idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-15.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 (July 11, 2011) is 4674 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-26) exists of draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-15 == Outdated reference: A later version (-26) exists of draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-15 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2616 (Obsoleted by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: January 12, 2012 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 July 11, 2011 22 HTTP/1.1, part 7: Authentication 23 draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-15 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.16. 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 January 12, 2012. 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 C.16. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-14 . . . . . . . . . . . 16 137 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 139 1. Introduction 141 This document defines HTTP/1.1 access control and authentication. It 142 includes the relevant parts of RFC 2616 with only minor changes, plus 143 the general framework for HTTP authentication, as previously defined 144 in "HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication" 145 ([RFC2617]). 147 HTTP provides several OPTIONAL challenge-response authentication 148 mechanisms which can be used by a server to challenge a client 149 request and by a client to provide authentication information. The 150 "basic" and "digest" authentication schemes continue to be specified 151 in RFC 2617. 153 1.1. Requirements 155 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 156 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 157 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 159 An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or more 160 of the "MUST" or "REQUIRED" level requirements for the protocols it 161 implements. An implementation that satisfies all the "MUST" or 162 "REQUIRED" level and all the "SHOULD" level requirements for its 163 protocols is said to be "unconditionally compliant"; one that 164 satisfies all the "MUST" level requirements but not all the "SHOULD" 165 level requirements for its protocols is said to be "conditionally 166 compliant". 168 1.2. Syntax Notation 170 This specification uses the ABNF syntax defined in Section 1.2 of 171 [Part1] (which extends the syntax defined in [RFC5234] with a list 172 rule). Appendix B shows the collected ABNF, with the list rule 173 expanded. 175 The following core rules are included by reference, as defined in 176 [RFC5234], Appendix B.1: ALPHA (letters), CR (carriage return), CRLF 177 (CR LF), CTL (controls), DIGIT (decimal 0-9), DQUOTE (double quote), 178 HEXDIG (hexadecimal 0-9/A-F/a-f), LF (line feed), OCTET (any 8-bit 179 sequence of data), SP (space), VCHAR (any visible USASCII character), 180 and WSP (whitespace). 182 1.2.1. Core Rules 184 The core rules below are defined in Section 1.2.2 of [Part1]: 186 quoted-string = 187 token = 188 OWS = 190 2. Access Authentication Framework 192 HTTP provides a simple challenge-response authentication mechanism 193 that can be used by a server to challenge a client request and by a 194 client to provide authentication information. It uses an extensible, 195 case-insensitive token to identify the authentication scheme, 196 followed by a comma-separated list of attribute-value pairs which 197 carry the parameters necessary for achieving authentication via that 198 scheme. 200 auth-scheme = token 201 auth-param = token "=" ( token / quoted-string ) 203 The 401 (Unauthorized) response message is used by an origin server 204 to challenge the authorization of a user agent. This response MUST 205 include a WWW-Authenticate header field containing at least one 206 challenge applicable to the requested resource. The 407 (Proxy 207 Authentication Required) response message is used by a proxy to 208 challenge the authorization of a client and MUST include a Proxy- 209 Authenticate header field containing at least one challenge 210 applicable to the proxy for the requested resource. 212 challenge = auth-scheme 1*SP 1#auth-param 214 Note: User agents will need to take special care in parsing the 215 WWW-Authenticate or Proxy-Authenticate header field value if it 216 contains more than one challenge, or if more than one WWW- 217 Authenticate header field is provided, since the contents of a 218 challenge can itself contain a comma-separated list of 219 authentication parameters. 221 Note: Many browsers fail to parse challenges containing unknown 222 schemes. A workaround for this problem is to list well-supported 223 schemes (such as "basic") first. 225 The authentication parameter realm is defined for all authentication 226 schemes: 228 realm = "realm" "=" realm-value 229 realm-value = quoted-string 231 The realm directive (case-insensitive) is required for all 232 authentication schemes that issue a challenge. The realm value 233 (case-sensitive), in combination with the canonical root URI (the 234 scheme and authority components of the effective request URI; see 235 Section 4.3 of [Part1]) of the server being accessed, defines the 236 protection space. These realms allow the protected resources on a 237 server to be partitioned into a set of protection spaces, each with 238 its own authentication scheme and/or authorization database. The 239 realm value is a string, generally assigned by the origin server, 240 which can have additional semantics specific to the authentication 241 scheme. Note that there can be multiple challenges with the same 242 auth-scheme but different realms. 244 A user agent that wishes to authenticate itself with an origin server 245 -- usually, but not necessarily, after receiving a 401 (Unauthorized) 246 -- MAY do so by including an Authorization header field with the 247 request. A client that wishes to authenticate itself with a proxy -- 248 usually, but not necessarily, after receiving a 407 (Proxy 249 Authentication Required) -- MAY do so by including a Proxy- 250 Authorization header field with the request. Both the Authorization 251 field value and the Proxy-Authorization field value consist of 252 credentials containing the authentication information of the client 253 for the realm of the resource being requested. The user agent MUST 254 choose to use one of the challenges with the strongest auth-scheme it 255 understands and request credentials from the user based upon that 256 challenge. 258 credentials = auth-scheme ( token 259 / quoted-string 260 / #auth-param ) 262 The protection space determines the domain over which credentials can 263 be automatically applied. If a prior request has been authorized, 264 the same credentials MAY be reused for all other requests within that 265 protection space for a period of time determined by the 266 authentication scheme, parameters, and/or user preference. Unless 267 otherwise defined by the authentication scheme, a single protection 268 space cannot extend outside the scope of its server. 270 If the origin server does not wish to accept the credentials sent 271 with a request, it SHOULD return a 401 (Unauthorized) response. The 272 response MUST include a WWW-Authenticate header field containing at 273 least one (possibly new) challenge applicable to the requested 274 resource. If a proxy does not accept the credentials sent with a 275 request, it SHOULD return a 407 (Proxy Authentication Required). The 276 response MUST include a Proxy-Authenticate header field containing a 277 (possibly new) challenge applicable to the proxy for the requested 278 resource. 280 The HTTP protocol does not restrict applications to this simple 281 challenge-response mechanism for access authentication. Additional 282 mechanisms MAY be used, such as encryption at the transport level or 283 via message encapsulation, and with additional header fields 284 specifying authentication information. However, such additional 285 mechanisms are not defined by this specification. 287 Proxies MUST forward the WWW-Authenticate and Authorization headers 288 unmodified and follow the rules found in Section 4.1. 290 2.1. Authentication Scheme Registry 292 The HTTP Authentication Scheme Registry defines the name space for 293 the authentication schemes in challenges and credentials. 295 Registrations MUST include the following fields: 297 o Authentication Scheme Name 299 o Pointer to specification text 301 Values to be added to this name space are subject to IETF review 302 ([RFC5226], Section 4.1). 304 The registry itself is maintained at 305 . 307 3. Status Code Definitions 309 3.1. 401 Unauthorized 311 The request requires user authentication. The response MUST include 312 a WWW-Authenticate header field (Section 4.4) containing a challenge 313 applicable to the target resource. The client MAY repeat the request 314 with a suitable Authorization header field (Section 4.1). If the 315 request already included Authorization credentials, then the 401 316 response indicates that authorization has been refused for those 317 credentials. If the 401 response contains the same challenge as the 318 prior response, and the user agent has already attempted 319 authentication at least once, then the user SHOULD be presented the 320 representation that was given in the response, since that 321 representation might include relevant diagnostic information. 323 3.2. 407 Proxy Authentication Required 325 This code is similar to 401 (Unauthorized), but indicates that the 326 client ought to first authenticate itself with the proxy. The proxy 327 MUST return a Proxy-Authenticate header field (Section 4.2) 328 containing a challenge applicable to the proxy for the target 329 resource. The client MAY repeat the request with a suitable Proxy- 330 Authorization header field (Section 4.3). 332 4. Header Field Definitions 334 This section defines the syntax and semantics of HTTP/1.1 header 335 fields related to authentication. 337 4.1. Authorization 339 The "Authorization" header field allows a user agent to authenticate 340 itself with a server -- usually, but not necessarily, after receiving 341 a 401 (Unauthorized) response. Its value consists of credentials 342 containing information of the user agent for the realm of the 343 resource being requested. 345 Authorization = credentials 347 If a request is authenticated and a realm specified, the same 348 credentials SHOULD be valid for all other requests within this realm 349 (assuming that the authentication scheme itself does not require 350 otherwise, such as credentials that vary according to a challenge 351 value or using synchronized clocks). 353 When a shared cache (see Section 1.2 of [Part6]) receives a request 354 containing an Authorization field, it MUST NOT return the 355 corresponding response as a reply to any other request, unless one of 356 the following specific exceptions holds: 358 1. If the response includes the "s-maxage" cache-control directive, 359 the cache MAY use that response in replying to a subsequent 360 request. But (if the specified maximum age has passed) a proxy 361 cache MUST first revalidate it with the origin server, using the 362 header fields from the new request to allow the origin server to 363 authenticate the new request. (This is the defined behavior for 364 s-maxage.) If the response includes "s-maxage=0", the proxy MUST 365 always revalidate it before re-using it. 367 2. If the response includes the "must-revalidate" cache-control 368 directive, the cache MAY use that response in replying to a 369 subsequent request. But if the response is stale, all caches 370 MUST first revalidate it with the origin server, using the header 371 fields from the new request to allow the origin server to 372 authenticate the new request. 374 3. If the response includes the "public" cache-control directive, it 375 MAY be returned in reply to any subsequent request. 377 4.2. Proxy-Authenticate 379 The "Proxy-Authenticate" header field consists of a challenge that 380 indicates the authentication scheme and parameters applicable to the 381 proxy for this effective request URI (Section 4.3 of [Part1]). It 382 MUST be included as part of a 407 (Proxy Authentication Required) 383 response. 385 Proxy-Authenticate = 1#challenge 387 Unlike WWW-Authenticate, the Proxy-Authenticate header field applies 388 only to the current connection and SHOULD NOT be passed on to 389 downstream clients. However, an intermediate proxy might need to 390 obtain its own credentials by requesting them from the downstream 391 client, which in some circumstances will appear as if the proxy is 392 forwarding the Proxy-Authenticate header field. 394 4.3. Proxy-Authorization 396 The "Proxy-Authorization" header field allows the client to identify 397 itself (or its user) to a proxy which requires authentication. Its 398 value consists of credentials containing the authentication 399 information of the user agent for the proxy and/or realm of the 400 resource being requested. 402 Proxy-Authorization = credentials 404 Unlike Authorization, the Proxy-Authorization header field applies 405 only to the next outbound proxy that demanded authentication using 406 the Proxy-Authenticate field. When multiple proxies are used in a 407 chain, the Proxy-Authorization header field is consumed by the first 408 outbound proxy that was expecting to receive credentials. A proxy 409 MAY relay the credentials from the client request to the next proxy 410 if that is the mechanism by which the proxies cooperatively 411 authenticate a given request. 413 4.4. WWW-Authenticate 415 The "WWW-Authenticate" header field consists of at least one 416 challenge that indicates the authentication scheme(s) and parameters 417 applicable to the effective request URI (Section 4.3 of [Part1]). It 418 MUST be included in 401 (Unauthorized) response messages. 420 WWW-Authenticate = 1#challenge 422 User agents are advised to take special care in parsing the WWW- 423 Authenticate field value as it might contain more than one challenge, 424 or if more than one WWW-Authenticate header field is provided, the 425 contents of a challenge itself can contain a comma-separated list of 426 authentication parameters. 428 5. IANA Considerations 430 5.1. Authenticaton Scheme Registry 432 The registration procedure for HTTP Authentication Schemes is defined 433 by Section 2.1 of this document. 435 The HTTP Method Authentication Scheme shall be created at 436 . 438 5.2. Status Code Registration 440 The HTTP Status Code Registry located at 441 shall be updated 442 with the registrations below: 444 +-------+-------------------------------+-------------+ 445 | Value | Description | Reference | 446 +-------+-------------------------------+-------------+ 447 | 401 | Unauthorized | Section 3.1 | 448 | 407 | Proxy Authentication Required | Section 3.2 | 449 +-------+-------------------------------+-------------+ 451 5.3. Header Field Registration 453 The Message Header Field Registry located at shall be 455 updated with the permanent registrations below (see [RFC3864]): 457 +---------------------+----------+----------+-------------+ 458 | Header Field Name | Protocol | Status | Reference | 459 +---------------------+----------+----------+-------------+ 460 | Authorization | http | standard | Section 4.1 | 461 | Proxy-Authenticate | http | standard | Section 4.2 | 462 | Proxy-Authorization | http | standard | Section 4.3 | 463 | WWW-Authenticate | http | standard | Section 4.4 | 464 +---------------------+----------+----------+-------------+ 466 The change controller is: "IETF (iesg@ietf.org) - Internet 467 Engineering Task Force". 469 6. Security Considerations 471 This section is meant to inform application developers, information 472 providers, and users of the security limitations in HTTP/1.1 as 473 described by this document. The discussion does not include 474 definitive solutions to the problems revealed, though it does make 475 some suggestions for reducing security risks. 477 6.1. Authentication Credentials and Idle Clients 479 Existing HTTP clients and user agents typically retain authentication 480 information indefinitely. HTTP/1.1 does not provide a method for a 481 server to direct clients to discard these cached credentials. This 482 is a significant defect that requires further extensions to HTTP. 483 Circumstances under which credential caching can interfere with the 484 application's security model include but are not limited to: 486 o Clients which have been idle for an extended period following 487 which the server might wish to cause the client to reprompt the 488 user for credentials. 490 o Applications which include a session termination indication (such 491 as a "logout" or "commit" button on a page) after which the server 492 side of the application "knows" that there is no further reason 493 for the client to retain the credentials. 495 This is currently under separate study. There are a number of work- 496 arounds to parts of this problem, and we encourage the use of 497 password protection in screen savers, idle time-outs, and other 498 methods which mitigate the security problems inherent in this 499 problem. In particular, user agents which cache credentials are 500 encouraged to provide a readily accessible mechanism for discarding 501 cached credentials under user control. 503 7. Acknowledgments 505 This specification takes over the definition of the HTTP 506 Authentication Framework, previously defined in RFC 2617. We thank 507 to John Franks, Phillip M. Hallam-Baker, Jeffery L. Hostetler, Scott 508 D. Lawrence, Paul J. Leach, Ari Luotonen, and Lawrence C. Stewart for 509 their work on that specification. 511 [[acks: HTTPbis acknowledgements.]] 513 8. References 515 8.1. Normative References 517 [Part1] Fielding, R., Ed., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., 518 Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y., Ed., 519 and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, 520 and Message Parsing", draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-15 521 (work in progress), July 2011. 523 [Part6] Fielding, R., Ed., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., 524 Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y., Ed., 525 Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed., "HTTP/1.1, part 526 6: Caching", draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-15 (work in 527 progress), July 2011. 529 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 530 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 532 [RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax 533 Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008. 535 8.2. Informative References 537 [RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., 538 Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext 539 Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999. 541 [RFC2617] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Lawrence, S., 542 Leach, P., Luotonen, A., and L. Stewart, "HTTP 543 Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication", 544 RFC 2617, June 1999. 546 [RFC3864] Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J. Mogul, "Registration 547 Procedures for Message Header Fields", BCP 90, RFC 3864, 548 September 2004. 550 [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an 551 IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, 552 May 2008. 554 Appendix A. Changes from RFC 2616 556 Change ABNF productions for header fields to only define the field 557 value. (Section 4) 559 Appendix B. Collected ABNF 561 Authorization = credentials 563 OWS = 565 Proxy-Authenticate = *( "," OWS ) challenge *( OWS "," [ OWS 566 challenge ] ) 567 Proxy-Authorization = credentials 569 WWW-Authenticate = *( "," OWS ) challenge *( OWS "," [ OWS challenge 570 ] ) 572 auth-param = token "=" ( token / quoted-string ) 573 auth-scheme = token 575 challenge = auth-scheme 1*SP *( "," OWS ) auth-param *( OWS "," [ OWS 576 auth-param ] ) 577 credentials = auth-scheme ( token / quoted-string / [ ( "," / 578 auth-param ) *( OWS "," [ OWS auth-param ] ) ] ) 580 quoted-string = 582 realm = "realm=" realm-value 583 realm-value = quoted-string 585 token = 587 ABNF diagnostics: 589 ; Authorization defined but not used 590 ; Proxy-Authenticate defined but not used 591 ; Proxy-Authorization defined but not used 592 ; WWW-Authenticate defined but not used 593 ; realm defined but not used 595 Appendix C. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication) 597 C.1. Since RFC 2616 599 Extracted relevant partitions from [RFC2616]. 601 C.2. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-00 603 Closed issues: 605 o : "Normative and 606 Informative references" 608 C.3. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-01 610 Ongoing work on ABNF conversion 611 (): 613 o Explicitly import BNF rules for "challenge" and "credentials" from 614 RFC2617. 616 o Add explicit references to BNF syntax and rules imported from 617 other parts of the specification. 619 C.4. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-02 621 Ongoing work on IANA Message Header Field Registration 622 (): 624 o Reference RFC 3984, and update header field registrations for 625 header fields defined in this document. 627 C.5. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-03 629 C.6. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-04 631 Ongoing work on ABNF conversion 632 (): 634 o Use "/" instead of "|" for alternatives. 636 o Introduce new ABNF rules for "bad" whitespace ("BWS"), optional 637 whitespace ("OWS") and required whitespace ("RWS"). 639 o Rewrite ABNFs to spell out whitespace rules, factor out header 640 field value format definitions. 642 C.7. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-05 644 Final work on ABNF conversion 645 (): 647 o Add appendix containing collected and expanded ABNF, reorganize 648 ABNF introduction. 650 C.8. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-06 652 None. 654 C.9. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-07 656 Closed issues: 658 o : "move IANA 659 registrations for optional status codes" 661 C.10. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-08 663 No significant changes. 665 C.11. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-09 667 Partly resolved issues: 669 o : "Term for the 670 requested resource's URI" 672 C.12. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-10 674 None. 676 C.13. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-11 678 Closed issues: 680 o : "introduction 681 to part 7 is work-in-progress" 683 o : "auth-param 684 syntax" 686 o : "Header 687 Classification" 689 o : "absorbing the 690 auth framework from 2617" 692 Partly resolved issues: 694 o : "should we 695 have an auth scheme registry" 697 C.14. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-12 699 None. 701 C.15. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-13 703 Closed issues: 705 o : "untangle 706 ABNFs for header fields" 708 C.16. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-14 710 None. 712 Index 714 4 715 401 Unauthorized (status code) 7 716 407 Proxy Authentication Required (status code) 7 718 A 719 auth-param 5 720 auth-scheme 5 721 Authorization header field 8 723 C 724 challenge 5 725 credentials 6 727 G 728 Grammar 729 Authorization 8 730 Proxy-Authenticate 9 731 Proxy-Authorization 9 732 WWW-Authenticate 9 734 H 735 Header Fields 736 Authorization 8 737 Proxy-Authenticate 9 738 Proxy-Authorization 9 739 WWW-Authenticate 9 741 P 742 Proxy-Authenticate header field 9 743 Proxy-Authorization header field 9 745 R 746 realm 5 747 realm-value 5 749 S 750 Status Codes 751 401 Unauthorized 7 752 407 Proxy Authentication Required 7 754 W 755 WWW-Authenticate header field 9 757 Authors' Addresses 759 Roy T. Fielding (editor) 760 Adobe Systems Incorporated 761 345 Park Ave 762 San Jose, CA 95110 763 USA 765 EMail: fielding@gbiv.com 766 URI: http://roy.gbiv.com/ 768 Jim Gettys 769 Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs 770 21 Oak Knoll Road 771 Carlisle, MA 01741 772 USA 774 EMail: jg@freedesktop.org 775 URI: http://gettys.wordpress.com/ 777 Jeffrey C. Mogul 778 Hewlett-Packard Company 779 HP Labs, Large Scale Systems Group 780 1501 Page Mill Road, MS 1177 781 Palo Alto, CA 94304 782 USA 784 EMail: JeffMogul@acm.org 786 Henrik Frystyk Nielsen 787 Microsoft Corporation 788 1 Microsoft Way 789 Redmond, WA 98052 790 USA 792 EMail: henrikn@microsoft.com 793 Larry Masinter 794 Adobe Systems Incorporated 795 345 Park Ave 796 San Jose, CA 95110 797 USA 799 EMail: LMM@acm.org 800 URI: http://larry.masinter.net/ 802 Paul J. Leach 803 Microsoft Corporation 804 1 Microsoft Way 805 Redmond, WA 98052 807 EMail: paulle@microsoft.com 809 Tim Berners-Lee 810 World Wide Web Consortium 811 MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory 812 The Stata Center, Building 32 813 32 Vassar Street 814 Cambridge, MA 02139 815 USA 817 EMail: timbl@w3.org 818 URI: http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/ 820 Yves Lafon (editor) 821 World Wide Web Consortium 822 W3C / ERCIM 823 2004, rte des Lucioles 824 Sophia-Antipolis, AM 06902 825 France 827 EMail: ylafon@w3.org 828 URI: http://www.raubacapeu.net/people/yves/ 829 Julian F. Reschke (editor) 830 greenbytes GmbH 831 Hafenweg 16 832 Muenster, NW 48155 833 Germany 835 Phone: +49 251 2807760 836 Fax: +49 251 2807761 837 EMail: julian.reschke@greenbytes.de 838 URI: http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/