W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: WGLC #349: "strength"

From: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 07:45:01 -0700 (PDT)
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.01.1205310741290.15057@egate.xpasc.com>


On Thu, 31 May 2012, Stephen Farrell wrote:

> 
> 
> On 05/31/2012 01:20 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> > <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/349>
> > 
> > Proposal: change
> > 
> >>    Both the Authorization field value and the Proxy-Authorization field
> >>    value consist of credentials containing the authentication
> >>    information of the client for the realm of the resource being
> >>    requested.  The user agent MUST choose to use one of the challenges
> >>    with the strongest auth-scheme it understands and request credentials
> >>    from the user based upon that challenge.
> > 
> > 
> > to
> > 
> > """
> > Both the Authorization field value and the Proxy-Authorization field value contain the client's credentials for the realm of the resource being requested, based upon a challenge received from the server (possibly at some point in the past). When creating their values, the user agent ought to do so by selecting the challenge with what it considers to be the most secure auth-scheme that it understands, obtaining credentials from the user as appropriate.
> > """
> 
> Could be a can of worms so feel free to ignore me, but is
> the term credentials there correct? Perhaps authenticator
> would be better? If we do manage to get better schemes
> defined then someday not all of these would allow derivation
> of an underlying password credential.

I think credentials is well understood to mean more than username
password, but what ever means of user identification and 
verification authority verification is understood by all
parties to the processs. 

Dave Morris
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2012 14:45:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 31 May 2012 14:45:44 GMT