   the sending of identity information about the principal.   As in the previous flow (client to IdP), various operation   information is transported between the IdP and RP over the AAA   infrastructure, and the same privacy considerations apply.  However,   in this flow, explicit identity information about the authenticated   principal can be sent from the IdP to the RP.  This information can   be sent through RADIUS headers, or using SAML [RFC7833].  This can   include protocol-specific identifiers, such as SAML NameIDs, as well   as arbitrary attribute information about the principal.  What   information will be released is controlled by policy on the IdP.  As   before, when sending this information through RADIUS headers, all AAA   entities on the path between the RP and IdP have the ability to   eavesdrop, unless additional security measures are taken (such as the   use of TLS for RADIUS [RFC6614]).  However, when sending thisHowlett, et al.               Informational                    [Page 38]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 2016   information using SAML as specified in [RFC7833], confidentiality of   the information should be guaranteed, as [RFC7833] requires the use   of TLS for RADIUS.4.3.  Relationship between User and Entities   o  Between user and IdP - The IdP is an entity the user will have a      direct relationship with, created when the organization that      operates the entity provisioned and exchanged the user's      credentials.  Privacy and data protection guarantees may form a      part of this relationship.   o  Between user and RP - The RP is an entity the user may or may not      have a direct relationship with, depending on the service in      question.  Some services may only be offered to those users where      such a direct relationship exists (for particularly sensitive      services, for example), while some may not require this and would      instead be satisfied with basic federation trust guarantees      between themselves and the IdP.  This may well include the option      that the user stays anonymous with respect to the RP (though,      obviously, never anonymous to the IdP).  If attempting to preserve      privacy via data minimization (Section 1), then the only attribute      information about Individuals exposed to the RP should be      attribute information that is strictly necessary for the operation      of the service.   o  Between user and Federation Substrate - The user is highly likely      to have no knowledge of, or relationship with, any entities      involved with the Federation Substrate (not that the IdP and/or RP      may, however).  Knowledge of attribute information about      Individuals for these entities is not necessary, and thus such      information should be protected in such a way as to prevent the      possibility of access to this information.4.4.  Accounting Information   Alongside the core authentication and authorization that occur in AAA   communications, accounting information about resource consumption may   be delivered as part of the accounting exchange during the lifetime   of the granted application session.4.5.  Collection and Retention of Data and Identifiers   In cases where RPs are not required to identify a particular   Individual when an Individual wishes to make use of their service,   the ABFAB architecture enables anonymous or pseudonymous access.   Thus, data and identifiers other than pseudonyms and unlinkable   attribute information need not be stored and retained.Howlett, et al.               Informational                    [Page 39]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 2016   However, in cases where RPs require the ability to identify a   particular Individual (e.g., so they can link this identity   information to a particular account in their service, or where   identity information is required for audit purposes), the service   will need to collect and store such information, and to retain it for   as long as they require.  The de-provisioning of such accounts and   information is out of scope for ABFAB, but for privacy protection, it   is obvious that any identifiers collected should be deleted when they   are no longer needed.4.6.  User Participation   In the ABFAB architecture, by its very nature users are active   participants in the sharing of their identifiers, as they initiate   the communications exchange every time they wish to access a server.   They are, however, not involved in the control of information related   to them that is transmitted from the IdP to the RP for authorization   purposes; rather, this is under the control of policy on the IdP.   Due to the nature of the AAA communication flows, with the current   ABFAB architecture there is no place for a process of gaining user   consent for the information to be released from the IdP to the RP.5.  Security Considerations   This document describes the architecture for Application Bridging for   Federated Access Beyond web (ABFAB), and security is therefore the   main focus.  Many of the items that are security considerations have   already been discussed inSection 4 ("Privacy Considerations").   Readers should be sure to read that section as well.   There are many places in this document where TLS is used.  While in   some places (e.g., client to RP) anonymous connections can be used,   it is very important that TLS connections within the AAA   infrastructure and between the client and the IdP be fully   authenticated and, if using certificates, that revocation be checked   as well.  When using anonymous connections between the client and the   RP, all messages and data exchanged between those two entities will   be visible to an active attacker.  In situations where the client is   not yet on the network, the status_request extension [RFC6066] can be   used to obtain revocation-checking data inside of the TLS protocol.   Clients also need to get the trust anchor for the IdP configured   correctly in order to prevent attacks; this is a difficult problem in   general and is going to be even more difficult for kiosk   environments.   Selection of the EAP methods to be permitted by clients and IdPs is   important.  The use of a tunneling method such as TEAP [RFC7170]   allows other EAP methods to be used while hiding the contents ofHowlett, et al.               Informational                    [Page 40]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 2016   those EAP exchanges from the RP and the AAA framework.  When   considering inner EAP methods, the considerations outlined in   [RFC7029] about binding the inner and outer EAP methods need to be   taken into account.  Finally, one wants to have the ability to   support channel binding in those cases where the client needs to   validate that it is talking to the correct RP.   In those places where SAML statements are used, RPs will generally be   unable to validate signatures on the SAML statement, either because   the signature has been stripped off by the IdP or because the RP is   unable to validate the binding between the signer, the key used to   sign, and the realm represented by the IdP.  For these reasons, it is   required that IdPs do the necessary trust checking on the SAML   statements and that RPs can trust the AAA infrastructure to keep the   SAML statements valid.   When a pseudonym is generated as a unique long-term identifier for a   client by an IdP, care must be taken in the algorithm that it cannot   easily be reverse-engineered by the service provider.  If it can be   reverse-engineered, then the service provider can consult an oracle   to determine if a given unique long-term identifier is associated   with a different known identifier.6.  References6.1.  Normative References   [RFC2743]  Linn, J., "Generic Security Service Application Program              Interface Version 2, Update 1",RFC 2743,              DOI 10.17487/RFC2743, January 2000,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2743>.   [RFC2865]  Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson,              "Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)",RFC 2865, DOI 10.17487/RFC2865, June 2000,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2865>.   [RFC3579]  Aboba, B. and P. Calhoun, "RADIUS (Remote Authentication              Dial In User Service) Support For Extensible              Authentication Protocol (EAP)",RFC 3579,              DOI 10.17487/RFC3579, September 2003,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3579>.   [RFC3748]  Aboba, B., Blunk, L., Vollbrecht, J., Carlson, J., and H.              Levkowetz, Ed., "Extensible Authentication Protocol              (EAP)",RFC 3748, DOI 10.17487/RFC3748, June 2004,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3748>.Howlett, et al.               Informational                    [Page 41]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 2016   [RFC4072]  Eronen, P., Ed., Hiller, T., and G. Zorn, "Diameter              Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Application",RFC 4072, DOI 10.17487/RFC4072, August 2005,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4072>.   [RFC6677]  Hartman, S., Ed., Clancy, T., and K. Hoeper, "Channel-              Binding Support for Extensible Authentication Protocol              (EAP) Methods",RFC 6677, DOI 10.17487/RFC6677, July 2012,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6677>.   [RFC7055]  Hartman, S., Ed., and J. Howlett, "A GSS-API Mechanism for              the Extensible Authentication Protocol",RFC 7055,              DOI 10.17487/RFC7055, December 2013,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7055>.   [RFC7542]  DeKok, A., "The Network Access Identifier",RFC 7542,              DOI 10.17487/RFC7542, May 2015,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7542>.   [RFC7833]  Howlett, J., Hartman, S., and A. Perez-Mendez, Ed., "A              RADIUS Attribute, Binding, Profiles, Name Identifier              Format, and Confirmation Methods for the Security              Assertion Markup Language (SAML)",RFC 7833,              DOI 10.17487/RFC7833, May 2016,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7833>.6.2.  Informative References   [NIST-SP.800-63-2]              Burr, W., Dodson, D., Newton, E., Perlner, R., Polk, W.,              Gupta, S., and E. Nabbus, "Electronic Authentication              Guideline", NIST Special Publication 800-63-2,              August 2013, <http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-63-2>.   [OASIS.saml-core-2.0-os]              Cantor, S., Kemp, J., Philpott, R., and E. Maler,              "Assertions and Protocols for the OASIS Security              Assertion Markup Language (SAML) V2.0", OASIS              Standard saml-core-2.0-os, March 2005,              <http://docs.oasis-open.org/security/saml/v2.0/saml-core-2.0-os.pdf>.   [RFC1964]  Linn, J., "The Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API Mechanism",RFC 1964, DOI 10.17487/RFC1964, June 1996,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1964>.Howlett, et al.               Informational                    [Page 42]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 2016   [RFC2782]  Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR for              specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)",RFC 2782,              DOI 10.17487/RFC2782, February 2000,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2782>.   [RFC3401]  Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS)              Part One: The Comprehensive DDDS",RFC 3401,              DOI 10.17487/RFC3401, October 2002,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3401>.   [RFC3645]  Kwan, S., Garg, P., Gilroy, J., Esibov, L., Westhead, J.,              and R. Hall, "Generic Security Service Algorithm for              Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (GSS-TSIG)",RFC 3645, DOI 10.17487/RFC3645, October 2003,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3645>.   [RFC4033]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.              Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",RFC 4033, DOI 10.17487/RFC4033, March 2005,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4033>.   [RFC4422]  Melnikov, A., Ed., and K. Zeilenga, Ed., "Simple              Authentication and Security Layer (SASL)",RFC 4422,              DOI 10.17487/RFC4422, June 2006,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4422>.   [RFC4462]  Hutzelman, J., Salowey, J., Galbraith, J., and V. Welch,              "Generic Security Service Application Program Interface              (GSS-API) Authentication and Key Exchange for the Secure              Shell (SSH) Protocol",RFC 4462, DOI 10.17487/RFC4462,              May 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4462>.   [RFC5056]  Williams, N., "On the Use of Channel Bindings to Secure              Channels",RFC 5056, DOI 10.17487/RFC5056, November 2007,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5056>.   [RFC5080]  Nelson, D. and A. DeKok, "Common Remote Authentication              Dial In User Service (RADIUS) Implementation Issues and              Suggested Fixes",RFC 5080, DOI 10.17487/RFC5080,              December 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5080>.   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2",RFC 5246,              DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.Howlett, et al.               Informational                    [Page 43]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 2016   [RFC5705]  Rescorla, E., "Keying Material Exporters for Transport              Layer Security (TLS)",RFC 5705, DOI 10.17487/RFC5705,              March 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5705>.   [RFC5801]  Josefsson, S. and N. Williams, "Using Generic Security              Service Application Program Interface (GSS-API) Mechanisms              in Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL): The              GS2 Mechanism Family",RFC 5801, DOI 10.17487/RFC5801,              July 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5801>.   [RFC6066]  Eastlake 3rd, D., "Transport Layer Security (TLS)              Extensions: Extension Definitions",RFC 6066,              DOI 10.17487/RFC6066, January 2011,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6066>.   [RFC6614]  Winter, S., McCauley, M., Venaas, S., and K. Wierenga,              "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Encryption for RADIUS",RFC 6614, DOI 10.17487/RFC6614, May 2012,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6614>.   [RFC6733]  Fajardo, V., Ed., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn,              Ed., "Diameter Base Protocol",RFC 6733,              DOI 10.17487/RFC6733, October 2012,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6733>.   [RFC6749]  Hardt, D., Ed., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework",RFC 6749, DOI 10.17487/RFC6749, October 2012,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6749>.   [RFC6973]  Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,              Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy              Considerations for Internet Protocols",RFC 6973,              DOI 10.17487/RFC6973, July 2013,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6973>.   [RFC7029]  Hartman, S., Wasserman, M., and D. Zhang, "Extensible              Authentication Protocol (EAP) Mutual Cryptographic              Binding",RFC 7029, DOI 10.17487/RFC7029, October 2013,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7029>.   [RFC7170]  Zhou, H., Cam-Winget, N., Salowey, J., and S. Hanna,              "Tunnel Extensible Authentication Protocol (TEAP)              Version 1",RFC 7170, DOI 10.17487/RFC7170, May 2014,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7170>.Howlett, et al.               Informational                    [Page 44]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 2016   [RFC7360]  DeKok, A., "Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) as a              Transport Layer for RADIUS",RFC 7360,              DOI 10.17487/RFC7360, September 2014,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7360>.   [RFC7499]  Perez-Mendez, A., Ed., Marin-Lopez, R., Pereniguez-Garcia,              F., Lopez-Millan, G., Lopez, D., and A. DeKok, "Support of              Fragmentation of RADIUS Packets",RFC 7499,              DOI 10.17487/RFC7499, April 2015,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7499>.   [RFC7530]  Haynes, T., Ed., and D. Noveck, Ed., "Network File System              (NFS) Version 4 Protocol",RFC 7530, DOI 10.17487/RFC7530,              March 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7530>.   [RFC7585]  Winter, S. and M. McCauley, "Dynamic Peer Discovery for              RADIUS/TLS and RADIUS/DTLS Based on the Network Access              Identifier (NAI)",RFC 7585, DOI 10.17487/RFC7585,              October 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7585>.   [WS-TRUST] Lawrence, K., Kaler, C., Nadalin, A., Goodner, M., Gudgin,              M., Turner, D., Barbir, A., and H. Granqvist,              "WS-Trust 1.4", OASIS Standard ws-trust-2012-04,              April 2012, <http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-sx/ws-trust/v1.4/ws-trust.html>.Howlett, et al.               Informational                    [Page 45]

RFC 7831                   ABFAB Architecture                   May 2016Acknowledgments   We would like to thank Mayutan Arumaithurai, Klaas Wierenga, and Rhys   Smith for their feedback.  Additionally, we would like to thank Eve   Maler, Nicolas Williams, Bob Morgan, Scott Cantor, Jim Fenton, Paul   Leach, and Luke Howard for their feedback on the federation   terminology question.   Furthermore, we would like to thank Klaas Wierenga for his review of   the first draft version of this document.  We also thank Eliot Lear   for his work on early draft versions of this document.Authors' Addresses   Josh Howlett   Jisc   Lumen House, Library Avenue, Harwell   Oxford  OX11 0SG   United Kingdom   Phone: +44 1235 822363   Email: Josh.Howlett@ja.net   Sam Hartman   Painless Security   Email: hartmans-ietf@mit.edu   Hannes Tschofenig   ARM Ltd.   110 Fulbourn Road   Cambridge  CB1 9NJ   United Kingdom   Email: Hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net   URI:http://www.tschofenig.priv.at   Jim Schaad   August Cellars   Email: ietf@augustcellars.comHowlett, et al.               Informational                    [Page 46]