- From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
- Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 14:59:53 -0500
- To: IETF-Announce: ;, @ns.cnri.reston.va.us:
- Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@isi.edu>
- Cc: Internet Architecture Board <iab@isi.edu>
- Cc: http-wg@hplb.hpl.hp.com
The IESG has approved publication of the following Internet-Drafts as Draft Standards: o Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1 <draft-ietf-http-v11-spec-rev-06.txt> This document replaces RFC2068, currently a Proposed Standard. o HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication <draft-ietf-http-authentication-03.txt> This document replaces RFC2069, currently a Proposed Standard. These documents are the product of the HyperText Transfer Protocol Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Keith Moore and Patrik Faltstrom. Technical Summary HTTP/1.1 is the primary data transfer protocol used by the world wide web. This Draft Standard revision contains numerous clarifications and corrections to its predecessor, RFC 2068. Basic Access Authentication is an insecure authentication method which was present in HTTP/1.0. Even though it exposes the user's password to eavesdroppers, it is still needed for backward compatibility. Digest Access Authentication is designed as an improvement to Basic authentication. While Digest provides no confidentiality or integrity service, it at least provides improved protection (as compared to Basic) for the user's password. Working Group Summary A large number of issues were debated at length. (The list of issues is documented at http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/Issues/ and http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/Issues/DSI.html including pointers into the mailing list archive where the issue was discussed, and, usually, the resolution.) Many design choices were subtle and difficult. HTTP has been widely implemented and extended by many different parties in a short amount of time, and this made it difficult to define the proper interaction between features originally specified by different parties. In addition, the interaction of multiple roles (browser, local cache, proxy, origin server, authentication service) and conflicting goals (performance, reliability, privacy, managability) made analysis of the choices more difficult. Most decisions were made quickly, but some required extensive discussion and multiple position papers. At least rough consensus was reached on all design choices. Protocol Quality Keith Moore reviewed the spec for IESG. There are several implementations of HTTP/1.1, and at least two implementations of each protocol feature as required by RFC 2026 for Draft Standard protocols.
Received on Monday, 8 March 1999 12:06:30 UTC