draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-01, "4.2.3 Authentication"

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Tue, 05 March 2013 20:39 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 499E121F882F for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 12:39:10 -0800 (PST)
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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P5a3vH24n5hN for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 12:39:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FA3321F881D for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 12:39:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UCybh-0000aN-8S for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 05 Mar 2013 20:37:05 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 20:37:05 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UCybh-0000aN-8S@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1UCybR-00081c-G1 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 05 Mar 2013 20:36:49 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.20]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1UCybQ-0003Q2-EW for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 05 Mar 2013 20:36:49 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.33]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx001) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0Lb72N-1Ug1tc1yiP-00kewo for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 05 Mar 2013 21:36:21 +0100
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 05 Mar 2013 20:36:21 -0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.105]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp033) with SMTP; 05 Mar 2013 21:36:21 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX183P41xqIc3Fy/AM6dBvvn78sKm2s5v0fTxgwwMf6 N8CpX96S4caIel
Message-ID: <51365743.5030409@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 21:36:19 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130215 Thunderbird/17.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.17.20; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.450, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UCybQ-0003Q2-EW e829a95172e130da61d5a96128e2b5fb
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-01, "4.2.3 Authentication"
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/51365743.5030409@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16973
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@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>

<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-01.html#Authentication>:

"There are four options for proxy authentication, Basic, Digest, NTLM 
and Negotiate (SPNEGO). The first two options were defined in RFC2617 
[RFC2617], and are stateless. The second two options were developed by 
Microsoft and specified in RFC4559 [RFC4559], and are stateful; 
otherwise known as multi-round authentication, or connection 
authentication."

As far as I can tell, RFC4559 does not actually define an NTLM auth 
scheme. If it did, we'd need to add it to 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations-latest.html>.

(And yes, I know that there's a NTLM scheme used in practice, I just 
don't see it defined by RFC4559).

Later on:

"Unfortunately, the stateful authentication mechanisms were implemented 
and defined in a such a way that directly violates RFC2617 - they do not 
include a "realm" as part of the request. This is problematic in 
HTTP/2.0 because it makes it impossible for a client to disambiguate two 
concurrent server authentication challenges."

If these schemes need HTTP/2.0-specific fixes, these should be defined 
in a separate document, updating RFC4559. Optimally, we can get rid of 
the whole section.

Best regards, Julian