Certain attributes (for example, NAS-Port-Type) in RADIUS define a list of values to correspond with various meanings. There can be 4 billion (2^32) values for each attribute. Additional values can be allocated by the Designated Expert. The exception to this policy is the Service-Type attribute (6), whose values define new modes of operation for RADIUS. Values 1-16 of the Service-Type attribute have been allocated. Allocation of new Service-Type values are by IETF Consensus. The intention is that any allocation will be accompanied by a published RFC.
Note that the Tunnel-Type and Tunnel-Medium-Type attributes are not called out as an exception, only Service-Type. If the intent was to exempt RFC 2868, those attributes would have been included as exceptions but they are not.
Therefore, it looks to me like the omission of RFC 2868 in the Updates: header is an errata.
In other words:
The discussion, as I understand it, is about "IETF consensus" versus "Designated Expert"
From RFC 2868
6.1. Tunnel-Type Attribute Values
Values 1-12 of the Tunnel-Type Attribute are defined in Section 5.1; the remaining values are available for assignment by the IANA with IETF Consensus .
6.2. Tunnel-Medium-Type Attribute Values
Values 1-15 of the Tunnel-Medium-Type Attribute are defined in Section 5.2; the remaining values are available for assignment by the IANA with IETF Consensus .
From RFC 3575
Certain attributes (for example, NAS-Port-Type) in RADIUS define a list of values to correspond with various meanings. There can be 4 billion (2^32) values for each attribute. Additional values can be allocated by the Designated Expert. The exception to this policy is the Service-Type attribute (6), whose values define new modes of operation for RADIUS.
So Tunnel-Type and Tunnel-Medium-Type are "IETF consensus" or "Designated Expert"?
From the IETF 80 meeting minutes, https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/minutes/radext.txt:
2. IANA issues A. How to allocate tunnel params? In RFC 3575 (RFC2868 conflicts as 3575 assigns based on expert review but didn’t update 2868). Omission of RFC 2868 could be an errata; this is basically a request for metadata. - Asks Dan for comment: was looking for input from the working group before proceeding. - Alan thought it was an errata. - Stefan states no opinion. - Klaas also states no opinion. - Nancy asks for further understanding. Bernard clarifies: RFC 2868 states “standards action” and 3575 is more lenient in saying just expert review. - Now Dan remembers: when there’s conflicts such as this, 2 solutions: take the stricter or take the latest. But if it’s the latest, then it needs to be clearer. Believes in this case, explicit clarification is justified since 3575 is more recent and the request is justified. But need IESG perspective review by WG. - Bernard suggests to get a sense of this group and then take it to the mailgroup. Asks: proposal is to accept and verify the errata and update 3575 to include 2868. In favor: 10, non oppose. Given consensus, will take to the mail list.
Category: Standard Track
IANA Considerations for RADIUS
(Remote Authentication Dial In User Service)
Status 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 (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
This document describes the IANA considerations for the Remote
Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS).
This document updates RFC 2865.
This document provides guidance to the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority (IANA) regarding registration of values related to the
Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS), defined in
[RFC2865], in accordance with BCP 26, [RFC2434]. It also reserves
Packet Type Codes that are or have been in use on the Internet.
1.1. Specification of Requirements
In this document, several words are used to signify the requirements
of the specification. These words are often capitalized. The key
words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD",
"SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document
are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
The following terms are used here with the meanings defined in BCP
26: "name space", "assigned value", "registration".
The following policies are used here with the meanings defined in BCP
26: "Private Use", "First Come First Served", "Expert Review",
"Specification Required", "IESG Approval", "IETF Consensus",
2. IANA Considerations
There are three name spaces in RADIUS that require registration:
Packet Type Codes, Attribute Types, and Attribute Values (for certain
Attributes). This document creates no new IANA registries, since a
RADIUS registry was created by [RFC2865].
RADIUS is not intended as a general-purpose protocol, and allocations
SHOULD NOT be made for purposes unrelated to Authentication,
Authorization or Accounting.
2.1. Recommended Registration Policies
For registration requests where a Designated Expert should be
consulted, the responsible IESG area director should appoint the
Designated Expert. The intention is that any allocation will be
accompanied by a published RFC. However, the Designated Expert can
approve allocations once it seems clear that an RFC will be
published, allowing for the allocation of values prior to the
document being approved for publication as an RFC. The Designated
Expert will post a request to the AAA WG mailing list (or a successor
designated by the Area Director) for comment and review, including an
Internet-Draft. Before a period of 30 days has passed, the
Designated Expert will either approve or deny the registration
request, publish a notice of the decision to the AAA WG mailing list
or its successor, and inform IANA of its decision. A denial notice
must be justified by an explanation and, in the cases where it is
possible, concrete suggestions on how the request can be modified so
as to become acceptable.
Packet Type Codes have a range from 1 to 253. RADIUS Type Codes 1-5
and 11-13 were allocated in [RFC2865], while Type Codes 40-45,
250-253 are allocated by this document. Type Codes 250-253 are
allocated for Experimental Uses, and 254-255 are reserved. Packet
Type Codes 6-10, 12-13, 21-34, 50-51 have no meaning defined by an
IETF RFC, but are reserved until a specification is provided for
them. This is being done to avoid interoperability problems with
software that implements non-standard RADIUS extensions that are or
have been in use on the Internet. Because a new Packet Type has
considerable impact on interoperability, a new Packet Type Code
requires IESG Approval. The intention is that any allocation will be
accompanied by a published RFC. Type Codes 52-249 should be
allocated first; when these are exhausted, Type Codes 14-20, 35-39,
46-49 may be allocated. For a list of Type Codes, see Appendix A.
Attribute Types have a range from 1 to 255, and are the scarcest
resource in RADIUS, thus must be allocated with care. Attributes
1-53,55,60-88,90-91,94-100 have been allocated, with 17 and 21
available for re-use. Attributes 17, 21, 54, 56-59, 89, 101-191 may
be allocated by IETF Consensus. It is recommended that attributes 17
and 21 be used only after all others are exhausted.
Note that RADIUS defines a mechanism for Vendor-Specific extensions
(Attribute 26) for functions specific only to one vendor's
implementation of RADIUS, where no interoperability is deemed useful.
For functions specific only to one vendor's implementation of RADIUS,
the use of that should be encouraged instead of the allocation of
global attribute types.
As noted in [RFC2865]:
Attribute Type Values 192-223 are reserved for experimental use,
values 224-240 are reserved for implementation-specific use, and
values 241-255 are reserved and should not be used.
Therefore Attribute Type values 192-240 are considered Private Use,
and values 241-255 require Standards Action.
Certain attributes (for example, NAS-Port-Type) in RADIUS define a
list of values to correspond with various meanings. There can be 4
billion (2^32) values for each attribute. Additional values can be
allocated by the Designated Expert. The exception to this policy is
the Service-Type attribute (6), whose values define new modes of
operation for RADIUS. Values 1-16 of the Service-Type attribute have
been allocated. Allocation of new Service-Type values are by IETF
Consensus. The intention is that any allocation will be accompanied
by a published RFC.
3.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing
an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC
2434, October 1998.
[RFC2865] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A. and W. Simpson,
"Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)",
RFC 2865, June 2000.
3.2. Informative References
[RFC2607] Aboba, B. and J. Vollbrecht, "Proxy Chaining and
Policy Implementation in Roaming", RFC 2607, June
[RFC2866] Rigney, C., "RADIUS Accounting", RFC 2866, June 2000.
[RFC2867] Zorn, G., Aboba, B. and D. Mitton, "RADIUS Accounting
Modifications for Tunnel Protocol Support", RFC 2867,
[RFC2868] Zorn, G., Leifer, D., Rubens, A., Shriver, J.,
Holdrege, M. and I. Goyret, "RADIUS Attributes for
Tunnel Protocol Support", RFC 2868, June 2000.
[RFC2869] Rigney, C., Willats, W. and P. Calhoun, "RADIUS
Extensions", RFC 2869, June 2000.
[RFC2869bis] Aboba, B. and P. Calhoun, "RADIUS Support for
Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)", Work in
[RFC2882] Mitton, D., "Network Access Servers Requirements:
Extended RADIUS Practices", RFC 2882, July 2000.
[RFC3162] Aboba, B., Zorn, G. and D. Mitton, "RADIUS and IPv6",
RFC 3162, August 2001.
[DynAuth] Chiba, M., Dommety, G., Eklund, M., Mitton, D. and B.
Aboba, "Dynamic Authorization Extensions to Remote
Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC
3576, July 2003.
4. Security Considerations
The security considerations detailed in [RFC2434] are generally
applicable to this document. Security considerations relating to the
RADIUS protocol are discussed in [RFC2607], [RFC2865], [RFC3162],
[DynAuth], and [RFC2869bis].
Appendix A - RADIUS Packet Types
A list of RADIUS Packet Type Codes is given below. This document
instructs IANA to list them in the registry of Packet Type Codes.
Note that Type Codes 40-45, defined in [DynAuth], are being formally
allocated here. Codes 40-45 were listed in [RFC2882] and have been
implemented and used. Given their current widespread usage, these
assignments are not reclaimable in practice.
# Message Reference
---- ------------------------- ---------
1 Access-Request [RFC2865]
2 Access-Accept [RFC2865]
3 Access-Reject [RFC2865]
4 Accounting-Request [RFC2865]
5 Accounting-Response [RFC2865]
6 Accounting-Status [RFC2882]
(now Interim Accounting)
7 Password-Request [RFC2882]
8 Password-Ack [RFC2882]
9 Password-Reject [RFC2882]
10 Accounting-Message [RFC2882]
11 Access-Challenge [RFC2865]
12 Status-Server (experimental) [RFC2865]
13 Status-Client (experimental) [RFC2865]
21 Resource-Free-Request [RFC2882]
22 Resource-Free-Response [RFC2882]
23 Resource-Query-Request [RFC2882]
24 Resource-Query-Response [RFC2882]
26 NAS-Reboot-Request [RFC2882]
27 NAS-Reboot-Response [RFC2882]
29 Next-Passcode [RFC2882]
# Message Reference
---- ------------------------- ---------
30 New-Pin [RFC2882]
31 Terminate-Session [RFC2882]
32 Password-Expired [RFC2882]
33 Event-Request [RFC2882]
34 Event-Response [RFC2882]
40 Disconnect-Request [DynAuth]
41 Disconnect-ACK [DynAuth]
42 Disconnect-NAK [DynAuth]
43 CoA-Request [DynAuth]
44 CoA-ACK [DynAuth]
45 CoA-NAK [DynAuth]
50 IP-Address-Allocate [RFC2882]
51 IP-Address-Release [RFC2882]
250-253 Experimental Use
255 Reserved [RFC2865]
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property 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; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards- related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication 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 Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Thanks to Ignacio Goyret of Lucent, Allison Mankin of Lucent Bell
Labs, Thomas Narten of IBM, Glen Zorn and Harald Alvestrand of Cisco
for discussions relating to this document.
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
Phone: +1 425 706 6605
Fax: +1 425 936 7329
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the