Source: http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-04.html
Timestamp: 2017-02-25 00:02:39
Document Index: 544702825

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 7', 'art 7', 'art 7', 'art 7', 'art1', 'art1', 'art 1', 'art6', 'art 6', 'art1', 'art6']

HTTP/1.1, part 7: AuthenticationNetwork Working GroupR. Fielding, EditorInternet-DraftDay SoftwareObsoletes: 2616 (if approved)J. GettysUpdates: 2617 (if approved)One Laptop per ChildIntended status: Standards TrackJ. MogulExpires: March 2, 2009HPH. FrystykMicrosoftL. MasinterAdobe SystemsP. LeachMicrosoftT. Berners-LeeW3C/MITY. Lafon, EditorW3CJ. Reschke, EditorgreenbytesAugust 29, 2008HTTP/1.1, part 7: Authenticationdraft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-04Status of this MemoBy submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.¶Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.¶Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as “work in progress”.¶The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.¶The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.¶This Internet-Draft will expire on March 2, 2009.¶AbstractThe Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is an application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information systems. HTTP has been in use by the World Wide Web global information initiative since 1990. This document is Part 7 of the seven-part specification that defines the protocol referred to as "HTTP/1.1" and, taken together, obsoletes RFC 2616. Part 7 defines HTTP Authentication.¶Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor)Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org). The current issues list is at <http://www.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/report/11> and related documents (including fancy diffs) can be found at <http://www.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/>.¶The changes in this draft are summarized in Appendix B.4.¶Table of Contents1. Introduction1.1. Requirements2. Notational Conventions and Generic Grammar3. Status Code Definitions3.1. 401 Unauthorized3.2. 407 Proxy Authentication Required4. Header Field Definitions4.1. Authorization4.2. Proxy-Authenticate4.3. Proxy-Authorization4.4. WWW-Authenticate5. IANA Considerations5.1. Message Header Registration6. Security Considerations6.1. Authentication Credentials and Idle Clients7. Acknowledgments8. References8.1. Normative References8.2. Informative ReferencesA. Compatibility with Previous VersionsA.1. Changes from RFC 2616B. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)B.1. Since RFC2616B.2. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-00B.3. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-01B.4. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-02B.5. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-03IndexAuthors' AddressesIntellectual Property and Copyright Statements1. IntroductionThis document defines HTTP/1.1 access control and authentication. Right now it includes the extracted relevant sections of RFC 2616 with only minor changes. The intention is to move the general framework for HTTP authentication here, as currently specified in [RFC2617], and allow the individual authentication mechanisms to be defined elsewhere. This introduction will be rewritten when that occurs.¶HTTP provides several OPTIONAL challenge-response authentication mechanisms which can be used by a server to challenge a client request and by a client to provide authentication information. The general framework for access authentication, and the specification of "basic" and "digest" authentication, are specified in "HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication" [RFC2617]. This specification adopts the definitions of "challenge" and "credentials" from that specification.¶1.1. RequirementsThe key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].¶An implementation is not compliant if it fails to satisfy one or more of the MUST or REQUIRED level requirements for the protocols it implements. An implementation that satisfies all the MUST or REQUIRED level and all the SHOULD level requirements for its protocols is said to be "unconditionally compliant"; one that satisfies all the MUST level requirements but not all the SHOULD level requirements for its protocols is said to be "conditionally compliant."¶2. Notational Conventions and Generic GrammarThis specification uses the ABNF syntax defined in Section 2.1 of [Part1]. [abnf.dep: ABNF syntax and basic rules will be adopted from RFC 5234, see <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/36>.] ¶ The ABNF rules below are defined in other specifications:¶  challenge   = &lt;challenge, defined in [RFC2617], Section 1.2&gt;
The HTTP access authentication process is described in "HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication" [RFC2617]. User agents are advised to take special care in parsing the WWW-Authenticate field value as it might contain more than one challenge, or if more than one WWW-Authenticate header field is provided, the contents of a challenge itself can contain a comma-separated list of authentication parameters.¶5. IANA Considerations5.1. Message Header RegistrationThe Message Header Registry located at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/message-header-index.html> should be updated with the permanent registrations below (see [RFC3864]):¶Header Field NameProtocolStatusReferenceAuthorizationhttpstandardSection 4.1 Proxy-AuthenticatehttpstandardSection 4.2 Proxy-AuthorizationhttpstandardSection 4.3 WWW-AuthenticatehttpstandardSection 4.4 The change controller is: "IETF (iesg@ietf.org) - Internet Engineering Task Force".¶6. Security ConsiderationsThis section is meant to inform application developers, information providers, and users of the security limitations in HTTP/1.1 as described by this document. The discussion does not include definitive solutions to the problems revealed, though it does make some suggestions for reducing security risks.¶6.1. Authentication Credentials and Idle ClientsExisting HTTP clients and user agents typically retain authentication information indefinitely. HTTP/1.1 does not provide a method for a server to direct clients to discard these cached credentials. This is a significant defect that requires further extensions to HTTP. Circumstances under which credential caching can interfere with the application's security model include but are not limited to: ¶Clients which have been idle for an extended period following which the server might wish to cause the client to reprompt the user for credentials.Applications which include a session termination indication (such as a `logout' or `commit' button on a page) after which the server side of the application `knows' that there is no further reason for the client to retain the credentials.This is currently under separate study. There are a number of work-arounds to parts of this problem, and we encourage the use of password protection in screen savers, idle time-outs, and other methods which mitigate the security problems inherent in this problem. In particular, user agents which cache credentials are encouraged to provide a readily accessible mechanism for discarding cached credentials under user control.¶7. Acknowledgments[rfc.comment.1: TBD.] ¶8. References8.1. Normative References[Part1]Fielding, R., Ed., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed., “HTTP/1.1, part 1: URIs, Connections, and Message Parsing”, Internet-Draft draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-04 (work in progress), August 2008.[Part6]Fielding, R., Ed., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter, L., Leach, P., Berners-Lee, T., Lafon, Y., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed., “HTTP/1.1, part 6: Caching”, Internet-Draft draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-04 (work in progress), August 2008.[RFC2119]Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels”, BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.[RFC2617]Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Lawrence, S., Leach, P., Luotonen, A., and L. Stewart, “HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication”, RFC 2617, June 1999.8.2. Informative References[RFC2616]Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, “Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1”, RFC 2616, June 1999.[RFC3864]Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J. Mogul, “Registration Procedures for Message Header Fields”, BCP 90, RFC 3864, September 2004.A. Compatibility with Previous VersionsA.1. Changes from RFC 2616B. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)B.1. Since RFC2616Extracted relevant partitions from [RFC2616].¶B.2. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-00Closed issues: ¶<http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/35>: "Normative and Informative references"B.3. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-01Ongoing work on ABNF conversion (<http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/36>): ¶Explicitly import BNF rules for "challenge" and "credentials" from RFC2617.Add explicit references to BNF syntax and rules imported from other parts of the specification.B.4. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-02Ongoing work on IANA Message Header Registration (<http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/40>): ¶Reference RFC 3984, and update header registrations for headers defined in this document.B.5. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-03Index4 A G H P R S W 4401 Unauthorized (status code) 3.1407 Proxy Authentication Required (status code) 3.2AAuthorization header 3.1, 4.1, 5.1GGrammar Authorization 4.1challenge 2credentials 2Proxy-Authenticate 4.2Proxy-Authorization 4.3WWW-Authenticate 4.4HHeaders Authorization 3.1, 4.1, 5.1Proxy-Authenticate 3.2, 4.2, 5.1Proxy-Authorization 3.2, 4.3, 5.1WWW-Authenticate 3.1, 4.4, 5.1PPart1 2, 8.1Section 2.1 2Part6 4.1, 8.1Section 9 4.1Proxy-Authenticate header 3.2, 4.2, 5.1Proxy-Authorization header 3.2, 4.3, 5.1RRFC2119 1.1, 8.1RFC2616 1, 8.2, B.1RFC2617 1, 1, 2, 2, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 8.1Section 1.2 2, 2RFC3864 5.1, 8.2SStatus Codes 401 Unauthorized 3.1407 Proxy Authentication Required 3.2WWWW-Authenticate header 3.1, 4.4, 5.1Authors' AddressesRoy T. Fielding (editor)Day Software23 Corporate Plaza DR, Suite 280Newport Beach, CA 92660USAPhone: +1-949-706-5300Fax: +1-949-706-5305EMail: fielding@gbiv.comURI: http://roy.gbiv.com/Jim GettysOne Laptop per Child21 Oak Knoll RoadCarlisle, MA 01741USAEMail: jg@laptop.orgURI: http://www.laptop.org/Jeffrey C. MogulHewlett-Packard CompanyHP Labs, Large Scale Systems Group1501 Page Mill Road, MS 1177Palo Alto, CA 94304USAEMail: JeffMogul@acm.orgHenrik Frystyk NielsenMicrosoft Corporation1 Microsoft WayRedmond, WA 98052USAEMail: henrikn@microsoft.comLarry MasinterAdobe Systems, Incorporated345 Park AveSan Jose, CA 95110USAEMail: LMM@acm.orgURI: http://larry.masinter.net/Paul J. LeachMicrosoft Corporation1 Microsoft WayRedmond, WA 98052EMail: paulle@microsoft.comTim Berners-LeeWorld Wide Web ConsortiumMIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence LaboratoryThe Stata Center, Building 3232 Vassar StreetCambridge, MA 02139USAEMail: timbl@w3.orgURI: http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/Yves Lafon (editor)World Wide Web ConsortiumW3C / ERCIM2004, rte des LuciolesSophia-Antipolis, AM 06902FranceEMail: ylafon@w3.orgURI: http://www.raubacapeu.net/people/yves/Julian F. Reschke (editor)greenbytes GmbHHafenweg 16Muenster, NW 48155GermanyPhone: +49 251 2807760Fax: +49 251 2807761EMail: julian.reschke@greenbytes.deURI: http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/Full Copyright StatementCopyright © The IETF Trust (2008).¶This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.¶This document and the information contained herein are provided on an “AS IS” basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.¶Intellectual PropertyThe IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.¶The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.¶