- From: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Feb 96 13:55:51 PST
- To: john@math.nwu.edu
- Cc: hallam@w3.org, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
John: Are you just talking about D-MD, or Digest Auth for Proxy-Authentication and Proxy-Authorization as well? If the latter, I only made the proposals because of the 1.1 spec on Proxy-Authentication and Proxy-Authorization -- my reading of it is that an HTTP authentication scheme should work identically for both proxy and end-to-end (by this I mean use the same challenge and response formats). For example, the definition of the WWW-Authenticate header from 1.1 is WWWAuthenticate = "WWW-Authenticate" ":" challenge and ProxyAuthentication = "Proxy-Authentication" ":" challenge snd similarly for Authorization and Proxy-Authorization. If it's the former (just D-MD), then if you're saying that you want to withdraw D-MD in it's entirety as a big change, when made to work correctly, then I couldn't argue with you. It's a new feature for which no implementations exist, and it can/should be discussed as to appropriateness at the WG meeting. But if D-MD is going to be included, then I think there's a very strong argument that it should work with proxies, otherwise pretty soon it won't work at all for a huge number of clients, whose corporations or ISPs will be causing them to go through proxies. There are other approaches than the one I suggested to make D-MD work when going through proxies -- tunneling comes to mind, and maybe putting Pragma: no-cache or equivalent on requests and responses -- but the details would need to be worked out. In any case, it's not obvious how D-MD is intended to be used (or musn't be used) if there are proxies, and something should be said if D-MD stays in the draft. If you're saying that you want to defer any digesting of headers, (but keep <message-digest>) I'm happy to have a draft that doesn't include them... I believe my response to the issues raised there was correct, but I've heard nothing back on it, so given the deadline, I'm happy to wait until there's more discussion, and perhaps include it in a later revision of the draft. Paul
Received on Thursday, 29 February 1996 13:59:13 UTC