draft-ietf-httpauth-extension-02.txt   draft-ietf-httpauth-extension-03.txt 
HTTPAUTH Working Group Y. Oiwa HTTPAUTH Working Group Y. Oiwa
Internet-Draft H. Watanabe Internet-Draft H. Watanabe
Intended status: Experimental H. Takagi Intended status: Experimental H. Takagi
Expires: February 20, 2015 RISEC, AIST Expires: August 23, 2015 RISEC, AIST
T. Hayashi T. Hayashi
Lepidum Lepidum
Y. Ioku Y. Ioku
Individual Individual
August 19, 2014 February 19, 2015
HTTP Authentication Extensions for Interactive Clients HTTP Authentication Extensions for Interactive Clients
draft-ietf-httpauth-extension-02 draft-ietf-httpauth-extension-03
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies a few extensions of HTTP authentication This document specifies a few extensions of HTTP authentication
framework for interactive clients. Recently, fundamental features of framework for interactive clients. Recently, fundamental features of
HTTP-level authentication is not enough for complex requirements of HTTP-level authentication is not enough for complex requirements of
various Web-based applications. This makes these applications to various Web-based applications. This makes these applications to
implement their own authentication frameworks using HTML Forms and implement their own authentication frameworks using HTML Forms and
other means, which becomes one of the hurdles against introducing other means, which becomes one of the hurdles against introducing
secure authentication mechanisms handled jointly by servers and user- secure authentication mechanisms handled jointly by servers and user-
skipping to change at page 1, line 45 skipping to change at page 1, line 45
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 20, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 23, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 3, line 14 skipping to change at page 3, line 14
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Terms for describing authentication protocol flow . . . . 5 2.1. Terms for describing authentication protocol flow . . . . 5
2.2. Syntax Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2. Syntax Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Optional Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3. Optional Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Authentication-Control header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. Authentication-Control header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Auth-style parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.1. Non-ASCII extended header parameters . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. Location-when-unauthenticated parameter . . . . . . . . . 12 4.2. Auth-style parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3. No-auth parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.3. Location-when-unauthenticated parameter . . . . . . . . . 13
4.4. Location-when-logout parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.4. No-auth parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.5. Logout-timeout parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.5. Location-when-logout parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.6. Username parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.6. Logout-timeout parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. Usage examples (informative) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.7. Username parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. Usage examples (informative) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.1. Example 1: a portal site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.1. Example 1: a portal site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.1.1. Case 1: a simple application . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.1.1. Case 1: a simple application . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.1.2. Case 2: specific action required on log-out . . . . . 16 5.1.2. Case 2: specific action required on log-out . . . . . 17
5.1.3. Case 3: specific page displayed before log-in . . . . 17 5.1.3. Case 3: specific page displayed before log-in . . . . 17
5.2. Example 2: authenticated user-only sites . . . . . . . . . 17 5.2. Example 2: authenticated user-only sites . . . . . . . . . 18
5.3. When to use Cookies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.3. When to use Cookies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.4. Parallel deployment with Form/Cookie authentications . . . 18 5.4. Parallel deployment with Form/Cookie authentications . . . 19
6. Methods to extend this protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 6. Methods to extend this protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Appendix A. (Informative) Applicability of features for each Appendix A. (Informative) Applicability of features for each
messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Appendix B. (Informative) Draft Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Appendix B. (Informative) Draft Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Appendix C. (Informative) Draft Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Appendix C. (Informative) Draft Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . 23
C.1. Changes in Httpauth WG revision 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 C.1. Changes in Httpauth WG revision 03 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
C.2. Changes in Httpauth WG revision 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 C.2. Changes in Httpauth WG revision 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
C.3. Changes in Httpauth revision 00 and HttpBis revision 00 . 23 C.3. Changes in Httpauth WG revision 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
C.4. Changes in revision 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 C.4. Changes in Httpauth revision 00 and HttpBis revision 00 . 24
C.5. Changes in revision 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 C.5. Changes in revision 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
C.6. Changes in revision 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 C.6. Changes in revision 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 C.7. Changes in revision 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The document proposes several extensions to the current HTTP The document proposes several extensions to the current HTTP
authentication framework, to provide enough functionality comparable authentication framework, to provide enough functionality comparable
with current widely-used form-based Web authentication. A majority with current widely-used form-based Web authentication. A majority
of the recent Web-sites on the Internet use custom application-layer of the recent Web-sites on the Internet use custom application-layer
authentication implementations using Web forms. The reasons for authentication implementations using Web forms. The reasons for
these may vary, but many people believe that the current HTTP Basic these may vary, but many people believe that the current HTTP Basic
(and Digest, too) authentication method does not have enough (and Digest, too) authentication method does not have enough
skipping to change at page 8, line 5 skipping to change at page 8, line 5
Note: (*1) For example, "Digest" scheme requires server-provided Note: (*1) For example, "Digest" scheme requires server-provided
nonces to construct client-side challenges. nonces to construct client-side challenges.
(*2) In "Basic" and some others, this cannot be distinguished from a (*2) In "Basic" and some others, this cannot be distinguished from a
successfully-authenticated response. successfully-authenticated response.
2.2. Syntax Notation 2.2. Syntax Notation
This specification uses an extended BNF syntax defined in [RFC7230]. This specification uses an extended BNF syntax defined in [RFC7230].
The following syntax definitions are quoted from [RFC7230] and The following syntax definitions are quoted from [RFC7230] and
[RFC7235]: auth-scheme, quoted-string, auth-param, SP, header-field, [RFC7235]: auth-scheme, quoted-string, auth-param, SP, BWS, header-
and challenge. It also uses the convention of using header names for field, and challenge. It also uses the convention of using header
specifying syntax of header values. names for specifying syntax of header values.
Additionally, this specification uses the following syntax elements Additionally, this specification uses the following syntax elements
following syntax definitions as a refinement for token and the following syntax definitions as a refinement for token and the
righthand-side of auth-param in [RFC7235]. (Note: these definitions righthand-side of auth-param in [RFC7235]. (Note: these definitions
are consistent with those in [I-D.ietf-httpauth-mutual].) are consistent with those in [I-D.ietf-httpauth-mutual].)
bare-token = 1*(%x30-39 / %x41-5A / %x61-7A / "-" / "_") bare-token = 1*(%x30-39 / %x41-5A / %x61-7A / "-" / "_")
extension-token = "-" bare-token 1*("." bare-token) extension-token = "-" bare-token 1*("." bare-token)
extensive-token = bare-token / extension-token extensive-token = bare-token / extension-token
integer = "0" / (%x31-39 *%x30-39) ; no leading zeros integer = "0" / (%x31-39 *%x30-39) ; no leading zeros
skipping to change at page 9, line 46 skipping to change at page 10, line 4
Support of this header is OPTIONAL; Clients MAY also choose any set Support of this header is OPTIONAL; Clients MAY also choose any set
of authentication schemes for which optional authentication is of authentication schemes for which optional authentication is
supported (in other words, its support MAY be scheme-dependent). supported (in other words, its support MAY be scheme-dependent).
However, some authentication schemes MAY require mandatory/ However, some authentication schemes MAY require mandatory/
recommended support for this header, so that server-side applications recommended support for this header, so that server-side applications
MAY assume that clients supporting such schemes are likely to support MAY assume that clients supporting such schemes are likely to support
the extension as well. the extension as well.
4. Authentication-Control header 4. Authentication-Control header
Authentication-Control = 1#Auth-Control-Entry Authentication-Control = 1#Auth-Control-Entry
Auth-Control-Entry = auth-scheme 1*SP 1#auth-param Auth-Control-Entry = auth-scheme 1*SP 1#auth-control-param
auth-control-param = extensive-token BWS "=" BWS token
/ extensive-token "*" BWS "=" BWS ext-value
ext-value = <see RFC 5987, Section 3.2>
Figure 4: the BNF syntax for the Authentication-Control header Figure 4: the BNF syntax for the Authentication-Control header
The Authentication-Control header provides a more precise control of The Authentication-Control header provides a more precise control of
the client behavior for Web applications using an HTTP authentication the client behavior for Web applications using an HTTP authentication
protocol. This header is supposed to be generated in the application protocol. This header is supposed to be generated in the application
layer, as opposed to WWW-Authenticate headers which will be generated layer, as opposed to WWW-Authenticate headers which will be generated
usually by the Web servers. usually by the Web servers.
Support of this header is OPTIONAL, and clients MAY choose any subset Support of this header is OPTIONAL, and clients MAY choose any subset
skipping to change at page 11, line 9 skipping to change at page 11, line 18
Each entry contains one or more parameters, each of which is a name- Each entry contains one or more parameters, each of which is a name-
value pair. The name of each parameter MUST be an extensive-token. value pair. The name of each parameter MUST be an extensive-token.
Clients MUST ignore any unknown parameters contained in this header. Clients MUST ignore any unknown parameters contained in this header.
The entries for the same auth-scheme and the realm MUST NOT contain The entries for the same auth-scheme and the realm MUST NOT contain
the duplicated parameters for the same name. the duplicated parameters for the same name.
The type of parameter value depends on the parameter name as defined The type of parameter value depends on the parameter name as defined
in the following subsections. Regardless of the type, however, the in the following subsections. Regardless of the type, however, the
recipients SHOULD accept both quoted and unquoted representations of recipients SHOULD accept both quoted and unquoted representations of
values as defined in HTTP. If it is defined as a string, it is values as defined in HTTP. If the parameter is defined to have a
encouraged to be sent in a quoted-string form. If it defined as a string value, is is encouraged t be sent either in a quoted form or
token (or similar) or an integer, the value SHOULD follow the an ext-value form (see Section 4.1). If it is defined as a token (or
corresponding ABNF syntax after possible unquoting of the quoted- similar) or an integer, the value SHOULD follow the corresponding
string value (as defined in HTTP), and is encouraged to be sent in a ABNF syntax after possible unquoting of the quoted-string value (as
unquoted form. defined in HTTP), and is encouraged to be sent in a unquoted form.
Server-side application SHOULD always be reminded that any parameters Server-side application SHOULD always be reminded that any parameters
contained in this header MAY be ignored by clients. Also, even when contained in this header MAY be ignored by clients. Also, even when
a client accepts this header, users may always be able to circumvent a client accepts this header, users may always be able to circumvent
semantics of this header. Therefore, if this header is used for semantics of this header. Therefore, if this header is used for
security purposes, its use MUST be limited for providing some non- security purposes, its use MUST be limited for providing some non-
fundamental additional security measures valuable for end-users (such fundamental additional security measures valuable for end-users (such
as client-side log-out for protecting against console takeover). as client-side log-out for protecting against console takeover).
Server-side application MUST NOT rely on the use of this header for Server-side application MUST NOT rely on the use of this header for
protecting server-side resources. protecting server-side resources.
Note: The header syntax allows servers to specify Authentication- Note: The header syntax allows servers to specify Authentication-
Control for multiple authentication schemes, either as multiple Control for multiple authentication schemes, either as multiple
occurances of this header or as a combined single header (see Section occurances of this header or as a combined single header (see Section
3.2.2 of [RFC7230] for rationale). The same care as for parsing 3.2.2 of [RFC7230] for rationale). The same care as for parsing
multiple authnetication challenges SHALL be taken. multiple authnetication challenges SHALL be taken.
4.1. Auth-style parameter 4.1. Non-ASCII extended header parameters
Parameters contained in the Authentication-Control header MAY be
extended to ISO 10646-1 values using the framework described in
[RFC5987]. All servers and clients MUST be capable of receiving and
sending values encoded in [RFC5987] syntax.
If a value to be sent contains only ASCII characters, the field MUST
be sent in clear using plain RFC 7235 syntax. The syntax extended by
RFC 5987 MUST NOT be used in this case.
If a value (except the "realm" header) contains one or more non-ASCII
characters, the parameter SHOULD be sent using the ext-value syntax
defined in Section 3.2 of [RFC5987]. Such parameter MUST have
charset value of "UTF-8", and the language value MUST always be
omitted (have an empty value). The same parameter MUST NOT be sent
twice or more, those in both plain- and extended-syntax.
For example, a parameter "username" with value "Renee or France"
SHOULD be sent as < username="Renee of France" >. If the value is
"Ren<e acute>e of France", it SHOULD be sent as < username*=UTF-
8''Ren%C3%89e%20of%20France > instead.
4.2. Auth-style parameter
Authentication-Control: Digest realm="protected space", Authentication-Control: Digest realm="protected space",
auth-style=modal auth-style=modal
The parameter "auth-style" specifies the server's preferences over The parameter "auth-style" specifies the server's preferences over
user interface behavior for user authentication. This parameter can user interface behavior for user authentication. This parameter can
be included in any kind of responses, however, it is only meaningful be included in any kind of responses, however, it is only meaningful
for either authentication-initializing or negatively-authenticated for either authentication-initializing or negatively-authenticated
responses. The value of this parameter MUST be one of the bare- responses. The value of this parameter MUST be one of the bare-
tokens "modal" or "non-modal". When the Optional-WWW-Authenticate tokens "modal" or "non-modal". When the Optional-WWW-Authenticate
skipping to change at page 12, line 24 skipping to change at page 13, line 7
authentication schemes, but specifications for authentication schemes authentication schemes, but specifications for authentication schemes
MAY propose a different default. MAY propose a different default.
The above two different methods of authentication may introduce a The above two different methods of authentication may introduce a
observable difference of semantics when the response contains state- observable difference of semantics when the response contains state-
changing side effects; for example, it may change whether Cookie changing side effects; for example, it may change whether Cookie
headers [RFC6265] in 401 responses are processed or not. However, headers [RFC6265] in 401 responses are processed or not. However,
the server applications SHOULD NOT depend on both existence and non- the server applications SHOULD NOT depend on both existence and non-
existence of such side effects. existence of such side effects.
4.2. Location-when-unauthenticated parameter 4.3. Location-when-unauthenticated parameter
Authentication-Control: Mutual realm="auth-space-1", Authentication-Control: Mutual realm="auth-space-1",
location-when-unauthenticated="http://www.example.com/login.html" location-when-unauthenticated="http://www.example.com/login.html"
The parameter "location-when-unauthenticated" specifies a location The parameter "location-when-unauthenticated" specifies a location
where any unauthenticated clients should be redirected to. This where any unauthenticated clients should be redirected to. This
header may be used, for example, when there is a central login page header may be used, for example, when there is a central login page
for the entire Web application. The value of this parameter is a for the entire Web application. The value of this parameter is a
string that contains an absolute URL location. Senders MUST always string that contains an absolute URL location. Senders MUST always
send an absolute URL location. If a received URL is not absolute, send an absolute URL location. If a received URL is not absolute,
skipping to change at page 13, line 7 skipping to change at page 13, line 39
When a client receives an authentication-initiating response with When a client receives an authentication-initiating response with
this parameter, if the client has to ask users for authentication this parameter, if the client has to ask users for authentication
credentials, the client will treat the entire response as if it were credentials, the client will treat the entire response as if it were
a 303 "See Other" response with a Location header that contains the a 303 "See Other" response with a Location header that contains the
value of this parameter (i.e., client will be redirected to the value of this parameter (i.e., client will be redirected to the
specified location with a GET request). Unlike a normal 303 specified location with a GET request). Unlike a normal 303
response, if the client can process authentication without the user's response, if the client can process authentication without the user's
interaction, this parameter MUST be ignored. interaction, this parameter MUST be ignored.
4.3. No-auth parameter 4.4. No-auth parameter
Authentication-Control: Basic realm="entrance", no-auth=true Authentication-Control: Basic realm="entrance", no-auth=true
The parameter "no-auth" is a variant of the The parameter "no-auth" is a variant of the
location-when-unauthenticated parameter; it specifies that new location-when-unauthenticated parameter; it specifies that new
authentication attempt is not to be performed on this location for authentication attempt is not to be performed on this location for
better user experience, without specifying the redirection on the better user experience, without specifying the redirection on the
HTTP level. This header may be used, for example, when there is a HTTP level. This header may be used, for example, when there is a
central login page for the entire Web application, and when a (Web central login page for the entire Web application, and when a (Web
content's level) explicit interaction of users is desired before content's level) explicit interaction of users is desired before
skipping to change at page 13, line 46 skipping to change at page 14, line 30
This parameter SHOULD NOT be used along with the This parameter SHOULD NOT be used along with the
location-when-unauthenticated parameter. If both were supplied, location-when-unauthenticated parameter. If both were supplied,
clients MAY choose which one is to be honored. clients MAY choose which one is to be honored.
This parameter SHOULD NOT be used as any security measures to prevent This parameter SHOULD NOT be used as any security measures to prevent
authentication attempts, as it is easily circumvented by users. This authentication attempts, as it is easily circumvented by users. This
parameter SHOULD be used solely for improving user experience of web parameter SHOULD be used solely for improving user experience of web
applications. applications.
4.4. Location-when-logout parameter 4.5. Location-when-logout parameter
Authentication-Control: Digest realm="protected space", Authentication-Control: Digest realm="protected space",
location-when-logout="http://www.example.com/byebye.html" location-when-logout="http://www.example.com/byebye.html"
The parameter "location-when-logout" specifies a location where the The parameter "location-when-logout" specifies a location where the
client is to be redirected when the user explicitly request a logout. client is to be redirected when the user explicitly request a logout.
The value of this parameter MUST be a string that contains an The value of this parameter MUST be a string that contains an
absolute URL location. If a given URL is not absolute, the clients absolute URL location. If a given URL is not absolute, the clients
MAY consider it a relative URL from the current location. MAY consider it a relative URL from the current location.
skipping to change at page 14, line 35 skipping to change at page 15, line 19
(e.g. GET), reload the page without the authentication credential. (e.g. GET), reload the page without the authentication credential.
If the request was non-idempotent (e.g. POST), keep the current If the request was non-idempotent (e.g. POST), keep the current
content as-is and simply forget the authentication status. The content as-is and simply forget the authentication status. The
client SHOULD NOT replay a non-idempotent request without the user's client SHOULD NOT replay a non-idempotent request without the user's
explicit approval. explicit approval.
Web applications are encouraged to send this parameter with an Web applications are encouraged to send this parameter with an
appropriate value for any responses (except those with redirection appropriate value for any responses (except those with redirection
(3XX) statuses) for non-GET requests. (3XX) statuses) for non-GET requests.
4.5. Logout-timeout parameter 4.6. Logout-timeout parameter
Authentication-Control: Basic realm="entrance", logout-timeout=300 Authentication-Control: Basic realm="entrance", logout-timeout=300
The parameter "logout-timeout", when contained in a successfully- The parameter "logout-timeout", when contained in a successfully-
authenticated response, means that any authentication credentials and authenticated response, means that any authentication credentials and
states related to the current protection space are to be discarded if states related to the current protection space are to be discarded if
a time specified in this header (in seconds) has been passed from the a time specified in this header (in seconds) has been passed from the
time received. The value MUST be an integer. As a special case, the time received. The value MUST be an integer. As a special case, the
value 0 means that the client is requested to immediately log-out value 0 means that the client is requested to immediately log-out
from the current authentication space and revert to an from the current authentication space and revert to an
unauthenticated status. This does not, however, mean that the long- unauthenticated status. This does not, however, mean that the long-
term memories for the passwords (such as the password reminders and term memories for the passwords (such as the password reminders and
auto fill-ins) should be removed. If a new timeout value is received auto fill-ins) should be removed. If a new timeout value is received
for the same authentication space, it cancels the previous timeout for the same authentication space, it cancels the previous timeout
and sets a new timeout. and sets a new timeout.
4.6. Username parameter 4.7. Username parameter
Authentication-Control: Basic realm="configuration", username="admin" Authentication-Control: Basic realm="configuration", username="admin"
The parameter "username" tells that the only "user name" to be The parameter "username" tells that the only "user name" to be
accepted by the server is the value given in this parameter. This accepted by the server is the value given in this parameter. This
parameter is particularly useful, for example, for routers and other parameter is particularly useful, for example, for routers and other
appliances with a Web configuration interface. appliances with a Web configuration interface.
This parameter MAY be used with authentication-initiating responses This parameter MAY be used with authentication-initiating responses
or negatively-authenticated responses requiring another attempt of or negatively-authenticated responses requiring another attempt of
skipping to change at page 15, line 30 skipping to change at page 16, line 12
If the authentication scheme to be used has syntax limitation on the If the authentication scheme to be used has syntax limitation on the
allowed user names (e.g. Basic and Digest do not allow colons in allowed user names (e.g. Basic and Digest do not allow colons in
user names), the specified value MUST follow that limitation. Client user names), the specified value MUST follow that limitation. Client
SHOULD ignore any values which do not conform to such limitations. SHOULD ignore any values which do not conform to such limitations.
Clients MAY still send any authentication requests with other user Clients MAY still send any authentication requests with other user
names, possibly in vain. Servers are not strictly required to reject names, possibly in vain. Servers are not strictly required to reject
user names other than specified, but doing it will give bad user user names other than specified, but doing it will give bad user
experiences and may confuse users and clients. experiences and may confuse users and clients.
If the used authentication scheme requires specific style of text
preparation for the user name (e.g., PRECIS string preparation or
Unicode normalization), the specified user name SHOULD follow such
requirements.
5. Usage examples (informative) 5. Usage examples (informative)
This section shows some examples for applying this extension to This section shows some examples for applying this extension to
typical Web-sites which are using Forms and cookies for managing typical Web-sites which are using Forms and cookies for managing
authentication and authorization. The content of this section is not authentication and authorization. The content of this section is not
normative and for illustrative purposes only. normative and for illustrative purposes only.
We assume that all features described in the previous sections are We assume that all features described in the previous sections are
implemented in clients (Web browsers). We also assume that browsers implemented in clients (Web browsers). We also assume that browsers
will have a user interface which allows users to deactivate (log-out will have a user interface which allows users to deactivate (log-out
skipping to change at page 21, line 19 skipping to change at page 22, line 5
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008. May 2008.
[RFC5987] Reschke, J., "Character Set and Language Encoding for
Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Header Field
Parameters", RFC 5987, August 2010.
[RFC7230] Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol [RFC7230] Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
(HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", RFC 7230, (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", RFC 7230,
June 2014. June 2014.
[RFC7235] Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol [RFC7235] Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
(HTTP/1.1): Authentication", RFC 7235, June 2014. (HTTP/1.1): Authentication", RFC 7235, June 2014.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-httpauth-mutual] [I-D.ietf-httpauth-mutual]
Oiwa, Y., Watanabe, H., Takagi, H., Maeda, K., Hayashi, Oiwa, Y., Watanabe, H., Takagi, H., Maeda, K., Hayashi,
T., and Y. Ioku, "Mutual Authentication Protocol for T., and Y. Ioku, "Mutual Authentication Protocol for
HTTP", draft-ietf-httpauth-mutual-03 (work in progress), HTTP", draft-ietf-httpauth-mutual-04 (work in progress),
August 2014. February 2015.
[RFC6265] Barth, A., "HTTP State Management Mechanism", RFC 6265, [RFC6265] Barth, A., "HTTP State Management Mechanism", RFC 6265,
April 2011. April 2011.
[W3C.REC-webstorage-20130730] [W3C.REC-webstorage-20130730]
Hickson, I., "Web Storage", World Wide Web Consortium Hickson, I., "Web Storage", World Wide Web Consortium
Recommendation REC-webstorage-20130730, July 2013, Recommendation REC-webstorage-20130730, July 2013,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-webstorage-20130730>. <http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-webstorage-20130730>.
Appendix A. (Informative) Applicability of features for each messages Appendix A. (Informative) Applicability of features for each messages
skipping to change at page 22, line 42 skipping to change at page 23, line 29
analysis on the behavior of existing clients and intermediate analysis on the behavior of existing clients and intermediate
proxies for such possibly-confusing responses. Optional-WWW- proxies for such possibly-confusing responses. Optional-WWW-
Authenticate is safer, at least for minimum backward Authenticate is safer, at least for minimum backward
compatibility, because clients not supporting this extension will compatibility, because clients not supporting this extension will
consider this header as an unrecognized entity-header, possibly consider this header as an unrecognized entity-header, possibly
providing opportunity for silently falling-back to application- providing opportunity for silently falling-back to application-
level authentications. level authentications.
Appendix C. (Informative) Draft Change Log Appendix C. (Informative) Draft Change Log
C.1. Changes in Httpauth WG revision 02 C.1. Changes in Httpauth WG revision 03
o Adopting RFC 5987 extended syntax for non-ASCII parameter values.
C.2. Changes in Httpauth WG revision 02
o Added realm parameter. o Added realm parameter.
o Added username parameter. We acknowledge Michael Sweet's proposal o Added username parameter. We acknowledge Michael Sweet's proposal
for including this to the Basic authentication. for including this to the Basic authentication.
C.2. Changes in Httpauth WG revision 01 C.3. Changes in Httpauth WG revision 01
o Clarification on peers' responsibility about handling of relative o Clarification on peers' responsibility about handling of relative
URLs. URLs.
o Automatic reloading should be allowed only on safe methods, not o Automatic reloading should be allowed only on safe methods, not
always on idempotent methods. always on idempotent methods.
C.3. Changes in Httpauth revision 00 and HttpBis revision 00 C.4. Changes in Httpauth revision 00 and HttpBis revision 00
None. None.
C.4. Changes in revision 02 C.5. Changes in revision 02
o Added usage examples. o Added usage examples.
C.5. Changes in revision 01 C.6. Changes in revision 01
o Syntax notations and parsing semantics changed to match httpbis o Syntax notations and parsing semantics changed to match httpbis
style. style.
C.6. Changes in revision 00 C.7. Changes in revision 00
o Separated from HTTP Mutual authentication proposal (-09). o Separated from HTTP Mutual authentication proposal (-09).
o Adopting httpbis works as a referencing point to HTTP. o Adopting httpbis works as a referencing point to HTTP.
o Generalized, now applicable for all HTTP authentication schemes. o Generalized, now applicable for all HTTP authentication schemes.
o Added "no-auth" and "auth-style" parameters. o Added "no-auth" and "auth-style" parameters.
o Loosened standardization requirements for parameter-name tokens o Loosened standardization requirements for parameter-name tokens
 End of changes. 30 change blocks. 
55 lines changed or deleted 95 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/