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

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Sun, 24 July 2011 18:31 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 4B77B21F8AEC for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 11:31:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 s5Q93N9IIjpv for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 11:31:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52AB021F8AF1 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 11:31:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Ql3Se-0003CE-Q6 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 18:31:32 +0000
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1Ql3SX-0003Ay-Al for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 18:31:25 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1Ql3SW-0006Q4-9k for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 18:31:25 +0000
Received: from dhcp-1790.meeting.ietf.org (unknown [130.129.23.144]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A045E22E247; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 14:31:03 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <20110724181138.GW22405@1wt.eu>
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 14:31:02 -0400
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CFBF6FC4-5E17-40A5-A10F-FDCB8B053BAF@mnot.net>
References: <798C1D1A-C0C7-40DD-8993-31DB735A4961@mnot.net> <20110724181138.GW22405@1wt.eu>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1Ql3SW-0006Q4-9k 6eb62e33b1a3f237ebe38fc4e1350d59
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/CFBF6FC4-5E17-40A5-A10F-FDCB8B053BAF@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/11060
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: <E1Ql3Se-0003CE-Q6@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 18:31:32 +0000

On 24/07/2011, at 2:11 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 02:06:17PM -0400, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/78>
>> 
>> Proposal:
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> Does this mean it's only for other 4xx or for any status ? It might have
> implications with non-idempotent requests if a client can repost a request
> that led to a 200 for instance.

Any status. Good point about non-idempotent requests; we'll need to make clear it's not about automatically retrying requests, but instead that sending the same request with credentials might have a different affect.


>> and,
>> 
>> 2) Clarify that an Authentication scheme that uses WWW-Authenticate and/or 401 MUST use the Authorization header in the request, because of its implications for caching. Schemes MAY specify additional headers to be used alongside it.
> 
> This looks important indeed !
> 
> Willy

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/