RFC 4675
RADIUS Attributes for Virtual LAN and Priority Support
RADIUS Attributes for Virtual LAN and Priority Support 🎀
Okay bestie, this is RFC 4675 💖 It's a Standards Track doc from the Network Working Group, dated September 2006. The authors are P. Congdon and M. Sanchez (both Hewlett-Packard Company) and B. Aboba (Microsoft Corporation). The header doesn't list any RFC that it obsoletes or updates ✨
Status of This Memo ✨
This document is an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and it's asking for discussion and suggestions for improvements 🫶 For the current standardization state and status of this protocol, check the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1). Distribution of this memo is unlimited 🌈
Copyright Notice 💅
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract 🦋
This doc proposes extra Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS) attributes for dynamic Virtual LAN assignment and prioritization 🔥 They're meant for provisioning access to IEEE 802 local area networks, and they can be used within either RADIUS or Diameter.
Table of Contents 🧚
1. Introduction ....................................................3
1.1. Terminology ................................................3
1.2. Requirements Language ......................................3
1.3. Attribute Interpretation ...................................3
2. Attributes ......................................................4
2.1. Egress-VLANID ..............................................4
2.2. Ingress-Filters ............................................6
2.3. Egress-VLAN-Name ...........................................7
2.4. User-Priority-Table ........................................8
3. Table of Attributes ............................................10
4. Diameter Considerations ........................................10
5. IANA Considerations ............................................11
6. Security Considerations ........................................11
7. References .....................................................12
7.1. Normative References ......................................12
7.2. Informative References ....................................13
8. Acknowledgements ...............................................131. Introduction ✨
Okay so this doc describes Virtual LAN (VLAN) and re-prioritization attributes 🌸 They could be really useful for provisioning access to IEEE 802 local area networks [IEEE-802] with the Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS) or Diameter.
Here's the tea: [RFC3580] lets you assign VLANs based on the tunnel attributes defined in [RFC2868], but it doesn't cover the full set of VLAN functionality from [IEEE-802.1Q] 😭 The attributes in this doc bring that fuller set to RADIUS and Diameter. They're meant to be analogous to the management variables in [IEEE-802.1Q] and the MIB objects defined in [RFC4363]. On top of that, this doc adds support for a wider range of [IEEE-802.1X] configurations 💜
1.1. Terminology 🍓
This document uses the following terms:
Network Access Server (NAS): A device that gives a user access to a network. It's also known as a RADIUS client.
RADIUS server: A RADIUS authentication server is an entity that provides an authentication service to a NAS.
RADIUS proxy: A RADIUS proxy acts as an authentication server to the NAS, and as a RADIUS client to the RADIUS server.
1.2. Requirements Language 💅
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] 🎀
1.3. Attribute Interpretation 🌈
The attributes in this doc apply to a single instance of a NAS port, or more specifically an IEEE 802.1Q bridge port 🫶 [IEEE-802.1Q], [IEEE-802.1D], and [IEEE-802.1X] don't recognize any management granularity finer than "per port". In some cases, like IEEE 802.11 wireless LANs, a "virtual port" is used in place of the physical port. These virtual ports are usually based on security associations and scoped by station, or Media Access Control (MAC) address 🦋
The attributes defined here are applied on a per-user basis, and it's expected that there's a single user per port. In some cases, though, that port may be a "virtual port" ✨ If a NAS implementation that conforms to this document supports "virtual ports", it may be possible to provision those "virtual ports" with unique values of these attributes. That way, multiple users sharing the same physical port can each have their own unique set of authorization parameters 👑
If a NAS conforming to this specification receives an Access-Accept packet containing an attribute defined in this document that it cannot apply, it MUST act as though it had received an Access-Reject 🔥 [RFC3576] requires that a NAS receiving a Change of Authorization Request (CoA-Request) reply with a CoA-NAK if the Request contains an unsupported attribute. It is recommended that an Error-Cause attribute with the value set to "Unsupported Attribute" (401) be included in the CoA-NAK. As noted in [RFC3576], authorization changes are atomic, so this situation doesn't result in session termination, and the preexisting configuration stays unchanged 💖 Because of that, no accounting packets should be generated 🙈
2. Attributes 🌸
2.1. Egress-VLANID ✨
Description
The Egress-VLANID attribute represents an allowed IEEE 802 Egress VLANID for this port. It indicates whether the VLANID is allowed for tagged or untagged frames, as well as the VLANID itself 💜
As defined in [RFC3580], the VLAN assigned via tunnel attributes applies to both the ingress VLANID for untagged packets (known as the PVID) and the egress VLANID for untagged packets. The Egress-VLANID attribute is different: it only configures the egress VLANID, for either tagged or untagged packets 🍓 The Egress-VLANID attribute MAY be included in the same RADIUS packet as [RFC3580] tunnel attributes. It's not necessary, though, if you're using it to configure the same untagged VLANID that's in the tunnel attributes. If you want to configure an untagged VLAN for both ingress and egress, the tunnel attributes of [RFC3580] MUST be used 🧚
Multiple Egress-VLANID attributes MAY be included in Access-Request, Access-Accept, CoA-Request, or Accounting-Request packets. This attribute MUST NOT be sent within an Access-Challenge, Access-Reject, Disconnect-Request, Disconnect-ACK, Disconnect-NAK, CoA-ACK, or CoA-NAK 😭 Each attribute adds the specified VLAN to the list of allowed egress VLANs for the port 🌈
The Egress-VLANID attribute is shown below. The fields are transmitted from left to right:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Value
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Value (cont) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+Type
56
Length
6
Value
The Value field is four octets. Here's the 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag Indic. | Pad | VLANID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+The Tag Indication field is one octet long and tells you whether the frames on the VLAN are tagged (0x31) or untagged (0x32) 🦋 The Pad field is 12 bits long and it MUST be 0 (zero) 💅 The VLANID is 12 bits long and contains the [IEEE-802.1Q] VLAN VID value 👑
2.2. Ingress-Filters 🎀
Description
The Ingress-Filters attribute corresponds to the Ingress Filter per-port variable defined in clause 8.4.5 of [IEEE-802.1Q]. When the attribute has the value "Enabled", the set of VLANs that are allowed to ingress a port must match the set of VLANs that are allowed to egress a port 🔥 Only a single Ingress-Filters attribute MAY be sent within an Access-Request, Access-Accept, CoA-Request, or Accounting-Request packet. This attribute MUST NOT be sent within an Access-Challenge, Access-Reject, Disconnect-Request, Disconnect-ACK, Disconnect-NAK, CoA-ACK, or CoA-NAK 💖
The Ingress-Filters attribute is shown below. The fields are transmitted from left to right:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Value
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Value (cont) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+Type
57
Length
6
Value
The Value field is four octets. Supported values include:
1 - Enabled
2 - Disabled2.3. Egress-VLAN-Name ✨
Description
Okay bestie, so Clause 12.10.2.1.3 (a) in [IEEE-802.1Q] is where the admin gives a VLAN a Name tied to its VLAN-ID inside an IEEE 802.1Q bridge 🌸. This attribute is the Egress-VLAN-Name, and it says which VLAN is allowed out of this port. It's giving Egress-VLANID vibes, but the difference is that the VLAN-ID isn't specified or known here. Instead, the VLAN name is what identifies the VLAN in the system 🦋.
The tunnel attributes from [RFC3580] and the Egress-VLAN-Name attribute can both configure the egress VLAN for untagged packets 💅. They can be used together and MAY appear in the same RADIUS packet ✨. When they do show up together, the list of allowed VLANs is the concatenation of the Egress-VLAN-Name and the Tunnel-Private-Group-ID (81) attributes 🫶. The Egress-VLAN-Name does NOT touch the ingress VLAN for untagged traffic on a port (also known as the PVID) 🙈. For setting the PVID, the tunnel attributes from [RFC3580] should be relied upon instead 🎀.
The Egress-VLAN-Name has two parts. The first part says whether frames on the VLAN for this port are tagged or untagged, and the second part is the VLAN name 🧚.
Multiple Egress-VLAN-Name attributes MAY be included in an Access-Request, Access-Accept, CoA-Request, or Accounting-Request packet 💖. This attribute MUST NOT be sent in an Access-Challenge, Access-Reject, Disconnect-Request, Disconnect-ACK, Disconnect-NAK, CoA-ACK, or CoA-NAK 🚫. Each attribute adds its named VLAN to the list of allowed egress VLANs for the port 👑. Here's the layout, with fields sent left to right:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Tag Indic. | String...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+Type
58 🍓
Length
>=4 🌈
Tag Indication
The Tag Indication field is one octet long and says whether the frames on the VLAN are tagged (0x31, ASCII '1') or untagged (0x32, ASCII '2') 🎀. These values were picked so that users would find them easier to type in 💅.
String
The String field is at least one octet long and holds the VLAN Name as defined in [IEEE-802.1Q] clause 12.10.2.1.3 (a) 🌸. UTF-8 encoded 10646 characters are the [RFC3629] format that is RECOMMENDED here 💜. A robust implementation SHOULD still support the field as undistinguished octets 🔥.
2.4. User-Priority-Table
Description
[IEEE-802.1D] clause 7.5.1 covers how to regenerate (or re-map) user priority on frames received at a port 🦋. This per-port config lets a bridge map the priority of received traffic at a port to a particular priority ✨. [IEEE-802.1D] clause 6.3.9 describes the remapping like this:
The ability to signal user priority in IEEE 802 LANs allows user priority to be carried with end-to-end significance across a Bridged Local Area Network. This, coupled with a consistent approach to the mapping of user priority to traffic classes and of user priority to access_priority, allows consistent use of priority information, according to the capabilities of the Bridges and MACs in the transmission path... Under normal circumstances, user priority is not modified in transit through the relay function of a Bridge; however, network management can control how user priority is propagated. Table 7-1 provides the ability to map incoming user priority values on a per-Port basis. By default, the regenerated user priority is identical to the incoming user priority.
This attribute represents the IEEE 802 prioritization that gets applied to frames arriving at this port 💅. There are eight possible user priorities, per the [IEEE-802] standard 🌈. [IEEE-802.1D] clause 14.6.2.3.3 specifies the regeneration table as 8 values, each an integer in the range 0-7 👑. The management variables are described in clause 14.6.2.2 🧚.
A single User-Priority-Table attribute MAY be included in an Access-Accept or CoA-Request packet 💖. This attribute MUST NOT be sent in an Access-Request, Access-Challenge, Access-Reject, Disconnect-Request, Disconnect-ACK, Disconnect-NAK, CoA-ACK, CoA-NAK or Accounting-Request 🚫. The regeneration table is only maintained by a bridge that conforms to [IEEE-802.1D], so this attribute should only be sent to a RADIUS client supporting that specification 🫶. Here's the layout, with fields sent left to right:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | String
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
String
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
String |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+Type
59 🌸
Length
10 💜
String
The String field is 8 octets long and holds a table that maps the incoming priority (if it's set; the default is 0) to one of eight regenerated priorities 🔥. The first octet maps to incoming priority 0, the second octet to incoming priority 1, and so on 🦋. The value in each octet is the regenerated priority of the frame ✨.
This means you can remap incoming priorities to more appropriate values, honor the incoming priorities, or override them all so they map to one chosen priority 👑.
The [IEEE-802.1D] specification, Annex G, provides a useful description of traffic type - traffic class mappings. 🎀
3. Table of Attributes
This table is your cheat sheet for which attributes show up in which kinds of packets, and how many of each 💅.
Access- Access- Access- Access- CoA- Acct-
Request Accept Reject Challenge Req Req # Attribute
0+ 0+ 0 0 0+ 0+ 56 Egress-VLANID
0-1 0-1 0 0 0-1 0-1 57 Ingress-Filters
0+ 0+ 0 0 0+ 0+ 58 Egress-VLAN-Name
0 0-1 0 0 0-1 0 59 User-Priority-TableThis next table defines what the entries above mean 🧚.
0 This attribute MUST NOT be present in the packet.
0+ Zero or more instances of this attribute MAY be
present in the packet.
0-1 Zero or one instance of this attribute MAY be
present in the packet.4. Diameter Considerations
When you use these in Diameter, the attributes defined in this specification can be used as Diameter attribute-value pairs (AVPs) from the Code space 1-255 (the RADIUS attribute compatibility space) 🌈. No additional Diameter Code values get allocated for them 💖. The data types and flag rules for the attributes look like this 👑:
+---------------------+
| AVP Flag rules |
|----+-----+----+-----|----+
| | |SHLD| MUST| |
Attribute Name Value Type |MUST| MAY | NOT| NOT|Encr|
-------------------------------|----+-----+----+-----|----|
Egress-VLANID OctetString| M | P | | V | Y |
Ingress-Filters Enumerated | M | P | | V | Y |
Egress-VLAN-Name UTF8String | M | P | | V | Y |
User-Priority-Table OctetString| M | P | | V | Y |
-------------------------------|----+-----+----+-----|----|The attributes here have no special translation requirements for Diameter-to-RADIUS or RADIUS-to-Diameter gateways 🫶. They get copied as-is, except for changes related to headers, alignment, and padding 🎀. See also [RFC3588] Section 4.1 and [RFC4005] Section 9 📚.
What this spec says about the applicability of the attributes to RADIUS Access-Request packets applies in Diameter to AA-Request [RFC4005] or Diameter-EAP-Request [RFC4072] 🦋. What's said about Access-Challenge applies in Diameter to AA-Answer [RFC4005] or Diameter-EAP-Answer [RFC4072] with the Result-Code AVP set to DIAMETER_MULTI_ROUND_AUTH ✨.
What's said about Access-Accept applies in Diameter to AA-Answer or Diameter-EAP-Answer messages that indicate success 🌸. Similarly, what's said about RADIUS Access-Reject packets applies in Diameter to AA-Answer or Diameter-EAP-Answer messages that indicate failure 💀.
What's said about COA-Request applies in Diameter to Re-Auth-Request [RFC4005] 🔥.
What's said about Accounting-Request applies to Diameter Accounting-Request [RFC4005] as well 💜.
5. IANA Considerations
This specification does not create any new registries 🌈.
This document uses the RADIUS [RFC2865] namespace; see <http://www.iana.org/assignments/radius-types>. IANA has made the allocation of four updates for the section "RADIUS Attribute Types" 👑. The RADIUS attributes are:
56 - Egress-VLANID
57 - Ingress-Filters
58 - Egress-VLAN-Name
59 - User-Priority-Table6. Security Considerations
This specification describes the use of RADIUS and Diameter for authentication, authorization, and accounting in IEEE 802 local area networks 🔐. RADIUS threats and security issues for this application are described in [RFC3579] and [RFC3580], and security issues encountered in roaming are described in [RFC2607] 💀. For Diameter, the security issues relating to this application are described in [RFC4005] and [RFC4072] 🧚.
This document specifies new attributes that can be included in existing RADIUS packets, which are protected as described in [RFC3579] and [RFC3576] 🫶. In Diameter, the attributes are protected as specified in [RFC3588]. See those documents for a more detailed description 📚.
The security mechanisms supported in RADIUS and Diameter focus on stopping an attacker from spoofing packets or modifying packets in transit. They do NOT prevent an authorized RADIUS/Diameter server or proxy from inserting attributes with malicious intent. 😭
VLAN attributes sent by a RADIUS/Diameter server or proxy may enable access to unauthorized VLANs 🚨. These vulnerabilities can be limited by performing authorization checks at the NAS 🛡️. For example, a NAS can be configured to accept only certain VLANIDs from a given RADIUS/Diameter server/proxy 💅.
Similarly, an attacker who gains control of a RADIUS/Diameter server or proxy can modify the user priority table 😱. That could cause either degradation of quality of service (by downgrading the user priority of frames arriving at a port), or denial of service (by raising the priority level of traffic at multiple ports of a device, oversubscribing the switch or link capabilities) 💥.
7. References
7.1. Normative References 📚✨
Okay bestie, these are the docs this RFC needs you to have read first. No skipping! 🫶
- [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
- [RFC2865] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson, "Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 2865, June 2000.
- [RFC3588] Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J. Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, September 2003.
- [RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
- [RFC4363] Levi, D. and D. Harrington, "Definitions of Managed Objects for Bridges with Traffic Classes, Multicast Filtering, and Virtual LAN Extensions", RFC 4363, January 2006.
- [IEEE-802] IEEE Standards for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Overview and Architecture, ANSI/IEEE Std 802, 1990.
- [IEEE-802.1D] IEEE Standards for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges, IEEE Std 802.1D-2004, June 2004.
- [IEEE-802.1Q] IEEE Standards for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Draft Standard for Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks, P802.1Q-2003, January 2003.
7.2. Informative References 🌸
These ones are extra reading. Super helpful for the vibes, but not required to understand the spec. 🧚
- [IEEE-802.1X] IEEE Standards for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Port based Network Access Control, IEEE Std 802.1X-2004, December 2004.
- [RFC2607] Aboba, B. and J. Vollbrecht, "Proxy Chaining and Policy Implementation in Roaming", RFC 2607, June 1999.
- [RFC2868] Zorn, G., Leifer, D., Rubens, A., Shriver, J., Holdrege, M., and I. Goyret, "RADIUS Attributes for Tunnel Protocol Support", RFC 2868, June 2000.
- [RFC3576] 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.
- [RFC3579] Aboba, B. and P. Calhoun, "RADIUS (Remote Authentication Dial In User Service) Support For Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)", RFC 3579, September 2003.
- [RFC3580] Congdon, P., Aboba, B., Smith, A., Zorn, G., and J. Roese, "IEEE 802.1X Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) Usage Guidelines", RFC 3580, September 2003.
- [RFC4005] Calhoun, P., Zorn, G., Spence, D., and D. Mitton, "Diameter Network Access Server Application", RFC 4005, August 2005.
- [RFC4072] Eronen, P., Hiller, T., and G. Zorn, "Diameter Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Application", RFC 4072, August 2005.
8. Acknowledgements 🫶
Big thank you energy to the people who helped make this happen! The authors would like to acknowledge Joseph Salowey of Cisco, David Nelson of Enterasys, Chuck Black of Hewlett-Packard, and Ashwin Palekar of Microsoft. 💜
Authors' Addresses 💌
Paul Congdon
Paul Congdon
Hewlett-Packard Company
HP ProCurve Networking
8000 Foothills Blvd, M/S 5662
Roseville, CA 95747
Phone: +1 916 785 5753
Fax: +1 916 785 8478
EMail: paul.congdon@hp.comMauricio Sanchez
Mauricio Sanchez
Hewlett-Packard Company
HP ProCurve Networking
8000 Foothills Blvd, M/S 5559
Roseville, CA 95747
Phone: +1 916 785 1910
Fax: +1 916 785 1815
EMail: mauricio.sanchez@hp.comBernard Aboba
Bernard Aboba
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
Phone: +1 425 706 6605
Fax: +1 425 936 7329
EMail: bernarda@microsoft.comFull Copyright Statement ©
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.
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 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.
Acknowledgement 💖
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA). Thank you, IASA, you're literally keeping the lights on! 💅
📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc4675 2006-09
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms