[Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-25

"Moriarty, Kathleen" <kathleen.moriarty@emc.com> Mon, 18 November 2013 20:28 UTC

From: "Moriarty, Kathleen" <kathleen.moriarty@emc.com>
To: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth.all@tools.ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 15:26:20 -0500
Thread-Topic: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-25
Thread-Index: AQHO5Jxwt/wCbYrG9UKGJnFdED00Gg==
Message-ID: <F5063677821E3B4F81ACFB7905573F240653E7FEBF@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "fielding@gbiv.com" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "julian.reschke@greenbytes.de" <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-25
Precedence: list

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-25
Reviewer: Kathleen Moriarty
Review Date: November 18, 2013
IETF LC End Date:
IESG Telechat date: 12/19

Summary: The draft is ready from a Gen-art perspective with a few nits to resolve. I also added a security consideration with suggested text below.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

In section 2.1, in third to last paragraph, why is ought used here instead of a keyword? This is a point that could help with interoperability, so I think a keyword is important. Unless there is another error message, one should be provided when the role access requirements are not met. Users would expect this functionality.

Nits/editorial comments:

Section 3.2.1 - please fix the run-on sentence, the first one as it is difficult to read. Suggestion:
From:
If a server receives a request for an access-protected object, and an
acceptable Authorization header is not sent, the server responds with
a "401 Unauthorized" status code, and a WWW-Authenticate header as
per the framework defined above, which for the digest scheme is
utilized as follows:
To:
If a server receives a request for an access-protected object and an
acceptable Authorization header is not sent. The server responds with
a "401 Unauthorized" status code and a WWW-Authenticate header as
per the framework defined above. For the digest scheme, this is
utilized as follows:

Section 4.1, second to last paragraph. Please consider rewording the content in parenthesis, it is difficult to read and probably found just be a separate sentence rather than included with the prior sentence in parenthesis.
"If a request is authenticated and a realm specified, the same
credentials are presumed to 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)."

Section 4.2, second paragraph, consider breaking the following sentence into two:
From:
However, if a recipient proxy needs to obtain its
own credentials by requesting them from a further outbound client, it
will generate its own 407 response, which might have the appearance
of forwarding the Proxy-Authenticate header field if both proxies use
the same challenge set.
To:
However, if a recipient proxy needs to obtain its
own credentials by requesting them from a further outbound client, it
will generate its own 407 response. This might have the appearance
of forwarding the Proxy-Authenticate header field if both proxies use
the same challenge set.

Section 4.4, the last paragraph could be read more clearly with the following change:
From:
This header field contains two challenges; one for the "Newauth"
scheme with a realm value of "apps", and two additional parameters
"type" and "title", and another one for the "Basic" scheme with a
realm value of "simple".
To:
This header field contains two challenges; one for the "Newauth"scheme
with a realm value of "apps" and two additional parameters
"type" and "title", and the second for the "Basic" scheme with a
realm value of "simple".

Section 6: Security Considerations
Could you add in text to inform developers that content should not be accessed before authentication occurs when required? I know this sounds obvious, but I recently ran into this issue. On a Mac, I am able to see that the application server/database information is actually loaded before I authenticate (sure there is a SQL injection happening here too) and the screen is slightly greyed out. On a PC, it appears to block access, but this is a display thing rather than requiring the authentication to actually work prior to serving content.
Perhaps something like the following:

When a web service is configured to use authentication, content from the application server requiring authentication MUST not be accessed until the authentication has completed successfully.

Thanks,
Kathleen

[Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7… Moriarty, Kathleen
Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-httpbi… Jari Arkko
Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-httpbi… Moriarty, Kathleen