W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1998

Re: ISSUE: Protection space

From: Dave Kristol <dmk@bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 10:04:38 -0400
Message-Id: <35CB0976.7EF6@bell-labs.com>
To: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
Cc: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Paul Leach wrote:
> 
> In section 3.2.1, The WWW-Authenticate Response Header
> 
> OLD:
> 
> domain
> 
> A space-separated list of URIs, as specified in RFC XURI [7]. The intent is
> that the client could use this information to know the set of URIs for which
> the same authentication information should be sent. The URIs in this list
> may exist on different servers. If this keyword is omitted or empty, the
> client should assume that the domain consists of all URIs on the responding
> server.
> 
> NEW:
> 
> domain
> 
> A space-separated list of URIs, as specified in RFC XURI [7] that define the
> protection space.  If a URI is relative, it is relative to canonical root
> URL (see section 5.1.2 of [2]) of the server being accessed. The URIs in
> this list may refer to different servers. The client can use this list to
> determine the set of URIs for which the same authentication information may
> be sent: any URI that has a URI in this list as a prefix (after both have
> been made absolute) may be assumed to be in the same protection space. If
> this keyword is omitted or empty, the client should assume that the
> protection space consists of all URIs on the responding server.
> 
> RATIONALE:
> The terminology of "protection space" was not used for Digest. The means for
> determining when Digest clients could use the same credentials was
> under-specified.

I agree the "protection space" for Digest needed to be specified.  I
have a problem with the proposed words above:

I assume "5.1.2 of [2]" refers to the HTTP/1.1 spec.  The words
"canonical root URL" do not appear there, and I am therefore unsure what
was meant.  Since all URLs on a server are implicitly descended from "/"
(no?), wouldn't it be easier just to say that relative URLs are taken to
be relative to "/"?

Dave Kristol
Received on Friday, 7 August 1998 07:06:50 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:33:19 EDT