draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-16.txt   draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-17.txt 
HTTPbis Working Group R. Fielding, Ed. HTTPbis Working Group R. Fielding, Ed.
Internet-Draft Adobe Internet-Draft Adobe
Obsoletes: 2616 (if approved) J. Gettys Obsoletes: 2616 (if approved) J. Gettys
Updates: 2617 (if approved) Alcatel-Lucent Updates: 2617 (if approved) Alcatel-Lucent
Intended status: Standards Track J. Mogul Intended status: Standards Track J. Mogul
Expires: February 25, 2012 HP Expires: May 3, 2012 HP
H. Frystyk H. Frystyk
Microsoft Microsoft
L. Masinter L. Masinter
Adobe Adobe
P. Leach P. Leach
Microsoft Microsoft
T. Berners-Lee T. Berners-Lee
W3C/MIT W3C/MIT
Y. Lafon, Ed. Y. Lafon, Ed.
W3C W3C
J. Reschke, Ed. J. Reschke, Ed.
greenbytes greenbytes
August 24, 2011 October 31, 2011
HTTP/1.1, part 7: Authentication HTTP/1.1, part 7: Authentication
draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-16 draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-17
Abstract Abstract
The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level
protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information
systems. HTTP has been in use by the World Wide Web global systems. HTTP has been in use by the World Wide Web global
information initiative since 1990. This document is Part 7 of the information initiative since 1990. This document is Part 7 of the
seven-part specification that defines the protocol referred to as seven-part specification that defines the protocol referred to as
"HTTP/1.1" and, taken together, obsoletes RFC 2616. "HTTP/1.1" and, taken together, obsoletes RFC 2616.
skipping to change at page 1, line 48 skipping to change at page 1, line 48
Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working
group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/>. <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/>.
The current issues list is at The current issues list is at
<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/report/3> and related <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/report/3> and related
documents (including fancy diffs) can be found at documents (including fancy diffs) can be found at
<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/>. <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/>.
The changes in this draft are summarized in Appendix C.17. The changes in this draft are summarized in Appendix C.18.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 25, 2012. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 3, 2012.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 52 skipping to change at page 2, line 52
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English. than English.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Conformance and Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Syntax Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. Syntax Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2.1. Core Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2.1. Core Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Access Authentication Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Access Authentication Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Challenge and Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1. Challenge and Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Protection Space (Realm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2. Protection Space (Realm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3. Authentication Scheme Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.3. Authentication Scheme Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3.1. Considerations for New Authentication Schemes . . . . 8 2.3.1. Considerations for New Authentication Schemes . . . . 8
3. Status Code Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3. Status Code Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1. 401 Unauthorized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1. 401 Unauthorized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2. 407 Proxy Authentication Required . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2. 407 Proxy Authentication Required . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Header Field Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. Header Field Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1. Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Proxy-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.2. Proxy-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3. Proxy-Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.3. Proxy-Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4. WWW-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.4. WWW-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. Authenticaton Scheme Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.1. Authenticaton Scheme Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2. Status Code Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.2. Status Code Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.3. Header Field Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.3. Header Field Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1. Authentication Credentials and Idle Clients . . . . . . . 12 6.1. Authentication Credentials and Idle Clients . . . . . . . 13
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix A. Changes from RFCs 2616 and 2617 . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Appendix A. Changes from RFCs 2616 and 2617 . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix B. Collected ABNF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Appendix B. Collected ABNF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix C. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before Appendix C. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before
publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
C.1. Since RFC 2616 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 C.1. Since RFC 2616 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
C.2. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-00 . . . . . . . . . . . 16 C.2. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-00 . . . . . . . . . . . 16
C.3. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-01 . . . . . . . . . . . 16 C.3. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-01 . . . . . . . . . . . 16
C.4. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-02 . . . . . . . . . . . 16 C.4. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-02 . . . . . . . . . . . 16
C.5. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-03 . . . . . . . . . . . 16 C.5. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-03 . . . . . . . . . . . 16
C.6. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-04 . . . . . . . . . . . 16 C.6. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-04 . . . . . . . . . . . 16
C.7. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-05 . . . . . . . . . . . 16 C.7. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-05 . . . . . . . . . . . 17
C.8. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-06 . . . . . . . . . . . 17 C.8. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-06 . . . . . . . . . . . 17
C.9. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-07 . . . . . . . . . . . 17 C.9. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-07 . . . . . . . . . . . 17
C.10. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-08 . . . . . . . . . . . 17 C.10. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-08 . . . . . . . . . . . 17
C.11. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-09 . . . . . . . . . . . 17 C.11. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-09 . . . . . . . . . . . 17
C.12. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-10 . . . . . . . . . . . 17 C.12. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-10 . . . . . . . . . . . 17
C.13. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-11 . . . . . . . . . . . 17 C.13. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-11 . . . . . . . . . . . 17
C.14. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-12 . . . . . . . . . . . 18 C.14. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-12 . . . . . . . . . . . 18
C.15. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-13 . . . . . . . . . . . 18 C.15. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-13 . . . . . . . . . . . 18
C.16. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-14 . . . . . . . . . . . 18 C.16. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-14 . . . . . . . . . . . 18
C.17. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-15 . . . . . . . . . . . 18 C.17. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-15 . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 C.18. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-16 . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document defines HTTP/1.1 access control and authentication. It This document defines HTTP/1.1 access control and authentication. It
includes the relevant parts of RFC 2616 with only minor changes, plus includes the relevant parts of RFC 2616 with only minor changes, plus
the general framework for HTTP authentication, as previously defined the general framework for HTTP authentication, as previously defined
in "HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication" in "HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication"
([RFC2617]). ([RFC2617]).
HTTP provides several OPTIONAL challenge-response authentication HTTP provides several OPTIONAL challenge-response authentication
mechanisms which can be used by a server to challenge a client mechanisms which can be used by a server to challenge a client
request and by a client to provide authentication information. The request and by a client to provide authentication information. The
"basic" and "digest" authentication schemes continue to be specified "basic" and "digest" authentication schemes continue to be specified
in RFC 2617. in RFC 2617.
1.1. Requirements 1.1. Conformance and Error Handling
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or more This document defines conformance criteria for several roles in HTTP
of the "MUST" or "REQUIRED" level requirements for the protocols it communication, including Senders, Recipients, Clients, Servers, User-
implements. An implementation that satisfies all the "MUST" or Agents, Origin Servers, Intermediaries, Proxies and Gateways. See
"REQUIRED" level and all the "SHOULD" level requirements for its Section 2 of [Part1] for definitions of these terms.
protocols is said to be "unconditionally compliant"; one that
satisfies all the "MUST" level requirements but not all the "SHOULD" An implementation is considered conformant if it complies with all of
level requirements for its protocols is said to be "conditionally the requirements associated with its role(s). Note that SHOULD-level
compliant". requirements are relevant here, unless one of the documented
exceptions is applicable.
This document also uses ABNF to define valid protocol elements
(Section 1.2). In addition to the prose requirements placed upon
them, Senders MUST NOT generate protocol elements that are invalid.
Unless noted otherwise, Recipients MAY take steps to recover a usable
protocol element from an invalid construct. However, HTTP does not
define specific error handling mechanisms, except in cases where it
has direct impact on security. This is because different uses of the
protocol require different error handling strategies; for example, a
Web browser may wish to transparently recover from a response where
the Location header field doesn't parse according to the ABNF,
whereby in a systems control protocol using HTTP, this type of error
recovery could lead to dangerous consequences.
1.2. Syntax Notation 1.2. Syntax Notation
This specification uses the ABNF syntax defined in Section 1.2 of This specification uses the ABNF syntax defined in Section 1.2 of
[Part1] (which extends the syntax defined in [RFC5234] with a list [Part1] (which extends the syntax defined in [RFC5234] with a list
rule). Appendix B shows the collected ABNF, with the list rule rule). Appendix B shows the collected ABNF, with the list rule
expanded. expanded.
The following core rules are included by reference, as defined in The following core rules are included by reference, as defined in
[RFC5234], Appendix B.1: ALPHA (letters), CR (carriage return), CRLF [RFC5234], Appendix B.1: ALPHA (letters), CR (carriage return), CRLF
(CR LF), CTL (controls), DIGIT (decimal 0-9), DQUOTE (double quote), (CR LF), CTL (controls), DIGIT (decimal 0-9), DQUOTE (double quote),
HEXDIG (hexadecimal 0-9/A-F/a-f), LF (line feed), OCTET (any 8-bit HEXDIG (hexadecimal 0-9/A-F/a-f), LF (line feed), OCTET (any 8-bit
sequence of data), SP (space), VCHAR (any visible USASCII character), sequence of data), SP (space), and VCHAR (any visible US-ASCII
and WSP (whitespace). character).
1.2.1. Core Rules 1.2.1. Core Rules
The core rules below are defined in [Part1]: The core rules below are defined in [Part1]:
BWS = <BWS, defined in [Part1], Section 1.2.2> BWS = <BWS, defined in [Part1], Section 1.2.2>
OWS = <OWS, defined in [Part1], Section 1.2.2> OWS = <OWS, defined in [Part1], Section 1.2.2>
quoted-string = <quoted-string, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.3> quoted-string = <quoted-string, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.3>
token = <token, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.3> token = <token, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.3>
skipping to change at page 8, line 26 skipping to change at page 8, line 35
o The authentication parameter "realm" is reserved for defining o The authentication parameter "realm" is reserved for defining
Protection Spaces as defined in Section 2.2. New schemes MUST NOT Protection Spaces as defined in Section 2.2. New schemes MUST NOT
use it in a way incompatible with that definition. use it in a way incompatible with that definition.
o The "b64token" notation was introduced for compatibility with o The "b64token" notation was introduced for compatibility with
existing authentication schemes and can only be used once per existing authentication schemes and can only be used once per
challenge/credentials. New schemes thus ought to use the "auth- challenge/credentials. New schemes thus ought to use the "auth-
param" syntax instead, because otherwise future extensions will be param" syntax instead, because otherwise future extensions will be
impossible. impossible.
o The parsing of challenges and credentials is defined by this
specification, and cannot be modified by new authentication
schemes. When the auth-param syntax is used, all parameters ought
to support both token and quoted-string syntax, and syntactical
constraints ought to be defined on the field value after parsing
(i.e., quoted-string processing). This is necessary so that
recipients can use a generic parser that applies to all
authentication schemes.
Note: the fact that the value syntax for the "realm" parameter is
restricted to quoted-string was a bad design choice not to be
repeated for new parameters.
o Authentication schemes need to document whether they are usable in o Authentication schemes need to document whether they are usable in
origin-server authentication (i.e., using WWW-Authenticate), origin-server authentication (i.e., using WWW-Authenticate),
and/or proxy authentication (i.e., using Proxy-Authenticate). and/or proxy authentication (i.e., using Proxy-Authenticate).
o The credentials carried in an Authorization header field are o The credentials carried in an Authorization header field are
specific to the User Agent, and therefore have the same effect on specific to the User Agent, and therefore have the same effect on
HTTP caches as the "private" Cache-Control response directive, HTTP caches as the "private" Cache-Control response directive,
within the scope of the request they appear in. within the scope of the request they appear in.
Therefore, new authentication schemes which choose not to carry Therefore, new authentication schemes which choose not to carry
skipping to change at page 11, line 23 skipping to change at page 11, line 42
credentials (or different credentials) might affect the response. credentials (or different credentials) might affect the response.
WWW-Authenticate = 1#challenge WWW-Authenticate = 1#challenge
User agents are advised to take special care in parsing the WWW- User agents are advised to take special care in parsing the WWW-
Authenticate field value as it might contain more than one challenge, Authenticate field value as it might contain more than one challenge,
or if more than one WWW-Authenticate header field is provided, the or if more than one WWW-Authenticate header field is provided, the
contents of a challenge itself can contain a comma-separated list of contents of a challenge itself can contain a comma-separated list of
authentication parameters. authentication parameters.
For instance:
WWW-Authenticate: Newauth realm="apps", type=1,
title="Login to \"apps\"", Basic realm="simple"
This header field contains two challenges; one for the "Newauth"
scheme with a realm value of "apps", and two additional parameters
"type" and "title", and another one for the "Basic" scheme with a
realm value of "simple".
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
5.1. Authenticaton Scheme Registry 5.1. Authenticaton Scheme Registry
The registration procedure for HTTP Authentication Schemes is defined The registration procedure for HTTP Authentication Schemes is defined
by Section 2.3 of this document. by Section 2.3 of this document.
The HTTP Method Authentication Scheme shall be created at The HTTP Method Authentication Scheme shall be created at
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-authschemes>. <http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-authschemes>.
skipping to change at page 13, line 14 skipping to change at page 13, line 40
7. Acknowledgments 7. Acknowledgments
This specification takes over the definition of the HTTP This specification takes over the definition of the HTTP
Authentication Framework, previously defined in RFC 2617. We thank Authentication Framework, previously defined in RFC 2617. We thank
John Franks, Phillip M. Hallam-Baker, Jeffery L. Hostetler, Scott D. John Franks, Phillip M. Hallam-Baker, Jeffery L. Hostetler, Scott D.
Lawrence, Paul J. Leach, Ari Luotonen, and Lawrence C. Stewart for Lawrence, Paul J. Leach, Ari Luotonen, and Lawrence C. Stewart for
their work on that specification. See Section 6 of [RFC2617] for their work on that specification. See Section 6 of [RFC2617] for
further acknowledgements. further acknowledgements.
See Section 12 of [Part1] for the Acknowledgments related to this See Section 11 of [Part1] for the Acknowledgments related to this
document revision. document revision.
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[Part1] Fielding, R., Ed., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., [Part1] Fielding, R., Ed., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y., Ed., Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y., Ed.,
and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections,
and Message Parsing", draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-16 and Message Parsing", draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-17
(work in progress), August 2011. (work in progress), October 2011.
[Part6] Fielding, R., Ed., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., [Part6] Fielding, R., Ed., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y., Ed., Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y., Ed.,
Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part
6: Caching", draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-16 (work in 6: Caching", draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-17 (work in
progress), August 2011. progress), October 2011.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax [RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008. Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., [RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
skipping to change at page 18, line 45 skipping to change at page 19, line 5
o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/257>: o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/257>:
"Considerations for new authentications schemes" "Considerations for new authentications schemes"
o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/287>: "LWS in auth- o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/287>: "LWS in auth-
param ABNF" param ABNF"
o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/309>: "credentials o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/309>: "credentials
ABNF missing SP (still using implied LWS?)" ABNF missing SP (still using implied LWS?)"
C.18. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-16
Closed issues:
o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/186>: "Document
HTTP's error-handling philosophy"
o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/320>: "add advice on
defining auth scheme parameters"
Index Index
4 4
401 Unauthorized (status code) 8 401 Unauthorized (status code) 9
407 Proxy Authentication Required (status code) 9 407 Proxy Authentication Required (status code) 9
A A
auth-param 5 auth-param 5
auth-scheme 5 auth-scheme 5
Authorization header field 9 Authorization header field 9
B B
b64token 5 b64token 5
C C
challenge 5 challenge 6
credentials 6 credentials 6
G G
Grammar Grammar
auth-param 5 auth-param 5
auth-scheme 5 auth-scheme 5
Authorization 9 Authorization 10
b64token 5 b64token 5
challenge 5 challenge 6
credentials 6 credentials 6
Proxy-Authenticate 10 Proxy-Authenticate 10
Proxy-Authorization 10 Proxy-Authorization 11
realm 7 realm 7
WWW-Authenticate 11 WWW-Authenticate 11
H H
Header Fields Header Fields
Authorization 9 Authorization 9
Proxy-Authenticate 10 Proxy-Authenticate 10
Proxy-Authorization 10 Proxy-Authorization 11
WWW-Authenticate 11 WWW-Authenticate 11
P P
Protection Space 7 Protection Space 7
Proxy-Authenticate header field 10 Proxy-Authenticate header field 10
Proxy-Authorization header field 10 Proxy-Authorization header field 11
R R
Realm 7 Realm 7
realm 7 realm 7
realm-value 7 realm-value 7
S S
Status Codes Status Codes
401 Unauthorized 8 401 Unauthorized 9
407 Proxy Authentication Required 9 407 Proxy Authentication Required 9
W W
WWW-Authenticate header field 11 WWW-Authenticate header field 11
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Roy T. Fielding (editor) Roy T. Fielding (editor)
Adobe Systems Incorporated Adobe Systems Incorporated
345 Park Ave 345 Park Ave
 End of changes. 32 change blocks. 
44 lines changed or deleted 93 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/