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

Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> Thu, 31 October 2013 20:01 UTC

Return-Path: <kent@bbn.com>
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 B052911E8190 for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.532
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.067, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 RWawsO7JT5Aa for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:01:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.0.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85B8511E8185 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 13:01:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp89-089-218.bbn.com ([128.89.89.218]:50896) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <kent@bbn.com>) id 1VbyQt-000Hhq-Pr; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:01:31 -0400
Message-ID: <5272B71B.1070607@bbn.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:01:31 -0400
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>, 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> <52725E8E.50106@greenbytes.de>
In-Reply-To: <52725E8E.50106@greenbytes.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [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 20:01:44 -0000

Julian,

I alos don't have personal experience with the proxy situation. I was 
just commenting on
what appeared to be a logical inconsistency in the text.

I defer to others, who have such experience, on this detail.

Steve
> 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
>