Re: #78: Relationship between 401, Authorization and WWW-Authenticate

Yutaka OIWA <y.oiwa@aist.go.jp> Tue, 26 July 2011 19:54 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B34B411E80EF for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 12:54:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.477
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.477 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=3.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3vHXfnEJTfxu for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 12:54:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D44511E80AB for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 12:54:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Qlnhk-0003qw-ES for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 19:54:12 +0000
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <yutaka-oiwa-aist-temp@g.oiwa.jp>) id 1Qlnhc-0003q6-13 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 19:54:04 +0000
Received: from mail-gy0-f171.google.com ([209.85.160.171]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <yutaka-oiwa-aist-temp@g.oiwa.jp>) id 1Qlnha-0000aZ-Mm for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 19:54:04 +0000
Received: by gyh20 with SMTP id 20so676339gyh.2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 12:53:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.151.102.21 with SMTP id e21mr5710790ybm.302.1311710016461; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 12:53:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-Sender-Delegation: yutaka@g.oiwa.jp
Received: by 10.150.138.1 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 12:53:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <89C362A8-6148-4F9F-BFC4-3A80261271D5@mnot.net>
References: <798C1D1A-C0C7-40DD-8993-31DB735A4961@mnot.net> <CAL8DUN-yGFr=kqPD7jA5h1wx_k0Mo-xmiLwks8USe8-3GagvcA@mail.gmail.com> <89C362A8-6148-4F9F-BFC4-3A80261271D5@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 04:53:36 +0900
X-Google-Sender-Auth: Rr0wdaNNO2rq7rDJe-nN5XB-yB4
Message-ID: <CAL8DUN9h1o_G19gD1=p_wCRbROaEaiy2xfSW4a7=7BTeiYA5DQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Yutaka OIWA <y.oiwa@aist.go.jp>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.160.171; envelope-from=yutaka-oiwa-aist-temp@g.oiwa.jp; helo=mail-gy0-f171.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1Qlnha-0000aZ-Mm 754c993f8c581db5a13967581cf2dbbe
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #78: Relationship between 401, Authorization and WWW-Authenticate
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAL8DUN9h1o_G19gD1=p_wCRbROaEaiy2xfSW4a7=7BTeiYA5DQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/11101
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Qlnhk-0003qw-ES@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 19:54:12 +0000

Thanks,

2011/7/27 Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>:
> On 26/07/2011, at 9:15 AM, Yutaka OIWA wrote:
>
>>> 1) Clarify that WWW-Authenticate can appear on any response, and that when it appears on any other than a 401, it means that the client can optionally present the request again with a credential.
>>
>> Just for confirmation:
>> I remember we had some discussion about this years ago.
>> This change will break SPNEGO (see RFC 4559, Sec. 5)
>> and other other authentication schemes which uses
>> WWW-Authenticate on 200 as a carrier for authentication
>> exchanges, instead of Authentication-Info.
>> Is this incompatible change OK?
>> (I prefer this direction, though.)
>
> Well, RFC4559 is already broken, because it makes assumptions about the relationship between messages in a connection.
>
> Regardless, I think we can word it in such a way that Negotiate isn't any more broken; people already know that they need to handle it differently.

I see, then I agree on your proposal.

Does anyone have a list of HTTP authentication schemes
(either RFC-defined of de-fact deployed) so that we can check
the whole list of to-be-differently-handled schemes?
If there is such a list, I (we) can work on making such checklist.
(unless it has 50 or 100 entries :-))