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

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Tue, 26 July 2011 19:56 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 D0F5921F8844 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 12:56:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.17
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.17 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.429, 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 Y2GUayBapRjt for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 12:56:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F23521F881C for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 12:56:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Qlnjh-0005Ir-S6 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 19:56:13 +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 1Qlnja-0005H8-JG for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 19:56:06 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.23]) by aji.keio.w3.org with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1QlnjW-0005Mc-WB for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 19:56:05 +0000
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 26 Jul 2011 19:55:29 -0000
Received: from dhcp-14e3.meeting.ietf.org (EHLO [130.129.20.227]) [130.129.20.227] by mail.gmx.net (mp023) with SMTP; 26 Jul 2011 21:55:29 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18VYE8GBLgVjNJs/8pVHkwxq4AHIvTzOMVQqAz6Fm 4PxvbeR1vroHy7
Message-ID: <4E2F1BAB.2090604@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 21:55:23 +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: Yutaka OIWA <y.oiwa@aist.go.jp>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <798C1D1A-C0C7-40DD-8993-31DB735A4961@mnot.net> <4E2EC0EE.8060200@aist.go.jp> <4E2EC55F.2050403@aist.go.jp>
In-Reply-To: <4E2EC55F.2050403@aist.go.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=213.165.64.23; 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 1QlnjW-0005Mc-WB ec586f10a8820c9adfcddc6c4d036fe0
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/4E2F1BAB.2090604@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/11102
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: <E1Qlnjh-0005Ir-S6@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 19:56:13 +0000

On 2011-07-26 15:47, Yutaka OIWA wrote:
> On 2011/07/26 22:28, Yutaka OIWA wrote:
>
>> And if this change text intends to introduce any opportunity
>> for optional authentication to HTTP at this time,
>> I think we need more detailed restrictions to make it really work.
>> If the intention is just to clarify header meanings and
>> leave the rest for future work, it is OK for me.
>
> just FYI, the following is the list of required additional rules
> to make optional auth work.
>
> (1) The response for successful authentication MUST NOT contain
>      any WWW-Authenticate: header.

Not sure about that.

If we allow WWW-A on a non-authenticated 200 response, why not also on 
an authenticated one?

> (2) The response for failed authentication is RECOMMENDED to be
>      401 status, even if a request for the same URL and method without
>      Authorization: header will result in 200 status with WWW-Authenticate:
>      header.

I agree with this one, but, as Mark said, let's leave that to future work.

 > ...

Best regards, Julian