draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-00.txt   draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-01.txt 
Network Working Group R. Fielding, Ed. Network Working Group R. Fielding, Ed.
Internet-Draft Day Software Internet-Draft Day Software
Obsoletes: 2068, 2616 J. Gettys Obsoletes: 2616 (if approved) J. Gettys
(if approved) One Laptop per Child Updates: 2617 (if approved) One Laptop per Child
Updates: 2617 (if approved) J. Mogul Intended status: Standards Track J. Mogul
Intended status: Standards Track HP Expires: July 15, 2008 HP
Expires: June 22, 2008 H. Frystyk H. Frystyk
Microsoft Microsoft
L. Masinter L. Masinter
Adobe Systems Adobe Systems
P. Leach P. Leach
Microsoft Microsoft
T. Berners-Lee T. Berners-Lee
W3C/MIT W3C/MIT
December 20, 2007 Y. Lafon, Ed.
W3C
J. Reschke, Ed.
greenbytes
January 12, 2008
HTTP/1.1, part 7: Authentication HTTP/1.1, part 7: Authentication
draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-00 draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-01
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
skipping to change at page 1, line 45 skipping to change at page 1, line 49
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 22, 2008. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 15, 2008.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
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. Part 7 defines "HTTP/1.1" and, taken together, obsoletes RFC 2616. Part 7 defines
HTTP Authentication. HTTP Authentication.
Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor) Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)
This version of the HTTP specification contains only minimal
editorial changes from [RFC2616] (abstract, introductory paragraph,
and authors' addresses). All other changes are due to partitioning
the original into seven mostly independent parts. The intent is for
readers of future drafts to able to use draft 00 as the basis for
comparison when the WG makes later changes to the specification text.
This draft will shortly be followed by draft 01 (containing the first
round of changes that have already been agreed to on the mailing
list). There is no point in reviewing this draft other than to
verify that the partitioning has been done correctly. Roy T.
Fielding, Yves Lafon, and Julian Reschke will be the editors after
draft 00 is submitted.
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). The current issues list is group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org). The current issues list is
at <http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/report/11> and related at <http://www.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/report/11> and related
documents (including fancy diffs) can be found at documents (including fancy diffs) can be found at
<http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/>. <http://www.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/>.
This draft incorporates those issue resolutions that were either
collected in the original RFC2616 errata list
(<http://purl.org/NET/http-errata>), or which were agreed upon on the
mailing list between October 2006 and November 2007 (as published in
"draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-03").
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Status Code Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Status Code Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. 401 Unauthorized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1. 401 Unauthorized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. 407 Proxy Authentication Required . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2. 407 Proxy Authentication Required . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Header Field Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Header Field Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Proxy-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. Proxy-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Proxy-Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3. Proxy-Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. WWW-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.4. WWW-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Authentication Credentials and Idle Clients . . . . . . . 7 5.1. Authentication Credentials and Idle Clients . . . . . . . 7
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 11 Appendix A. Compatibility with Previous Versions . . . . . . . . 9
A.1. Changes from RFC 2616 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix B. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before
publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
B.1. Since RFC2616 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
B.2. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-00 . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document will define aspects of HTTP related to access control This document defines HTTP/1.1 access control and authentication.
and authentication. Right now it only includes the extracted Right now it includes the extracted relevant sections of RFC 2616
relevant sections of RFC 2616 [RFC2616] with only minor edits. with only minor changes. The intention is to move the general
framework for HTTP authentication here, as currently specified in
[RFC2617], and allow the individual authentication mechanisms to be
defined elsewhere. This introduction will be rewritten when that
occurs.
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
general framework for access authentication, and the specification of general framework for access authentication, and the specification of
"basic" and "digest" authentication, are specified in "HTTP "basic" and "digest" authentication, are specified in "HTTP
Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication" [RFC2617]. Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication" [RFC2617].
This specification adopts the definitions of "challenge" and This specification adopts the definitions of "challenge" and
"credentials" from that specification. "credentials" from that specification.
1.1. Requirements
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].
An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or more
of the MUST or REQUIRED level requirements for the protocols it
implements. An implementation that satisfies all the MUST or
REQUIRED level and all the SHOULD level requirements for its
protocols is said to be "unconditionally compliant"; one that
satisfies all the MUST level requirements but not all the SHOULD
level requirements for its protocols is said to be "conditionally
compliant."
2. Status Code Definitions 2. Status Code Definitions
2.1. 401 Unauthorized 2.1. 401 Unauthorized
The request requires user authentication. The response MUST include The request requires user authentication. The response MUST include
a WWW-Authenticate header field (Section 3.4) containing a challenge a WWW-Authenticate header field (Section 3.4) containing a challenge
applicable to the requested resource. The client MAY repeat the applicable to the requested resource. The client MAY repeat the
request with a suitable Authorization header field (Section 3.1). If request with a suitable Authorization header field (Section 3.1). If
the request already included Authorization credentials, then the 401 the request already included Authorization credentials, then the 401
response indicates that authorization has been refused for those response indicates that authorization has been refused for those
skipping to change at page 5, line 7 skipping to change at page 5, line 22
client must first authenticate itself with the proxy. The proxy MUST client must first authenticate itself with the proxy. The proxy MUST
return a Proxy-Authenticate header field (Section 3.2) containing a return a Proxy-Authenticate header field (Section 3.2) containing a
challenge applicable to the proxy for the requested resource. The challenge applicable to the proxy for the requested resource. The
client MAY repeat the request with a suitable Proxy-Authorization client MAY repeat the request with a suitable Proxy-Authorization
header field (Section 3.3). HTTP access authentication is explained header field (Section 3.3). HTTP access authentication is explained
in "HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication" in "HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication"
[RFC2617]. [RFC2617].
3. Header Field Definitions 3. Header Field Definitions
This section defines the syntax and semantics of all standard This section defines the syntax and semantics of HTTP/1.1 header
HTTP/1.1 header fields. For entity-header fields, both sender and fields related to authentication.
recipient refer to either the client or the server, depending on who
sends and who receives the entity.
3.1. Authorization 3.1. Authorization
A user agent that wishes to authenticate itself with a server-- A user agent that wishes to authenticate itself with a server--
usually, but not necessarily, after receiving a 401 response--does so usually, but not necessarily, after receiving a 401 response--does so
by including an Authorization request-header field with the request. by including an Authorization request-header field with the request.
The Authorization field value consists of credentials containing the The Authorization field value consists of credentials containing the
authentication information of the user agent for the realm of the authentication information of the user agent for the realm of the
resource being requested. resource being requested.
Authorization = "Authorization" ":" credentials Authorization = "Authorization" ":" credentials
HTTP access authentication is described in "HTTP Authentication: HTTP access authentication is described in "HTTP Authentication:
Basic and Digest Access Authentication" [RFC2617]. If a request is Basic and Digest Access Authentication" [RFC2617]. If a request is
authenticated and a realm specified, the same credentials SHOULD be authenticated and a realm specified, the same credentials SHOULD be
valid for all other requests within this realm (assuming that the valid for all other requests within this realm (assuming that the
authentication scheme itself does not require otherwise, such as authentication scheme itself does not require otherwise, such as
credentials that vary according to a challenge value or using credentials that vary according to a challenge value or using
synchronized clocks). synchronized clocks).
When a shared cache (see Section 2.7 of [Part6]) receives a request When a shared cache (see Section 8 of [Part6]) receives a request
containing an Authorization field, it MUST NOT return the containing an Authorization field, it MUST NOT return the
corresponding response as a reply to any other request, unless one of corresponding response as a reply to any other request, unless one of
the following specific exceptions holds: the following specific exceptions holds:
1. If the response includes the "s-maxage" cache-control directive, 1. If the response includes the "s-maxage" cache-control directive,
the cache MAY use that response in replying to a subsequent the cache MAY use that response in replying to a subsequent
request. But (if the specified maximum age has passed) a proxy request. But (if the specified maximum age has passed) a proxy
cache MUST first revalidate it with the origin server, using the cache MUST first revalidate it with the origin server, using the
request-headers from the new request to allow the origin server request-headers from the new request to allow the origin server
to authenticate the new request. (This is the defined behavior to authenticate the new request. (This is the defined behavior
skipping to change at page 7, line 30 skipping to change at page 7, line 46
This section is meant to inform application developers, information This section is meant to inform application developers, information
providers, and users of the security limitations in HTTP/1.1 as providers, and users of the security limitations in HTTP/1.1 as
described by this document. The discussion does not include described by this document. The discussion does not include
definitive solutions to the problems revealed, though it does make definitive solutions to the problems revealed, though it does make
some suggestions for reducing security risks. some suggestions for reducing security risks.
5.1. Authentication Credentials and Idle Clients 5.1. Authentication Credentials and Idle Clients
Existing HTTP clients and user agents typically retain authentication Existing HTTP clients and user agents typically retain authentication
information indefinitely. HTTP/1.1. does not provide a method for a information indefinitely. HTTP/1.1 does not provide a method for a
server to direct clients to discard these cached credentials. This server to direct clients to discard these cached credentials. This
is a significant defect that requires further extensions to HTTP. is a significant defect that requires further extensions to HTTP.
Circumstances under which credential caching can interfere with the Circumstances under which credential caching can interfere with the
application's security model include but are not limited to: application's security model include but are not limited to:
o Clients which have been idle for an extended period following o Clients which have been idle for an extended period following
which the server might wish to cause the client to reprompt the which the server might wish to cause the client to reprompt the
user for credentials. user for credentials.
o Applications which include a session termination indication (such o Applications which include a session termination indication (such
skipping to change at page 8, line 8 skipping to change at page 8, line 25
This is currently under separate study. There are a number of work- This is currently under separate study. There are a number of work-
arounds to parts of this problem, and we encourage the use of arounds to parts of this problem, and we encourage the use of
password protection in screen savers, idle time-outs, and other password protection in screen savers, idle time-outs, and other
methods which mitigate the security problems inherent in this methods which mitigate the security problems inherent in this
problem. In particular, user agents which cache credentials are problem. In particular, user agents which cache credentials are
encouraged to provide a readily accessible mechanism for discarding encouraged to provide a readily accessible mechanism for discarding
cached credentials under user control. cached credentials under user control.
6. Acknowledgments 6. Acknowledgments
Based on an XML translation of RFC 2616 by Julian Reschke. TBD.
7. References 7. References
7.1. Normative References
[Part6] Fielding, R., Ed., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., [Part6] Fielding, R., Ed., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "HTTP/1.1, Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y., Ed.,
part 6: Caching", draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-00 (work in and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching",
progress), December 2007. draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-01 (work in progress),
January 2008.
[RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
[RFC2617] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Lawrence, S., [RFC2617] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Lawrence, S.,
Leach, P., Luotonen, A., and L. Stewart, "HTTP Leach, P., Luotonen, A., and L. Stewart, "HTTP
Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication", Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication",
RFC 2617, June 1999. RFC 2617, June 1999.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
Appendix A. Compatibility with Previous Versions
A.1. Changes from RFC 2616
Appendix B. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)
B.1. Since RFC2616
Extracted relevant partitions from [RFC2616].
B.2. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-00
Closed issues:
o <http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/35>: "Normative
and Informative references"
Index Index
4 4
401 Unauthorized (status code) 4 401 Unauthorized (status code) 4
407 Proxy Authentication Required (status code) 4 407 Proxy Authentication Required (status code) 5
A A
Authorization header 5 Authorization header 5
G G
Grammar Grammar
Authorization 5 Authorization 5
Proxy-Authenticate 6 Proxy-Authenticate 6
Proxy-Authorization 6 Proxy-Authorization 6
WWW-Authenticate 7 WWW-Authenticate 7
H H
Headers Headers
Authorization 5 Authorization 5
Proxy-Authenticate 6 Proxy-Authenticate 6
Proxy-Authorization 6 Proxy-Authorization 6
WWW-Authenticate 6 WWW-Authenticate 7
P P
Proxy-Authenticate header 6 Proxy-Authenticate header 6
Proxy-Authorization header 6 Proxy-Authorization header 6
S S
Status Codes Status Codes
401 Unauthorized 4 401 Unauthorized 4
407 Proxy Authentication Required 4 407 Proxy Authentication Required 5
W W
WWW-Authenticate header 6 WWW-Authenticate header 7
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Roy T. Fielding (editor) Roy T. Fielding (editor)
Day Software Day Software
23 Corporate Plaza DR, Suite 280 23 Corporate Plaza DR, Suite 280
Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660
USA USA
Phone: +1-949-706-5300 Phone: +1-949-706-5300
skipping to change at page 11, line 4 skipping to change at page 12, line 4
Tim Berners-Lee Tim Berners-Lee
World Wide Web Consortium World Wide Web Consortium
MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
The Stata Center, Building 32 The Stata Center, Building 32
32 Vassar Street 32 Vassar Street
Cambridge, MA 02139 Cambridge, MA 02139
USA USA
Email: timbl@w3.org Email: timbl@w3.org
URI: http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/ URI: http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/
Yves Lafon (editor)
World Wide Web Consortium
W3C / ERCIM
2004, rte des Lucioles
Sophia-Antipolis, AM 06902
France
Email: ylafon@w3.org
URI: http://www.raubacapeu.net/people/yves/
Julian F. Reschke (editor)
greenbytes GmbH
Hafenweg 16
Muenster, NW 48155
Germany
Phone: +49 251 2807760
Fax: +49 251 2807761
Email: julian.reschke@greenbytes.de
URI: http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/
Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights. retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
 End of changes. 28 change blocks. 
50 lines changed or deleted 119 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.34. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/