There are several cases where authorization data is carried in EAP.  In the 
case you site there is information about an authorization result that is 
carried within EAP.   There are also cases where more detailed information is 
delivered to the peer.  One example is the AT_TRUST_IND attribute that has been 
defined by 3GPP within EAP-AKA/SIM.  This attribute allows the authentication 
server to signal to the peer whether the access network is trusted.    
Unfortunately, EAP methods do not have a generic way of carrying authorization 
information.  Some methods will not have the capability to carry specific 
attributes this so it will not be possible to move to a different EAP type to 
support  different credentials in these deployments.  This breaks the 
plug-ability of EAP methods.   Another potential issue here is that 
authorization information is often deployment or technology specific, which 
breaks the media independent properties of EAP.    I would not recommend the 
general addi
 tion of authorization information to EAP unless a generic mechanism for 
communicating authorization information within EAP methods is developed.  

Here is a suggested revision for this section:

"2.1.  Communication of authorisation information

In some cases EAP methods carry authorization information.  An EAP-AKA 
attribute,  AT_TRUST_IND [3GPP TS 24.302], has been defined in 3GPP to allow 
the authentication server to signal to the EAP peer if it is attached to a 
trusted network.   If the attribute indicates the network is not trusted then 
the EAP peer would establish an IPSEC tunnel to its home network to protect its 
communications.   If the attribute indicates  a trusted network then the EAP 
Peer may send its traffic without establishing an IPSEC tunnel since the 
network is authorized to handle it.  

It is also common for EAP methods to communicate information about access 
control decisions beyond just success and failure.  For example, MSCHAPv2 
signals (lack of) authorisation of an authenticated user to use a service.  An 
MSCHAPv2 failure packet as defined in section 6 of [RFC2759] can indicate 
condition 646 "Restricted Logon hours".  This determination is an authorisation 
check which happens subsequent to the authentication step (a user needs to be 
positively identified to correlate his identity to a list of permitted logon 
hours).

This use of EAP is not covered by the EAP applicability statement since it goes 
beyond authentication.    There are some potential issues that can arise from 
carrying authorization data in EAP.  First,  there is no generic mechanism for 
EAP methods to carry authorization data.    In order to make use of and 
communicate the authorization data the EAP method will have to provide custom 
interfaces and capabilities.  This will inhibit the ability for different EAP 
methods to be used in a pluggable fashion within deployments.  It addition, if 
the authorization information is specific to a particular media, then it will 
break the media independent property of EAP.  

Extending individual EAP methods to carry authorization data for a specific 
deployment, technology, or media type is NOT RECOMMENDED.    If the 
authorization data is informative such that the system operation is not 
significantly change if it is missing and if it is of a general nature then 
authorization data MAY be carried.   If there is significant need for 
deployment specific, technology specific or media specific authorization 
information to be carried within EAP methods then a well defined mechanism and 
framework must be defined so the type of authorization data can be independent 
of the EAP method.  This would allow the deployment of different EAP methods to 
support peers and servers with different credential types. "



_______________________________________________
abfab mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab

Reply via email to