wdiff rfc4581.original rfc4581.txt

Network Working Group M. Bagnulo
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 4581 UC3M
Updates: 3972 (if approved) J. Arkko
Expires: September 18, 2006
Category: Standards Track Ericsson
March 17,
October 2006

Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA) Extension Field Format
draft-bagnulo-cga-ext-02

Status of this This Memo

By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of

This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, community, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid requests discussion and suggestions for a maximum
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of six months the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

The list status of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

The list this protocol. Distribution of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

This Internet-Draft will expire on September 18, 2006. this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

This document defines a Type-Length-Value format for
Cryptographically Generated Address (CGA) Extensions. This document
updates RFC 3972.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ....................................................2
2. CGA Extension Field Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ......................................2
3. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Considerations .............................................2
4. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Considerations .........................................3
5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Acknowledgements ................................................3
6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 6 ............................................3

1. Introduction

The Cryptographically Generated Address (CGA) specification [1]
defines Extension Fields that allow including additional information into 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 updates RFC 3972 [1] [1], and it defines a Type-Length-Value 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

This document defines a Extension Type field for which Considerations

The IANA is to
create has created and will maintain a registry entitled 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 0xFFFD, with name
Exp_FFFD,
Exp_FFFD; the value 0xFFFE 0xFFFE, with name Exp_FFFE Exp_FFFE, and the value 0xFFFF 0xFFFF,
with name Exp_FFFF.

4. Security considerations 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 are introduced by them to the existing CGA
schemes.

5. Acknowledgments Acknowledgements

Comments to this document were provided by Sam Hartman, Allison
Makin, Pekka Savola, Thomas Narten, Tuomas Aura, Stefan Rommer,
Julien Laganier Laganier, and James Kempf.

6. Normative References

[1] Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)", RFC
3972, 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:
EMail: marcelo@it.uc3m.es
URI: http://www.it.uc3m.es

Jari Arkko
Ericsson
Jorvas 02420
Finland

Email:

EMail: jari.arkko@ericsson.com

Full Copyright Statement

This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 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 Statement

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 in BCP 78 and BCP 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 at
http://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.

Disclaimer of Validity

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

Acknowledgment

Acknowledgement

Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society. IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).