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

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 26 July 2011 19:44 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 5E36A21F8700 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 12:44:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.549
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.050, 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 EwUPpte4AQ82 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 12:44:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C20CB21F873D for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 12:44:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1QlnXV-0007FF-Aj for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 19:43:37 +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 1QlnXN-0007Cu-A5 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 19:43:29 +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 1QlnXL-0000Jn-KI for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 19:43:28 +0000
Received: from dhcp-5744.meeting.ietf.org (unknown [130.129.87.68]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EBBBF22E258; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:43:05 -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: <CAL8DUN-yGFr=kqPD7jA5h1wx_k0Mo-xmiLwks8USe8-3GagvcA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:43:05 -0400
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <89C362A8-6148-4F9F-BFC4-3A80261271D5@mnot.net>
References: <798C1D1A-C0C7-40DD-8993-31DB735A4961@mnot.net> <CAL8DUN-yGFr=kqPD7jA5h1wx_k0Mo-xmiLwks8USe8-3GagvcA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yutaka OIWA <y.oiwa@aist.go.jp>
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 1QlnXL-0000Jn-KI 31c76366411eb834ad035a2be8a30d0b
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/89C362A8-6148-4F9F-BFC4-3A80261271D5@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/11098
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: <E1QlnXV-0007FF-Aj@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 19:43:37 +0000

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.


> And if this change text intends to introduce opportunity
> for optional authentication to HTTP at this time,
> I think we need more details and restrictions to make it work.
> If the intention is just to clarify header meanings and
> leave the rest for future work, it is OK for me.


I think it's the latter.

Cheers,

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