[secdir] WWW-Authenticate parsing quirks, was: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-24

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Wed, 30 October 2013 14:22 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.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 7623411E8222 for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 07:22:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.042
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.042 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.443, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 TFY9gpv1AJuR for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 07:22:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D2C611E8221 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 07:22:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.102] ([217.91.35.233]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx103) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M5tzh-1VqqiP1nL7-00xsaO for <secdir@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 15:22:19 +0100
Message-ID: <52711616.1060008@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 15:22:14 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.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
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:iGA6vx7vdP3JAoGEFWc3T0o/2hOntq448/B9kWW6fDTlo3fwfGr uSIyTBFlB/Y1gMRUfxZmaXnf3EASo/Am23Meur18lqELN+X81/OGxdpGXETshoc/Rl3xn+k SSRgwhqSOUuC7HOwBRCAtF+vHK4jJTbn6j8GZdF3d6/dRLKcZNgdJPSEE1JMjoBKqg21MZP DQTUhftSzp2xdjvAhxhlA==
Subject: [secdir] WWW-Authenticate parsing quirks, 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: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 14:22:40 -0000

On 2013-10-29 20:35, Stephen Kent wrote:
> ...
> In Section 4.4 the text says:
>
> Note: The challenge grammar production uses the list syntax as
>
> well.Therefore, a sequence of comma, whitespace, and comma can
>
> be considered both as applying to the preceding challenge, or to
>
> be an empty entry in the list of challenges.In practice, this
>
> ambiguity does not affect the semantics of the header field value
>
> Should “both” be “either” in the above text? Does the potentially
 > ...

Yes (done)

> ambiguous construct ever take on both meanings simultaneously?
> ...

Yes, but these two meanings do not affect the semantics of the header 
field as a whole (it's either an empty entry in the list of auth 
parameters, or an empty challenge value).

Best regards, Julian