draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-16.txt		draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-17.txt
	HTTPbis Working Group R. Fielding, Ed.		HTTPbis Working Group R. Fielding, Ed.
	Internet-Draft Adobe		Internet-Draft Adobe
	Obsoletes: 2616 (if approved) J. Gettys		Obsoletes: 2616 (if approved) J. Gettys
	Updates: 2617 (if approved) Alcatel-Lucent		Updates: 2617 (if approved) Alcatel-Lucent
	Intended status: Standards Track J. Mogul		Intended status: Standards Track J. Mogul
	Expires: February 25, 2012 HP		Expires: May 3, 2012 HP
	H. Frystyk		H. Frystyk
	Microsoft		Microsoft
	L. Masinter		L. Masinter
	Adobe		Adobe
	P. Leach		P. Leach
	Microsoft		Microsoft
	T. Berners-Lee		T. Berners-Lee
	W3C/MIT		W3C/MIT
	Y. Lafon, Ed.		Y. Lafon, Ed.
	W3C		W3C
	J. Reschke, Ed.		J. Reschke, Ed.
	greenbytes		greenbytes
	August 24, 2011		October 31, 2011
	HTTP/1.1, part 7: Authentication		HTTP/1.1, part 7: Authentication
	draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-16		draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-17
	Abstract		Abstract
	The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level		The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level
	protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information		protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information
	systems. HTTP has been in use by the World Wide Web global		systems. HTTP has been in use by the World Wide Web global
	information initiative since 1990. This document is Part 7 of the		information initiative since 1990. This document is Part 7 of the
	seven-part specification that defines the protocol referred to as		seven-part specification that defines the protocol referred to as
	"HTTP/1.1" and, taken together, obsoletes RFC 2616.		"HTTP/1.1" and, taken together, obsoletes RFC 2616.
	skipping to change at page 1, line 48		skipping to change at page 1, line 48
	Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working		Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working
	group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at		group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at
	<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/>.		<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/>.
	The current issues list is at		The current issues list is at
	<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/report/3> and related		<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/report/3> and related
	documents (including fancy diffs) can be found at		documents (including fancy diffs) can be found at
	<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/>.		<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/>.
	The changes in this draft are summarized in Appendix C.17.		The changes in this draft are summarized in Appendix C.18.
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on February 25, 2012.		This Internet-Draft will expire on May 3, 2012.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 2, line 52		skipping to change at page 2, line 52
	Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling		Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
	the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified		the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
	outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may		outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
	not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format		not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
	it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other		it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
	than English.		than English.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	1.1. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		1.1. Conformance and Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	1.2. Syntax Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		1.2. Syntax Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	1.2.1. Core Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		1.2.1. Core Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	2. Access Authentication Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		2. Access Authentication Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	2.1. Challenge and Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		2.1. Challenge and Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	2.2. Protection Space (Realm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		2.2. Protection Space (Realm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	2.3. Authentication Scheme Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		2.3. Authentication Scheme Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	2.3.1. Considerations for New Authentication Schemes . . . . 8		2.3.1. Considerations for New Authentication Schemes . . . . 8
	3. Status Code Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		3. Status Code Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	3.1. 401 Unauthorized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		3.1. 401 Unauthorized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	3.2. 407 Proxy Authentication Required . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		3.2. 407 Proxy Authentication Required . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	4. Header Field Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		4. Header Field Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	4.1. Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		4.1. Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	4.2. Proxy-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		4.2. Proxy-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	4.3. Proxy-Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		4.3. Proxy-Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	4.4. WWW-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		4.4. WWW-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	5.1. Authenticaton Scheme Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		5.1. Authenticaton Scheme Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	5.2. Status Code Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		5.2. Status Code Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	5.3. Header Field Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		5.3. Header Field Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	6.1. Authentication Credentials and Idle Clients . . . . . . . 12		6.1. Authentication Credentials and Idle Clients . . . . . . . 13
	7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	Appendix A. Changes from RFCs 2616 and 2617 . . . . . . . . . . . 14		Appendix A. Changes from RFCs 2616 and 2617 . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	Appendix B. Collected ABNF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		Appendix B. Collected ABNF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	Appendix C. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before		Appendix C. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before
	publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	C.1. Since RFC 2616 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		C.1. Since RFC 2616 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	C.2. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-00 . . . . . . . . . . . 16		C.2. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-00 . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	C.3. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-01 . . . . . . . . . . . 16		C.3. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-01 . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	C.4. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-02 . . . . . . . . . . . 16		C.4. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-02 . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	C.5. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-03 . . . . . . . . . . . 16		C.5. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-03 . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	C.6. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-04 . . . . . . . . . . . 16		C.6. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-04 . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	C.7. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-05 . . . . . . . . . . . 16		C.7. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-05 . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	C.8. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-06 . . . . . . . . . . . 17		C.8. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-06 . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	C.9. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-07 . . . . . . . . . . . 17		C.9. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-07 . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	C.10. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-08 . . . . . . . . . . . 17		C.10. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-08 . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	C.11. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-09 . . . . . . . . . . . 17		C.11. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-09 . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	C.12. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-10 . . . . . . . . . . . 17		C.12. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-10 . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	C.13. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-11 . . . . . . . . . . . 17		C.13. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-11 . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	C.14. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-12 . . . . . . . . . . . 18		C.14. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-12 . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	C.15. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-13 . . . . . . . . . . . 18		C.15. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-13 . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	C.16. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-14 . . . . . . . . . . . 18		C.16. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-14 . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	C.17. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-15 . . . . . . . . . . . 18		C.17. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-15 . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18		C.18. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-16 . . . . . . . . . . . 19
			Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	This document defines HTTP/1.1 access control and authentication. It		This document defines HTTP/1.1 access control and authentication. It
	includes the relevant parts of RFC 2616 with only minor changes, plus		includes the relevant parts of RFC 2616 with only minor changes, plus
	the general framework for HTTP authentication, as previously defined		the general framework for HTTP authentication, as previously defined
	in "HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication"		in "HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication"
	([RFC2617]).		([RFC2617]).
	HTTP provides several OPTIONAL challenge-response authentication		HTTP provides several OPTIONAL challenge-response authentication
	mechanisms which can be used by a server to challenge a client		mechanisms which can be used by a server to challenge a client
	request and by a client to provide authentication information. The		request and by a client to provide authentication information. The
	"basic" and "digest" authentication schemes continue to be specified		"basic" and "digest" authentication schemes continue to be specified
	in RFC 2617.		in RFC 2617.
	1.1. Requirements		1.1. Conformance and Error Handling
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
	document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].		document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
	An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or more		This document defines conformance criteria for several roles in HTTP
	of the "MUST" or "REQUIRED" level requirements for the protocols it		communication, including Senders, Recipients, Clients, Servers, User-
	implements. An implementation that satisfies all the "MUST" or		Agents, Origin Servers, Intermediaries, Proxies and Gateways. See
	"REQUIRED" level and all the "SHOULD" level requirements for its		Section 2 of [Part1] for definitions of these terms.
	protocols is said to be "unconditionally compliant"; one that
	satisfies all the "MUST" level requirements but not all the "SHOULD"		An implementation is considered conformant if it complies with all of
	level requirements for its protocols is said to be "conditionally		the requirements associated with its role(s). Note that SHOULD-level
	compliant".		requirements are relevant here, unless one of the documented
			exceptions is applicable.
			This document also uses ABNF to define valid protocol elements
			(Section 1.2). In addition to the prose requirements placed upon
			them, Senders MUST NOT generate protocol elements that are invalid.
			Unless noted otherwise, Recipients MAY take steps to recover a usable
			protocol element from an invalid construct. However, HTTP does not
			define specific error handling mechanisms, except in cases where it
			has direct impact on security. This is because different uses of the
			protocol require different error handling strategies; for example, a
			Web browser may wish to transparently recover from a response where
			the Location header field doesn't parse according to the ABNF,
			whereby in a systems control protocol using HTTP, this type of error
			recovery could lead to dangerous consequences.
	1.2. Syntax Notation		1.2. Syntax Notation
	This specification uses the ABNF syntax defined in Section 1.2 of		This specification uses the ABNF syntax defined in Section 1.2 of
	[Part1] (which extends the syntax defined in [RFC5234] with a list		[Part1] (which extends the syntax defined in [RFC5234] with a list
	rule). Appendix B shows the collected ABNF, with the list rule		rule). Appendix B shows the collected ABNF, with the list rule
	expanded.		expanded.
	The following core rules are included by reference, as defined in		The following core rules are included by reference, as defined in
	[RFC5234], Appendix B.1: ALPHA (letters), CR (carriage return), CRLF		[RFC5234], Appendix B.1: ALPHA (letters), CR (carriage return), CRLF
	(CR LF), CTL (controls), DIGIT (decimal 0-9), DQUOTE (double quote),		(CR LF), CTL (controls), DIGIT (decimal 0-9), DQUOTE (double quote),
	HEXDIG (hexadecimal 0-9/A-F/a-f), LF (line feed), OCTET (any 8-bit		HEXDIG (hexadecimal 0-9/A-F/a-f), LF (line feed), OCTET (any 8-bit
	sequence of data), SP (space), VCHAR (any visible USASCII character),		sequence of data), SP (space), and VCHAR (any visible US-ASCII
	and WSP (whitespace).		character).
	1.2.1. Core Rules		1.2.1. Core Rules
	The core rules below are defined in [Part1]:		The core rules below are defined in [Part1]:
	BWS = <BWS, defined in [Part1], Section 1.2.2>		BWS = <BWS, defined in [Part1], Section 1.2.2>
	OWS = <OWS, defined in [Part1], Section 1.2.2>		OWS = <OWS, defined in [Part1], Section 1.2.2>
	quoted-string = <quoted-string, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.3>		quoted-string = <quoted-string, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.3>
	token = <token, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.3>		token = <token, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.3>
	skipping to change at page 8, line 26		skipping to change at page 8, line 35
	o The authentication parameter "realm" is reserved for defining		o The authentication parameter "realm" is reserved for defining
	Protection Spaces as defined in Section 2.2. New schemes MUST NOT		Protection Spaces as defined in Section 2.2. New schemes MUST NOT
	use it in a way incompatible with that definition.		use it in a way incompatible with that definition.
	o The "b64token" notation was introduced for compatibility with		o The "b64token" notation was introduced for compatibility with
	existing authentication schemes and can only be used once per		existing authentication schemes and can only be used once per
	challenge/credentials. New schemes thus ought to use the "auth-		challenge/credentials. New schemes thus ought to use the "auth-
	param" syntax instead, because otherwise future extensions will be		param" syntax instead, because otherwise future extensions will be
	impossible.		impossible.
			o The parsing of challenges and credentials is defined by this
			specification, and cannot be modified by new authentication
			schemes. When the auth-param syntax is used, all parameters ought
			to support both token and quoted-string syntax, and syntactical
			constraints ought to be defined on the field value after parsing
			(i.e., quoted-string processing). This is necessary so that
			recipients can use a generic parser that applies to all
			authentication schemes.
			Note: the fact that the value syntax for the "realm" parameter is
			restricted to quoted-string was a bad design choice not to be
			repeated for new parameters.
	o Authentication schemes need to document whether they are usable in		o Authentication schemes need to document whether they are usable in
	origin-server authentication (i.e., using WWW-Authenticate),		origin-server authentication (i.e., using WWW-Authenticate),
	and/or proxy authentication (i.e., using Proxy-Authenticate).		and/or proxy authentication (i.e., using Proxy-Authenticate).
	o The credentials carried in an Authorization header field are		o The credentials carried in an Authorization header field are
	specific to the User Agent, and therefore have the same effect on		specific to the User Agent, and therefore have the same effect on
	HTTP caches as the "private" Cache-Control response directive,		HTTP caches as the "private" Cache-Control response directive,
	within the scope of the request they appear in.		within the scope of the request they appear in.
	Therefore, new authentication schemes which choose not to carry		Therefore, new authentication schemes which choose not to carry
	skipping to change at page 11, line 23		skipping to change at page 11, line 42
	credentials (or different credentials) might affect the response.		credentials (or different credentials) might affect the response.
	WWW-Authenticate = 1#challenge		WWW-Authenticate = 1#challenge
	User agents are advised to take special care in parsing the WWW-		User agents are advised to take special care in parsing the WWW-
	Authenticate field value as it might contain more than one challenge,		Authenticate field value as it might contain more than one challenge,
	or if more than one WWW-Authenticate header field is provided, the		or if more than one WWW-Authenticate header field is provided, the
	contents of a challenge itself can contain a comma-separated list of		contents of a challenge itself can contain a comma-separated list of
	authentication parameters.		authentication parameters.
			For instance:
			WWW-Authenticate: Newauth realm="apps", type=1,
			title="Login to \"apps\"", Basic realm="simple"
			This header field contains two challenges; one for the "Newauth"
			scheme with a realm value of "apps", and two additional parameters
			"type" and "title", and another one for the "Basic" scheme with a
			realm value of "simple".
	5. IANA Considerations		5. IANA Considerations
	5.1. Authenticaton Scheme Registry		5.1. Authenticaton Scheme Registry
	The registration procedure for HTTP Authentication Schemes is defined		The registration procedure for HTTP Authentication Schemes is defined
	by Section 2.3 of this document.		by Section 2.3 of this document.
	The HTTP Method Authentication Scheme shall be created at		The HTTP Method Authentication Scheme shall be created at
	<http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-authschemes>.		<http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-authschemes>.
	skipping to change at page 13, line 14		skipping to change at page 13, line 40
	7. Acknowledgments		7. Acknowledgments
	This specification takes over the definition of the HTTP		This specification takes over the definition of the HTTP
	Authentication Framework, previously defined in RFC 2617. We thank		Authentication Framework, previously defined in RFC 2617. We thank
	John Franks, Phillip M. Hallam-Baker, Jeffery L. Hostetler, Scott D.		John Franks, Phillip M. Hallam-Baker, Jeffery L. Hostetler, Scott D.
	Lawrence, Paul J. Leach, Ari Luotonen, and Lawrence C. Stewart for		Lawrence, Paul J. Leach, Ari Luotonen, and Lawrence C. Stewart for
	their work on that specification. See Section 6 of [RFC2617] for		their work on that specification. See Section 6 of [RFC2617] for
	further acknowledgements.		further acknowledgements.
	See Section 12 of [Part1] for the Acknowledgments related to this		See Section 11 of [Part1] for the Acknowledgments related to this
	document revision.		document revision.
	8. References		8. References
	8.1. Normative References		8.1. Normative References
	[Part1] Fielding, R., Ed., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,		[Part1] Fielding, R., Ed., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
	Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y., Ed.,		Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y., Ed.,
	and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections,		and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections,
	and Message Parsing", draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-16		and Message Parsing", draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-17
	(work in progress), August 2011.		(work in progress), October 2011.
	[Part6] Fielding, R., Ed., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,		[Part6] Fielding, R., Ed., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
	Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y., Ed.,		Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y., Ed.,
	Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part		Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part
	6: Caching", draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-16 (work in		6: Caching", draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-17 (work in
	progress), August 2011.		progress), October 2011.
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
	[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax		[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
	Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.		Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.
	8.2. Informative References		8.2. Informative References
	[RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,		[RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
	skipping to change at page 18, line 45		skipping to change at page 19, line 5
	o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/257>:		o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/257>:
	"Considerations for new authentications schemes"		"Considerations for new authentications schemes"
	o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/287>: "LWS in auth-		o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/287>: "LWS in auth-
	param ABNF"		param ABNF"
	o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/309>: "credentials		o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/309>: "credentials
	ABNF missing SP (still using implied LWS?)"		ABNF missing SP (still using implied LWS?)"
			C.18. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-16
			Closed issues:
			o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/186>: "Document
			HTTP's error-handling philosophy"
			o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/320>: "add advice on
			defining auth scheme parameters"
	Index		Index
	4		4
	401 Unauthorized (status code) 8		401 Unauthorized (status code) 9
	407 Proxy Authentication Required (status code) 9		407 Proxy Authentication Required (status code) 9
	A		A
	auth-param 5		auth-param 5
	auth-scheme 5		auth-scheme 5
	Authorization header field 9		Authorization header field 9
	B		B
	b64token 5		b64token 5
	C		C
	challenge 5		challenge 6
	credentials 6		credentials 6
	G		G
	Grammar		Grammar
	auth-param 5		auth-param 5
	auth-scheme 5		auth-scheme 5
	Authorization 9		Authorization 10
	b64token 5		b64token 5
	challenge 5		challenge 6
	credentials 6		credentials 6
	Proxy-Authenticate 10		Proxy-Authenticate 10
	Proxy-Authorization 10		Proxy-Authorization 11
	realm 7		realm 7
	WWW-Authenticate 11		WWW-Authenticate 11
	H		H
	Header Fields		Header Fields
	Authorization 9		Authorization 9
	Proxy-Authenticate 10		Proxy-Authenticate 10
	Proxy-Authorization 10		Proxy-Authorization 11
	WWW-Authenticate 11		WWW-Authenticate 11
	P		P
	Protection Space 7		Protection Space 7
	Proxy-Authenticate header field 10		Proxy-Authenticate header field 10
	Proxy-Authorization header field 10		Proxy-Authorization header field 11
	R		R
	Realm 7		Realm 7
	realm 7		realm 7
	realm-value 7		realm-value 7
	S		S
	Status Codes		Status Codes
	401 Unauthorized 8		401 Unauthorized 9
	407 Proxy Authentication Required 9		407 Proxy Authentication Required 9
	W		W
	WWW-Authenticate header field 11		WWW-Authenticate header field 11
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Roy T. Fielding (editor)		Roy T. Fielding (editor)
	Adobe Systems Incorporated		Adobe Systems Incorporated
	345 Park Ave		345 Park Ave
End of changes. 32 change blocks.
	44 lines changed or deleted		93 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.38. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/