idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-14.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC2617, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year (Using the creation date from RFC2617, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 1997-12-01) -- The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, and may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. The disclaimer is necessary when there are original authors that you have been unable to contact, or if some do not wish to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust. If you are able to get all authors (current and original) to grant those rights, you can and should remove the disclaimer; otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this comment. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (April 18, 2011) is 4756 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-26) exists of draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-14 == Outdated reference: A later version (-26) exists of draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-14 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2616 (Obsoleted by RFC 7230, RFC 7231, RFC 7232, RFC 7233, RFC 7234, RFC 7235) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2617 (Obsoleted by RFC 7235, RFC 7615, RFC 7616, RFC 7617) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 6 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 HTTPbis Working Group R. Fielding, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft Adobe 4 Obsoletes: 2616 (if approved) J. Gettys 5 Updates: 2617 (if approved) Alcatel-Lucent 6 Intended status: Standards Track J. Mogul 7 Expires: October 20, 2011 HP 8 H. Frystyk 9 Microsoft 10 L. Masinter 11 Adobe 12 P. Leach 13 Microsoft 14 T. Berners-Lee 15 W3C/MIT 16 Y. Lafon, Ed. 17 W3C 18 J. Reschke, Ed. 19 greenbytes 20 April 18, 2011 22 HTTP/1.1, part 7: Authentication 23 draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-14 25 Abstract 27 The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level 28 protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information 29 systems. HTTP has been in use by the World Wide Web global 30 information initiative since 1990. This document is Part 7 of the 31 seven-part specification that defines the protocol referred to as 32 "HTTP/1.1" and, taken together, obsoletes RFC 2616. Part 7 defines 33 HTTP Authentication. 35 Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor) 37 Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working 38 group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at 39 . 41 The current issues list is at 42 and related 43 documents (including fancy diffs) can be found at 44 . 46 The changes in this draft are summarized in Appendix C.15. 48 Status of This Memo 49 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 50 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 52 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 53 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 54 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 55 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 57 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 58 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 59 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 60 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 62 This Internet-Draft will expire on October 20, 2011. 64 Copyright Notice 66 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 67 document authors. All rights reserved. 69 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 70 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 71 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 72 publication of this document. Please review these documents 73 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 74 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 75 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 76 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 77 described in the Simplified BSD License. 79 This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF 80 Contributions published or made publicly available before November 81 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this 82 material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow 83 modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. 84 Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling 85 the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified 86 outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may 87 not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format 88 it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other 89 than English. 91 Table of Contents 93 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 94 1.1. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 95 1.2. Syntax Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 96 1.2.1. Core Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 97 2. Access Authentication Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 98 2.1. Authentication Scheme Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 99 3. Status Code Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 100 3.1. 401 Unauthorized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 101 3.2. 407 Proxy Authentication Required . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 102 4. Header Field Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 103 4.1. Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 104 4.2. Proxy-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 105 4.3. Proxy-Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 106 4.4. WWW-Authenticate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 107 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 108 5.1. Authenticaton Scheme Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 109 5.2. Status Code Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 110 5.3. Header Field Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 111 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 112 6.1. Authentication Credentials and Idle Clients . . . . . . . 11 113 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 114 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 115 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 116 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 117 Appendix A. Changes from RFC 2616 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 118 Appendix B. Collected ABNF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 119 Appendix C. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before 120 publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 121 C.1. Since RFC 2616 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 122 C.2. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-00 . . . . . . . . . . . 13 123 C.3. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-01 . . . . . . . . . . . 14 124 C.4. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-02 . . . . . . . . . . . 14 125 C.5. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-03 . . . . . . . . . . . 14 126 C.6. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-04 . . . . . . . . . . . 14 127 C.7. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-05 . . . . . . . . . . . 14 128 C.8. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-06 . . . . . . . . . . . 14 129 C.9. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-07 . . . . . . . . . . . 15 130 C.10. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-08 . . . . . . . . . . . 15 131 C.11. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-09 . . . . . . . . . . . 15 132 C.12. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-10 . . . . . . . . . . . 15 133 C.13. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-11 . . . . . . . . . . . 15 134 C.14. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-12 . . . . . . . . . . . 15 135 C.15. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-13 . . . . . . . . . . . 16 136 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 138 1. Introduction 140 This document defines HTTP/1.1 access control and authentication. It 141 includes the relevant parts of RFC 2616 with only minor changes, plus 142 the general framework for HTTP authentication, as previously defined 143 in "HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication" 144 ([RFC2617]). 146 HTTP provides several OPTIONAL challenge-response authentication 147 mechanisms which can be used by a server to challenge a client 148 request and by a client to provide authentication information. The 149 "basic" and "digest" authentication schemes continue to be specified 150 in RFC 2617. 152 1.1. Requirements 154 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 155 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 156 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 158 An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or more 159 of the "MUST" or "REQUIRED" level requirements for the protocols it 160 implements. An implementation that satisfies all the "MUST" or 161 "REQUIRED" level and all the "SHOULD" level requirements for its 162 protocols is said to be "unconditionally compliant"; one that 163 satisfies all the "MUST" level requirements but not all the "SHOULD" 164 level requirements for its protocols is said to be "conditionally 165 compliant". 167 1.2. Syntax Notation 169 This specification uses the ABNF syntax defined in Section 1.2 of 170 [Part1] (which extends the syntax defined in [RFC5234] with a list 171 rule). Appendix B shows the collected ABNF, with the list rule 172 expanded. 174 The following core rules are included by reference, as defined in 175 [RFC5234], Appendix B.1: ALPHA (letters), CR (carriage return), CRLF 176 (CR LF), CTL (controls), DIGIT (decimal 0-9), DQUOTE (double quote), 177 HEXDIG (hexadecimal 0-9/A-F/a-f), LF (line feed), OCTET (any 8-bit 178 sequence of data), SP (space), VCHAR (any visible USASCII character), 179 and WSP (whitespace). 181 1.2.1. Core Rules 183 The core rules below are defined in Section 1.2.2 of [Part1]: 185 quoted-string = 186 token = 187 OWS = 189 2. Access Authentication Framework 191 HTTP provides a simple challenge-response authentication mechanism 192 that can be used by a server to challenge a client request and by a 193 client to provide authentication information. It uses an extensible, 194 case-insensitive token to identify the authentication scheme, 195 followed by a comma-separated list of attribute-value pairs which 196 carry the parameters necessary for achieving authentication via that 197 scheme. 199 auth-scheme = token 200 auth-param = token "=" ( token / quoted-string ) 202 The 401 (Unauthorized) response message is used by an origin server 203 to challenge the authorization of a user agent. This response MUST 204 include a WWW-Authenticate header field containing at least one 205 challenge applicable to the requested resource. The 407 (Proxy 206 Authentication Required) response message is used by a proxy to 207 challenge the authorization of a client and MUST include a Proxy- 208 Authenticate header field containing at least one challenge 209 applicable to the proxy for the requested resource. 211 challenge = auth-scheme 1*SP 1#auth-param 213 Note: User agents will need to take special care in parsing the 214 WWW-Authenticate or Proxy-Authenticate header field value if it 215 contains more than one challenge, or if more than one WWW- 216 Authenticate header field is provided, since the contents of a 217 challenge can itself contain a comma-separated list of 218 authentication parameters. 220 Note: Many browsers fail to parse challenges containing unknown 221 schemes. A workaround for this problem is to list well-supported 222 schemes (such as "basic") first. 224 The authentication parameter realm is defined for all authentication 225 schemes: 227 realm = "realm" "=" realm-value 228 realm-value = quoted-string 230 The realm directive (case-insensitive) is required for all 231 authentication schemes that issue a challenge. The realm value 232 (case-sensitive), in combination with the canonical root URI (the 233 scheme and authority components of the effective request URI; see 234 Section 4.3 of [Part1]) of the server being accessed, defines the 235 protection space. These realms allow the protected resources on a 236 server to be partitioned into a set of protection spaces, each with 237 its own authentication scheme and/or authorization database. The 238 realm value is a string, generally assigned by the origin server, 239 which can have additional semantics specific to the authentication 240 scheme. Note that there can be multiple challenges with the same 241 auth-scheme but different realms. 243 A user agent that wishes to authenticate itself with an origin server 244 -- usually, but not necessarily, after receiving a 401 (Unauthorized) 245 -- MAY do so by including an Authorization header field with the 246 request. A client that wishes to authenticate itself with a proxy -- 247 usually, but not necessarily, after receiving a 407 (Proxy 248 Authentication Required) -- MAY do so by including a Proxy- 249 Authorization header field with the request. Both the Authorization 250 field value and the Proxy-Authorization field value consist of 251 credentials containing the authentication information of the client 252 for the realm of the resource being requested. The user agent MUST 253 choose to use one of the challenges with the strongest auth-scheme it 254 understands and request credentials from the user based upon that 255 challenge. 257 credentials = auth-scheme ( token 258 / quoted-string 259 / #auth-param ) 261 The protection space determines the domain over which credentials can 262 be automatically applied. If a prior request has been authorized, 263 the same credentials MAY be reused for all other requests within that 264 protection space for a period of time determined by the 265 authentication scheme, parameters, and/or user preference. Unless 266 otherwise defined by the authentication scheme, a single protection 267 space cannot extend outside the scope of its server. 269 If the origin server does not wish to accept the credentials sent 270 with a request, it SHOULD return a 401 (Unauthorized) response. The 271 response MUST include a WWW-Authenticate header field containing at 272 least one (possibly new) challenge applicable to the requested 273 resource. If a proxy does not accept the credentials sent with a 274 request, it SHOULD return a 407 (Proxy Authentication Required). The 275 response MUST include a Proxy-Authenticate header field containing a 276 (possibly new) challenge applicable to the proxy for the requested 277 resource. 279 The HTTP protocol does not restrict applications to this simple 280 challenge-response mechanism for access authentication. Additional 281 mechanisms MAY be used, such as encryption at the transport level or 282 via message encapsulation, and with additional header fields 283 specifying authentication information. However, such additional 284 mechanisms are not defined by this specification. 286 Proxies MUST forward the WWW-Authenticate and Authorization headers 287 unmodified and follow the rules found in Section 4.1. 289 2.1. Authentication Scheme Registry 291 The HTTP Authentication Scheme Registry defines the name space for 292 the authentication schemes in challenges and credentials. 294 Registrations MUST include the following fields: 296 o Authentication Scheme Name 298 o Pointer to specification text 300 Values to be added to this name space are subject to IETF review 301 ([RFC5226], Section 4.1). 303 The registry itself is maintained at 304 . 306 3. Status Code Definitions 308 3.1. 401 Unauthorized 310 The request requires user authentication. The response MUST include 311 a WWW-Authenticate header field (Section 4.4) containing a challenge 312 applicable to the target resource. The client MAY repeat the request 313 with a suitable Authorization header field (Section 4.1). If the 314 request already included Authorization credentials, then the 401 315 response indicates that authorization has been refused for those 316 credentials. If the 401 response contains the same challenge as the 317 prior response, and the user agent has already attempted 318 authentication at least once, then the user SHOULD be presented the 319 representation that was given in the response, since that 320 representation might include relevant diagnostic information. 322 3.2. 407 Proxy Authentication Required 324 This code is similar to 401 (Unauthorized), but indicates that the 325 client ought to first authenticate itself with the proxy. The proxy 326 MUST return a Proxy-Authenticate header field (Section 4.2) 327 containing a challenge applicable to the proxy for the target 328 resource. The client MAY repeat the request with a suitable Proxy- 329 Authorization header field (Section 4.3). 331 4. Header Field Definitions 333 This section defines the syntax and semantics of HTTP/1.1 header 334 fields related to authentication. 336 4.1. Authorization 338 The "Authorization" header field allows a user agent to authenticate 339 itself with a server -- usually, but not necessarily, after receiving 340 a 401 (Unauthorized) response. Its value consists of credentials 341 containing information of the user agent for the realm of the 342 resource being requested. 344 Authorization = credentials 346 If a request is authenticated and a realm specified, the same 347 credentials SHOULD be valid for all other requests within this realm 348 (assuming that the authentication scheme itself does not require 349 otherwise, such as credentials that vary according to a challenge 350 value or using synchronized clocks). 352 When a shared cache (see Section 1.2 of [Part6]) receives a request 353 containing an Authorization field, it MUST NOT return the 354 corresponding response as a reply to any other request, unless one of 355 the following specific exceptions holds: 357 1. If the response includes the "s-maxage" cache-control directive, 358 the cache MAY use that response in replying to a subsequent 359 request. But (if the specified maximum age has passed) a proxy 360 cache MUST first revalidate it with the origin server, using the 361 header fields from the new request to allow the origin server to 362 authenticate the new request. (This is the defined behavior for 363 s-maxage.) If the response includes "s-maxage=0", the proxy MUST 364 always revalidate it before re-using it. 366 2. If the response includes the "must-revalidate" cache-control 367 directive, the cache MAY use that response in replying to a 368 subsequent request. But if the response is stale, all caches 369 MUST first revalidate it with the origin server, using the header 370 fields from the new request to allow the origin server to 371 authenticate the new request. 373 3. If the response includes the "public" cache-control directive, it 374 MAY be returned in reply to any subsequent request. 376 4.2. Proxy-Authenticate 378 The "Proxy-Authenticate" header field consists of a challenge that 379 indicates the authentication scheme and parameters applicable to the 380 proxy for this effective request URI (Section 4.3 of [Part1]). It 381 MUST be included as part of a 407 (Proxy Authentication Required) 382 response. 384 Proxy-Authenticate = 1#challenge 386 Unlike WWW-Authenticate, the Proxy-Authenticate header field applies 387 only to the current connection and SHOULD NOT be passed on to 388 downstream clients. However, an intermediate proxy might need to 389 obtain its own credentials by requesting them from the downstream 390 client, which in some circumstances will appear as if the proxy is 391 forwarding the Proxy-Authenticate header field. 393 4.3. Proxy-Authorization 395 The "Proxy-Authorization" header field allows the client to identify 396 itself (or its user) to a proxy which requires authentication. Its 397 value consists of credentials containing the authentication 398 information of the user agent for the proxy and/or realm of the 399 resource being requested. 401 Proxy-Authorization = credentials 403 Unlike Authorization, the Proxy-Authorization header field applies 404 only to the next outbound proxy that demanded authentication using 405 the Proxy-Authenticate field. When multiple proxies are used in a 406 chain, the Proxy-Authorization header field is consumed by the first 407 outbound proxy that was expecting to receive credentials. A proxy 408 MAY relay the credentials from the client request to the next proxy 409 if that is the mechanism by which the proxies cooperatively 410 authenticate a given request. 412 4.4. WWW-Authenticate 414 The "WWW-Authenticate" header field consists of at least one 415 challenge that indicates the authentication scheme(s) and parameters 416 applicable to the effective request URI (Section 4.3 of [Part1]). It 417 MUST be included in 401 (Unauthorized) response messages. 419 WWW-Authenticate = 1#challenge 421 User agents are advised to take special care in parsing the WWW- 422 Authenticate field value as it might contain more than one challenge, 423 or if more than one WWW-Authenticate header field is provided, the 424 contents of a challenge itself can contain a comma-separated list of 425 authentication parameters. 427 5. IANA Considerations 429 5.1. Authenticaton Scheme Registry 431 The registration procedure for HTTP Authentication Schemes is defined 432 by Section 2.1 of this document. 434 The HTTP Method Authentication Scheme shall be created at 435 . 437 5.2. Status Code Registration 439 The HTTP Status Code Registry located at 440 shall be updated 441 with the registrations below: 443 +-------+-------------------------------+-------------+ 444 | Value | Description | Reference | 445 +-------+-------------------------------+-------------+ 446 | 401 | Unauthorized | Section 3.1 | 447 | 407 | Proxy Authentication Required | Section 3.2 | 448 +-------+-------------------------------+-------------+ 450 5.3. Header Field Registration 452 The Message Header Field Registry located at shall be 454 updated with the permanent registrations below (see [RFC3864]): 456 +---------------------+----------+----------+-------------+ 457 | Header Field Name | Protocol | Status | Reference | 458 +---------------------+----------+----------+-------------+ 459 | Authorization | http | standard | Section 4.1 | 460 | Proxy-Authenticate | http | standard | Section 4.2 | 461 | Proxy-Authorization | http | standard | Section 4.3 | 462 | WWW-Authenticate | http | standard | Section 4.4 | 463 +---------------------+----------+----------+-------------+ 465 The change controller is: "IETF (iesg@ietf.org) - Internet 466 Engineering Task Force". 468 6. Security Considerations 470 This section is meant to inform application developers, information 471 providers, and users of the security limitations in HTTP/1.1 as 472 described by this document. The discussion does not include 473 definitive solutions to the problems revealed, though it does make 474 some suggestions for reducing security risks. 476 6.1. Authentication Credentials and Idle Clients 478 Existing HTTP clients and user agents typically retain authentication 479 information indefinitely. HTTP/1.1 does not provide a method for a 480 server to direct clients to discard these cached credentials. This 481 is a significant defect that requires further extensions to HTTP. 482 Circumstances under which credential caching can interfere with the 483 application's security model include but are not limited to: 485 o Clients which have been idle for an extended period following 486 which the server might wish to cause the client to reprompt the 487 user for credentials. 489 o Applications which include a session termination indication (such 490 as a "logout" or "commit" button on a page) after which the server 491 side of the application "knows" that there is no further reason 492 for the client to retain the credentials. 494 This is currently under separate study. There are a number of work- 495 arounds to parts of this problem, and we encourage the use of 496 password protection in screen savers, idle time-outs, and other 497 methods which mitigate the security problems inherent in this 498 problem. In particular, user agents which cache credentials are 499 encouraged to provide a readily accessible mechanism for discarding 500 cached credentials under user control. 502 7. Acknowledgments 504 This specification takes over the definition of the HTTP 505 Authentication Framework, previously defined in RFC 2617. We thank 506 to John Franks, Phillip M. Hallam-Baker, Jeffery L. Hostetler, Scott 507 D. Lawrence, Paul J. Leach, Ari Luotonen, and Lawrence C. Stewart for 508 their work on that specification. 510 [[acks: HTTPbis acknowledgements.]] 512 8. References 514 8.1. Normative References 516 [Part1] Fielding, R., Ed., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., 517 Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y., Ed., 518 and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, 519 and Message Parsing", draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-14 520 (work in progress), April 2011. 522 [Part6] Fielding, R., Ed., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., 523 Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y., Ed., 524 Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part 525 6: Caching", draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-14 (work in 526 progress), April 2011. 528 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 529 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 531 [RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax 532 Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008. 534 8.2. Informative References 536 [RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., 537 Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext 538 Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999. 540 [RFC2617] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Lawrence, S., 541 Leach, P., Luotonen, A., and L. Stewart, "HTTP 542 Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication", 543 RFC 2617, June 1999. 545 [RFC3864] Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J. Mogul, "Registration 546 Procedures for Message Header Fields", BCP 90, RFC 3864, 547 September 2004. 549 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 550 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 551 May 2008. 553 Appendix A. Changes from RFC 2616 555 Change ABNF productions for header fields to only define the field 556 value. (Section 4) 558 Appendix B. Collected ABNF 560 Authorization = credentials 562 OWS = 564 Proxy-Authenticate = *( "," OWS ) challenge *( OWS "," [ OWS 565 challenge ] ) 566 Proxy-Authorization = credentials 568 WWW-Authenticate = *( "," OWS ) challenge *( OWS "," [ OWS challenge 569 ] ) 571 auth-param = token "=" ( token / quoted-string ) 572 auth-scheme = token 574 challenge = auth-scheme 1*SP *( "," OWS ) auth-param *( OWS "," [ OWS 575 auth-param ] ) 576 credentials = auth-scheme ( token / quoted-string / [ ( "," / 577 auth-param ) *( OWS "," [ OWS auth-param ] ) ] ) 579 quoted-string = 581 realm = "realm=" realm-value 582 realm-value = quoted-string 584 token = 586 ABNF diagnostics: 588 ; Authorization defined but not used 589 ; Proxy-Authenticate defined but not used 590 ; Proxy-Authorization defined but not used 591 ; WWW-Authenticate defined but not used 592 ; realm defined but not used 594 Appendix C. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication) 596 C.1. Since RFC 2616 598 Extracted relevant partitions from [RFC2616]. 600 C.2. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-00 602 Closed issues: 604 o : "Normative and 605 Informative references" 607 C.3. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-01 609 Ongoing work on ABNF conversion 610 (): 612 o Explicitly import BNF rules for "challenge" and "credentials" from 613 RFC2617. 615 o Add explicit references to BNF syntax and rules imported from 616 other parts of the specification. 618 C.4. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-02 620 Ongoing work on IANA Message Header Field Registration 621 (): 623 o Reference RFC 3984, and update header field registrations for 624 header fields defined in this document. 626 C.5. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-03 628 C.6. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-04 630 Ongoing work on ABNF conversion 631 (): 633 o Use "/" instead of "|" for alternatives. 635 o Introduce new ABNF rules for "bad" whitespace ("BWS"), optional 636 whitespace ("OWS") and required whitespace ("RWS"). 638 o Rewrite ABNFs to spell out whitespace rules, factor out header 639 field value format definitions. 641 C.7. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-05 643 Final work on ABNF conversion 644 (): 646 o Add appendix containing collected and expanded ABNF, reorganize 647 ABNF introduction. 649 C.8. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-06 651 None. 653 C.9. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-07 655 Closed issues: 657 o : "move IANA 658 registrations for optional status codes" 660 C.10. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-08 662 No significant changes. 664 C.11. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-09 666 Partly resolved issues: 668 o : "Term for the 669 requested resource's URI" 671 C.12. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-10 673 None yet. 675 C.13. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-11 677 Closed issues: 679 o : "introduction 680 to part 7 is work-in-progress" 682 o : "auth-param 683 syntax" 685 o : "Header 686 Classification" 688 o : "absorbing the 689 auth framework from 2617" 691 Partly resolved issues: 693 o : "should we 694 have an auth scheme registry" 696 C.14. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-12 698 None. 700 C.15. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-13 702 Closed issues: 704 o : "untangle 705 ABNFs for header fields" 707 Index 709 4 710 401 Unauthorized (status code) 7 711 407 Proxy Authentication Required (status code) 7 713 A 714 auth-param 5 715 auth-scheme 5 716 Authorization header field 8 718 C 719 challenge 5 720 credentials 6 722 G 723 Grammar 724 Authorization 8 725 Proxy-Authenticate 9 726 Proxy-Authorization 9 727 WWW-Authenticate 9 729 H 730 Header Fields 731 Authorization 8 732 Proxy-Authenticate 9 733 Proxy-Authorization 9 734 WWW-Authenticate 9 736 P 737 Proxy-Authenticate header field 9 738 Proxy-Authorization header field 9 740 R 741 realm 5 742 realm-value 5 744 S 745 Status Codes 746 401 Unauthorized 7 747 407 Proxy Authentication Required 7 749 W 750 WWW-Authenticate header field 9 752 Authors' Addresses 754 Roy T. Fielding (editor) 755 Adobe Systems Incorporated 756 345 Park Ave 757 San Jose, CA 95110 758 USA 760 EMail: fielding@gbiv.com 761 URI: http://roy.gbiv.com/ 763 Jim Gettys 764 Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs 765 21 Oak Knoll Road 766 Carlisle, MA 01741 767 USA 769 EMail: jg@freedesktop.org 770 URI: http://gettys.wordpress.com/ 772 Jeffrey C. Mogul 773 Hewlett-Packard Company 774 HP Labs, Large Scale Systems Group 775 1501 Page Mill Road, MS 1177 776 Palo Alto, CA 94304 777 USA 779 EMail: JeffMogul@acm.org 781 Henrik Frystyk Nielsen 782 Microsoft Corporation 783 1 Microsoft Way 784 Redmond, WA 98052 785 USA 787 EMail: henrikn@microsoft.com 788 Larry Masinter 789 Adobe Systems Incorporated 790 345 Park Ave 791 San Jose, CA 95110 792 USA 794 EMail: LMM@acm.org 795 URI: http://larry.masinter.net/ 797 Paul J. Leach 798 Microsoft Corporation 799 1 Microsoft Way 800 Redmond, WA 98052 802 EMail: paulle@microsoft.com 804 Tim Berners-Lee 805 World Wide Web Consortium 806 MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory 807 The Stata Center, Building 32 808 32 Vassar Street 809 Cambridge, MA 02139 810 USA 812 EMail: timbl@w3.org 813 URI: http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/ 815 Yves Lafon (editor) 816 World Wide Web Consortium 817 W3C / ERCIM 818 2004, rte des Lucioles 819 Sophia-Antipolis, AM 06902 820 France 822 EMail: ylafon@w3.org 823 URI: http://www.raubacapeu.net/people/yves/ 824 Julian F. Reschke (editor) 825 greenbytes GmbH 826 Hafenweg 16 827 Muenster, NW 48155 828 Germany 830 Phone: +49 251 2807760 831 Fax: +49 251 2807761 832 EMail: julian.reschke@greenbytes.de 833 URI: http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/