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== Outdated reference: A later version (-26) exists of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== Outdated reference: A later version (-26) exists of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/