Re: Digesting the digest...

On Wed, 28 Feb 1996, Paul Leach wrote:

> Peter said:
> ----------
> ] From: Peter J Churchyard  <>
> ] To:  <"">;  <>
> ] Cc:  <"">;
> ] <>
> ] Subject: Re: Digesting the digest...
> ] Date: Wednesday, February 28, 1996 2:10PM
> ]
> ] As I see it the optional message-digest and or digest-messagedigest is
> ] only advisory since it can be removed in transit and the receiver doesn't
> ] know it was there..
> A client that cares about modification in transit can reject repsonses 
> without it, when talking to a server that it knows supplies it.

I agree with this.

> ] We might want to put into the "digest hashed data" a flag that is set if
> ] you also sent a Digest-MessageDigest so that it's removal could be detected.
> That's not what you need. The client needs to be able to ask the server 
> to send Digest-MessageDigest. A new parameter in the Authorization 
> field is what you want. If it got snipped out, then the client wouldn't 
> get the D-MD it asked for.


> So, how about the following parameter for both Authorization and
> WWW-Authenticate headers:
> 	digest-required=<"message" | "header" | "response">
> where "message" means the receiver must include
> 	message=<message-digest>
> in the response, "header" means the receiver must include
> 	header=<header-digest>
> in the response, and "response" means the receiver must include
> 	response=<response-digest>
> in the response.

I don't like this.  How can you require an optional header.  The client
has to take it or leave it.  The alternative is something much different
from a drop in replacement for Basic.  If the client asks for it and the
server can't provide it, then what?  This opens a whole new set of 

John Franks 	Dept of Math. Northwestern University

Received on Wednesday, 28 February 1996 18:09:25 UTC