Re: [http-auth] Last Call: <draft-ietf-httpauth-basicauth-update-05.txt> (The 'Basic' HTTP Authentication Scheme) to Proposed Standard

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Tue, 10 February 2015 17:33 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3FDF1A1B00; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 09:33:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bPy3VIOYHYGY; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 09:33:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D92E41A1A98; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 09:33:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.26] ([217.91.35.233]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LzHZ7-1XZEbc41Oz-014Xie; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 18:33:18 +0100
Message-ID: <54DA40DC.7060302@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 18:33:16 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Subject: Re: [http-auth] Last Call: <draft-ietf-httpauth-basicauth-update-05.txt> (The 'Basic' HTTP Authentication Scheme) to Proposed Standard
References: <20150205161049.4222.88369.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <kdr7da51k6t581cdppljqvdnf6401cjb4o@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <54D4DC68.3030507@isode.com> <tnn9da1iqcndtmcbnp1hqg9ms7b1hcbcr5@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <54D4E171.4090907@isode.com>
In-Reply-To: <54D4E171.4090907@isode.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:8dK80eZCsj1Tpfs3RPWfddxklJZW9MJsh/Y2lJAutS9RC6fgBHQ zdwlSK8JXW0PhxG+M469TzYXbsAJQWw1rqQlKZJOW0fNgPudW5x5YTreUP4LLOe1EivXjB4 /6LsxuOUoJyofu2QeSx0w+O8axV6fDcFBY8E//zn/XtFg1pacz481pN21k8QAKXO+ZC27Q0 tuDkgGvxSKJzyEN0EZgGA==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/rrh0aoM2sSWAbVcGoKCIGoSkH2E>
Cc: http-auth@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:33:37 -0000

On 2015-02-06 16:44, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>
> On 06/02/2015 15:35, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>> * Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>>> On 05/02/2015 22:49, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>>>   [snip]
>>>>      The realm value is an opaque string
>>>>      which can only be compared for equality with other realms on that
>>>>      server.
>>>>
>>>> RFC 7235 says "The realm value is a string, generally assigned by the
>>>> origin server, that can have additional semantics specific to the
>>>> authentication scheme." This seems contradictory (perhaps the intent is
>>>> to say that for the particular case of Basic, the realm value is opaque
>>>> in contrast to other schemes where it might not be opaque, but that is
>>>> not clear from the text) and misleading (users make decisions based on
>>>> the string, which often contains human readable text, so it's not
>>>> really
>>>> opaque to them).
>>> I think it is opaque to clients and servers, so they shouldn't try to
>>> parse it.
>> A better phrase would be something like "free-form text".
> Maybe something like "free-form text that MUST NOT be interpreted by
> clients"?
> I would also like to keep "which can only be compared for equality with
> other realms on that server", as this is the important part.

Clarifying: the descriptions of "realm" in RFC 7235 and in this draft 
are exactly what RFC 2617 said. That being said, I'm ok with replacing 
"opaque string" by "free-form text" if that makes the participants over 
here happy.


Best regards, Julian