[secdir] proxies and forwarding of credentials, was: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-24

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de> Thu, 31 October 2013 13:44 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C24EA11E832E for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 06:44:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.168
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.168 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.919, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qCexFOP0NFWy for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 06:43:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from central.greenbytes.de (mail.greenbytes.de [217.91.35.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4203611E822C for <secdir@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 06:43:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.102] (unknown [217.91.35.233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by central.greenbytes.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3AB3610C108E; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:43:45 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <52725E8E.50106@greenbytes.de>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:43:42 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>, secdir <secdir@ietf.org>, fielding@gbiv.com, mnot@pobox.com, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, "Mankin, Allison" <amankin@verisign.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <52700DE4.8020208@bbn.com>
In-Reply-To: <52700DE4.8020208@bbn.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: [secdir] proxies and forwarding of credentials, was: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-24
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:44:07 -0000

On 2013-10-29 20:35, Stephen Kent wrote:
> ...
> In Section 4.3, the text says:
>
> A proxy MAY relay
>
> the credentials from the client request to the next proxy if that is
>
> the mechanism by which the proxies cooperatively authenticate a given
>
> request.
>
> If, as stated here, a set of proxies cooperatively authenticate a
> request, then isn’t this a MUST vs. a MAY?
> ...

Maybe. I have no experience with proxy authentication, and this piece of 
text was copied from 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#rfc.section.14.34>;.

Perhaps this is a case where we should drop the RFC2119 keywords and 
just make a statement such as:

"A proxy can relay the credentials from the client request to the next 
proxy if that is the mechanism by which the proxies cooperatively 
authenticate a given request."

?

Best regards, Julian