Re: [secdir] additional mechanisms on top of the auth framework, was: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-24
Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Fri, 01 November 2013 13:17 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 92EA721E836E for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Fri, 1 Nov 2013 06:17:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.549
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050,
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 WNQcGT1ZyX9B for
<secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 06:16:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) by ietfa.amsl.com
(Postfix) with ESMTP id B04F221E8436 for <secdir@ietf.org>;
Fri, 1 Nov 2013 06:13:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.117] ([84.187.33.167]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx001)
with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MU0pN-1VBayi3Nbd-00QhGq for <secdir@ietf.org>;
Fri, 01 Nov 2013 14:13:07 +0100
Message-ID: <5273A8D2.2050604@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 14:12:50 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>,
Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
References: <52700DE4.8020208@bbn.com> <52726125.1000802@greenbytes.de>
<omq479p5tt306gress6en7thrh06lr1ge6@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
<52726DD8.8080800@greenbytes.de>
<hkr4791jflgr33g5gosabbd1d1jfrsor21@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
In-Reply-To: <hkr4791jflgr33g5gosabbd1d1jfrsor21@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:WMvOdqRDjkZ4Nx5S0c0VlFHphpK5fXR7SG+HrEu+8X0aO5P2N6C
wvrCWCBcZdF/C+KgTqtOBTa8O00qBE2fS36mwwAXnkyPy3oczFHiF02tAGwEPT0Lp7nRYtw
GfuzWHVP8+CchOamjNk/MKV7wKT8DWmSRp3ZpHX5e+oK0mShQJLG5K4vguM6QeudpMlANOL
IUg/Tt/zKDe7x+Y0W8ibw==
Cc: secdir <secdir@ietf.org>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, "Mankin,
Allison" <amankin@verisign.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>,
Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] additional mechanisms on top of the auth framework,
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: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 13:17:20 -0000
On 2013-10-31 16:05, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * Julian Reschke wrote: >> On 2013-10-31 15:44, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: >>> I think doing s/encryption/authentication/ instead would be better. >>> There is no reason to discuss confidentiality here. Encryption and other >>> cryptographic techniques are used in many authentication schemes, like >>> with client certificates; that may have been the idea behind the text. >> >> "authentication on the transport layer"? > > Applying my suggestion would make the text read, > > The HTTP protocol does not restrict applications to this simple > challenge-response framework for access authentication. Additional > mechanisms MAY be used, such as authentication at the transport > level or via message encapsulation, and with additional header fields > specifying authentication information. However, such additional > mechanisms are not defined by this specification. > > (The MAY might be better as "can".) > ... OK, applied with <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/2463>. Best regards, Julian
- [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7... Stephen Kent
- [secdir] RFC2119 vs "ought" etc, was: SECDIR re... Julian Reschke
- Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbi... Julian Reschke
- Re: [secdir] RFC2119 vs "ought" etc, was: SECDI... Richard Barnes
- Re: [secdir] RFC2119 vs "ought" etc, was: SECDI... Julian Reschke
- Re: [secdir] RFC2119 vs "ought" etc, was: SECDI... Stephen Kent
- [secdir] WWW-Authenticate parsing quirks, was: ... Julian Reschke
- Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbi... Stephen Kent
- Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbi... Julian Reschke
- Re: [secdir] RFC2119 vs "ought" etc, was: SECDI... Richard Barnes
- Re: [secdir] RFC2119 vs "ought" etc, was: SECDI... Barry Leiba
- [secdir] Reuse of credentials per realm, was: S... Julian Reschke
- Re: [secdir] Reuse of credentials per realm, wa... Stephen Kent
- Re: [secdir] Reuse of credentials per realm, wa... Julian Reschke
- [secdir] proxies and forwarding of credentials,... Julian Reschke
- [secdir] additional mechanisms on top of the au... Julian Reschke
- Re: [secdir] Reuse of credentials per realm, wa... Stephen Kent
- Re: [secdir] additional mechanisms on top of th... Julian Reschke
- Re: [secdir] additional mechanisms on top of th... Nico Williams
- Re: [secdir] proxies and forwarding of credenti... Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [secdir] additional mechanisms on top of th... Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [secdir] additional mechanisms on top of th... Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [secdir] additional mechanisms on top of th... Stephen Kent
- Re: [secdir] additional mechanisms on top of th... Julian Reschke
- Re: [secdir] proxies and forwarding of credenti... Stephen Kent
- Re: [secdir] proxies and forwarding of credenti... Mark Nottingham
- Re: [secdir] additional mechanisms on top of th... Julian Reschke
- Re: [secdir] proxies and forwarding of credenti... Stephen Kent