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

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Tue, 26 July 2011 19:05 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 8D33821F87E2 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 12:05:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.726
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.726 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.873, 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 f7pZtmhodPDH for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 12:05:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 181E021F87D3 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 12:05:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1QlmwN-0006tr-J1 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 19:05:15 +0000
Received: from aji.keio.w3.org ([133.27.228.206]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1QlmwF-0006sZ-HE for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 19:05:07 +0000
Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]) by aji.keio.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1QlmwB-0003nw-OF for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 19:05:06 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by mail.home.local (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p6QJ4UMP003730; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 21:04:30 +0200
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 21:04:30 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20110726190430.GA3692@1wt.eu>
References: <798C1D1A-C0C7-40DD-8993-31DB735A4961@mnot.net> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E112892DE4A4@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> <4E2DE5FF.7060801@gmx.de> <r92s27l82b2b7mt8ta9te03vrg0rjslpa5@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <4E2F0777.1040602@gmx.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4E2F0777.1040602@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by 1wt.eu id p6QJ4U4t031421
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.212.114.60; envelope-from=w@1wt.eu; helo=1wt.eu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.193, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: aji.keio.w3.org 1QlmwB-0003nw-OF 0dd5266684cb6fb15ec7cabfd71d20d2
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/20110726190430.GA3692@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/11096
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: <E1QlmwN-0006tr-J1@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 19:05:15 +0000

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 08:29:11PM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Björn, thanks. To the point as always...
> 
> So:
> 
> "Use of the Authorization header to transfer credentials implies that 
> the message is confidential with respect to the credentials provided in 
> that header field, meaning response messages ought to be treated as if 
> they had "Cache-Control: private", and that new authentication schemes 
> will have to take explicit measure to ensure the confidentiality of 
> messages, such as by using that very header, because deployed recipients 
> are otherwise unaware of the semantics."

Looks a lot better to me :-)

Best regards,
Willy