draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-00.txt		draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-01.txt
	Network Working Group R. Fielding, Ed.		Network Working Group R. Fielding, Ed.
	Internet-Draft Day Software		Internet-Draft Day Software
	Obsoletes: 2068, 2616 J. Gettys		Obsoletes: 2616 (if approved) J. Gettys
	(if approved) One Laptop per Child		Updates: 2617 (if approved) One Laptop per Child
	Updates: 2617 (if approved) J. Mogul		Intended status: Standards Track J. Mogul
	Intended status: Standards Track HP		Expires: July 15, 2008 HP
	Expires: June 22, 2008 H. Frystyk		H. Frystyk
	Microsoft		Microsoft
	L. Masinter		L. Masinter
	Adobe Systems		Adobe Systems
	P. Leach		P. Leach
	Microsoft		Microsoft
	T. Berners-Lee		T. Berners-Lee
	W3C/MIT		W3C/MIT
	December 20, 2007		Y. Lafon, Ed.
			W3C
			J. Reschke, Ed.
			greenbytes
			January 12, 2008
	HTTP/1.1, part 7: Authentication		HTTP/1.1, part 7: Authentication
	draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-00		draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-01
	Status of this Memo		Status of this Memo
	By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any		By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
	applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware		applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
	have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes		have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
	aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.		aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that		Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
	skipping to change at page 1, line 45		skipping to change at page 1, line 49
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at		The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.		http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
	The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at		The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
	http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.		http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
	This Internet-Draft will expire on June 22, 2008.		This Internet-Draft will expire on July 15, 2008.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).		Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
	Abstract		Abstract
	The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level		The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level
	protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information		protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information
	systems. HTTP has been in use by the World Wide Web global		systems. HTTP has been in use by the World Wide Web global
	information initiative since 1990. This document is Part 7 of the		information initiative since 1990. This document is Part 7 of the
	seven-part specification that defines the protocol referred to as		seven-part specification that defines the protocol referred to as
	"HTTP/1.1" and, taken together, obsoletes RFC 2616. Part 7 defines		"HTTP/1.1" and, taken together, obsoletes RFC 2616. Part 7 defines
	HTTP Authentication.		HTTP Authentication.
	Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)		Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)
	This version of the HTTP specification contains only minimal
	editorial changes from [RFC2616] (abstract, introductory paragraph,
	and authors' addresses). All other changes are due to partitioning
	the original into seven mostly independent parts. The intent is for
	readers of future drafts to able to use draft 00 as the basis for
	comparison when the WG makes later changes to the specification text.
	This draft will shortly be followed by draft 01 (containing the first
	round of changes that have already been agreed to on the mailing
	list). There is no point in reviewing this draft other than to
	verify that the partitioning has been done correctly. Roy T.
	Fielding, Yves Lafon, and Julian Reschke will be the editors after
	draft 00 is submitted.
	Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working		Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working
	group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org). The current issues list is		group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org). The current issues list is
	at <http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/report/11> and related		at <http://www.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/report/11> and related
	documents (including fancy diffs) can be found at		documents (including fancy diffs) can be found at
	<http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/>.		<http://www.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/>.
			This draft incorporates those issue resolutions that were either
			collected in the original RFC2616 errata list
			(<http://purl.org/NET/http-errata>), or which were agreed upon on the
			mailing list between October 2006 and November 2007 (as published in
			"draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-03").
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
			1.1. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2. Status Code Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2. Status Code Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2.1. 401 Unauthorized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2.1. 401 Unauthorized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2.2. 407 Proxy Authentication Required . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2.2. 407 Proxy Authentication Required . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3. Header Field Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3. Header Field Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3.1. Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3.1. Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3.2. Proxy-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		3.2. Proxy-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	3.3. Proxy-Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		3.3. Proxy-Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	3.4. WWW-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		3.4. WWW-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	5.1. Authentication Credentials and Idle Clients . . . . . . . 7		5.1. Authentication Credentials and Idle Clients . . . . . . . 7
	6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 11		Appendix A. Compatibility with Previous Versions . . . . . . . . 9
			A.1. Changes from RFC 2616 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
			Appendix B. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before
			publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
			B.1. Since RFC2616 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
			B.2. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-00 . . . . . . . . . . . 9
			Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
			Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
			Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 13
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	This document will define aspects of HTTP related to access control		This document defines HTTP/1.1 access control and authentication.
	and authentication. Right now it only includes the extracted		Right now it includes the extracted relevant sections of RFC 2616
	relevant sections of RFC 2616 [RFC2616] with only minor edits.		with only minor changes. The intention is to move the general
			framework for HTTP authentication here, as currently specified in
			[RFC2617], and allow the individual authentication mechanisms to be
			defined elsewhere. This introduction will be rewritten when that
			occurs.
	HTTP provides several OPTIONAL challenge-response authentication		HTTP provides several OPTIONAL challenge-response authentication
	mechanisms which can be used by a server to challenge a client		mechanisms which can be used by a server to challenge a client
	request and by a client to provide authentication information. The		request and by a client to provide authentication information. The
	general framework for access authentication, and the specification of		general framework for access authentication, and the specification of
	"basic" and "digest" authentication, are specified in "HTTP		"basic" and "digest" authentication, are specified in "HTTP
	Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication" [RFC2617].		Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication" [RFC2617].
	This specification adopts the definitions of "challenge" and		This specification adopts the definitions of "challenge" and
	"credentials" from that specification.		"credentials" from that specification.
			1.1. Requirements
			The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
			"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
			document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
			An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or more
			of the MUST or REQUIRED level requirements for the protocols it
			implements. An implementation that satisfies all the MUST or
			REQUIRED level and all the SHOULD level requirements for its
			protocols is said to be "unconditionally compliant"; one that
			satisfies all the MUST level requirements but not all the SHOULD
			level requirements for its protocols is said to be "conditionally
			compliant."
	2. Status Code Definitions		2. Status Code Definitions
	2.1. 401 Unauthorized		2.1. 401 Unauthorized
	The request requires user authentication. The response MUST include		The request requires user authentication. The response MUST include
	a WWW-Authenticate header field (Section 3.4) containing a challenge		a WWW-Authenticate header field (Section 3.4) containing a challenge
	applicable to the requested resource. The client MAY repeat the		applicable to the requested resource. The client MAY repeat the
	request with a suitable Authorization header field (Section 3.1). If		request with a suitable Authorization header field (Section 3.1). If
	the request already included Authorization credentials, then the 401		the request already included Authorization credentials, then the 401
	response indicates that authorization has been refused for those		response indicates that authorization has been refused for those
	skipping to change at page 5, line 7		skipping to change at page 5, line 22
	client must first authenticate itself with the proxy. The proxy MUST		client must first authenticate itself with the proxy. The proxy MUST
	return a Proxy-Authenticate header field (Section 3.2) containing a		return a Proxy-Authenticate header field (Section 3.2) containing a
	challenge applicable to the proxy for the requested resource. The		challenge applicable to the proxy for the requested resource. The
	client MAY repeat the request with a suitable Proxy-Authorization		client MAY repeat the request with a suitable Proxy-Authorization
	header field (Section 3.3). HTTP access authentication is explained		header field (Section 3.3). HTTP access authentication is explained
	in "HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication"		in "HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication"
	[RFC2617].		[RFC2617].
	3. Header Field Definitions		3. Header Field Definitions
	This section defines the syntax and semantics of all standard		This section defines the syntax and semantics of HTTP/1.1 header
	HTTP/1.1 header fields. For entity-header fields, both sender and		fields related to authentication.
	recipient refer to either the client or the server, depending on who
	sends and who receives the entity.
	3.1. Authorization		3.1. Authorization
	A user agent that wishes to authenticate itself with a server--		A user agent that wishes to authenticate itself with a server--
	usually, but not necessarily, after receiving a 401 response--does so		usually, but not necessarily, after receiving a 401 response--does so
	by including an Authorization request-header field with the request.		by including an Authorization request-header field with the request.
	The Authorization field value consists of credentials containing the		The Authorization field value consists of credentials containing the
	authentication information of the user agent for the realm of the		authentication information of the user agent for the realm of the
	resource being requested.		resource being requested.
	Authorization = "Authorization" ":" credentials		Authorization = "Authorization" ":" credentials
	HTTP access authentication is described in "HTTP Authentication:		HTTP access authentication is described in "HTTP Authentication:
	Basic and Digest Access Authentication" [RFC2617]. If a request is		Basic and Digest Access Authentication" [RFC2617]. If a request is
	authenticated and a realm specified, the same credentials SHOULD be		authenticated and a realm specified, the same credentials SHOULD be
	valid for all other requests within this realm (assuming that the		valid for all other requests within this realm (assuming that the
	authentication scheme itself does not require otherwise, such as		authentication scheme itself does not require otherwise, such as
	credentials that vary according to a challenge value or using		credentials that vary according to a challenge value or using
	synchronized clocks).		synchronized clocks).
	When a shared cache (see Section 2.7 of [Part6]) receives a request		When a shared cache (see Section 8 of [Part6]) receives a request
	containing an Authorization field, it MUST NOT return the		containing an Authorization field, it MUST NOT return the
	corresponding response as a reply to any other request, unless one of		corresponding response as a reply to any other request, unless one of
	the following specific exceptions holds:		the following specific exceptions holds:
	1. If the response includes the "s-maxage" cache-control directive,		1. If the response includes the "s-maxage" cache-control directive,
	the cache MAY use that response in replying to a subsequent		the cache MAY use that response in replying to a subsequent
	request. But (if the specified maximum age has passed) a proxy		request. But (if the specified maximum age has passed) a proxy
	cache MUST first revalidate it with the origin server, using the		cache MUST first revalidate it with the origin server, using the
	request-headers from the new request to allow the origin server		request-headers from the new request to allow the origin server
	to authenticate the new request. (This is the defined behavior		to authenticate the new request. (This is the defined behavior
	skipping to change at page 7, line 30		skipping to change at page 7, line 46
	This section is meant to inform application developers, information		This section is meant to inform application developers, information
	providers, and users of the security limitations in HTTP/1.1 as		providers, and users of the security limitations in HTTP/1.1 as
	described by this document. The discussion does not include		described by this document. The discussion does not include
	definitive solutions to the problems revealed, though it does make		definitive solutions to the problems revealed, though it does make
	some suggestions for reducing security risks.		some suggestions for reducing security risks.
	5.1. Authentication Credentials and Idle Clients		5.1. Authentication Credentials and Idle Clients
	Existing HTTP clients and user agents typically retain authentication		Existing HTTP clients and user agents typically retain authentication
	information indefinitely. HTTP/1.1. does not provide a method for a		information indefinitely. HTTP/1.1 does not provide a method for a
	server to direct clients to discard these cached credentials. This		server to direct clients to discard these cached credentials. This
	is a significant defect that requires further extensions to HTTP.		is a significant defect that requires further extensions to HTTP.
	Circumstances under which credential caching can interfere with the		Circumstances under which credential caching can interfere with the
	application's security model include but are not limited to:		application's security model include but are not limited to:
	o Clients which have been idle for an extended period following		o Clients which have been idle for an extended period following
	which the server might wish to cause the client to reprompt the		which the server might wish to cause the client to reprompt the
	user for credentials.		user for credentials.
	o Applications which include a session termination indication (such		o Applications which include a session termination indication (such
	skipping to change at page 8, line 8		skipping to change at page 8, line 25
	This is currently under separate study. There are a number of work-		This is currently under separate study. There are a number of work-
	arounds to parts of this problem, and we encourage the use of		arounds to parts of this problem, and we encourage the use of
	password protection in screen savers, idle time-outs, and other		password protection in screen savers, idle time-outs, and other
	methods which mitigate the security problems inherent in this		methods which mitigate the security problems inherent in this
	problem. In particular, user agents which cache credentials are		problem. In particular, user agents which cache credentials are
	encouraged to provide a readily accessible mechanism for discarding		encouraged to provide a readily accessible mechanism for discarding
	cached credentials under user control.		cached credentials under user control.
	6. Acknowledgments		6. Acknowledgments
	Based on an XML translation of RFC 2616 by Julian Reschke.		TBD.
	7. References		7. References
			7.1. Normative References
	[Part6] Fielding, R., Ed., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,		[Part6] Fielding, R., Ed., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
	Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "HTTP/1.1,		Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y., Ed.,
	part 6: Caching", draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-00 (work in		and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching",
	progress), December 2007.		draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-01 (work in progress),
			January 2008.
	[RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,		[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
	Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext		Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
	Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
	[RFC2617] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Lawrence, S.,		[RFC2617] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Lawrence, S.,
	Leach, P., Luotonen, A., and L. Stewart, "HTTP		Leach, P., Luotonen, A., and L. Stewart, "HTTP
	Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication",		Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication",
	RFC 2617, June 1999.		RFC 2617, June 1999.
			7.2. Informative References
			[RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
			Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
			Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
			Appendix A. Compatibility with Previous Versions
			A.1. Changes from RFC 2616
			Appendix B. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)
			B.1. Since RFC2616
			Extracted relevant partitions from [RFC2616].
			B.2. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-00
			Closed issues:
			o <http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/35>: "Normative
			and Informative references"
	Index		Index
	4		4
	401 Unauthorized (status code) 4		401 Unauthorized (status code) 4
	407 Proxy Authentication Required (status code) 4		407 Proxy Authentication Required (status code) 5
	A		A
	Authorization header 5		Authorization header 5
	G		G
	Grammar		Grammar
	Authorization 5		Authorization 5
	Proxy-Authenticate 6		Proxy-Authenticate 6
	Proxy-Authorization 6		Proxy-Authorization 6
	WWW-Authenticate 7		WWW-Authenticate 7
	H		H
	Headers		Headers
	Authorization 5		Authorization 5
	Proxy-Authenticate 6		Proxy-Authenticate 6
	Proxy-Authorization 6		Proxy-Authorization 6
	WWW-Authenticate 6		WWW-Authenticate 7
	P		P
	Proxy-Authenticate header 6		Proxy-Authenticate header 6
	Proxy-Authorization header 6		Proxy-Authorization header 6
	S		S
	Status Codes		Status Codes
	401 Unauthorized 4		401 Unauthorized 4
	407 Proxy Authentication Required 4		407 Proxy Authentication Required 5
	W		W
	WWW-Authenticate header 6		WWW-Authenticate header 7
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Roy T. Fielding (editor)		Roy T. Fielding (editor)
	Day Software		Day Software
	23 Corporate Plaza DR, Suite 280		23 Corporate Plaza DR, Suite 280
	Newport Beach, CA 92660		Newport Beach, CA 92660
	USA		USA
	Phone: +1-949-706-5300		Phone: +1-949-706-5300
	skipping to change at page 11, line 4		skipping to change at page 12, line 4
	Tim Berners-Lee		Tim Berners-Lee
	World Wide Web Consortium		World Wide Web Consortium
	MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory		MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
	The Stata Center, Building 32		The Stata Center, Building 32
	32 Vassar Street		32 Vassar Street
	Cambridge, MA 02139		Cambridge, MA 02139
	USA		USA
	Email: timbl@w3.org		Email: timbl@w3.org
	URI: http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/		URI: http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/
			Yves Lafon (editor)
			World Wide Web Consortium
			W3C / ERCIM
			2004, rte des Lucioles
			Sophia-Antipolis, AM 06902
			France
			Email: ylafon@w3.org
			URI: http://www.raubacapeu.net/people/yves/
			Julian F. Reschke (editor)
			greenbytes GmbH
			Hafenweg 16
			Muenster, NW 48155
			Germany
			Phone: +49 251 2807760
			Fax: +49 251 2807761
			Email: julian.reschke@greenbytes.de
			URI: http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/
	Full Copyright Statement		Full Copyright Statement
	Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).		Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
	This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions		This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
	contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors		contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
	retain all their rights.		retain all their rights.
	This document and the information contained herein are provided on an		This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
	"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS		"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
	OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND		OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
	THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS		THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
	OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF		OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
End of changes. 28 change blocks.
	50 lines changed or deleted		119 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.34. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/