


Network Working Group                                   R. Fielding, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                              Day Software
Obsoletes: 2616 (if approved)                                  J. Gettys
Updates: 2617 (if approved)                         One Laptop per Child
Intended status: Standards Track                                J. Mogul
Expires: December 19, 2008                                            HP
                                                              H. Frystyk
                                                               Microsoft
                                                             L. Masinter
                                                           Adobe Systems
                                                                P. Leach
                                                               Microsoft
                                                          T. Berners-Lee
                                                                 W3C/MIT
                                                           Y. Lafon, Ed.
                                                                     W3C
                                                         J. Reschke, Ed.
                                                              greenbytes
                                                           June 17, 2008


                    HTTP/1.1, part 7: Authentication
                     draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-03

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 19, 2008.



Fielding, et al.        Expires December 19, 2008               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 7                   June 2008


Abstract

   The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level
   protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information
   systems.  HTTP has been in use by the World Wide Web global
   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
   HTTP Authentication.

Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)

   Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working
   group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org).  The current issues list is
   at <http://www.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/report/11> and related
   documents (including fancy diffs) can be found at
   <http://www.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/>.

   The changes in this draft are summarized in Appendix B.4.
































Fielding, et al.        Expires December 19, 2008               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 7                   June 2008


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     1.1.  Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Notational Conventions and Generic Grammar . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Status Code Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1.  401 Unauthorized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.2.  407 Proxy Authentication Required  . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Header Field Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     4.1.  Authorization  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     4.2.  Proxy-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.3.  Proxy-Authorization  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.4.  WWW-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     5.1.  Message Header Registration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     6.1.  Authentication Credentials and Idle Clients  . . . . . . .  8
   7.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   Appendix A.  Compatibility with Previous Versions  . . . . . . . .  9
     A.1.  Changes from RFC 2616  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   Appendix B.  Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before
                publication)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     B.1.  Since RFC2616  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     B.2.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-00  . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     B.3.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-01  . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     B.4.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-02  . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   Index  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 14



















Fielding, et al.        Expires December 19, 2008               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 7                   June 2008


1.  Introduction

   This document defines HTTP/1.1 access control and authentication.
   Right now it includes the extracted relevant sections of RFC 2616
   with only minor changes.  The intention is to move the general
   framework for HTTP authentication here, as currently specified in
   [RFC2617], and allow the individual authentication mechanisms to be
   defined elsewhere.  This introduction will be rewritten when that
   occurs.

   HTTP provides several OPTIONAL challenge-response authentication
   mechanisms which can be used by a server to challenge a client
   request and by a client to provide authentication information.  The
   general framework for access authentication, and the specification of
   "basic" and "digest" authentication, are specified in "HTTP
   Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication" [RFC2617].
   This specification adopts the definitions of "challenge" and
   "credentials" from that specification.

1.1.  Requirements

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

   An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or more
   of the MUST or REQUIRED level requirements for the protocols it
   implements.  An implementation that satisfies all the MUST or
   REQUIRED level and all the SHOULD level requirements for its
   protocols is said to be "unconditionally compliant"; one that
   satisfies all the MUST level requirements but not all the SHOULD
   level requirements for its protocols is said to be "conditionally
   compliant."


2.  Notational Conventions and Generic Grammar

   This specification uses the ABNF syntax defined in Section 2.1 of
   [Part1]. [[abnf.dep: ABNF syntax and basic rules will be adopted from
   RFC 5234, see <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/36>.]]

   The ABNF rules below are defined in other specifications:

     challenge   = <challenge, defined in [RFC2617], Section 1.2>
     credentials = <credentials, defined in [RFC2617], Section 1.2>






Fielding, et al.        Expires December 19, 2008               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 7                   June 2008


3.  Status Code Definitions

3.1.  401 Unauthorized

   The request requires user authentication.  The response MUST include
   a WWW-Authenticate header field (Section 4.4) containing a challenge
   applicable to the requested resource.  The client MAY repeat the
   request with a suitable Authorization header field (Section 4.1).  If
   the request already included Authorization credentials, then the 401
   response indicates that authorization has been refused for those
   credentials.  If the 401 response contains the same challenge as the
   prior response, and the user agent has already attempted
   authentication at least once, then the user SHOULD be presented the
   entity that was given in the response, since that entity might
   include relevant diagnostic information.  HTTP access authentication
   is explained in "HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access
   Authentication" [RFC2617].

3.2.  407 Proxy Authentication Required

   This code is similar to 401 (Unauthorized), but indicates that the
   client must first authenticate itself with the proxy.  The proxy MUST
   return a Proxy-Authenticate header field (Section 4.2) containing a
   challenge applicable to the proxy for the requested resource.  The
   client MAY repeat the request with a suitable Proxy-Authorization
   header field (Section 4.3).  HTTP access authentication is explained
   in "HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication"
   [RFC2617].


4.  Header Field Definitions

   This section defines the syntax and semantics of HTTP/1.1 header
   fields related to authentication.

4.1.  Authorization

   A user agent that wishes to authenticate itself with a server--
   usually, but not necessarily, after receiving a 401 response--does so
   by including an Authorization request-header field with the request.
   The Authorization field value consists of credentials containing the
   authentication information of the user agent for the realm of the
   resource being requested.

     Authorization  = "Authorization" ":" credentials

   HTTP access authentication is described in "HTTP Authentication:
   Basic and Digest Access Authentication" [RFC2617].  If a request is



Fielding, et al.        Expires December 19, 2008               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 7                   June 2008


   authenticated and a realm specified, the same credentials SHOULD be
   valid for all other requests within this realm (assuming that the
   authentication scheme itself does not require otherwise, such as
   credentials that vary according to a challenge value or using
   synchronized clocks).

   When a shared cache (see Section 9 of [Part6]) receives a request
   containing an Authorization field, it MUST NOT return the
   corresponding response as a reply to any other request, unless one of
   the following specific exceptions holds:

   1.  If the response includes the "s-maxage" cache-control directive,
       the cache MAY use that response in replying to a subsequent
       request.  But (if the specified maximum age has passed) a proxy
       cache MUST first revalidate it with the origin server, using the
       request-headers from the new request to allow the origin server
       to authenticate the new request.  (This is the defined behavior
       for s-maxage.)  If the response includes "s-maxage=0", the proxy
       MUST always revalidate it before re-using it.

   2.  If the response includes the "must-revalidate" cache-control
       directive, the cache MAY use that response in replying to a
       subsequent request.  But if the response is stale, all caches
       MUST first revalidate it with the origin server, using the
       request-headers from the new request to allow the origin server
       to authenticate the new request.

   3.  If the response includes the "public" cache-control directive, it
       MAY be returned in reply to any subsequent request.

4.2.  Proxy-Authenticate

   The Proxy-Authenticate response-header field MUST be included as part
   of a 407 (Proxy Authentication Required) response.  The field value
   consists of a challenge that indicates the authentication scheme and
   parameters applicable to the proxy for this Request-URI.

     Proxy-Authenticate  = "Proxy-Authenticate" ":" 1#challenge

   The HTTP access authentication process is described in "HTTP
   Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication" [RFC2617].
   Unlike WWW-Authenticate, the Proxy-Authenticate header field applies
   only to the current connection and SHOULD NOT be passed on to
   downstream clients.  However, an intermediate proxy might need to
   obtain its own credentials by requesting them from the downstream
   client, which in some circumstances will appear as if the proxy is
   forwarding the Proxy-Authenticate header field.




Fielding, et al.        Expires December 19, 2008               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 7                   June 2008


4.3.  Proxy-Authorization

   The Proxy-Authorization request-header field allows the client to
   identify itself (or its user) to a proxy which requires
   authentication.  The Proxy-Authorization field value consists of
   credentials containing the authentication information of the user
   agent for the proxy and/or realm of the resource being requested.

     Proxy-Authorization     = "Proxy-Authorization" ":" credentials

   The HTTP access authentication process is described in "HTTP
   Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication" [RFC2617].
   Unlike Authorization, the Proxy-Authorization header field applies
   only to the next outbound proxy that demanded authentication using
   the Proxy-Authenticate field.  When multiple proxies are used in a
   chain, the Proxy-Authorization header field is consumed by the first
   outbound proxy that was expecting to receive credentials.  A proxy
   MAY relay the credentials from the client request to the next proxy
   if that is the mechanism by which the proxies cooperatively
   authenticate a given request.

4.4.  WWW-Authenticate

   The WWW-Authenticate response-header field MUST be included in 401
   (Unauthorized) response messages.  The field value consists of at
   least one challenge that indicates the authentication scheme(s) and
   parameters applicable to the Request-URI.

     WWW-Authenticate  = "WWW-Authenticate" ":" 1#challenge

   The HTTP access authentication process is described in "HTTP
   Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication" [RFC2617].
   User agents are advised to take special care in parsing the WWW-
   Authenticate field value as it might contain more than one challenge,
   or if more than one WWW-Authenticate header field is provided, the
   contents of a challenge itself can contain a comma-separated list of
   authentication parameters.


5.  IANA Considerations

5.1.  Message Header Registration

   The Message Header Registry located at <http://www.iana.org/
   assignments/message-headers/message-header-index.html> should be
   updated with the permanent registrations below (see [RFC3864]):





Fielding, et al.        Expires December 19, 2008               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 7                   June 2008


        +---------------------+----------+----------+-------------+
        | Header Field Name   | Protocol | Status   | Reference   |
        +---------------------+----------+----------+-------------+
        | Authorization       | http     | standard | Section 4.1 |
        | Proxy-Authenticate  | http     | standard | Section 4.2 |
        | Proxy-Authorization | http     | standard | Section 4.3 |
        | WWW-Authenticate    | http     | standard | Section 4.4 |
        +---------------------+----------+----------+-------------+

   The change controller is: "IETF (iesg@ietf.org) - Internet
   Engineering Task Force".


6.  Security Considerations

   This section is meant to inform application developers, information
   providers, and users of the security limitations in HTTP/1.1 as
   described by this document.  The discussion does not include
   definitive solutions to the problems revealed, though it does make
   some suggestions for reducing security risks.

6.1.  Authentication Credentials and Idle Clients

   Existing HTTP clients and user agents typically retain authentication
   information indefinitely.  HTTP/1.1 does not provide a method for a
   server to direct clients to discard these cached credentials.  This
   is a significant defect that requires further extensions to HTTP.
   Circumstances under which credential caching can interfere with the
   application's security model include but are not limited to:

   o  Clients which have been idle for an extended period following
      which the server might wish to cause the client to reprompt the
      user for credentials.

   o  Applications which include a session termination indication (such
      as a `logout' or `commit' button on a page) after which the server
      side of the application `knows' that there is no further reason
      for the client to retain the credentials.

   This is currently under separate study.  There are a number of work-
   arounds to parts of this problem, and we encourage the use of
   password protection in screen savers, idle time-outs, and other
   methods which mitigate the security problems inherent in this
   problem.  In particular, user agents which cache credentials are
   encouraged to provide a readily accessible mechanism for discarding
   cached credentials under user control.





Fielding, et al.        Expires December 19, 2008               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 7                   June 2008


7.  Acknowledgments

   [[anchor2: TBD.]]


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [Part1]    Fielding, R., Ed., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
              Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y., Ed.,
              and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections,
              and Message Parsing", draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-03
              (work in progress), June 2008.

   [Part6]    Fielding, R., Ed., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
              Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y., Ed.,
              and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching",
              draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-03 (work in progress),
              June 2008.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2617]  Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Lawrence, S.,
              Leach, P., Luotonen, A., and L. Stewart, "HTTP
              Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication",
              RFC 2617, June 1999.

8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2616]  Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
              Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
              Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.

   [RFC3864]  Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J. Mogul, "Registration
              Procedures for Message Header Fields", BCP 90, RFC 3864,
              September 2004.


Appendix A.  Compatibility with Previous Versions

A.1.  Changes from RFC 2616


Appendix B.  Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)





Fielding, et al.        Expires December 19, 2008               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 7                   June 2008


B.1.  Since RFC2616

   Extracted relevant partitions from [RFC2616].

B.2.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-00

   Closed issues:

   o  <http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/35>: "Normative
      and Informative references"

B.3.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-01

   Ongoing work on ABNF conversion
   (<http://www3.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.

B.4.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-02

   Ongoing work on IANA Message Header Registration
   (<http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/40>):

   o  Reference RFC 3984, and update header registrations for headers
      defined in this document.


Index

   4
      401 Unauthorized (status code)  5
      407 Proxy Authentication Required (status code)  5

   A
      Authorization header  5

   G
      Grammar
         Authorization  5
         challenge  4
         credentials  4
         Proxy-Authenticate  6
         Proxy-Authorization  7
         WWW-Authenticate  7



Fielding, et al.        Expires December 19, 2008              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 7                   June 2008


   H
      Headers
         Authorization  5
         Proxy-Authenticate  6
         Proxy-Authorization  7
         WWW-Authenticate  7

   P
      Proxy-Authenticate header  6
      Proxy-Authorization header  7

   S
      Status Codes
         401 Unauthorized  5
         407 Proxy Authentication Required  5

   W
      WWW-Authenticate header  7


Authors' Addresses

   Roy T. Fielding (editor)
   Day Software
   23 Corporate Plaza DR, Suite 280
   Newport Beach, CA  92660
   USA

   Phone: +1-949-706-5300
   Fax:   +1-949-706-5305
   Email: fielding@gbiv.com
   URI:   http://roy.gbiv.com/


   Jim Gettys
   One Laptop per Child
   21 Oak Knoll Road
   Carlisle, MA  01741
   USA

   Email: jg@laptop.org
   URI:   http://www.laptop.org/









Fielding, et al.        Expires December 19, 2008              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 7                   June 2008


   Jeffrey C. Mogul
   Hewlett-Packard Company
   HP Labs, Large Scale Systems Group
   1501 Page Mill Road, MS 1177
   Palo Alto, CA  94304
   USA

   Email: JeffMogul@acm.org


   Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
   Microsoft Corporation
   1 Microsoft Way
   Redmond, WA  98052
   USA

   Email: henrikn@microsoft.com


   Larry Masinter
   Adobe Systems, Incorporated
   345 Park Ave
   San Jose, CA  95110
   USA

   Email: LMM@acm.org
   URI:   http://larry.masinter.net/


   Paul J. Leach
   Microsoft Corporation
   1 Microsoft Way
   Redmond, WA  98052

   Email: paulle@microsoft.com


   Tim Berners-Lee
   World Wide Web Consortium
   MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
   The Stata Center, Building 32
   32 Vassar Street
   Cambridge, MA  02139
   USA

   Email: timbl@w3.org
   URI:   http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/




Fielding, et al.        Expires December 19, 2008              [Page 12]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 7                   June 2008


   Yves Lafon (editor)
   World Wide Web Consortium
   W3C / ERCIM
   2004, rte des Lucioles
   Sophia-Antipolis, AM  06902
   France

   Email: ylafon@w3.org
   URI:   http://www.raubacapeu.net/people/yves/


   Julian F. Reschke (editor)
   greenbytes GmbH
   Hafenweg 16
   Muenster, NW  48155
   Germany

   Phone: +49 251 2807760
   Fax:   +49 251 2807761
   Email: julian.reschke@greenbytes.de
   URI:   http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/






























Fielding, et al.        Expires December 19, 2008              [Page 13]

Internet-Draft              HTTP/1.1, Part 7                   June 2008


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.











Fielding, et al.        Expires December 19, 2008              [Page 14]

