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

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Tue, 26 July 2011 19:30 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 4D67521F8640 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 12:30:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.061
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.061 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.538, 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 pe5emQTjVoR1 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 12:30:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B4F621F8661 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 12:30:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1QlnKc-0001Tw-W3 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 19:30:19 +0000
Received: from aji.keio.w3.org ([133.27.228.206]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1QlnKU-00010V-Rm for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 19:30:11 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.22]) by aji.keio.w3.org with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1QlnKQ-0004Wu-QK for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 19:30:09 +0000
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 26 Jul 2011 19:29:32 -0000
Received: from dhcp-14e3.meeting.ietf.org (EHLO [130.129.20.227]) [130.129.20.227] by mail.gmx.net (mp048) with SMTP; 26 Jul 2011 21:29:32 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19Yj5NUK/9YDzoUR5v+21/Frzwqu8giwHTQYB9M+f xVpHCHBVS6Fna3
Message-ID: <4E2F1598.30101@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 21:29:28 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
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>
In-Reply-To: <4E2F0777.1040602@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=213.165.64.22; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mailout-de.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: aji.keio.w3.org 1QlnKQ-0004Wu-QK 2f65e4aaa9b0feec88da0b71a2316dcd
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/4E2F1598.30101@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/11097
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: <E1QlnKc-0001Tw-W3@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 19:30:18 +0000

On 2011-07-26 20:29, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2011-07-26 02:38, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>> ...
>> This should refer to disclosure or something like that rather than leak-
>> age (you wouldn't design a protocol that intentionally leaks something),
>> and `Vary: *` strikes me as odd in this context (why, then, doesn't the
>> use of Authorization imply just `Vary: Authorization`, for instance).
>>
>> I would rather say something along the lines that use of "Authorization"
>> implies that the message is confidential with respect to the credentials
>> provided in that header, meaning messages should be treated as if they
>> had `Cache-Control: private`, and that new schemes must take explicit
>> measures to ensure the confidentiality of messages, like using that same
>> header, because deployed servers are otherwise unaware of the semantics.
>  > ...
>
> 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."
>
> ?

Or even....:

"The credentials carried in an Authorization header field are specific 
to the User Agent, and therefore have the same effect on HTTP caches as 
the "private" Cache-Control response directive, within the scope of the
request they appear in.

Therefore, new authentication schemes which choose not to carry 
credentials in the Authorization header (e.g., using a newly defined
header) will need to explicitly disallow caching, by mandating the use 
of either Cache-Control request directives (e.g., "no-store") or 
response directives (e.g., "private")."

BR, Julian