draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-15.txt		draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-16.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: January 12, 2012 HP		Expires: February 25, 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
	July 11, 2011		August 24, 2011
	HTTP/1.1, part 7: Authentication		HTTP/1.1, part 7: Authentication
	draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-15		draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-16
	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.
	HTTP Authentication.
			Part 7 defines the HTTP Authentication framework.
	Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)		Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)
	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.16.		The changes in this draft are summarized in Appendix C.17.
	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
	skipping to change at page 2, line 17		skipping to change at page 2, line 20
	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 January 12, 2012.		This Internet-Draft will expire on February 25, 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 3, line 12		skipping to change at page 3, line 7
	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. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	1.2. Syntax Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		1.2. Syntax Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	1.2.1. Core Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		1.2.1. Core Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2. Access Authentication Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		2. Access Authentication Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	2.1. Authentication Scheme Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		2.1. Challenge and Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3. Status Code Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		2.2. Protection Space (Realm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	3.1. 401 Unauthorized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		2.3. Authentication Scheme Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	3.2. 407 Proxy Authentication Required . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		2.3.1. Considerations for New Authentication Schemes . . . . 8
	4. Header Field Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		3. Status Code Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	4.1. Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		3.1. 401 Unauthorized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	4.2. Proxy-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		3.2. 407 Proxy Authentication Required . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	4.3. Proxy-Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		4. Header Field Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	4.4. WWW-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		4.1. Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		4.2. Proxy-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	5.1. Authenticaton Scheme Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		4.3. Proxy-Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	5.2. Status Code Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		4.4. WWW-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	5.3. Header Field Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		5.1. Authenticaton Scheme Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	6.1. Authentication Credentials and Idle Clients . . . . . . . 11		5.2. Status Code Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		5.3. Header Field Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		6.1. Authentication Credentials and Idle Clients . . . . . . . 12
	8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	Appendix A. Changes from RFC 2616 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	Appendix B. Collected ABNF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
			8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
			Appendix A. Changes from RFCs 2616 and 2617 . . . . . . . . . . . 14
			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) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	C.1. Since RFC 2616 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		C.1. Since RFC 2616 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	C.2. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-00 . . . . . . . . . . . 13		C.2. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-00 . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	C.3. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-01 . . . . . . . . . . . 14		C.3. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-01 . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	C.4. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-02 . . . . . . . . . . . 14		C.4. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-02 . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	C.5. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-03 . . . . . . . . . . . 14		C.5. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-03 . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	C.6. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-04 . . . . . . . . . . . 14		C.6. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-04 . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	C.7. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-05 . . . . . . . . . . . 14		C.7. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-05 . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	C.8. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-06 . . . . . . . . . . . 14		C.8. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-06 . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	C.9. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-07 . . . . . . . . . . . 15		C.9. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-07 . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	C.10. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-08 . . . . . . . . . . . 15		C.10. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-08 . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	C.11. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-09 . . . . . . . . . . . 15		C.11. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-09 . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	C.12. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-10 . . . . . . . . . . . 15		C.12. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-10 . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	C.13. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-11 . . . . . . . . . . . 15		C.13. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-11 . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	C.14. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-12 . . . . . . . . . . . 15		C.14. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-12 . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	C.15. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-13 . . . . . . . . . . . 16		C.15. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-13 . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	C.16. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-14 . . . . . . . . . . . 16		C.16. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-14 . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		C.17. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-15 . . . . . . . . . . . 18
			Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	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
	skipping to change at page 4, line 50		skipping to change at page 4, line 50
	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), VCHAR (any visible USASCII character),
	and WSP (whitespace).		and WSP (whitespace).
	1.2.1. Core Rules		1.2.1. Core Rules
	The core rules below are defined in Section 1.2.2 of [Part1]:		The core rules below are defined in [Part1]:
	quoted-string = <quoted-string, defined in [Part1], Section 1.2.2>		BWS = <BWS, defined in [Part1], Section 1.2.2>
	token = <token, 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>
			token = <token, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.3>
	2. Access Authentication Framework		2. Access Authentication Framework
			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 a comma-separated list of attribute-value pairs which		followed by additional information necessary for achieving
	carry the parameters necessary for achieving authentication via that		authentication via that scheme. The latter can either be a comma-
	scheme.		separated list of attribute-value pairs or a single sequence of
			characters capable of holding base64-encoded information.
	auth-scheme = token		auth-scheme = token
	auth-param = token "=" ( token / quoted-string )
			auth-param = token BWS "=" BWS ( token / quoted-string )
			b64token = 1*( ALPHA / DIGIT /
			"-" / "." / "_" / "~" / "+" / "/" ) *"="
			The "b64token" syntax allows the 66 unreserved URI characters
			([RFC3986]), plus a few others, so that it can hold a base64,
			base64url (URL and filename safe alphabet), base32, or base16 (hex)
			encoding, with or without padding, but excluding whitespace
			([RFC4648]).
	The 401 (Unauthorized) response message is used by an origin server		The 401 (Unauthorized) response message is used by an origin server
	to challenge the authorization of a user agent. This response MUST		to challenge the authorization of a user agent. This response MUST
	include a WWW-Authenticate header field containing at least one		include a WWW-Authenticate header field containing at least one
	challenge applicable to the requested resource. The 407 (Proxy		challenge applicable to the requested resource.
	Authentication Required) response message is used by a proxy to
	challenge the authorization of a client and MUST include a Proxy-		The 407 (Proxy Authentication Required) response message is used by a
	Authenticate header field containing at least one challenge		proxy to challenge the authorization of a client and MUST include a
			Proxy-Authenticate header field containing at least one challenge
	applicable to the proxy for the requested resource.		applicable to the proxy for the requested resource.
	challenge = auth-scheme 1*SP 1#auth-param		challenge = auth-scheme [ 1*SP ( b64token / #auth-param ) ]
	Note: User agents will need to take special care in parsing the		Note: User agents will need to take special care in parsing the
	WWW-Authenticate or Proxy-Authenticate header field value if it		WWW-Authenticate and Proxy-Authenticate header field values
	contains more than one challenge, or if more than one WWW-		because they can contain more than one challenge, or if more than
	Authenticate header field is provided, since the contents of a		one of each is provided, since the contents of a challenge can
	challenge can itself contain a comma-separated list of		itself contain a comma-separated list of authentication
	authentication parameters.		parameters.
	Note: Many browsers fail to parse challenges containing unknown		Note: Many browsers fail to parse challenges containing unknown
	schemes. A workaround for this problem is to list well-supported		schemes. A workaround for this problem is to list well-supported
	schemes (such as "basic") first.		schemes (such as "basic") first.
	The authentication parameter realm is defined for all authentication
	schemes:
	realm = "realm" "=" realm-value
	realm-value = quoted-string
	The realm directive (case-insensitive) is required for all
	authentication schemes that issue a challenge. The realm value
	(case-sensitive), in combination with the canonical root URI (the
	scheme and authority components of the effective request URI; see
	Section 4.3 of [Part1]) of the server being accessed, defines the
	protection space. These realms allow the protected resources on a
	server to be partitioned into a set of protection spaces, each with
	its own authentication scheme and/or authorization database. The
	realm value is a string, generally assigned by the origin server,
	which can have additional semantics specific to the authentication
	scheme. Note that there can be multiple challenges with the same
	auth-scheme but different realms.
	A user agent that wishes to authenticate itself with an origin server		A user agent that wishes to authenticate itself with an origin server
	-- usually, but not necessarily, after receiving a 401 (Unauthorized)		-- usually, but not necessarily, after receiving a 401 (Unauthorized)
	-- MAY do so by including an Authorization header field with the		-- MAY do so by including an Authorization header field with the
	request. A client that wishes to authenticate itself with a proxy --		request.
	usually, but not necessarily, after receiving a 407 (Proxy
	Authentication Required) -- MAY do so by including a Proxy-
	Authorization header field with the request. Both the Authorization
	field value and the Proxy-Authorization field value consist of
	credentials containing the authentication information of the client
	for the realm of the resource being requested. The user agent MUST
	choose to use one of the challenges with the strongest auth-scheme it
	understands and request credentials from the user based upon that
	challenge.
	credentials = auth-scheme ( token		A client that wishes to authenticate itself with a proxy -- usually,
	/ quoted-string		but not necessarily, after receiving a 407 (Proxy Authentication
	/ #auth-param )		Required) -- MAY do so by including a Proxy-Authorization header
			field with the request.
	The protection space determines the domain over which credentials can		Both the Authorization field value and the Proxy-Authorization field
	be automatically applied. If a prior request has been authorized,		value consist of credentials containing the authentication
	the same credentials MAY be reused for all other requests within that		information of the client for the realm of the resource being
	protection space for a period of time determined by the		requested. The user agent MUST choose to use one of the challenges
	authentication scheme, parameters, and/or user preference. Unless		with the strongest auth-scheme it understands and request credentials
	otherwise defined by the authentication scheme, a single protection		from the user based upon that challenge.
	space cannot extend outside the scope of its server.
			credentials = auth-scheme [ 1*SP ( b64token / #auth-param ) ]
	If the origin server does not wish to accept the credentials sent		If the origin server does not wish to accept the credentials sent
	with a request, it SHOULD return a 401 (Unauthorized) response. The		with a request, it SHOULD return a 401 (Unauthorized) response. The
	response MUST include a WWW-Authenticate header field containing at		response MUST include a WWW-Authenticate header field containing at
	least one (possibly new) challenge applicable to the requested		least one (possibly new) challenge applicable to the requested
	resource. If a proxy does not accept the credentials sent with a
	request, it SHOULD return a 407 (Proxy Authentication Required). The
	response MUST include a Proxy-Authenticate header field containing a
	(possibly new) challenge applicable to the proxy for the requested
	resource.		resource.
			If a proxy does not accept the credentials sent with a request, it
			SHOULD return a 407 (Proxy Authentication Required). The response
			MUST include a Proxy-Authenticate header field containing a (possibly
			new) challenge applicable to the proxy for the requested resource.
	The HTTP protocol does not restrict applications to this simple		The HTTP protocol does not restrict applications to this simple
	challenge-response mechanism for access authentication. Additional		challenge-response mechanism for access authentication. Additional
	mechanisms MAY be used, such as encryption at the transport level or		mechanisms MAY be used, such as encryption at the transport level or
	via message encapsulation, and with additional header fields		via message encapsulation, and with additional header fields
	specifying authentication information. However, such additional		specifying authentication information. However, such additional
	mechanisms are not defined by this specification.		mechanisms are not defined by this specification.
	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.
	2.1. Authentication Scheme Registry		2.2. Protection Space (Realm)
			The authentication parameter realm is reserved for use by
			authentication schemes that wish to indicate the scope of protection:
			realm = "realm" BWS "=" BWS realm-value
			realm-value = quoted-string
			A protection space is defined by the canonical root URI (the scheme
			and authority components of the effective request URI; see Section
			4.3 of [Part1]) of the server being accessed, in combination with the
			realm value if present. These realms allow the protected resources
			on a server to be partitioned into a set of protection spaces, each
			with its own authentication scheme and/or authorization database.
			The realm value is a string, generally assigned by the origin server,
			which can have additional semantics specific to the authentication
			scheme. Note that there can be multiple challenges with the same
			auth-scheme but different realms.
			The protection space determines the domain over which credentials can
			be automatically applied. If a prior request has been authorized,
			the same credentials MAY be reused for all other requests within that
			protection space for a period of time determined by the
			authentication scheme, parameters, and/or user preference. Unless
			otherwise defined by the authentication scheme, a single protection
			space cannot extend outside the scope of its server.
			2.3. Authentication Scheme Registry
	The HTTP Authentication Scheme Registry defines the name space for		The HTTP Authentication Scheme Registry defines the name space for
	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)
	Values to be added to this name space are subject to IETF review		Values to be added to this name space are subject to IETF review
	([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
			There are certain aspects of the HTTP Authentication Framework that
			put constraints on how new authentication schemes can work:
			o Authentication schemes need to be compatible with the inherent
			constraints of HTTP; for instance, that messages need to keep
			their semantics when inspected in isolation, thus an
			authentication scheme can not bind information to the TCP session
			over which the message was received (see Section 2.2 of [Part1]).
			o The authentication parameter "realm" is reserved for defining
			Protection Spaces as defined in Section 2.2. New schemes MUST NOT
			use it in a way incompatible with that definition.
			o The "b64token" notation was introduced for compatibility with
			existing authentication schemes and can only be used once per
			challenge/credentials. New schemes thus ought to use the "auth-
			param" syntax instead, because otherwise future extensions will be
			impossible.
			o Authentication schemes need to document whether they are usable in
			origin-server authentication (i.e., using WWW-Authenticate),
			and/or proxy authentication (i.e., using Proxy-Authenticate).
			o The credentials carried in an Authorization header field are
			specific to the User Agent, and therefore have the same effect on
			HTTP caches as the "private" Cache-Control response directive,
			within the scope of the request they appear in.
			Therefore, new authentication schemes which choose not to carry
			credentials in the Authorization header (e.g., using a newly
			defined header) will need to explicitly disallow caching, by
			mandating the use of either Cache-Control request directives
			(e.g., "no-store") or response directives (e.g., "private").
	3. Status Code Definitions		3. Status Code Definitions
	3.1. 401 Unauthorized		3.1. 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 4.4) containing a challenge		a WWW-Authenticate header field (Section 4.4) containing a challenge
	applicable to the target resource. The client MAY repeat the request		applicable to the target resource. The client MAY repeat the request
	with a suitable Authorization header field (Section 4.1). If the		with a suitable Authorization header field (Section 4.1). If the
	request already included Authorization credentials, then the 401		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 9, line 45		skipping to change at page 11, line 9
	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]). It		applicable to the effective request URI (Section 4.3 of [Part1]).
	MUST be included in 401 (Unauthorized) response messages.
			It MUST be included in 401 (Unauthorized) response messages and MAY
			be included in other response messages to indicate that supplying
			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.
	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 2.1 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>.
	5.2. Status Code Registration		5.2. Status Code Registration
	The HTTP Status Code Registry located at		The HTTP Status Code Registry located at
	<http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes> shall be updated		<http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes> shall be updated
	with the registrations below:		with the registrations below:
	skipping to change at page 11, line 38		skipping to change at page 13, line 9
	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.
	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
	to John Franks, Phillip M. Hallam-Baker, Jeffery L. Hostetler, Scott		John Franks, Phillip M. Hallam-Baker, Jeffery L. Hostetler, Scott D.
	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.		their work on that specification. See Section 6 of [RFC2617] for
			further acknowledgements.
	[[acks: HTTPbis acknowledgements.]]		See Section 12 of [Part1] for the Acknowledgments related to this
			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-15		and Message Parsing", draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-16
	(work in progress), July 2011.		(work in progress), August 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-15 (work in		6: Caching", draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-16 (work in
	progress), July 2011.		progress), August 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 12, line 33		skipping to change at page 14, line 5
	[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.
	[RFC3864] Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J. Mogul, "Registration		[RFC3864] Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J. Mogul, "Registration
	Procedures for Message Header Fields", BCP 90, RFC 3864,		Procedures for Message Header Fields", BCP 90, RFC 3864,
	September 2004.		September 2004.
			[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
			Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
			RFC 3986, January 2005.
			[RFC4648] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
			Encodings", RFC 4648, October 2006.
	[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an		[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
	IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,		IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
	May 2008.		May 2008.
	Appendix A. Changes from RFC 2616		Appendix A. Changes from RFCs 2616 and 2617
			The "realm" parameter isn't required anymore in general;
			consequently, the ABNF allows challenges without any auth parameters.
			(Section 2)
			The "b64token" alternative to auth-param lists has been added for
			consistency with legacy authentication schemes such as "Basic".
			(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>
	OWS = <OWS, defined in [Part1], Section 1.2.2>		OWS = <OWS, defined in [Part1], Section 1.2.2>
	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 "=" ( token / quoted-string )		auth-param = token BWS "=" BWS ( token / quoted-string )
	auth-scheme = token		auth-scheme = token
	challenge = auth-scheme 1*SP *( "," OWS ) auth-param *( OWS "," [ OWS		b64token = 1*( ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "." / "_" / "~" / "+" / "/" )
	auth-param ] )		*"="
	credentials = auth-scheme ( token / quoted-string / [ ( "," /
	auth-param ) *( OWS "," [ OWS auth-param ] ) ] )
	quoted-string = <quoted-string, defined in [Part1], Section 1.2.2>		challenge = auth-scheme [ 1*SP ( b64token / [ ( "," / auth-param ) *(
			OWS "," [ OWS auth-param ] ) ] ) ]
			credentials = auth-scheme [ 1*SP ( b64token / [ ( "," / auth-param )
			*( OWS "," [ OWS auth-param ] ) ] ) ]
	realm = "realm=" realm-value		quoted-string = <quoted-string, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.3>
			realm = "realm" BWS "=" BWS realm-value
	realm-value = quoted-string		realm-value = quoted-string
	token = <token, defined in [Part1], Section 1.2.2>		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
	; realm defined but not used		; realm 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)
	skipping to change at page 14, line 26		skipping to change at page 16, line 33
	C.4. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-02		C.4. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-02
	Ongoing work on IANA Message Header Field Registration		Ongoing work on IANA Message Header Field Registration
	(<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/40>):		(<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/40>):
	o Reference RFC 3984, and update header field registrations for		o Reference RFC 3984, and update header field registrations for
	header fields defined in this document.		header fields defined in this document.
	C.5. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-03		C.5. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-03
			None.
	C.6. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-04		C.6. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-04
	Ongoing work on ABNF conversion		Ongoing work on ABNF conversion
	(<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/36>):		(<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/36>):
	o Use "/" instead of "|" for alternatives.		o Use "/" instead of "|" for alternatives.
	o Introduce new ABNF rules for "bad" whitespace ("BWS"), optional		o Introduce new ABNF rules for "bad" whitespace ("BWS"), optional
	whitespace ("OWS") and required whitespace ("RWS").		whitespace ("OWS") and required whitespace ("RWS").
	skipping to change at page 16, line 16		skipping to change at page 18, line 23
	Closed issues:		Closed issues:
	o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/276>: "untangle		o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/276>: "untangle
	ABNFs for header fields"		ABNFs for header fields"
	C.16. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-14		C.16. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-14
	None.		None.
			C.17. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-15
			Closed issues:
			o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/78>: "Relationship
			between 401, Authorization and WWW-Authenticate"
			o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/177>: "Realm
			required on challenges"
			o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/195>: "auth-param
			syntax"
			o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/257>:
			"Considerations for new authentications schemes"
			o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/287>: "LWS in auth-
			param ABNF"
			o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/309>: "credentials
			ABNF missing SP (still using implied LWS?)"
	Index		Index
	4		4
	401 Unauthorized (status code) 7		401 Unauthorized (status code) 8
	407 Proxy Authentication Required (status code) 7		407 Proxy Authentication Required (status code) 9
	A		A
	auth-param 5		auth-param 5
	auth-scheme 5		auth-scheme 5
	Authorization header field 8		Authorization header field 9
			B
			b64token 5
	C		C
	challenge 5		challenge 5
	credentials 6		credentials 6
	G		G
	Grammar		Grammar
	Authorization 8		auth-param 5
	Proxy-Authenticate 9		auth-scheme 5
	Proxy-Authorization 9		Authorization 9
	WWW-Authenticate 9		b64token 5
			challenge 5
			credentials 6
			Proxy-Authenticate 10
			Proxy-Authorization 10
			realm 7
			WWW-Authenticate 11
	H		H
	Header Fields		Header Fields
	Authorization 8		Authorization 9
	Proxy-Authenticate 9		Proxy-Authenticate 10
	Proxy-Authorization 9		Proxy-Authorization 10
	WWW-Authenticate 9		WWW-Authenticate 11
	P		P
	Proxy-Authenticate header field 9		Protection Space 7
	Proxy-Authorization header field 9		Proxy-Authenticate header field 10
			Proxy-Authorization header field 10
	R		R
	realm 5		Realm 7
	realm-value 5		realm 7
			realm-value 7
	S		S
	Status Codes		Status Codes
	401 Unauthorized 7		401 Unauthorized 8
	407 Proxy Authentication Required 7		407 Proxy Authentication Required 9
	W		W
	WWW-Authenticate header field 9		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
End of changes. 51 change blocks.
	145 lines changed or deleted		266 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.38. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/