<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc [
  <!ENTITY nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
<!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc version 1.7.21 (Ruby 2.6.10) -->
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-ietf-radext-reverse-coa-04" category="std" consensus="true" submissionType="IETF" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true" version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.24.0 -->
  <front>
    <title abbrev="Reverse CoA">Reverse Change of Authorization (CoA) in RADIUS/TLS</title>
    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-radext-reverse-coa-04"/>
    <author initials="A." surname="DeKok" fullname="Alan DeKok">
      <organization>InkBridge</organization>
      <address>
        <email>alan.dekok@inkbridge.io</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="V." surname="Cargatser" fullname="Vadim Cargatser">
      <organization>Cisco</organization>
      <address>
        <email>vcargats@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date year="2025" month="May" day="14"/>
    <area>Internet</area>
    <workgroup>RADEXT Working Group</workgroup>
    <keyword>Internet-Draft</keyword>
    <abstract>
      <?line 48?>

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

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

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

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

              </t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-radext-radiusdtls-bis-05"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC7542">
          <front>
            <title>The Network Access Identifier</title>
            <author fullname="A. DeKok" initials="A." surname="DeKok"/>
            <date month="May" year="2015"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>In order to provide inter-domain authentication services, it is necessary to have a standardized method that domains can use to identify each other's users. This document defines the syntax for the Network Access Identifier (NAI), the user identifier submitted by the client prior to accessing resources. This document is a revised version of RFC 4282. It addresses issues with international character sets and makes a number of other corrections to RFC 4282.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7542"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7542"/>
        </reference>
      </references>
    </references>
    <?line 203?>



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

</rfc>
