< draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-18.txt		draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-19.txt >
	HTTPbis Working Group R. Fielding, Ed.		HTTPbis Working Group R. Fielding, Ed.
	Internet-Draft Adobe		Internet-Draft Adobe
	Obsoletes: 2616 (if approved) J. Gettys		Obsoletes: 2616 (if approved) Y. Lafon, Ed.
	Updates: 2617 (if approved) Alcatel-Lucent		Updates: 2617 (if approved) W3C
	Intended status: Standards Track J. Mogul		Intended status: Standards Track J. Reschke, Ed.
	Expires: July 7, 2012 HP		Expires: September 13, 2012 greenbytes
	H. Frystyk		March 12, 2012
	Microsoft
	L. Masinter
	Adobe
	P. Leach
	Microsoft
	T. Berners-Lee
	W3C/MIT
	Y. Lafon, Ed.
	W3C
	J. Reschke, Ed.
	greenbytes
	January 4, 2012
	HTTP/1.1, part 7: Authentication		HTTP/1.1, part 7: Authentication
	draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-18		draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-19
	Abstract		Abstract
	The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level		The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level
	protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information		protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information
	systems. HTTP has been in use by the World Wide Web global		systems. HTTP has been in use by the World Wide Web global
	information initiative since 1990. This document is Part 7 of the		information initiative since 1990. This document is Part 7 of the
	seven-part specification that defines the protocol referred to as		seven-part specification that defines the protocol referred to as
	"HTTP/1.1" and, taken together, obsoletes RFC 2616.		"HTTP/1.1" and, taken together, obsoletes RFC 2616.
	skipping to change at page 1, line 48 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 36 ¶
	Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working		Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working
	group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at		group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at
	<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/>.		<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/>.
	The current issues list is at		The current issues list is at
	<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/report/3> and related		<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/report/3> and related
	documents (including fancy diffs) can be found at		documents (including fancy diffs) can be found at
	<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/>.		<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/>.
	The changes in this draft are summarized in Appendix C.19.		The changes in this draft are summarized in Appendix C.20.
	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 July 7, 2012.		This Internet-Draft will expire on September 13, 2012.
	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 51 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 38 ¶
	modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.		modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
	Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling		Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
	the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified		the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
	outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may		outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
	not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format		not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
	it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other		it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
	than English.		than English.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	1.1. Conformance and Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		1.1. Conformance and Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	1.2. Syntax Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		1.2. Syntax Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	1.2.1. Core Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		1.2.1. Core Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	2. Access Authentication Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		2. Access Authentication Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	2.1. Challenge and Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		2.1. Challenge and Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	2.2. Protection Space (Realm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		2.2. Protection Space (Realm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	2.3. Authentication Scheme Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		2.3. Authentication Scheme Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	2.3.1. Considerations for New Authentication Schemes . . . . 9		2.3.1. Considerations for New Authentication Schemes . . . . 8
	3. Status Code Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		3. Status Code Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	3.1. 401 Unauthorized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		3.1. 401 Unauthorized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	3.2. 407 Proxy Authentication Required . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		3.2. 407 Proxy Authentication Required . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	4. Header Field Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		4. Header Field Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	4.1. Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		4.1. Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	4.2. Proxy-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		4.2. Proxy-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	4.3. Proxy-Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		4.3. Proxy-Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	4.4. WWW-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		4.4. WWW-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	5.1. Authenticaton Scheme Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		5.1. Authenticaton Scheme Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	5.2. Status Code Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		5.2. Status Code Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	5.3. Header Field Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		5.3. Header Field Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	6.1. Authentication Credentials and Idle Clients . . . . . . . 14		6.1. Authentication Credentials and Idle Clients . . . . . . . 13
	7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14		7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15		8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	Appendix A. Changes from RFCs 2616 and 2617 . . . . . . . . . . . 16		Appendix A. Changes from RFCs 2616 and 2617 . . . . . . . . . . . 15
	Appendix B. Collected ABNF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16		Appendix B. Collected ABNF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	Appendix C. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before		Appendix C. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before
	publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	C.1. Since RFC 2616 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17		C.1. Since RFC 2616 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	C.2. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-00 . . . . . . . . . . . 17		C.2. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-00 . . . . . . . . . . . 16
	C.3. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-01 . . . . . . . . . . . 17		C.3. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-01 . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	C.4. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-02 . . . . . . . . . . . 17		C.4. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-02 . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	C.5. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-03 . . . . . . . . . . . 17		C.5. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-03 . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	C.6. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-04 . . . . . . . . . . . 17		C.6. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-04 . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	C.7. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-05 . . . . . . . . . . . 18		C.7. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-05 . . . . . . . . . . . 17
	C.8. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-06 . . . . . . . . . . . 18		C.8. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-06 . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	C.9. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-07 . . . . . . . . . . . 18		C.9. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-07 . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	C.10. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-08 . . . . . . . . . . . 18		C.10. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-08 . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	C.11. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-09 . . . . . . . . . . . 18		C.11. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-09 . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	C.12. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-10 . . . . . . . . . . . 18		C.12. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-10 . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	C.13. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-11 . . . . . . . . . . . 18		C.13. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-11 . . . . . . . . . . . 18
	C.14. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-12 . . . . . . . . . . . 19		C.14. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-12 . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	C.15. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-13 . . . . . . . . . . . 19		C.15. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-13 . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	C.16. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-14 . . . . . . . . . . . 19		C.16. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-14 . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	C.17. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-15 . . . . . . . . . . . 19		C.17. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-15 . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	C.18. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-16 . . . . . . . . . . . 20		C.18. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-16 . . . . . . . . . . . 19
	C.19. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-17 . . . . . . . . . . . 20		C.19. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-17 . . . . . . . . . . . 20
			C.20. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-18 . . . . . . . . . . . 20
	Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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, plus
	the general framework for HTTP authentication, as previously defined		the general framework for HTTP authentication, as previously defined
	in "HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication"		in "HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication"
	([RFC2617]).		([RFC2617]).
	skipping to change at page 5, line 51 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 51 ¶
	define specific error handling mechanisms, except in cases where it		define specific error handling mechanisms, except in cases where it
	has direct impact on security. This is because different uses of the		has direct impact on security. This is because different uses of the
	protocol require different error handling strategies; for example, a		protocol require different error handling strategies; for example, a
	Web browser may wish to transparently recover from a response where		Web browser may wish to transparently recover from a response where
	the Location header field doesn't parse according to the ABNF,		the Location header field doesn't parse according to the ABNF,
	whereby in a systems control protocol using HTTP, this type of error		whereby in a systems control protocol using HTTP, this type of error
	recovery could lead to dangerous consequences.		recovery could lead to dangerous consequences.
	1.2. Syntax Notation		1.2. Syntax Notation
	This specification uses the ABNF syntax defined in Section 1.2 of		This specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF)
	[Part1] (which extends the syntax defined in [RFC5234] with a list		notation of [RFC5234] with the list rule extension defined in Section
	rule). Appendix B shows the collected ABNF, with the list rule		1.2 of [Part1]. Appendix B shows the collected ABNF with the list
	expanded.		rule expanded.
	The following core rules are included by reference, as defined in		The following core rules are included by reference, as defined in
	[RFC5234], Appendix B.1: ALPHA (letters), CR (carriage return), CRLF		[RFC5234], Appendix B.1: ALPHA (letters), CR (carriage return), CRLF
	(CR LF), CTL (controls), DIGIT (decimal 0-9), DQUOTE (double quote),		(CR LF), CTL (controls), DIGIT (decimal 0-9), DQUOTE (double quote),
	HEXDIG (hexadecimal 0-9/A-F/a-f), LF (line feed), OCTET (any 8-bit		HEXDIG (hexadecimal 0-9/A-F/a-f), LF (line feed), OCTET (any 8-bit
	sequence of data), SP (space), and VCHAR (any visible US-ASCII		sequence of data), SP (space), and VCHAR (any visible US-ASCII
	character).		character).
	1.2.1. Core Rules		1.2.1. Core Rules
	The core rules below are defined in [Part1]:		The core rules below are defined in [Part1]:
	BWS = <BWS, defined in [Part1], Section 1.2.2>		BWS = <BWS, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.1>
	OWS = <OWS, defined in [Part1], Section 1.2.2>		OWS = <OWS, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.1>
	quoted-string = <quoted-string, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.3>		quoted-string = <quoted-string, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.4>
	token = <token, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.3>		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 8, line 27 ¶		skipping to change at page 7, line 27 ¶
	Proxies MUST forward the WWW-Authenticate and Authorization headers		Proxies MUST forward the WWW-Authenticate and Authorization headers
	unmodified and follow the rules found in Section 4.1.		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
	4.3 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
	on a server to be partitioned into a set of protection spaces, each		on a server to be partitioned into a set of protection spaces, each
	with its own authentication scheme and/or authorization database.		with its own authentication scheme and/or authorization database.
	The realm value is a string, generally assigned by the origin server,		The realm value is a string, generally assigned by the origin server,
	which can have additional semantics specific to the authentication		which can have additional semantics specific to the authentication
	scheme. Note that there can be multiple challenges with the same		scheme. Note that there can be multiple challenges with the same
	auth-scheme but different realms.		auth-scheme but different realms.
	The protection space determines the domain over which credentials can		The protection space determines the domain over which credentials can
	be automatically applied. If a prior request has been authorized,		be automatically applied. If a prior request has been authorized,
	skipping to change at page 9, line 13 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 13 ¶
	the authentication schemes in challenges and credentials.		the authentication schemes in challenges and credentials.
	Registrations MUST include the following fields:		Registrations MUST include the following fields:
	o Authentication Scheme Name		o Authentication Scheme Name
	o Pointer to specification text		o Pointer to specification text
	o Notes (optional)		o Notes (optional)
	Values to be added to this name space are subject to IETF review		Values to be added to this name space require IETF Review (see
	([RFC5226], Section 4.1).		[RFC5226], Section 4.1).
	The registry itself is maintained at		The registry itself is maintained at
	<http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-authschemes>.		<http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-authschemes>.
	2.3.1. Considerations for New Authentication Schemes		2.3.1. Considerations for New Authentication Schemes
	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 Authentication schemes need to be compatible with the inherent		o HTTP authentication is presumed to be stateless: all of the
	constraints of HTTP; for instance, that messages need to keep		information necessary to authenticate a request MUST be provided
	their semantics when inspected in isolation, thus an		in the request, rather than be dependent on the server remembering
	authentication scheme can not bind information to the TCP session		prior requests. Authentication based on, or bound to, the
	over which the message was received (see Section 2.2 of [Part1]).		underlying connection is outside the scope of this specification
			and inherently flawed unless steps are taken to ensure that the
			connection cannot be used by any party other than the
			authenticated user (see Section 2.3 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.
	skipping to change at page 10, line 5 ¶		skipping to change at page 9, line 7 ¶
	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
			unknown extension parameters. In general, a "must-ignore" rule is
			preferable over "must-understand", because otherwise it will be
			hard to introduce new parameters in the presence of legacy
			recipients. Furthermore, it's good to describe the policy for
			defining new parameters (such as "update the specification", or
			"use this registry").
	o Authentication schemes need to document whether they are usable in		o Authentication schemes need to document whether they are usable in
	origin-server authentication (i.e., using WWW-Authenticate),		origin-server authentication (i.e., using WWW-Authenticate),
	and/or proxy authentication (i.e., using Proxy-Authenticate).		and/or proxy authentication (i.e., using Proxy-Authenticate).
	o The credentials carried in an Authorization header field are		o The credentials carried in an Authorization header field are
	specific to the User Agent, and therefore have the same effect on		specific to the User Agent, and therefore have the same effect on
	HTTP caches as the "private" Cache-Control response directive,		HTTP caches as the "private" Cache-Control response directive,
	within the scope of the request they appear in.		within the scope of the request they appear in.
	Therefore, new authentication schemes which choose not to carry		Therefore, new authentication schemes which choose not to carry
	skipping to change at page 11, line 49 ¶		skipping to change at page 11, line 9 ¶
	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 a challenge that
	indicates the authentication scheme and parameters applicable to the		indicates the authentication scheme and parameters applicable to the
	proxy for this effective request URI (Section 4.3 of [Part1]). It		proxy for this effective request URI (Section 5.5 of [Part1]). It
	MUST be included as part of a 407 (Proxy Authentication Required)		MUST be included as part of a 407 (Proxy Authentication Required)
	response.		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 SHOULD NOT be passed on to
	downstream clients. However, an intermediate proxy might need to		downstream clients. However, an intermediate proxy might need to
	obtain its own credentials by requesting them from the downstream		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
			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
	value consists of credentials containing the authentication		value consists of credentials containing the authentication
	information of the user agent for the proxy and/or realm of the		information of the user agent for the proxy and/or realm of the
	resource being requested.		resource being requested.
	Proxy-Authorization = credentials		Proxy-Authorization = credentials
	skipping to change at page 12, line 37 ¶		skipping to change at page 11, line 48 ¶
	chain, the Proxy-Authorization header field is consumed by the first		chain, the Proxy-Authorization header field is consumed by the first
	outbound proxy that was expecting to receive credentials. A proxy		outbound proxy that was expecting to receive credentials. A proxy
	MAY relay the credentials from the client request to the next proxy		MAY relay the credentials from the client request to the next proxy
	if that is the mechanism by which the proxies cooperatively		if that is the mechanism by which the proxies cooperatively
	authenticate a given request.		authenticate a given request.
	4.4. WWW-Authenticate		4.4. WWW-Authenticate
	The "WWW-Authenticate" header field consists of at least one		The "WWW-Authenticate" header field consists of at least one
	challenge that indicates the authentication scheme(s) and parameters		challenge that indicates the authentication scheme(s) and parameters
	applicable to the effective request URI (Section 4.3 of [Part1]).		applicable to the effective request URI (Section 5.5 of [Part1]).
	It MUST be included in 401 (Unauthorized) response messages and MAY		It MUST be included in 401 (Unauthorized) response messages and MAY
	be included in other response messages to indicate that supplying		be included in other response messages to indicate that supplying
	credentials (or different credentials) might affect the response.		credentials (or different credentials) might affect the response.
	WWW-Authenticate = 1#challenge		WWW-Authenticate = 1#challenge
	User agents are advised to take special care in parsing the WWW-		User agents are advised to take special care in parsing the WWW-
	Authenticate field value as it might contain more than one challenge,		Authenticate field value as it might contain more than one challenge,
	or if more than one WWW-Authenticate header field is provided, the		or if more than one WWW-Authenticate header field is provided, the
	skipping to change at page 13, line 15 ¶		skipping to change at page 12, line 23 ¶
	For instance:		For instance:
	WWW-Authenticate: Newauth realm="apps", type=1,		WWW-Authenticate: Newauth realm="apps", type=1,
	title="Login to \"apps\"", Basic realm="simple"		title="Login to \"apps\"", Basic realm="simple"
	This header field contains two challenges; one for the "Newauth"		This header field contains two challenges; one for the "Newauth"
	scheme with a realm value of "apps", and two additional parameters		scheme with a realm value of "apps", and two additional parameters
	"type" and "title", and another one for the "Basic" scheme with a		"type" and "title", and another one for the "Basic" scheme with a
	realm value of "simple".		realm value of "simple".
			Note: The challenge grammar production uses the list syntax as
			well. Therefore, a sequence of comma, whitespace, and comma can
			be considered both as applying to the preceding challenge, or to
			be an empty entry in the list of challenges. In practice, this
			ambiguity does not affect the semantics of the header field value
			and thus is harmless.
	5. IANA Considerations		5. IANA Considerations
	5.1. Authenticaton Scheme Registry		5.1. Authenticaton Scheme Registry
	The registration procedure for HTTP Authentication Schemes is defined		The registration procedure for HTTP Authentication Schemes is defined
	by Section 2.3 of this document.		by Section 2.3 of this document.
	The HTTP Method Authentication Scheme shall be created at		The HTTP Method Authentication Scheme shall be created at
	<http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-authschemes>.		<http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-authschemes>.
	skipping to change at page 14, line 50 ¶		skipping to change at page 14, line 17 ¶
	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 11 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., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,		[Part1] Fielding, R., Ed., Lafon, Y., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed.,
	Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y., Ed.,		"HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message
	and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections,		Parsing", draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-19 (work in
	and Message Parsing", draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-18		progress), March 2012.
	(work in progress), January 2012.
	[Part6] Fielding, R., Ed., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,		[Part6] Fielding, R., Ed., Lafon, Y., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed.,
	Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y., Ed.,		and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching",
	Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part		draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-19 (work in progress),
	6: Caching", draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-18 (work in		March 2012.
	progress), January 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 16, line 22 ¶		skipping to change at page 16, line 9 ¶
	consistency with legacy authentication schemes such as "Basic".		consistency with legacy authentication schemes such as "Basic".
	(Section 2)		(Section 2)
	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. Collected ABNF
	Authorization = credentials		Authorization = credentials
	BWS = <BWS, defined in [Part1], Section 1.2.2>		BWS = <BWS, defined in [Part1], Section 3.2.1>
	OWS = <OWS, defined in [Part1], Section 1.2.2>		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
	WWW-Authenticate = *( "," OWS ) challenge *( OWS "," [ OWS challenge		WWW-Authenticate = *( "," OWS ) challenge *( OWS "," [ OWS challenge
	] )		] )
	auth-param = token BWS "=" BWS ( token / quoted-string )		auth-param = token BWS "=" BWS ( token / quoted-string )
	auth-scheme = token		auth-scheme = token
	b64token = 1*( ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "." / "_" / "~" / "+" / "/" )		b64token = 1*( ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "." / "_" / "~" / "+" / "/" )
	*"="		*"="
	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 3.2.3>		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 3.2.3>
	ABNF diagnostics:		ABNF diagnostics:
	; Authorization defined but not used		; Authorization defined but not used
	; Proxy-Authenticate defined but not used		; Proxy-Authenticate defined but not used
	; Proxy-Authorization defined but not used		; Proxy-Authorization defined but not used
	; WWW-Authenticate defined but not used		; WWW-Authenticate defined but not used
	Appendix C. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)		Appendix C. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)
	C.1. Since RFC 2616		C.1. Since RFC 2616
	skipping to change at page 20, line 28 ¶		skipping to change at page 20, line 15 ¶
	C.19. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-17		C.19. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-17
	Closed issues:		Closed issues:
	o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/314>: "allow		o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/314>: "allow
	unquoted realm parameters"		unquoted realm parameters"
	o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/321>: "Repeating		o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/321>: "Repeating
	auth-params"		auth-params"
			C.20. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-18
			Closed issues:
			o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/334>: "recipient
			behavior for new auth parameters"
			o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/342>: "WWW-
			Authenticate ABNF slightly ambiguous"
	Index		Index
	4		4
	401 Unauthorized (status code) 10		401 Unauthorized (status code) 9
	407 Proxy Authentication Required (status code) 10		407 Proxy Authentication Required (status code) 9
	A		A
	auth-param 6		auth-param 5
	auth-scheme 6		auth-scheme 5
	Authorization header field 11		Authorization header field 10
	B		B
	b64token 6		b64token 5
	C		C
	challenge 7		challenge 6
	credentials 7		credentials 6
	G		G
	Grammar		Grammar
	auth-param 6		auth-param 5
	auth-scheme 6		auth-scheme 5
	Authorization 11		Authorization 10
	b64token 6		b64token 5
	challenge 7		challenge 6
	credentials 7		credentials 6
	Proxy-Authenticate 11		Proxy-Authenticate 11
	Proxy-Authorization 12		Proxy-Authorization 11
	WWW-Authenticate 12		WWW-Authenticate 12
	H		H
	Header Fields		Header Fields
	Authorization 11		Authorization 10
	Proxy-Authenticate 11		Proxy-Authenticate 11
	Proxy-Authorization 12		Proxy-Authorization 11
	WWW-Authenticate 12		WWW-Authenticate 11
	P		P
	Protection Space 8		Protection Space 7
	Proxy-Authenticate header field 11		Proxy-Authenticate header field 11
	Proxy-Authorization header field 12		Proxy-Authorization header field 11
	R		R
	Realm 8		Realm 7
	S		S
	Status Codes		Status Codes
	401 Unauthorized 10		401 Unauthorized 9
	407 Proxy Authentication Required 10		407 Proxy Authentication Required 9
	W		W
	WWW-Authenticate header field 12		WWW-Authenticate header field 11
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Roy T. Fielding (editor)		Roy T. Fielding (editor)
	Adobe Systems Incorporated		Adobe Systems Incorporated
	345 Park Ave		345 Park Ave
	San Jose, CA 95110		San Jose, CA 95110
	USA		USA
	EMail: fielding@gbiv.com		EMail: fielding@gbiv.com
	URI: http://roy.gbiv.com/		URI: http://roy.gbiv.com/
	Jim Gettys
	Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs
	21 Oak Knoll Road
	Carlisle, MA 01741
	USA
	EMail: jg@freedesktop.org
	URI: http://gettys.wordpress.com/
	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/
	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/
End of changes. 45 change blocks.
	158 lines changed or deleted		125 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/