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

Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> Thu, 31 October 2013 14:30 UTC

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:30:22 +0100
Message-ID: <5op4795b77js1jfi5pqfv9jss3ko77vd4a@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
References: <52700DE4.8020208@bbn.com> <52725E8E.50106@greenbytes.de>
In-Reply-To: <52725E8E.50106@greenbytes.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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] proxies and forwarding of credentials, was: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-24
Precedence: list

* Julian Reschke wrote:
>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 [...]

Ordinarily a proxy is not supposed to forward the `Proxy-Authorization`
header and an implementation that forwards it by accident fails to meet
the requirements of the specification, so use of RFC 2119 keywords seems
appropriate to me. I also see nothing wrong with the proxy offering an
configuration option to, say, relay the credentials for some users, but
not for others, so this cannot be a MUST. I think the text is fine.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

[secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-a… Stephen Kent
[secdir] RFC2119 vs "ought" etc, was: SECDIR revi… Julian Reschke
Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-… Julian Reschke
Re: [secdir] RFC2119 vs "ought" etc, was: SECDIR … Richard Barnes
Re: [secdir] RFC2119 vs "ought" etc, was: SECDIR … Julian Reschke
Re: [secdir] RFC2119 vs "ought" etc, was: SECDIR … Stephen Kent
[secdir] WWW-Authenticate parsing quirks, was: SE… Julian Reschke
Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-… Stephen Kent
Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-httpbis-… Julian Reschke
Re: [secdir] RFC2119 vs "ought" etc, was: SECDIR … Richard Barnes
Re: [secdir] RFC2119 vs "ought" etc, was: SECDIR … Barry Leiba
[secdir] Reuse of credentials per realm, was: SEC… Julian Reschke
Re: [secdir] Reuse of credentials per realm, was:… Stephen Kent
Re: [secdir] Reuse of credentials per realm, was:… Julian Reschke
[secdir] proxies and forwarding of credentials, w… Julian Reschke
[secdir] additional mechanisms on top of the auth… Julian Reschke
Re: [secdir] Reuse of credentials per realm, was:… Stephen Kent
Re: [secdir] additional mechanisms on top of the … Julian Reschke
Re: [secdir] additional mechanisms on top of the … Nico Williams
Re: [secdir] proxies and forwarding of credential… Bjoern Hoehrmann
Re: [secdir] additional mechanisms on top of the … Bjoern Hoehrmann
Re: [secdir] additional mechanisms on top of the … Bjoern Hoehrmann
Re: [secdir] additional mechanisms on top of the … Stephen Kent
Re: [secdir] additional mechanisms on top of the … Julian Reschke
Re: [secdir] proxies and forwarding of credential… Stephen Kent
Re: [secdir] proxies and forwarding of credential… Mark Nottingham
Re: [secdir] additional mechanisms on top of the … Julian Reschke
Re: [secdir] proxies and forwarding of credential… Stephen Kent