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

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Mon, 25 July 2011 22:45 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 201EB11E80D0 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:45:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.900, 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 gWw5HaJumpdE for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:45:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9421211E80CF for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:45:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1QlTtQ-0006Sv-VA for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:44:56 +0000
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1QlTtA-0006Rv-79 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:44:40 +0000
Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1QlTt8-0007bf-Gd for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:44:39 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by mail.home.local (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p6PMi2jD032004; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 00:44:02 +0200
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 00:44:02 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Manger, James H" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20110725224402.GA31941@1wt.eu>
References: <798C1D1A-C0C7-40DD-8993-31DB735A4961@mnot.net> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E112892DE4A4@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> <4E2DE5FF.7060801@gmx.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4E2DE5FF.7060801@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
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=-1.191, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1QlTt8-0007bf-Gd 82e8f320ffb94af9e68b1b0854bd7cd1
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/20110725224402.GA31941@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/11082
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: <E1QlTtQ-0006Sv-VA@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:44:56 +0000

Hi Julian,

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:54:07PM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Maybe...:
> 
> Use of the Authorization header to transfer credentials implies 
> "Cache-Control: private" [ref] and thus affects cacheability of 
> responses. Thus, definitions of new authentication schemes that do not 
> use "Authorization" will need to ensure that response messages do not 
> leak in an unintended way, for instance by specifying "Cache-Control" or 
> "Vary: *" [ref] explicitly.
> 
> Feedback appreciated,

I can read the first sentence in two ways :
  - if a server or intermediary receives an Authorization header, it must
    assume that "Cache-Control: private" is implied
  - if a client wants to emit an Authorization header, it must also add
    a "Cache-Control: private" header

I think the former was meant given the second sentence, though I'm not
100% certain. If so, maybe we should focus on the recipient of the message
and replace "Use of" with "Presence of" (or anything equivalent).

The second part is clear enough however.

Regards,
Willy