W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-webid@w3.org > October 2011

Re: [foaf-protocols] HTTP request header field for acceptable authentication methods

From: mike amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 17:59:42 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPW_8m6w9KOeTpzBysXxtLSSNkEy5vQXOJ0SrG6+S0+BQ8homw@mail.gmail.com>
To: bergi <bergi@axolotlfarm.org>
Cc: foaf-protocols@lists.foaf-project.org, public-rww@w3.org, WebID XG <public-xg-webid@w3.org>
The idea of advertising support for one or more auth schemes is much
needed and, IMO, under-utilized right now. HTTP already has a
mechanism in place for supporting new authentication schemes and for
indicating preferences.

Check out the WWW-Authenticate header[1] for details on how servers
can list various supported schemes and how clients can id and select

There is also an I-D[2] underway to create a public registry for new
HTTP auth schemes.

Finally, you might be interested in a recent I-D[3] that is trying to
make it easy for clients and servers to support new auth schemes.

[1] http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.47
[2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-authscheme-registrations-02
[3] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-oiwa-http-auth-extension-00


On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 17:38, bergi <bergi@axolotlfarm.org> wrote:
> Currently my and maybe most other web applications with WebID support
> have the following flow for user authentication:
> - The user sees your web page with reduced content
> - The user follows the login link
> - The login resource asks for a client certificate
> - The WebID gets bound to the session cookie
> - The server sends a redirect to the original page
> - Finally the user sees page with the content for that WebID
> For example the Java address book application or most robots want to
> access the resource in a RESTful way and will not use the described
> flow. I haven't found a way to force the use of a client certificate if
> the server doesn't ask for one. I propose to use a HTTP header field to
> tell the server that the client is able to authenticate with a WebID. As
> such a field could be also useful for other authentication methods I
> would chose a generic name. There are already some Accept-* fields I
> would follow that pattern. As it's currently not a standard field I
> would prefix that field with X-. Multiple values must have the same
> format as defined for the Accept field. Also the quality parameter must
> be handled by the server.
> Example only with WebID authentication:
> X-Accept-Authentication: WebID
> Example with WebID and Basic authentication:
> X-Accept-Authentication: WebID, Basic;q=0.9
> What do you think about my proposal?
> the bergi
> _______________________________________________
> foaf-protocols mailing list
> foaf-protocols@lists.foaf-project.org
> http://lists.foaf-project.org/mailman/listinfo/foaf-protocols
Received on Sunday, 30 October 2011 22:00:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:39:47 UTC