Movatterモバイル変換

Network Working Group                                         M. BagnuloRequest for Comments: 4581                                          UC3MUpdates:3972                                                   J. ArkkoCategory: Standards Track                                       Ericsson                                                            October 2006Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA) Extension Field FormatStatus of This Memo   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.Copyright Notice   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).Abstract   This document defines a Type-Length-Value format for   Cryptographically Generated Address (CGA) Extensions.  This document   updatesRFC 3972.Table of Contents1. Introduction ....................................................22. CGA Extension Field Format ......................................23. IANA Considerations .............................................24. Security Considerations .........................................35. Acknowledgements ................................................36. Normative References ............................................3Bagnulo & Arkko             Standards Track                     [Page 1]

RFC 4581               CGA Extension Field Format           October 20061.  Introduction   The Cryptographically Generated Address (CGA) specification [1]   defines Extension Fields that allow additional information to be   included in the CGA Parameter Data Structure.  So far there seems to   be enough interest in including additional data items into the CGA   Parameter Data Structure through these Extension Fields that it seems   reasonable to expect that more than one mechanism will require its   usage.  In order to simplify the addition of multiple data items,   this document updatesRFC 3972 [1], and it defines a Type-Length-   Value format for the Extension Fields.2.  CGA Extension Field Format   Data items to be included in Extension Fields of the CGA Parameter   Data Structure MUST be encoded using the following Type-Length-Value   (TLV) format:    0                   1                   2                   3    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |         Extension Type        |   Extension Data Length       |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |                                                               |   ~                       Extension Data                          ~   |                                                               |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   Extension Type: 16-bit identifier of the type of the Extension Field.   Extension Data Length: 16-bit unsigned integer.  Length of the   Extension Data field of this option, in octets.   Extension Data: Variable-length field.  Extension-Type-specific data.3.  IANA Considerations   The IANA has created and will maintain a registry entitled, "CGA   Extension Type".  The values in this name space are 16-bit unsigned   integers.  Initial values for the CGA Extension Type field are given   below; future assignments are to be made through Standards Action   [2].  Assignments consist of a name and the value.   As recommended in [3], this document makes the following assignments   for experimental and testing use: the value 0xFFFD, with name   Exp_FFFD; the value 0xFFFE, with name Exp_FFFE, and the value 0xFFFF,   with name Exp_FFFF.Bagnulo & Arkko             Standards Track                     [Page 2]

RFC 4581               CGA Extension Field Format           October 20064.  Security Considerations   No security concerns are raised by the adoption of the CGA Extension   format described in this document.  However, proper security analysis   is required when new CGA Extensions are defined in order to make sure   that they introduce no new vulnerabilities to the existing CGA   schemes.5.  Acknowledgements   Comments to this document were provided by Sam Hartman, Allison   Mankin, Pekka Savola, Thomas Narten, Tuomas Aura, Stefan Rommer,   Julien Laganier, and James Kempf.6.  Normative References   [1]  Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)",RFC3972, March 2005.   [2]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA        Considerations Section in RFCs",BCP 26,RFC 2434, October 1998.   [3]  Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers        Considered Useful",BCP 82,RFC 3692, January 2004.Authors' Addresses   Marcelo Bagnulo   Universidad Carlos III de Madrid   Av. Universidad 30   Leganes, Madrid  28911   SPAIN   Phone: 34 91 6249500   EMail: marcelo@it.uc3m.es   URI:http://www.it.uc3m.es   Jari Arkko   Ericsson   Jorvas  02420   Finland   EMail: jari.arkko@ericsson.comBagnulo & Arkko             Standards Track                     [Page 3]

RFC 4581               CGA Extension Field Format           October 2006Full Copyright Statement   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions   contained inBCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors   retain all their rights.   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.Intellectual Property   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be   found inBCP 78 andBCP 79.   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository athttp://www.ietf.org/ipr.   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.Acknowledgement   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).Bagnulo & Arkko             Standards Track                     [Page 4]