draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-18.txt   draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-19.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) Y. Lafon, Ed.
Updates: 2617 (if approved) Alcatel-Lucent Updates: 2617 (if approved) W3C
Intended status: Standards Track J. Mogul Intended status: Standards Track J. Reschke, Ed.
Expires: July 7, 2012 HP Expires: September 13, 2012 greenbytes
H. Frystyk March 12, 2012
Microsoft
L. Masinter
Adobe
P. Leach
Microsoft
T. Berners-Lee
W3C/MIT
Y. Lafon, Ed.
W3C
J. Reschke, Ed.
greenbytes
January 4, 2012
HTTP/1.1, part 7: Authentication HTTP/1.1, part 7: Authentication
draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-18 draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-19
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 36
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.19. The changes in this draft are summarized in Appendix C.20.
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 July 7, 2012. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 13, 2012.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2012 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 51 skipping to change at page 2, line 38
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Conformance and Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.1. Conformance and Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Syntax Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.2. Syntax Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2.1. Core Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.2.1. Core Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Access Authentication Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2. Access Authentication Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Challenge and Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1. Challenge and Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. Protection Space (Realm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.2. Protection Space (Realm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3. Authentication Scheme Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.3. Authentication Scheme Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3.1. Considerations for New Authentication Schemes . . . . 9 2.3.1. Considerations for New Authentication Schemes . . . . 8
3. Status Code Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3. Status Code Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1. 401 Unauthorized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.1. 401 Unauthorized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2. 407 Proxy Authentication Required . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.2. 407 Proxy Authentication Required . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Header Field Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. Header Field Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.1. Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. Proxy-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2. Proxy-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3. Proxy-Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.3. Proxy-Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4. WWW-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.4. WWW-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. Authenticaton Scheme Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.1. Authenticaton Scheme Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2. Status Code Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.2. Status Code Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.3. Header Field Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.3. Header Field Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1. Authentication Credentials and Idle Clients . . . . . . . 14 6.1. Authentication Credentials and Idle Clients . . . . . . . 13
7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix A. Changes from RFCs 2616 and 2617 . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Appendix A. Changes from RFCs 2616 and 2617 . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix B. Collected ABNF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Appendix B. Collected ABNF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix C. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before Appendix C. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before
publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
C.1. Since RFC 2616 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 C.1. Since RFC 2616 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
C.2. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-00 . . . . . . . . . . . 17 C.2. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-00 . . . . . . . . . . . 16
C.3. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-01 . . . . . . . . . . . 17 C.3. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-01 . . . . . . . . . . . 17
C.4. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-02 . . . . . . . . . . . 17 C.4. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-02 . . . . . . . . . . . 17
C.5. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-03 . . . . . . . . . . . 17 C.5. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-03 . . . . . . . . . . . 17
C.6. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-04 . . . . . . . . . . . 17 C.6. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-04 . . . . . . . . . . . 17
C.7. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-05 . . . . . . . . . . . 18 C.7. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-05 . . . . . . . . . . . 17
C.8. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-06 . . . . . . . . . . . 18 C.8. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-06 . . . . . . . . . . . 18
C.9. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-07 . . . . . . . . . . . 18 C.9. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-07 . . . . . . . . . . . 18
C.10. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-08 . . . . . . . . . . . 18 C.10. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-08 . . . . . . . . . . . 18
C.11. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-09 . . . . . . . . . . . 18 C.11. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-09 . . . . . . . . . . . 18
C.12. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-10 . . . . . . . . . . . 18 C.12. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-10 . . . . . . . . . . . 18
C.13. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-11 . . . . . . . . . . . 18 C.13. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-11 . . . . . . . . . . . 18
C.14. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-12 . . . . . . . . . . . 19 C.14. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-12 . . . . . . . . . . . 19
C.15. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-13 . . . . . . . . . . . 19 C.15. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-13 . . . . . . . . . . . 19
C.16. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-14 . . . . . . . . . . . 19 C.16. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-14 . . . . . . . . . . . 19
C.17. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-15 . . . . . . . . . . . 19 C.17. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-15 . . . . . . . . . . . 19
C.18. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-16 . . . . . . . . . . . 20 C.18. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-16 . . . . . . . . . . . 19
C.19. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-17 . . . . . . . . . . . 20 C.19. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-17 . . . . . . . . . . . 20
C.20. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-18 . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
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]).
skipping to change at page 5, line 51 skipping to change at page 4, line 51
define specific error handling mechanisms, except in cases where it define specific error handling mechanisms, except in cases where it
has direct impact on security. This is because different uses of the has direct impact on security. This is because different uses of the
protocol require different error handling strategies; for example, a protocol require different error handling strategies; for example, a
Web browser may wish to transparently recover from a response where Web browser may wish to transparently recover from a response where
the Location header field doesn't parse according to the ABNF, the Location header field doesn't parse according to the ABNF,
whereby in a systems control protocol using HTTP, this type of error whereby in a systems control protocol using HTTP, this type of error
recovery could lead to dangerous consequences. 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 Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF)
[Part1] (which extends the syntax defined in [RFC5234] with a list notation of [RFC5234] with the list rule extension defined in Section
rule). Appendix B shows the collected ABNF, with the list rule 1.2 of [Part1]. Appendix B shows the collected ABNF with the list
expanded. rule 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), and VCHAR (any visible US-ASCII sequence of data), SP (space), and VCHAR (any visible US-ASCII
character). 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 3.2.1>
OWS = <OWS, defined in [Part1], Section 1.2.2> OWS = <OWS, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.1>
quoted-string = <quoted-string, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.3> quoted-string = <quoted-string, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.4>
token = <token, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.3> token = <token, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.4>
2. Access Authentication Framework 2. Access Authentication Framework
2.1. Challenge and Response 2.1. Challenge and Response
HTTP provides a simple challenge-response authentication mechanism HTTP provides a simple challenge-response authentication mechanism
that can be used by a server to challenge a client request and by a that can be used by a server to challenge a client request and by a
client to provide authentication information. It uses an extensible, client to provide authentication information. It uses an extensible,
case-insensitive token to identify the authentication scheme, case-insensitive token to identify the authentication scheme,
followed by additional information necessary for achieving followed by additional information necessary for achieving
skipping to change at page 8, line 27 skipping to change at page 7, line 27
Proxies MUST forward the WWW-Authenticate and Authorization headers Proxies MUST forward the WWW-Authenticate and Authorization headers
unmodified and follow the rules found in Section 4.1. unmodified and follow the rules found in Section 4.1.
2.2. Protection Space (Realm) 2.2. Protection Space (Realm)
The authentication parameter realm is reserved for use by The authentication parameter realm is reserved for use by
authentication schemes that wish to indicate the scope of protection. authentication schemes that wish to indicate the scope of protection.
A protection space is defined by the canonical root URI (the scheme A protection space is defined by the canonical root URI (the scheme
and authority components of the effective request URI; see Section and authority components of the effective request URI; see Section
4.3 of [Part1]) of the server being accessed, in combination with the 5.5 of [Part1]) of the server being accessed, in combination with the
realm value if present. These realms allow the protected resources realm value if present. These realms allow the protected resources
on a server to be partitioned into a set of protection spaces, each on a server to be partitioned into a set of protection spaces, each
with its own authentication scheme and/or authorization database. with its own authentication scheme and/or authorization database.
The realm value is a string, generally assigned by the origin server, The realm value is a string, generally assigned by the origin server,
which can have additional semantics specific to the authentication which can have additional semantics specific to the authentication
scheme. Note that there can be multiple challenges with the same scheme. Note that there can be multiple challenges with the same
auth-scheme but different realms. auth-scheme but different realms.
The protection space determines the domain over which credentials can The protection space determines the domain over which credentials can
be automatically applied. If a prior request has been authorized, be automatically applied. If a prior request has been authorized,
skipping to change at page 9, line 13 skipping to change at page 8, line 13
the authentication schemes in challenges and credentials. the authentication schemes in challenges and credentials.
Registrations MUST include the following fields: Registrations MUST include the following fields:
o Authentication Scheme Name o Authentication Scheme Name
o Pointer to specification text o Pointer to specification text
o Notes (optional) o Notes (optional)
Values to be added to this name space are subject to IETF review Values to be added to this name space require IETF Review (see
([RFC5226], Section 4.1). [RFC5226], Section 4.1).
The registry itself is maintained at The registry itself is maintained at
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-authschemes>. <http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-authschemes>.
2.3.1. Considerations for New Authentication Schemes 2.3.1. Considerations for New Authentication Schemes
There are certain aspects of the HTTP Authentication Framework that There are certain aspects of the HTTP Authentication Framework that
put constraints on how new authentication schemes can work: put constraints on how new authentication schemes can work:
o Authentication schemes need to be compatible with the inherent o HTTP authentication is presumed to be stateless: all of the
constraints of HTTP; for instance, that messages need to keep information necessary to authenticate a request MUST be provided
their semantics when inspected in isolation, thus an in the request, rather than be dependent on the server remembering
authentication scheme can not bind information to the TCP session prior requests. Authentication based on, or bound to, the
over which the message was received (see Section 2.2 of [Part1]). underlying connection is outside the scope of this specification
and inherently flawed unless steps are taken to ensure that the
connection cannot be used by any party other than the
authenticated user (see Section 2.3 of [Part1]).
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.
skipping to change at page 10, line 5 skipping to change at page 9, line 7
to support both token and quoted-string syntax, and syntactical to support both token and quoted-string syntax, and syntactical
constraints ought to be defined on the field value after parsing constraints ought to be defined on the field value after parsing
(i.e., quoted-string processing). This is necessary so that (i.e., quoted-string processing). This is necessary so that
recipients can use a generic parser that applies to all recipients can use a generic parser that applies to all
authentication schemes. authentication schemes.
Note: the fact that the value syntax for the "realm" parameter is Note: the fact that the value syntax for the "realm" parameter is
restricted to quoted-string was a bad design choice not to be restricted to quoted-string was a bad design choice not to be
repeated for new parameters. repeated for new parameters.
o Definitions of new schemes ought to define the treatment of
unknown extension parameters. In general, a "must-ignore" rule is
preferable over "must-understand", because otherwise it will be
hard to introduce new parameters in the presence of legacy
recipients. Furthermore, it's good to describe the policy for
defining new parameters (such as "update the specification", or
"use this registry").
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 49 skipping to change at page 11, line 9
fields from the new request to allow the origin server to fields from the new request to allow the origin server to
authenticate the new request. authenticate the new request.
3. If the response includes the "public" cache-control directive, it 3. If the response includes the "public" cache-control directive, it
MAY be returned in reply to any subsequent request. MAY be returned in reply to any subsequent request.
4.2. Proxy-Authenticate 4.2. Proxy-Authenticate
The "Proxy-Authenticate" header field consists of a challenge that The "Proxy-Authenticate" header field consists of a challenge that
indicates the authentication scheme and parameters applicable to the indicates the authentication scheme and parameters applicable to the
proxy for this effective request URI (Section 4.3 of [Part1]). It proxy for this effective request URI (Section 5.5 of [Part1]). It
MUST be included as part of a 407 (Proxy Authentication Required) MUST be included as part of a 407 (Proxy Authentication Required)
response. response.
Proxy-Authenticate = 1#challenge Proxy-Authenticate = 1#challenge
Unlike WWW-Authenticate, the Proxy-Authenticate header field applies Unlike WWW-Authenticate, the Proxy-Authenticate header field applies
only to the current connection and SHOULD NOT be passed on to only to the current connection and SHOULD NOT be passed on to
downstream clients. However, an intermediate proxy might need to downstream clients. However, an intermediate proxy might need to
obtain its own credentials by requesting them from the downstream obtain its own credentials by requesting them from the downstream
client, which in some circumstances will appear as if the proxy is client, which in some circumstances will appear as if the proxy is
forwarding the Proxy-Authenticate header field. forwarding the Proxy-Authenticate header field.
Note that the parsing considerations for WWW-Authenticate apply to
this header field as well; see Section 4.4 for details.
4.3. Proxy-Authorization 4.3. Proxy-Authorization
The "Proxy-Authorization" header field allows the client to identify The "Proxy-Authorization" header field allows the client to identify
itself (or its user) to a proxy which requires authentication. Its itself (or its user) to a proxy which requires authentication. Its
value consists of credentials containing the authentication value consists of credentials containing the authentication
information of the user agent for the proxy and/or realm of the information of the user agent for the proxy and/or realm of the
resource being requested. resource being requested.
Proxy-Authorization = credentials Proxy-Authorization = credentials
skipping to change at page 12, line 37 skipping to change at page 11, line 48
chain, the Proxy-Authorization header field is consumed by the first chain, the Proxy-Authorization header field is consumed by the first
outbound proxy that was expecting to receive credentials. A proxy outbound proxy that was expecting to receive credentials. A proxy
MAY relay the credentials from the client request to the next proxy MAY relay the credentials from the client request to the next proxy
if that is the mechanism by which the proxies cooperatively if that is the mechanism by which the proxies cooperatively
authenticate a given request. authenticate a given request.
4.4. WWW-Authenticate 4.4. WWW-Authenticate
The "WWW-Authenticate" header field consists of at least one The "WWW-Authenticate" header field consists of at least one
challenge that indicates the authentication scheme(s) and parameters challenge that indicates the authentication scheme(s) and parameters
applicable to the effective request URI (Section 4.3 of [Part1]). applicable to the effective request URI (Section 5.5 of [Part1]).
It MUST be included in 401 (Unauthorized) response messages and MAY It MUST be included in 401 (Unauthorized) response messages and MAY
be included in other response messages to indicate that supplying be included in other response messages to indicate that supplying
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
skipping to change at page 13, line 15 skipping to change at page 12, line 23
For instance: For instance:
WWW-Authenticate: Newauth realm="apps", type=1, WWW-Authenticate: Newauth realm="apps", type=1,
title="Login to \"apps\"", Basic realm="simple" title="Login to \"apps\"", Basic realm="simple"
This header field contains two challenges; one for the "Newauth" This header field contains two challenges; one for the "Newauth"
scheme with a realm value of "apps", and two additional parameters scheme with a realm value of "apps", and two additional parameters
"type" and "title", and another one for the "Basic" scheme with a "type" and "title", and another one for the "Basic" scheme with a
realm value of "simple". realm value of "simple".
Note: The challenge grammar production uses the list syntax as
well. Therefore, a sequence of comma, whitespace, and comma can
be considered both as applying to the preceding challenge, or to
be an empty entry in the list of challenges. In practice, this
ambiguity does not affect the semantics of the header field value
and thus is harmless.
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 14, line 50 skipping to change at page 14, line 17
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 11 of [Part1] for the Acknowledgments related to this See Section 9 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., Lafon, Y., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y., Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message
and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, Parsing", draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-19 (work in
and Message Parsing", draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-18 progress), March 2012.
(work in progress), January 2012.
[Part6] Fielding, R., Ed., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., [Part6] Fielding, R., Ed., Lafon, Y., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching",
Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-19 (work in progress),
6: Caching", draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-18 (work in March 2012.
progress), January 2012.
[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 16, line 22 skipping to change at page 16, line 9
consistency with legacy authentication schemes such as "Basic". consistency with legacy authentication schemes such as "Basic".
(Section 2) (Section 2)
Change ABNF productions for header fields to only define the field Change ABNF productions for header fields to only define the field
value. (Section 4) value. (Section 4)
Appendix B. Collected ABNF Appendix B. Collected ABNF
Authorization = credentials Authorization = credentials
BWS = <BWS, defined in [Part1], Section 1.2.2> BWS = <BWS, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.1>
OWS = <OWS, defined in [Part1], Section 1.2.2> OWS = <OWS, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.1>
Proxy-Authenticate = *( "," OWS ) challenge *( OWS "," [ OWS Proxy-Authenticate = *( "," OWS ) challenge *( OWS "," [ OWS
challenge ] ) challenge ] )
Proxy-Authorization = credentials Proxy-Authorization = credentials
WWW-Authenticate = *( "," OWS ) challenge *( OWS "," [ OWS challenge WWW-Authenticate = *( "," OWS ) challenge *( OWS "," [ OWS challenge
] ) ] )
auth-param = token BWS "=" BWS ( token / quoted-string ) auth-param = token BWS "=" BWS ( token / quoted-string )
auth-scheme = token auth-scheme = token
b64token = 1*( ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "." / "_" / "~" / "+" / "/" ) b64token = 1*( ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "." / "_" / "~" / "+" / "/" )
*"=" *"="
challenge = auth-scheme [ 1*SP ( b64token / [ ( "," / auth-param ) *( challenge = auth-scheme [ 1*SP ( b64token / [ ( "," / auth-param ) *(
OWS "," [ OWS auth-param ] ) ] ) ] OWS "," [ OWS auth-param ] ) ] ) ]
credentials = auth-scheme [ 1*SP ( b64token / [ ( "," / auth-param ) credentials = auth-scheme [ 1*SP ( b64token / [ ( "," / auth-param )
*( OWS "," [ OWS auth-param ] ) ] ) ] *( OWS "," [ OWS auth-param ] ) ] ) ]
quoted-string = <quoted-string, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.3> quoted-string = <quoted-string, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.4>
token = <token, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.4>
token = <token, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.3>
ABNF diagnostics: ABNF diagnostics:
; Authorization defined but not used ; Authorization defined but not used
; Proxy-Authenticate defined but not used ; Proxy-Authenticate defined but not used
; Proxy-Authorization defined but not used ; Proxy-Authorization defined but not used
; WWW-Authenticate defined but not used ; WWW-Authenticate defined but not used
Appendix C. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication) Appendix C. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)
C.1. Since RFC 2616 C.1. Since RFC 2616
skipping to change at page 20, line 28 skipping to change at page 20, line 15
C.19. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-17 C.19. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-17
Closed issues: Closed issues:
o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/314>: "allow o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/314>: "allow
unquoted realm parameters" unquoted realm parameters"
o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/321>: "Repeating o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/321>: "Repeating
auth-params" auth-params"
C.20. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-18
Closed issues:
o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/334>: "recipient
behavior for new auth parameters"
o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/342>: "WWW-
Authenticate ABNF slightly ambiguous"
Index Index
4 4
401 Unauthorized (status code) 10 401 Unauthorized (status code) 9
407 Proxy Authentication Required (status code) 10 407 Proxy Authentication Required (status code) 9
A A
auth-param 6 auth-param 5
auth-scheme 6 auth-scheme 5
Authorization header field 11 Authorization header field 10
B B
b64token 6 b64token 5
C C
challenge 7 challenge 6
credentials 7 credentials 6
G G
Grammar Grammar
auth-param 6 auth-param 5
auth-scheme 6 auth-scheme 5
Authorization 11 Authorization 10
b64token 6 b64token 5
challenge 7 challenge 6
credentials 7 credentials 6
Proxy-Authenticate 11 Proxy-Authenticate 11
Proxy-Authorization 12 Proxy-Authorization 11
WWW-Authenticate 12 WWW-Authenticate 12
H H
Header Fields Header Fields
Authorization 11 Authorization 10
Proxy-Authenticate 11 Proxy-Authenticate 11
Proxy-Authorization 12 Proxy-Authorization 11
WWW-Authenticate 12 WWW-Authenticate 11
P P
Protection Space 8 Protection Space 7
Proxy-Authenticate header field 11 Proxy-Authenticate header field 11
Proxy-Authorization header field 12 Proxy-Authorization header field 11
R R
Realm 8 Realm 7
S S
Status Codes Status Codes
401 Unauthorized 10 401 Unauthorized 9
407 Proxy Authentication Required 10 407 Proxy Authentication Required 9
W W
WWW-Authenticate header field 12 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
San Jose, CA 95110 San Jose, CA 95110
USA USA
EMail: fielding@gbiv.com EMail: fielding@gbiv.com
URI: http://roy.gbiv.com/ URI: http://roy.gbiv.com/
Jim Gettys
Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs
21 Oak Knoll Road
Carlisle, MA 01741
USA
EMail: jg@freedesktop.org
URI: http://gettys.wordpress.com/
Jeffrey C. Mogul
Hewlett-Packard Company
HP Labs, Large Scale Systems Group
1501 Page Mill Road, MS 1177
Palo Alto, CA 94304
USA
EMail: JeffMogul@acm.org
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
Microsoft Corporation
1 Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
USA
EMail: henrikn@microsoft.com
Larry Masinter
Adobe Systems Incorporated
345 Park Ave
San Jose, CA 95110
USA
EMail: LMM@acm.org
URI: http://larry.masinter.net/
Paul J. Leach
Microsoft Corporation
1 Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
EMail: paulle@microsoft.com
Tim Berners-Lee
World Wide Web Consortium
MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
The Stata Center, Building 32
32 Vassar Street
Cambridge, MA 02139
USA
EMail: timbl@w3.org
URI: http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/
Yves Lafon (editor) Yves Lafon (editor)
World Wide Web Consortium World Wide Web Consortium
W3C / ERCIM W3C / ERCIM
2004, rte des Lucioles 2004, rte des Lucioles
Sophia-Antipolis, AM 06902 Sophia-Antipolis, AM 06902
France France
EMail: ylafon@w3.org EMail: ylafon@w3.org
URI: http://www.raubacapeu.net/people/yves/ URI: http://www.raubacapeu.net/people/yves/
 End of changes. 45 change blocks. 
158 lines changed or deleted 125 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/