draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-19.txt		draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-20.txt
	HTTPbis Working Group R. Fielding, Ed.		HTTPbis Working Group R. Fielding, Ed.
	Internet-Draft Adobe		Internet-Draft Adobe
	Obsoletes: 2616 (if approved) Y. Lafon, Ed.		Obsoletes: 2616 (if approved) Y. Lafon, Ed.
	Updates: 2617 (if approved) W3C		Updates: 2617 (if approved) W3C
	Intended status: Standards Track J. Reschke, Ed.		Intended status: Standards Track J. Reschke, Ed.
	Expires: September 13, 2012 greenbytes		Expires: January 17, 2013 greenbytes
	March 12, 2012		July 16, 2012
	HTTP/1.1, part 7: Authentication		HTTP/1.1, part 7: Authentication
	draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-19		draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-20
	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. This document defines the HTTP Authentication framework.
	information initiative since 1990. This document is Part 7 of the
	seven-part specification that defines the protocol referred to as
	"HTTP/1.1" and, taken together, obsoletes RFC 2616.
	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 takes place on the HTTPBIS working group
	group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at		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.20.		The changes in this draft are summarized in Appendix D.1.
	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 September 13, 2012.		This Internet-Draft will expire on January 17, 2013.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 2, line 40		skipping to change at page 3, line 9
	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. Conformance and Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		1.1. Conformance and Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	1.2. Syntax Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		1.2. Syntax Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	2.3.1. Considerations for New Authentication Schemes . . . . 8		2.3.1. Considerations for New Authentication Schemes . . . . 8
	3. Status Code Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		3. Status Code Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	3.1. 401 Unauthorized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		3.1. 401 Unauthorized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	3.2. 407 Proxy Authentication Required . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		3.2. 407 Proxy Authentication Required . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	4. Header Field Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		4. Header Field Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	4.1. Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		4.1. Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	4.2. Proxy-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		4.2. Proxy-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	4.3. Proxy-Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		4.3. Proxy-Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	4.4. WWW-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		4.4. WWW-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	5.1. Authenticaton Scheme Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		5.1. Authentication Scheme Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	5.2. Status Code Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		5.2. Status Code Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	5.3. Header Field Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		5.3. Header Field Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	6.1. Authentication Credentials and Idle Clients . . . . . . . 13		6.1. Authentication Credentials and Idle Clients . . . . . . . 13
			6.2. Protection Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	Appendix A. Changes from RFCs 2616 and 2617 . . . . . . . . . . . 15		Appendix A. Changes from RFCs 2616 and 2617 . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	Appendix B. Collected ABNF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		Appendix B. Imported ABNF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	Appendix C. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before		Appendix C. Collected ABNF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		Appendix D. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before
	C.1. Since RFC 2616 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	C.2. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-00 . . . . . . . . . . . 16		D.1. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-19 . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	C.3. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-01 . . . . . . . . . . . 17		Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	C.4. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-02 . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	C.5. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-03 . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	C.6. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-04 . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	C.7. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-05 . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	C.8. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-06 . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	C.9. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-07 . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	C.10. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-08 . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	C.11. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-09 . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	C.12. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-10 . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	C.13. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-11 . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	C.14. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-12 . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	C.15. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-13 . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	C.16. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-14 . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	C.17. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-15 . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	C.18. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-16 . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	C.19. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-17 . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	C.20. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-18 . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	This document defines HTTP/1.1 access control and authentication. It		This document defines HTTP/1.1 access control and authentication. It
	includes the relevant parts of RFC 2616 with only minor changes, plus		includes the relevant parts of RFC 2616 with only minor changes
	the general framework for HTTP authentication, as previously defined		([RFC2616]), plus the general framework for HTTP authentication, as
	in "HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication"		previously defined in "HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access
	([RFC2617]).		Authentication" ([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. Conformance and Error Handling		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].
	This document defines conformance criteria for several roles in HTTP		This specification targets conformance criteria according to the role
	communication, including Senders, Recipients, Clients, Servers, User-		of a participant in HTTP communication. Hence, HTTP requirements are
	Agents, Origin Servers, Intermediaries, Proxies and Gateways. See		placed on senders, recipients, clients, servers, user agents,
	Section 2 of [Part1] for definitions of these terms.		intermediaries, origin servers, proxies, gateways, or caches,
			depending on what behavior is being constrained by the requirement.
			See Section 2 of [Part1] for definitions of these terms.
			The verb "generate" is used instead of "send" where a requirement
			differentiates between creating a protocol element and merely
			forwarding a received element downstream.
	An implementation is considered conformant if it complies with all of		An implementation is considered conformant if it complies with all of
	the requirements associated with its role(s). Note that SHOULD-level		the requirements associated with the roles it partakes in HTTP. Note
	requirements are relevant here, unless one of the documented		that SHOULD-level requirements are relevant here, unless one of the
	exceptions is applicable.		documented exceptions is applicable.
	This document also uses ABNF to define valid protocol elements		This document also uses ABNF to define valid protocol elements
	(Section 1.2). In addition to the prose requirements placed upon		(Section 1.2). In addition to the prose requirements placed upon
	them, Senders MUST NOT generate protocol elements that are invalid.		them, senders MUST NOT generate protocol elements that do not match
			the grammar defined by the ABNF rules for those protocol elements
			that are applicable to the sender's role. If a received protocol
			element is processed, the recipient MUST be able to parse any value
			that would match the ABNF rules for that protocol element, excluding
			only those rules not applicable to the recipient's role.
	Unless noted otherwise, Recipients MAY take steps to recover a usable		Unless noted otherwise, a recipient MAY attempt to recover a usable
	protocol element from an invalid construct. However, HTTP does not		protocol element from an invalid construct. HTTP does not define
	define specific error handling mechanisms, except in cases where it		specific error handling mechanisms except when they have a direct
	has direct impact on security. This is because different uses of the		impact on security, since different applications of the protocol
	protocol require different error handling strategies; for example, a		require different error handling strategies. For example, a Web
	Web browser may wish to transparently recover from a response where		browser might wish to transparently recover from a response where the
	the Location header field doesn't parse according to the ABNF,		Location header field doesn't parse according to the ABNF, whereas a
	whereby in a systems control protocol using HTTP, this type of error		systems control client might consider any form of error recovery to
	recovery could lead to dangerous consequences.		be dangerous.
	1.2. Syntax Notation		1.2. Syntax Notation
	This specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF)		This specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF)
	notation of [RFC5234] with the list rule extension defined in Section		notation of [RFC5234] with the list rule extension defined in Section
	1.2 of [Part1]. Appendix B shows the collected ABNF with the list		1.2 of [Part1]. Appendix B describes rules imported from other
	rule expanded.		documents. Appendix C shows the collected ABNF with the list rule
			expanded.
	The following core rules are included by reference, as defined in
	[RFC5234], Appendix B.1: ALPHA (letters), CR (carriage return), CRLF
	(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
	sequence of data), SP (space), and VCHAR (any visible US-ASCII
	character).
	1.2.1. Core Rules
	The core rules below are defined in [Part1]:
	BWS = <BWS, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.1>
	OWS = <OWS, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.1>
	quoted-string = <quoted-string, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.4>
	token = <token, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.4>
	2. Access Authentication Framework		2. Access Authentication Framework
	2.1. Challenge and Response		2.1. Challenge and Response
	HTTP provides a simple challenge-response authentication mechanism		HTTP provides a simple challenge-response authentication mechanism
	that can be used by a server to challenge a client request and by a		that can be used by a server to challenge a client request and by a
	client to provide authentication information. It uses an extensible,		client to provide authentication information. It uses an extensible,
	case-insensitive token to identify the authentication scheme,		case-insensitive token to identify the authentication scheme,
	followed by additional information necessary for achieving		followed by additional information necessary for achieving
	skipping to change at page 6, line 24		skipping to change at page 6, line 20
	challenge = auth-scheme [ 1*SP ( b64token / #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 and Proxy-Authenticate header field values		WWW-Authenticate and Proxy-Authenticate header field values
	because they can contain more than one challenge, or if more than		because they can contain more than one challenge, or if more than
	one of each is provided, since the contents of a challenge can		one of each is provided, since the contents of a challenge can
	itself contain a comma-separated list of authentication		itself contain a comma-separated list of authentication
	parameters.		parameters.
	Note: Many browsers fail to parse challenges containing unknown		Note: Many clients 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.
	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		-- can do so by including an Authorization header field with the
	request.		request.
	A client that wishes to authenticate itself with a proxy -- usually,		A client that wishes to authenticate itself with a proxy -- usually,
	but not necessarily, after receiving a 407 (Proxy Authentication		but not necessarily, after receiving a 407 (Proxy Authentication
	Required) -- MAY do so by including a Proxy-Authorization header		Required) -- can do so by including a Proxy-Authorization header
	field with the request.		field with the request.
	Both the Authorization field value and the Proxy-Authorization field		Both the Authorization field value and the Proxy-Authorization field
	value consist of credentials containing the authentication		value contain the client's credentials for the realm of the resource
	information of the client for the realm of the resource being		being requested, based upon a challenge received from the server
	requested. The user agent MUST choose to use one of the challenges		(possibly at some point in the past). When creating their values,
	with the strongest auth-scheme it understands and request credentials		the user agent ought to do so by selecting the challenge with what it
	from the user based upon that challenge.		considers to be the most secure auth-scheme that it understands,
			obtaining credentials from the user as appropriate.
	credentials = auth-scheme [ 1*SP ( b64token / #auth-param ) ]		credentials = auth-scheme [ 1*SP ( b64token / #auth-param ) ]
	If the origin server does not wish to accept the credentials sent		Upon a request for a protected resource that omits credentials,
	with a request, it SHOULD return a 401 (Unauthorized) response. The		contains invalid credentials (e.g., a bad password) or partial
	response MUST include a WWW-Authenticate header field containing at		credentials (e.g., when the authentication scheme requires more than
	least one (possibly new) challenge applicable to the requested		one round trip), an origin server SHOULD return a 401 (Unauthorized)
	resource.		response. Such responses MUST include a WWW-Authenticate header
			field containing at least one (possibly new) challenge applicable to
			the requested resource.
	If a proxy does not accept the credentials sent with a request, it		Likewise, upon a request that requires authentication by proxies that
	SHOULD return a 407 (Proxy Authentication Required). The response		omit credentials or contain invalid or partial credentials, a proxy
	MUST include a Proxy-Authenticate header field containing a (possibly		SHOULD return a 407 (Proxy Authentication Required) response. Such
	new) challenge applicable to the proxy for the requested resource.		responses MUST include a Proxy-Authenticate header field containing a
			(possibly new) challenge applicable to the proxy.
			A server receiving credentials that are valid, but not adequate to
			gain access, ought to respond with the 403 (Forbidden) status code
			(Section 4.6.3 of [Part2]).
	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 header
	unmodified and follow the rules found in Section 4.1.		fields unmodified and follow the rules found in Section 4.1.
	2.2. Protection Space (Realm)		2.2. Protection Space (Realm)
	The authentication parameter realm is reserved for use by		The authentication parameter realm is reserved for use by
	authentication schemes that wish to indicate the scope of protection.		authentication schemes that wish to indicate the scope of protection.
	A protection space is defined by the canonical root URI (the scheme		A protection space is defined by the canonical root URI (the scheme
	and authority components of the effective request URI; see Section		and authority components of the effective request URI; see Section
	5.5 of [Part1]) of the server being accessed, in combination with the		5.5 of [Part1]) of the server being accessed, in combination with the
	realm value if present. These realms allow the protected resources		realm value if present. These realms allow the protected resources
	skipping to change at page 8, line 31		skipping to change at page 8, line 36
	There are certain aspects of the HTTP Authentication Framework that		There are certain aspects of the HTTP Authentication Framework that
	put constraints on how new authentication schemes can work:		put constraints on how new authentication schemes can work:
	o HTTP authentication is presumed to be stateless: all of the		o HTTP authentication is presumed to be stateless: all of the
	information necessary to authenticate a request MUST be provided		information necessary to authenticate a request MUST be provided
	in the request, rather than be dependent on the server remembering		in the request, rather than be dependent on the server remembering
	prior requests. Authentication based on, or bound to, the		prior requests. Authentication based on, or bound to, the
	underlying connection is outside the scope of this specification		underlying connection is outside the scope of this specification
	and inherently flawed unless steps are taken to ensure that the		and inherently flawed unless steps are taken to ensure that the
	connection cannot be used by any party other than the		connection cannot be used by any party other than the
	authenticated user (see Section 2.3 of [Part1]).		authenticated user (see Section 2.4 of [Part1]).
	o The authentication parameter "realm" is reserved for defining		o The authentication parameter "realm" is reserved for defining
	Protection Spaces as defined in Section 2.2. New schemes MUST NOT		Protection Spaces as defined in Section 2.2. New schemes MUST NOT
	use it in a way incompatible with that definition.		use it in a way incompatible with that definition.
	o The "b64token" notation was introduced for compatibility with		o The "b64token" notation was introduced for compatibility with
	existing authentication schemes and can only be used once per		existing authentication schemes and can only be used once per
	challenge/credentials. New schemes thus ought to use the "auth-		challenge/credentials. New schemes thus ought to use the "auth-
	param" syntax instead, because otherwise future extensions will be		param" syntax instead, because otherwise future extensions will be
	impossible.		impossible.
	o The parsing of challenges and credentials is defined by this		o The parsing of challenges and credentials is defined by this
	specification, and cannot be modified by new authentication		specification, and cannot be modified by new authentication
	schemes. When the auth-param syntax is used, all parameters ought		schemes. When the auth-param syntax is used, all parameters ought
	to support both token and quoted-string syntax, and syntactical		to support both token and quoted-string syntax, and syntactical
	constraints ought to be defined on the field value after parsing		constraints ought to be defined on the field value after parsing
	(i.e., quoted-string processing). This is necessary so that		(i.e., quoted-string processing). This is necessary so that
	recipients can use a generic parser that applies to all		recipients can use a generic parser that applies to all
	authentication schemes.		authentication schemes.
	Note: the fact that the value syntax for the "realm" parameter is		Note: The fact that the value syntax for the "realm" parameter is
	restricted to quoted-string was a bad design choice not to be		restricted to quoted-string was a bad design choice not to be
	repeated for new parameters.		repeated for new parameters.
	o Definitions of new schemes ought to define the treatment of		o Definitions of new schemes ought to define the treatment of
	unknown extension parameters. In general, a "must-ignore" rule is		unknown extension parameters. In general, a "must-ignore" rule is
	preferable over "must-understand", because otherwise it will be		preferable over "must-understand", because otherwise it will be
	hard to introduce new parameters in the presence of legacy		hard to introduce new parameters in the presence of legacy
	recipients. Furthermore, it's good to describe the policy for		recipients. Furthermore, it's good to describe the policy for
	defining new parameters (such as "update the specification", or		defining new parameters (such as "update the specification", or
	"use this registry").		"use this registry").
	skipping to change at page 9, line 25		skipping to change at page 9, line 30
	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
	credentials in the Authorization header (e.g., using a newly		credentials in the Authorization header field (e.g., using a newly
	defined header) will need to explicitly disallow caching, by		defined header field) will need to explicitly disallow caching, by
	mandating the use of either Cache-Control request directives		mandating the use of either Cache-Control request directives
	(e.g., "no-store") or response directives (e.g., "private").		(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
	skipping to change at page 11, line 7		skipping to change at page 11, line 12
	subsequent request. But if the response is stale, all caches		subsequent request. But if the response is stale, all caches
	MUST first revalidate it with the origin server, using the header		MUST first revalidate it with the origin server, using the header
	fields from the new request to allow the origin server to		fields from the new request to allow the origin server to
	authenticate the new request.		authenticate the new request.
	3. If the response includes the "public" cache-control directive, it		3. If the response includes the "public" cache-control directive, it
	MAY be returned in reply to any subsequent request.		MAY be returned in reply to any subsequent request.
	4.2. Proxy-Authenticate		4.2. Proxy-Authenticate
	The "Proxy-Authenticate" header field consists of a challenge that		The "Proxy-Authenticate" header field consists of at least one
	indicates the authentication scheme and parameters applicable to the		challenge that indicates the authentication scheme(s) and parameters
	proxy for this effective request URI (Section 5.5 of [Part1]). It		applicable to the proxy for this effective request URI (Section 5.5
	MUST be included as part of a 407 (Proxy Authentication Required)		of [Part1]). It MUST be included as part of a 407 (Proxy
	response.		Authentication Required) response.
	Proxy-Authenticate = 1#challenge		Proxy-Authenticate = 1#challenge
	Unlike WWW-Authenticate, the Proxy-Authenticate header field applies		Unlike WWW-Authenticate, the Proxy-Authenticate header field applies
	only to the current connection and SHOULD NOT be passed on to		only to the current connection, and intermediaries SHOULD NOT forward
	downstream clients. However, an intermediate proxy might need to		it to downstream clients. However, an intermediate proxy might need
	obtain its own credentials by requesting them from the downstream		to obtain its own credentials by requesting them from the downstream
	client, which in some circumstances will appear as if the proxy is		client, which in some circumstances will appear as if the proxy is
	forwarding the Proxy-Authenticate header field.		forwarding the Proxy-Authenticate header field.
	Note that the parsing considerations for WWW-Authenticate apply to		Note that the parsing considerations for WWW-Authenticate apply to
	this header field as well; see Section 4.4 for details.		this header field as well; see Section 4.4 for details.
	4.3. Proxy-Authorization		4.3. Proxy-Authorization
	The "Proxy-Authorization" header field allows the client to identify		The "Proxy-Authorization" header field allows the client to identify
	itself (or its user) to a proxy which requires authentication. Its		itself (or its user) to a proxy which requires authentication. Its
	skipping to change at page 12, line 32		skipping to change at page 12, line 42
	Note: The challenge grammar production uses the list syntax as		Note: The challenge grammar production uses the list syntax as
	well. Therefore, a sequence of comma, whitespace, and comma can		well. Therefore, a sequence of comma, whitespace, and comma can
	be considered both as applying to the preceding challenge, or to		be considered both as applying to the preceding challenge, or to
	be an empty entry in the list of challenges. In practice, this		be an empty entry in the list of challenges. In practice, this
	ambiguity does not affect the semantics of the header field value		ambiguity does not affect the semantics of the header field value
	and thus is harmless.		and thus is harmless.
	5. IANA Considerations		5. IANA Considerations
	5.1. Authenticaton Scheme Registry		5.1. Authentication 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>.
	5.2. Status Code Registration		5.2. Status Code Registration
	The HTTP Status Code Registry located at		The HTTP Status Code Registry located at
	skipping to change at page 14, line 8		skipping to change at page 14, line 22
	for the client to retain the credentials.		for the client to retain the credentials.
	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.
			6.2. Protection Spaces
			Authentication schemes that solely rely on the "realm" mechanism for
			establishing a protection space will expose credentials to all
			resources on a server. Clients that have successfully made
			authenticated requests with a resource can use the same
			authentication credentials for other resources on the same server.
			This makes it possible for a different resource to harvest
			authentication credentials for other resources.
			This is of particular concern when a server hosts resources for
			multiple parties under the same canonical root URI (Section 2.2).
			Possible mitigation strategies include restricting direct access to
			authentication credentials (i.e., not making the content of the
			Authorization request header field available), and separating
			protection spaces by using a different host name for each party.
	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 9 of [Part1] for the Acknowledgments related to this		See Section 9 of [Part1] for the Acknowledgments related to this
	skipping to change at page 14, line 21		skipping to change at page 15, line 4
	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 9 of [Part1] for the Acknowledgments related to this		See Section 9 of [Part1] for the Acknowledgments related to this
	document revision.		document revision.
	8. References		8. References
	8.1. Normative References		8.1. Normative References
	[Part1] Fielding, R., Ed., Lafon, Y., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed.,		[Part1] Fielding, R., Ed., Lafon, Y., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed.,
	"HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message		"HTTP/1.1, part 1: Message Routing and Syntax"",
	Parsing", draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-19 (work in		draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-20 (work in progress),
	progress), March 2012.		July 2012.
			[Part2] Fielding, R., Ed., Lafon, Y., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed.,
			"HTTP/1.1, part 2: Semantics and Payloads",
			draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-20 (work in progress),
			July 2012.
	[Part6] Fielding, R., Ed., Lafon, Y., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed.,		[Part6] Fielding, R., Ed., Lafon, Y., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed.,
	and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching",		and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching",
	draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-19 (work in progress),		draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-20 (work in progress),
	March 2012.		July 2012.
	[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
	[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax		[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
	Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.		Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.
	8.2. Informative References		8.2. Informative References
	[RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,		[RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
	skipping to change at page 15, line 28		skipping to change at page 16, line 15
	Appendix A. Changes from RFCs 2616 and 2617		Appendix A. Changes from RFCs 2616 and 2617
	The "realm" parameter isn't required anymore in general;		The "realm" parameter isn't required anymore in general;
	consequently, the ABNF allows challenges without any auth parameters.		consequently, the ABNF allows challenges without any auth parameters.
	(Section 2)		(Section 2)
	The "b64token" alternative to auth-param lists has been added for		The "b64token" alternative to auth-param lists has been added for
	consistency with legacy authentication schemes such as "Basic".		consistency with legacy authentication schemes such as "Basic".
	(Section 2)		(Section 2)
			Introduce Authentication Scheme Registry. (Section 2.3)
	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. Imported ABNF
			The following core rules are included by reference, as defined in
			Appendix B.1 of [RFC5234]: ALPHA (letters), CR (carriage return),
			CRLF (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 sequence of data), SP (space), and VCHAR (any visible US-ASCII
			character).
			The rules below are defined in [Part1]:
			BWS = <BWS, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.1>
			OWS = <OWS, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.1>
			quoted-string = <quoted-string, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.4>
			token = <token, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.4>
			Appendix C. Collected ABNF
	Authorization = credentials		Authorization = credentials
	BWS = <BWS, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.1>		BWS = <BWS, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.1>
	OWS = <OWS, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.1>		OWS = <OWS, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.1>
	Proxy-Authenticate = *( "," OWS ) challenge *( OWS "," [ OWS		Proxy-Authenticate = *( "," OWS ) challenge *( OWS "," [ OWS
	challenge ] )		challenge ] )
	Proxy-Authorization = credentials		Proxy-Authorization = credentials
	skipping to change at page 16, line 35		skipping to change at page 17, line 35
	challenge = auth-scheme [ 1*SP ( b64token / [ ( "," / auth-param ) *(		challenge = auth-scheme [ 1*SP ( b64token / [ ( "," / auth-param ) *(
	OWS "," [ OWS auth-param ] ) ] ) ]		OWS "," [ OWS auth-param ] ) ] ) ]
	credentials = auth-scheme [ 1*SP ( b64token / [ ( "," / auth-param )		credentials = auth-scheme [ 1*SP ( b64token / [ ( "," / auth-param )
	*( OWS "," [ OWS auth-param ] ) ] ) ]		*( OWS "," [ OWS auth-param ] ) ] ) ]
	quoted-string = <quoted-string, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.4>		quoted-string = <quoted-string, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.4>
	token = <token, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.4>		token = <token, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.4>
	ABNF diagnostics:		Appendix D. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)
	; Authorization defined but not used
	; Proxy-Authenticate defined but not used
	; Proxy-Authorization defined but not used
	; WWW-Authenticate defined but not used
	Appendix C. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)
	C.1. Since RFC 2616
	Extracted relevant partitions from [RFC2616].
	C.2. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-00
	Closed issues:
	o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/35>: "Normative and
	Informative references"
	C.3. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-01
	Ongoing work on ABNF conversion
	(<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/36>):
	o Explicitly import BNF rules for "challenge" and "credentials" from
	RFC2617.
	o Add explicit references to BNF syntax and rules imported from
	other parts of the specification.
	C.4. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-02
	Ongoing work on IANA Message Header Field Registration
	(<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/40>):
	o Reference RFC 3984, and update header field registrations for
	header fields defined in this document.
	C.5. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-03
	None.
	C.6. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-04
	Ongoing work on ABNF conversion
	(<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/36>):
	o Use "/" instead of "|" for alternatives.
	o Introduce new ABNF rules for "bad" whitespace ("BWS"), optional
	whitespace ("OWS") and required whitespace ("RWS").
	o Rewrite ABNFs to spell out whitespace rules, factor out header
	field value format definitions.
	C.7. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-05
	Final work on ABNF conversion
	(<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/36>):
	o Add appendix containing collected and expanded ABNF, reorganize
	ABNF introduction.
	C.8. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-06
	None.
	C.9. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-07
	Closed issues:
	o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/198>: "move IANA
	registrations for optional status codes"
	C.10. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-08
	No significant changes.
	C.11. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-09
	Partly resolved issues:
	o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/196>: "Term for the
	requested resource's URI"
	C.12. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-10
	None.
	C.13. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-11
	Closed issues:
	o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/130>: "introduction
	to part 7 is work-in-progress"
	o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/195>: "auth-param
	syntax"
	o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/224>: "Header
	Classification"
	o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/237>: "absorbing the
	auth framework from 2617"
	Partly resolved issues:
	o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/141>: "should we
	have an auth scheme registry"
	C.14. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-12
	None.
	C.15. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-13
	Closed issues:
	o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/276>: "untangle
	ABNFs for header fields"
	C.16. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-14
	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?)"
	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		Changes up to the first Working Group Last Call draft are summarized
	defining auth scheme parameters"		in <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/html/
			draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-19#appendix-C>.
	C.19. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-17		D.1. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-19
	Closed issues:		Closed issues:
	o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/314>: "allow		o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/348>: "Realms and
	unquoted realm parameters"		scope"
	o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/321>: "Repeating
	auth-params"
	C.20. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-18		o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/349>: "Strength"
	Closed issues:		o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/357>:
			"Authentication exchanges"
	o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/334>: "recipient		o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/361>: "ABNF
	behavior for new auth parameters"		requirements for recipients"
	o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/342>: "WWW-		o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/368>: "note
	Authenticate ABNF slightly ambiguous"		introduction of new IANA registries as normative changes"
	Index		Index
	4		4
	401 Unauthorized (status code) 9		401 Unauthorized (status code) 9
	407 Proxy Authentication Required (status code) 9		407 Proxy Authentication Required (status code) 10
	A		A
	auth-param 5		auth-param 5
	auth-scheme 5		auth-scheme 5
	Authorization header field 10		Authorization header field 10
	B		B
	b64token 5		b64token 5
	C		C
			Canonical Root URI 7
	challenge 6		challenge 6
	credentials 6		credentials 6
	G		G
	Grammar		Grammar
	auth-param 5		auth-param 5
	auth-scheme 5		auth-scheme 5
	Authorization 10		Authorization 10
	b64token 5		b64token 5
	challenge 6		challenge 6
	credentials 6		credentials 6
	Proxy-Authenticate 11		Proxy-Authenticate 11
	Proxy-Authorization 11		Proxy-Authorization 11
	WWW-Authenticate 12		WWW-Authenticate 12
	H		H
	Header Fields		Header Fields
	Authorization 10		Authorization 10
	Proxy-Authenticate 11		Proxy-Authenticate 11
	Proxy-Authorization 11		Proxy-Authorization 11
	WWW-Authenticate 11		WWW-Authenticate 12
	P		P
	Protection Space 7		Protection Space 7
	Proxy-Authenticate header field 11		Proxy-Authenticate header field 11
	Proxy-Authorization header field 11		Proxy-Authorization header field 11
	R		R
	Realm 7		Realm 7
	S		S
	Status Codes		Status Codes
	401 Unauthorized 9		401 Unauthorized 9
	407 Proxy Authentication Required 9		407 Proxy Authentication Required 10
	W		W
	WWW-Authenticate header field 11		WWW-Authenticate header field 12
	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
	skipping to change at page 22, line 4		skipping to change at page 19, line 36
	Yves Lafon (editor)		Yves Lafon (editor)
	World Wide Web Consortium		World Wide Web Consortium
	W3C / ERCIM		W3C / ERCIM
	2004, rte des Lucioles		2004, rte des Lucioles
	Sophia-Antipolis, AM 06902		Sophia-Antipolis, AM 06902
	France		France
	EMail: ylafon@w3.org		EMail: ylafon@w3.org
	URI: http://www.raubacapeu.net/people/yves/		URI: http://www.raubacapeu.net/people/yves/
	Julian F. Reschke (editor)		Julian F. Reschke (editor)
	greenbytes GmbH		greenbytes GmbH
	Hafenweg 16		Hafenweg 16
	Muenster, NW 48155		Muenster, NW 48155
	Germany		Germany
	Phone: +49 251 2807760
	Fax: +49 251 2807761
	EMail: julian.reschke@greenbytes.de		EMail: julian.reschke@greenbytes.de
	URI: http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/		URI: http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/
End of changes. 53 change blocks.
	300 lines changed or deleted		166 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/