- From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
- Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2020 21:06:55 -0700 (PDT)
- To: nick.a.cullen@googlemail.com, fielding@gbiv.com, julian.reschke@greenbytes.de
- Cc: barryleiba@computer.org, iesg@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
The following errata report has been rejected for RFC7235, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6307 -------------------------------------- Status: Rejected Type: Technical Reported by: Nick Cullen <nick.a.cullen@googlemail.com> Date Reported: 2020-10-15 Rejected by: Barry Leiba (IESG) Section: 2.1 Original Text ------------- 2.1. Challenge and Response HTTP provides a simple challenge-response authentication framework that can be used by a server to challenge a client request and by a client to provide authentication information. It uses a case- insensitive token as a means to identify the authentication scheme, followed by additional information necessary for achieving authentication via that scheme. The latter can be either a comma- separated list of parameters or a single sequence of characters capable of holding base64-encoded information. Authentication parameters are name=value pairs, where the name token is matched case-insensitively, and each parameter name MUST only occur once per challenge. auth-scheme = token auth-param = token BWS "=" BWS ( token / quoted-string ) Corrected Text -------------- 2.1. Challenge and Response HTTP provides a simple challenge-response authentication framework that can be used by a server to challenge a client request and by a client to provide authentication information. It uses a case- insensitive token as a means to identify the authentication scheme, followed by additional information necessary for achieving authentication via that scheme. The latter can be either a comma- separated list of parameters or a single sequence of characters capable of holding base64-encoded information. Authentication parameters are name=value pairs, where the name token is matched case-insensitively, and each parameter name MUST only occur once per challenge. auth-scheme = itoken auth-param = itoken BWS "=" BWS ( token / quoted-string ) N.B. itoken is a restricted subset of token to ensure well defined case insensitivity. Notes ----- The general token specification allows many characters (including VCHAR) which means that case insensitivity is tricky to define. A more limited subset of token would be sensible, and the distinction between itoken and token is important in understanding the BNF, and matching that to the specification. The section above is a good example of the confusion that can arise, with 3 instances of token in the ABNF, but two of them are to be interpreted in a different way than the third occurence.. Confusion causes incompatibility with NEGOTIATE being rejected by a system that implements the ABNF, but wrongly expects Negotiate. P.S. My 'corrected text' and my understanding of ABNF are incomplete. I crave assistance in forming a properly written definition of itoken to 'well define' the safe subset. --VERIFIER NOTES-- The RFC says exactly what was intended, and changing that is beyond the scope of errata reports, and likely beyond the scope of the document. If there's an issue to discuss for a future revision of the RFC, an issue can be filed here: https://github.com/httpwg/http-core/issues/ -------------------------------------- RFC7235 (draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-26) -------------------------------------- Title : Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication Publication Date : June 2014 Author(s) : R. Fielding, Ed., J. Reschke, Ed. Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis APP Area : Applications Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
Received on Monday, 19 October 2020 04:07:12 UTC