source: specs/rfc7235.html @ 2734

Last change on this file since 2734 was 2734, checked in by julian.reschke@…, 5 years ago

update XSLTs, switch to Saxon 9.6 HE in Makefile, regen specs

  • Property svn:mime-type set to text/html;charset=iso-8859-1
File size: 77.3 KB
Line 
1
2<!DOCTYPE html
3  PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN">
4<html lang="en"><head profile="http://dublincore.org/documents/2008/08/04/dc-html/">
5      <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
6   <title>Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication</title><script>
7function getMeta(rfcno, container) {
8
9  var xhr = new XMLHttpRequest();
10  xhr.open("GET", "http://tools.ietf.org/draft/rfc" + rfcno + "/state.xml", true);
11  xhr.onload = function (e) {
12    if (xhr.readyState === 4) {
13      if (xhr.status === 200) {
14        var doc = xhr.responseXML;
15        var info = getChildByName(doc.documentElement, "info");
16 
17        var cont = document.getElementById(container);
18        // empty the container
19        while (cont.firstChild) {
20          cont.removeChild(myNode.firstChild);
21        }     
22 
23        var c = getChildByName(info, "stdstatus");
24        if (c !== null) {
25          var bld = newElementWithText("b", c.textContent);
26          cont.appendChild(bld);
27        }
28 
29        c = getChildByName(info, "updatedby");
30        if (c !== null) {
31          cont.appendChild(newElement("br"));
32          cont.appendChild(newText("Updated by: "));
33          appendRfcLinks(cont, c.textContent);
34        }
35 
36        c = getChildByName(info, "obsoletedby");
37        if (c !== null) {
38          cont.appendChild(newElement("br"));
39          cont.appendChild(newText("Obsoleted by: "));
40          appendRfcLinks(cont, c.textContent);
41        }
42       
43        c = getChildByName(info, "errata");
44        if (c !== null) {
45          cont.appendChild(newElement("br"));
46          var link = newElementWithText("a", "errata");
47          link.setAttribute("href", "http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=" + rfcno);
48          var errata = newElementWithText("i", "This document has ");
49          errata.appendChild(link);
50          errata.appendChild(newText("."));
51          cont.appendChild(errata);
52        }
53
54        cont.style.display = "block";
55      } else {
56        console.error(xhr.statusText);
57      }
58    }
59  };
60  xhr.onerror = function (e) {
61    console.error(xhr.status + " " + xhr.statusText);
62  };
63  xhr.send(null);
64}
65
66// DOM helpers
67function newElement(name) {
68  return document.createElement(name);
69}
70function newElementWithText(name, txt) {
71  var e = document.createElement(name);
72  e.appendChild(newText(txt));
73  return e;
74}
75function newText(text) {
76  return document.createTextNode(text);
77}
78
79function getChildByName(parent, name) {
80  if (parent === null) {
81    return null;
82  }
83  else {
84    for (var c = parent.firstChild; c !== null; c = c.nextSibling) {
85      if (name == c.nodeName) {
86        return c;
87      }
88    }
89    return null;
90  }
91}
92
93function appendRfcLinks(parent, text) {
94  var updates = text.split(",");
95  for (var i = 0; i < updates.length; i++) {
96    var rfc = updates[i].trim();
97    if (rfc.substring(0, 3) == "rfc") {
98      var link = newElement("a");
99      link.setAttribute("href", "http://tools.ietf.org/html/" + rfc);
100      link.appendChild(newText(rfc.substring(3)));
101      parent.appendChild(link);
102    } else {
103      parent.appendChild(newText(rfc));
104    }
105    if (i != updates.length - 1) {
106      parent.appendChild(newText(", "));
107    }
108  }
109}
110</script><style type="text/css" title="Xml2Rfc (sans serif)">
111a {
112  text-decoration: none;
113}
114a.smpl {
115  color: black;
116}
117a:hover {
118  text-decoration: underline;
119}
120a:active {
121  text-decoration: underline;
122}
123address {
124  margin-top: 1em;
125  margin-left: 2em;
126  font-style: normal;
127}
128body {
129  color: black;
130  font-family: cambria, georgia, serif;
131  font-size: 12pt;
132  margin: 2em auto;
133  max-width: 1000px;
134}
135samp, tt, code, pre {
136  font-family: consolas, monaco, monospace;
137}
138cite {
139  font-style: normal;
140}
141div.note {
142  margin-left: 2em;
143}
144dl {
145  margin-left: 2em;
146}
147dl > dt {
148  float: left;
149  margin-right: 1em;
150}
151dl.nohang > dt {
152  float: none;
153}
154dl > dd {
155  margin-bottom: .5em;
156}
157dl.compact > dd {
158  margin-bottom: .0em;
159}
160dl > dd > dl {
161  margin-top: 0.5em;
162}
163ul.empty {
164  list-style-type: none;
165}
166ul.empty li {
167  margin-top: .5em;
168}
169dl p {
170  margin-left: 0em;
171}
172h1 {
173  font-size: 130%;
174  line-height: 21pt;
175  page-break-after: avoid;
176}
177h1.np {
178  page-break-before: always;
179}
180h2 {
181  font-size: 120%;
182  line-height: 15pt;
183  page-break-after: avoid;
184}
185h3 {
186  font-size: 110%;
187  page-break-after: avoid;
188}
189h4, h5, h6 {
190  page-break-after: avoid;
191}
192h1 a, h2 a, h3 a, h4 a, h5 a, h6 a {
193  color: black;
194}
195img {
196  margin-left: 3em;
197}
198li {
199  margin-left: 2em;
200}
201ol {
202  margin-left: 2em;
203}
204ol.la {
205  list-style-type: lower-alpha;
206}
207ol.ua {
208  list-style-type: upper-alpha;
209}
210ol p {
211  margin-left: 0em;
212}
213p {
214  margin-left: 2em;
215}
216pre {
217  font-size: 11pt;
218  margin-left: 3em;
219  background-color: lightyellow;
220  padding: .25em;
221  page-break-inside: avoid;
222}
223pre.text2 {
224  border-style: dotted;
225  border-width: 1px;
226  background-color: #f0f0f0;
227}
228pre.inline {
229  background-color: white;
230  padding: 0em;
231  page-break-inside: auto;
232}
233pre.text {
234  border-style: dotted;
235  border-width: 1px;
236  background-color: #f8f8f8;
237}
238pre.drawing {
239  border-style: solid;
240  border-width: 1px;
241  background-color: #f8f8f8;
242  padding: 2em;
243}
244table {
245  margin-left: 2em;
246}
247table.tt {
248  vertical-align: top;
249  border-color: gray;
250}
251table.tt th {
252  border-color: gray;
253}
254table.tt td {
255  border-color: gray;
256}
257table.all {
258  border-style: solid;
259  border-width: 2px;
260}
261table.full {
262  border-style: solid;
263  border-width: 2px;
264}
265table.tt td {
266  vertical-align: top;
267}
268table.all td {
269  border-style: solid;
270  border-width: 1px;
271}
272table.full td {
273  border-style: none solid;
274  border-width: 1px;
275}
276table.tt th {
277  vertical-align: top;
278}
279table.all th {
280  border-style: solid;
281  border-width: 1px;
282}
283table.full th {
284  border-style: solid;
285  border-width: 1px 1px 2px 1px;
286}
287table.headers th {
288  border-style: none none solid none;
289  border-width: 2px;
290}
291table.left {
292  margin-right: auto;
293}
294table.right {
295  margin-left: auto;
296}
297table.center {
298  margin-left: auto;
299  margin-right: auto;
300}
301caption {
302  caption-side: bottom;
303  font-weight: bold;
304  font-size: 10pt;
305  margin-top: .5em;
306}
307
308table.header {
309  border-spacing: 1px;
310  width: 95%;
311  font-size: 11pt;
312  color: white;
313}
314td.top {
315  vertical-align: top;
316}
317td.topnowrap {
318  vertical-align: top;
319  white-space: nowrap;
320}
321table.header td {
322  background-color: gray;
323  width: 50%;
324}
325table.header a {
326  color: white;
327}
328td.reference {
329  vertical-align: top;
330  white-space: nowrap;
331  padding-right: 1em;
332}
333thead {
334  display:table-header-group;
335}
336ul.toc, ul.toc ul {
337  list-style: none;
338  margin-left: 1.5em;
339  padding-left: 0em;
340}
341ul.toc li {
342  line-height: 150%;
343  font-weight: bold;
344  margin-left: 0em;
345}
346ul.toc li li {
347  line-height: normal;
348  font-weight: normal;
349  font-size: 11pt;
350  margin-left: 0em;
351}
352li.excluded {
353  font-size: 0pt;
354}
355ul p {
356  margin-left: 0em;
357}
358.title, .filename, h1, h2, h3, h4 {
359  font-family: candara, calibri, segoe, optima, arial, sans-serif;
360}
361ul.ind, ul.ind ul {
362  list-style: none;
363  margin-left: 1.5em;
364  padding-left: 0em;
365  page-break-before: avoid;
366}
367ul.ind li {
368  font-weight: bold;
369  line-height: 200%;
370  margin-left: 0em;
371}
372ul.ind li li {
373  font-weight: normal;
374  line-height: 150%;
375  margin-left: 0em;
376}
377.avoidbreakinside {
378  page-break-inside: avoid;
379}
380.avoidbreakafter {
381  page-break-after: avoid;
382}
383.bcp14 {
384  font-style: normal;
385  text-transform: lowercase;
386  font-variant: small-caps;
387}
388.comment {
389  background-color: yellow;
390}
391.center {
392  text-align: center;
393}
394.error {
395  color: red;
396  font-style: italic;
397  font-weight: bold;
398}
399.figure {
400  font-weight: bold;
401  text-align: center;
402  font-size: 10pt;
403}
404.filename {
405  color: #333333;
406  font-size: 75%;
407  font-weight: bold;
408  line-height: 21pt;
409  text-align: center;
410}
411.fn {
412  font-weight: bold;
413}
414.left {
415  text-align: left;
416}
417.right {
418  text-align: right;
419}
420.title {
421  color: green;
422  font-size: 150%;
423  line-height: 18pt;
424  font-weight: bold;
425  text-align: center;
426  margin-top: 36pt;
427}
428.warning {
429  font-size: 130%;
430  background-color: yellow;
431}
432.self {
433    color: #999999;
434    margin-left: .3em;
435    text-decoration: none;
436    visibility: hidden;
437    -webkit-user-select: none;
438    -moz-user-select: none;
439    -ms-user-select: none;
440}
441.self:hover {
442    text-decoration: none;
443}
444p:hover .self {
445    visibility: visible;
446}
447
448@media screen {
449  pre.text, pre.text2 {
450    width: 69em;
451  }
452}
453
454@media print {
455  .noprint {
456    display: none;
457  }
458
459  a {
460    color: black;
461    text-decoration: none;
462  }
463
464  table.header {
465    width: 90%;
466  }
467
468  td.header {
469    width: 50%;
470    color: black;
471    background-color: white;
472    vertical-align: top;
473    font-size: 110%;
474  }
475
476  ul.toc a:last-child::after {
477    content: leader('.') target-counter(attr(href), page);
478  }
479
480  ul.ind li li a {
481    content: target-counter(attr(href), page);
482  }
483
484  pre {
485    font-size: 10pt;
486  }
487
488  .print2col {
489    column-count: 2;
490    -moz-column-count: 2;
491    column-fill: auto;
492  }
493}
494
495@page {
496  @top-left {
497       content: "RFC 7235";
498  }
499  @top-right {
500       content: "June 2014";
501  }
502  @top-center {
503       content: "HTTP/1.1 Authentication";
504  }
505  @bottom-left {
506       content: "Fielding & Reschke";
507  }
508  @bottom-center {
509       content: "Standards Track";
510  }
511  @bottom-right {
512       content: "[Page " counter(page) "]";
513  }
514}
515
516@page:first {
517    @top-left {
518      content: normal;
519    }
520    @top-right {
521      content: normal;
522    }
523    @top-center {
524      content: normal;
525    }
526}
527</style><link rel="Contents" href="#rfc.toc"><link rel="Author" href="#rfc.authors"><link rel="Copyright" href="#rfc.copyrightnotice"><link rel="Index" href="#rfc.index"><link rel="Chapter" title="1 Introduction" href="#rfc.section.1"><link rel="Chapter" title="2 Access Authentication Framework" href="#rfc.section.2"><link rel="Chapter" title="3 Status Code Definitions" href="#rfc.section.3"><link rel="Chapter" title="4 Header Field Definitions" href="#rfc.section.4"><link rel="Chapter" title="5 IANA Considerations" href="#rfc.section.5"><link rel="Chapter" title="6 Security Considerations" href="#rfc.section.6"><link rel="Chapter" title="7 Acknowledgments" href="#rfc.section.7"><link rel="Chapter" href="#rfc.section.8" title="8 References"><link rel="Appendix" title="A Changes from RFCs 2616 and 2617" href="#rfc.section.A"><link rel="Appendix" title="B Imported ABNF" href="#rfc.section.B"><link rel="Appendix" title="C Collected ABNF" href="#rfc.section.C"><link href="rfc7234.html" rel="prev"><link rel="Alternate" title="Authorative ASCII Version" href="http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc7235.txt"><link rel="Help" title="RFC-Editor's Status Page" href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7235"><link rel="Help" title="Additional Information on tools.ietf.org" href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7235"><meta name="generator" content="http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629.xslt, Revision 1.710, 2014/12/09 13:12:18, XSLT vendor: SAXON 6.5.5 from Michael Kay http://saxon.sf.net/"><meta name="keywords" content="Hypertext Transfer Protocol, HTTP, HTTP authentication"><link rel="schema.dct" href="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"><meta name="dct.creator" content="Fielding, R."><meta name="dct.creator" content="Reschke, J. F."><meta name="dct.identifier" content="urn:ietf:rfc:7235"><meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2014-06"><meta name="dct.replaces" content="urn:ietf:rfc:2616"><meta name="dct.abstract" content="The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is a stateless application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information systems. This document defines the HTTP Authentication framework."><meta name="dct.isPartOf" content="urn:issn:2070-1721"><meta name="description" content="The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is a stateless application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information systems. This document defines the HTTP Authentication framework."></head><body onload="getMeta(7235,&#34;rfc.meta&#34;);"><table class="header" id="rfc.headerblock"><tbody><tr><td class="left">Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)</td><td class="right">R. Fielding, Editor</td></tr><tr><td class="left">Request for Comments: 7235</td><td class="right">Adobe</td></tr><tr><td class="left">Obsoletes: <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616">2616</a></td><td class="right">J. Reschke, Editor</td></tr><tr><td class="left">Updates: <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2617">2617</a></td><td class="right">greenbytes</td></tr><tr><td class="left">Category: Standards Track</td><td class="right">June 2014</td></tr><tr><td class="left">ISSN: 2070-1721</td><td class="right"></td></tr></tbody></table><p class="title" id="rfc.title">Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication</p><h1 id="rfc.abstract"><a href="#rfc.abstract">Abstract</a></h1><p>The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is a stateless application-level protocol for distributed, collaborative, hypermedia information systems. This document defines the HTTP Authentication framework.</p><div id="rfc.meta" style="float: right; border: 1px solid black; margin: 2em; padding: 1em; display: none;"></div><div id="rfc.status"><h1><a href="#rfc.status">Status of This Memo</a></h1><p>This is an Internet Standards Track document.</p><p>This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.</p><p>Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7235">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7235</a>.</p></div><div id="rfc.copyrightnotice"><h1><a href="#rfc.copyrightnotice">Copyright Notice</a></h1><p>Copyright &copy; 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.</p><p>This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (<a href="http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info">http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info</a>) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.</p><p>This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English.</p></div><hr class="noprint"><div id="rfc.toc"><h1 class="np"><a href="#rfc.toc">Table of Contents</a></h1><ul class="toc"><li><a href="#rfc.section.1">1.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#introduction">Introduction</a><ul><li><a href="#rfc.section.1.1">1.1</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#conformance">Conformance and Error Handling</a></li><li><a href="#rfc.section.1.2">1.2</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#notation">Syntax Notation</a></li></ul></li><li><a href="#rfc.section.2">2.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#access.authentication.framework">Access Authentication Framework</a><ul><li><a href="#rfc.section.2.1">2.1</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#challenge.and.response">Challenge and Response</a></li><li><a href="#rfc.section.2.2">2.2</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#protection.space">Protection Space (Realm)</a></li></ul></li><li><a href="#rfc.section.3">3.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#status.code.definitions">Status Code Definitions</a><ul><li><a href="#rfc.section.3.1">3.1</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#status.401">401 Unauthorized</a></li><li><a href="#rfc.section.3.2">3.2</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#status.407">407 Proxy Authentication Required</a></li></ul></li><li><a href="#rfc.section.4">4.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.field.definitions">Header Field Definitions</a><ul><li><a href="#rfc.section.4.1">4.1</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.www-authenticate">WWW-Authenticate</a></li><li><a href="#rfc.section.4.2">4.2</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.authorization">Authorization</a></li><li><a href="#rfc.section.4.3">4.3</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.proxy-authenticate">Proxy-Authenticate</a></li><li><a href="#rfc.section.4.4">4.4</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.proxy-authorization">Proxy-Authorization</a></li></ul></li><li><a href="#rfc.section.5">5.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#IANA.considerations">IANA Considerations</a><ul><li><a href="#rfc.section.5.1">5.1</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#authentication.scheme.registry">Authentication Scheme Registry</a><ul><li><a href="#rfc.section.5.1.1">5.1.1</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#authentication.scheme.registry.procedure">Procedure</a></li><li><a href="#rfc.section.5.1.2">5.1.2</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#considerations.for.new.authentication.schemes">Considerations for New Authentication Schemes</a></li></ul></li><li><a href="#rfc.section.5.2">5.2</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#status.code.registration">Status Code Registration</a></li><li><a href="#rfc.section.5.3">5.3</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#header.field.registration">Header Field Registration</a></li></ul></li><li><a href="#rfc.section.6">6.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#security.considerations">Security Considerations</a><ul><li><a href="#rfc.section.6.1">6.1</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#confidentiality.of.credentials">Confidentiality of Credentials</a></li><li><a href="#rfc.section.6.2">6.2</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#auth.credentials.and.idle.clients">Authentication Credentials and Idle Clients</a></li><li><a href="#rfc.section.6.3">6.3</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#protection.spaces">Protection Spaces</a></li></ul></li><li><a href="#rfc.section.7">7.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#acks">Acknowledgments</a></li><li><a href="#rfc.section.8">8.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.references">References</a><ul><li><a href="#rfc.section.8.1">8.1</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.references.1">Normative References</a></li><li><a href="#rfc.section.8.2">8.2</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.references.2">Informative References</a></li></ul></li><li><a href="#rfc.section.A">A.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#changes.from.rfc.2616">Changes from RFCs 2616 and 2617</a></li><li><a href="#rfc.section.B">B.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#imported.abnf">Imported ABNF</a></li><li><a href="#rfc.section.C">C.</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#collected.abnf">Collected ABNF</a></li><li><a href="#rfc.index">Index</a></li><li><a href="#rfc.authors">Authors' Addresses</a></li></ul></div><div id="introduction"><h1 id="rfc.section.1" class="np"><a href="#rfc.section.1">1.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#introduction">Introduction</a></h1><div id="rfc.section.1.p.1"><p>HTTP provides a general framework for access control and authentication, via an extensible set of challenge-response authentication schemes, which can be used by a server to challenge a client request and by a client to provide authentication information. This document defines HTTP/1.1 authentication in terms of the architecture defined in "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing" <a href="#RFC7230" id="rfc.xref.RFC7230.1"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing">[RFC7230]</cite></a>, including the general framework previously described in "HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication" <a href="#RFC2617" id="rfc.xref.RFC2617.1"><cite title="HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication">[RFC2617]</cite></a> and the related fields and status codes previously defined in "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1" <a href="#RFC2616" id="rfc.xref.RFC2616.1"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1">[RFC2616]</cite></a>.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.1.p.1">&para;</a></p></div><div id="rfc.section.1.p.2"><p>The IANA Authentication Scheme Registry (<a href="#authentication.scheme.registry" title="Authentication Scheme Registry">Section&nbsp;5.1</a>) lists registered authentication schemes and their corresponding specifications, including the "basic" and "digest" authentication schemes previously defined by <cite title="HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication" id="rfc.xref.RFC2617.2">RFC 2617</cite>.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.1.p.2">&para;</a></p></div><div id="conformance"><h2 id="rfc.section.1.1"><a href="#rfc.section.1.1">1.1</a>&nbsp;<a href="#conformance">Conformance and Error Handling</a></h2><div id="rfc.section.1.1.p.1"><p>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in <a href="#RFC2119" id="rfc.xref.RFC2119.1"><cite title="Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels">[RFC2119]</cite></a>.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.1.1.p.1">&para;</a></p></div><div id="rfc.section.1.1.p.2"><p>Conformance criteria and considerations regarding error handling are defined in <a href="rfc7230.html#conformance" title="Conformance and Error Handling">Section 2.5</a> of <a href="#RFC7230" id="rfc.xref.RFC7230.2"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing">[RFC7230]</cite></a>.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.1.1.p.2">&para;</a></p></div></div><div id="notation"><h2 id="rfc.section.1.2"><a href="#rfc.section.1.2">1.2</a>&nbsp;<a href="#notation">Syntax Notation</a></h2><div id="rfc.section.1.2.p.1"><p>This specification uses the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) notation of <a href="#RFC5234" id="rfc.xref.RFC5234.1"><cite title="Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF">[RFC5234]</cite></a> with a list extension, defined in <a href="rfc7230.html#abnf.extension" title="ABNF List Extension: #rule">Section 7</a> of <a href="#RFC7230" id="rfc.xref.RFC7230.3"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing">[RFC7230]</cite></a>, that allows for compact definition of comma-separated lists using a '#' operator (similar to how the '*' operator indicates repetition). <a href="#imported.abnf" title="Imported ABNF">Appendix&nbsp;B</a> describes rules imported from other documents. <a href="#collected.abnf" title="Collected ABNF">Appendix&nbsp;C</a> shows the collected grammar with all list operators expanded to standard ABNF notation.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.1.2.p.1">&para;</a></p></div></div></div><div id="access.authentication.framework"><h1 id="rfc.section.2"><a href="#rfc.section.2">2.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#access.authentication.framework">Access Authentication Framework</a></h1><div id="challenge.and.response"><h2 id="rfc.section.2.1"><a href="#rfc.section.2.1">2.1</a>&nbsp;<a href="#challenge.and.response">Challenge and Response</a></h2><div id="rfc.section.2.1.p.1"><p>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.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.2.1.p.1">&para;</a></p></div><div id="rfc.section.2.1.p.2"><p>Authentication parameters are name=value pairs, where the name token is matched case-insensitively, and each parameter name <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> only occur once per challenge.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.2.1.p.2">&para;</a></p></div><div id="rfc.figure.u.1"><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.1"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.2"></span><span id="rfc.iref.g.3"></span>  auth-scheme    = <a href="#imported.abnf" class="smpl">token</a>
528 
529  auth-param     = <a href="#imported.abnf" class="smpl">token</a> <a href="#imported.abnf" class="smpl">BWS</a> "=" <a href="#imported.abnf" class="smpl">BWS</a> ( <a href="#imported.abnf" class="smpl">token</a> / <a href="#imported.abnf" class="smpl">quoted-string</a> )
530
531  token68        = 1*( <a href="#imported.abnf" class="smpl">ALPHA</a> / <a href="#imported.abnf" class="smpl">DIGIT</a> /
532                       "-" / "." / "_" / "~" / "+" / "/" ) *"="
533</pre></div><div id="rfc.section.2.1.p.3"><p>The token68 syntax allows the 66 unreserved URI characters (<a href="#RFC3986" id="rfc.xref.RFC3986.1"><cite title="Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax">[RFC3986]</cite></a>), plus a few others, so that it can hold a base64, base64url (URL and filename safe alphabet), base32, or base16 (hex) encoding, with or without padding, but excluding whitespace (<a href="#RFC4648" id="rfc.xref.RFC4648.1"><cite title="The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data Encodings">[RFC4648]</cite></a>).<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.2.1.p.3">&para;</a></p></div><div id="rfc.section.2.1.p.4"><p>A <a href="#status.401" class="smpl">401 (Unauthorized)</a> response message is used by an origin server to challenge the authorization of a user agent, including a <a href="#header.www-authenticate" class="smpl">WWW-Authenticate</a> header field containing at least one challenge applicable to the requested resource.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.2.1.p.4">&para;</a></p></div><div id="rfc.section.2.1.p.5"><p>A <a href="#status.407" class="smpl">407 (Proxy Authentication Required)</a> response message is used by a proxy to challenge the authorization of a client, including a <a href="#header.proxy-authenticate" class="smpl">Proxy-Authenticate</a> header field containing at least one challenge applicable to the proxy for the requested resource.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.2.1.p.5">&para;</a></p></div><div id="rfc.figure.u.2"><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.4"></span>  <a href="#challenge.and.response" class="smpl">challenge</a>   = <a href="#challenge.and.response" class="smpl">auth-scheme</a> [ 1*<a href="#imported.abnf" class="smpl">SP</a> ( <a href="#challenge.and.response" class="smpl">token68</a> / #<a href="#challenge.and.response" class="smpl">auth-param</a> ) ]
534</pre></div><div class="note"><div id="rfc.section.2.1.p.6"><p><b>Note:</b> Many clients fail to parse a challenge that contains an unknown scheme. A workaround for this problem is to list well-supported schemes (such as "basic") first. <a class="self" href="#rfc.section.2.1.p.6">&para;</a></p></div></div><div id="rfc.section.2.1.p.7"><p>A user agent that wishes to authenticate itself with an origin server &#8212; usually, but not necessarily, after receiving a <a href="#status.401" class="smpl">401 (Unauthorized)</a> &#8212; can do so by including an <a href="#header.authorization" class="smpl">Authorization</a> header field with the request.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.2.1.p.7">&para;</a></p></div><div id="rfc.section.2.1.p.8"><p>A client that wishes to authenticate itself with a proxy &#8212; usually, but not necessarily, after receiving a <a href="#status.407" class="smpl">407 (Proxy Authentication Required)</a> &#8212; can do so by including a <a href="#header.proxy-authorization" class="smpl">Proxy-Authorization</a> header field with the request.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.2.1.p.8">&para;</a></p></div><div id="rfc.section.2.1.p.9"><p>Both the <a href="#header.authorization" class="smpl">Authorization</a> field value and the <a href="#header.proxy-authorization" class="smpl">Proxy-Authorization</a> field value contain the client's credentials for the realm of the resource being requested, based upon a challenge received in a response (possibly at some point in the past). When creating their values, the user agent ought to do so by selecting the challenge with what it considers to be the most secure auth-scheme that it understands, obtaining credentials from the user as appropriate. Transmission of credentials within header field values implies significant security considerations regarding the confidentiality of the underlying connection, as described in <a href="#confidentiality.of.credentials" title="Confidentiality of Credentials">Section&nbsp;6.1</a>.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.2.1.p.9">&para;</a></p></div><div id="rfc.figure.u.3"><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.5"></span>  <a href="#challenge.and.response" class="smpl">credentials</a> = <a href="#challenge.and.response" class="smpl">auth-scheme</a> [ 1*<a href="#imported.abnf" class="smpl">SP</a> ( <a href="#challenge.and.response" class="smpl">token68</a> / #<a href="#challenge.and.response" class="smpl">auth-param</a> ) ]
535</pre></div><div id="rfc.section.2.1.p.10"><p>Upon receipt of a request for a protected resource that omits credentials, contains invalid credentials (e.g., a bad password) or partial credentials (e.g., when the authentication scheme requires more than one round trip), an origin server <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> send a <a href="#status.401" class="smpl">401 (Unauthorized)</a> response that contains a <a href="#header.www-authenticate" class="smpl">WWW-Authenticate</a> header field with at least one (possibly new) challenge applicable to the requested resource.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.2.1.p.10">&para;</a></p></div><div id="rfc.section.2.1.p.11"><p>Likewise, upon receipt of a request that omits proxy credentials or contains invalid or partial proxy credentials, a proxy that requires authentication <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> generate a <a href="#status.407" class="smpl">407 (Proxy Authentication Required)</a> response that contains a <a href="#header.proxy-authenticate" class="smpl">Proxy-Authenticate</a> header field with at least one (possibly new) challenge applicable to the proxy.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.2.1.p.11">&para;</a></p></div><div id="rfc.section.2.1.p.12"><p>A server that receives valid credentials that are not adequate to gain access ought to respond with the <a href="rfc7231.html#status.403" class="smpl">403 (Forbidden)</a> status code (<a href="rfc7231.html#status.403" title="403 Forbidden">Section 6.5.3</a> of <a href="#RFC7231" id="rfc.xref.RFC7231.1"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content">[RFC7231]</cite></a>).<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.2.1.p.12">&para;</a></p></div><div id="rfc.section.2.1.p.13"><p>HTTP does not restrict applications to this simple challenge-response framework for access authentication. Additional mechanisms can be used, such as authentication at the transport level or via message encapsulation, and with additional header fields specifying authentication information. However, such additional mechanisms are not defined by this specification.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.2.1.p.13">&para;</a></p></div></div><div id="protection.space"><h2 id="rfc.section.2.2"><a href="#rfc.section.2.2">2.2</a>&nbsp;<a href="#protection.space">Protection Space (Realm)</a></h2><div id="rfc.section.2.2.p.1"><p>The "<dfn>realm</dfn>" authentication parameter is reserved for use by authentication schemes that wish to indicate a scope of protection.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.2.2.p.1">&para;</a></p></div><div id="rfc.section.2.2.p.2"><p>A <dfn>protection space</dfn> is defined by the canonical root URI (the scheme and authority components of the effective request URI; see <a href="rfc7230.html#effective.request.uri" title="Effective Request URI">Section 5.5</a> of <a href="#RFC7230" id="rfc.xref.RFC7230.4"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing">[RFC7230]</cite></a>) of the server being accessed, in combination with the realm value if present. These realms allow the protected resources on a server to be partitioned into a set of protection spaces, each with its own authentication scheme and/or authorization database. The realm value is a string, generally assigned by the origin server, that can have additional semantics specific to the authentication scheme. Note that a response can have multiple challenges with the same auth-scheme but with different realms.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.2.2.p.2">&para;</a></p></div><div id="rfc.section.2.2.p.3"><p>The protection space determines the domain over which credentials can be automatically applied. If a prior request has been authorized, the user agent <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> reuse the same credentials for all other requests within that protection space for a period of time determined by the authentication scheme, parameters, and/or user preferences (such as a configurable inactivity timeout). Unless specifically allowed by the authentication scheme, a single protection space cannot extend outside the scope of its server.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.2.2.p.3">&para;</a></p></div><div id="rfc.section.2.2.p.4"><p>For historical reasons, a sender <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> only generate the quoted-string syntax. Recipients might have to support both token and quoted-string syntax for maximum interoperability with existing clients that have been accepting both notations for a long time.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.2.2.p.4">&para;</a></p></div></div></div><div id="status.code.definitions"><h1 id="rfc.section.3"><a href="#rfc.section.3">3.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#status.code.definitions">Status Code Definitions</a></h1><div id="status.401"><h2 id="rfc.section.3.1"><a href="#rfc.section.3.1">3.1</a>&nbsp;<a href="#status.401">401 Unauthorized</a></h2><div id="rfc.section.3.1.p.1"><p>The <dfn>401 (Unauthorized)</dfn> status code indicates that the request has not been applied because it lacks valid authentication credentials for the target resource. The server generating a 401 response <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> send a <a href="#header.www-authenticate" class="smpl">WWW-Authenticate</a> header field (<a href="#header.www-authenticate" id="rfc.xref.header.www-authenticate.1" title="WWW-Authenticate">Section&nbsp;4.1</a>) containing at least one challenge applicable to the target resource.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.3.1.p.1">&para;</a></p></div><div id="rfc.section.3.1.p.2"><p>If the request included authentication credentials, then the 401 response indicates that authorization has been refused for those credentials. The user agent <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> repeat the request with a new or replaced <a href="#header.authorization" class="smpl">Authorization</a> header field (<a href="#header.authorization" id="rfc.xref.header.authorization.1" title="Authorization">Section&nbsp;4.2</a>). If the 401 response contains the same challenge as the prior response, and the user agent has already attempted authentication at least once, then the user agent <em class="bcp14">SHOULD</em> present the enclosed representation to the user, since it usually contains relevant diagnostic information.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.3.1.p.2">&para;</a></p></div></div><div id="status.407"><h2 id="rfc.section.3.2"><a href="#rfc.section.3.2">3.2</a>&nbsp;<a href="#status.407">407 Proxy Authentication Required</a></h2><div id="rfc.section.3.2.p.1"><p>The <dfn>407 (Proxy Authentication Required)</dfn> status code is similar to <a href="#status.401" class="smpl">401 (Unauthorized)</a>, but it indicates that the client needs to authenticate itself in order to use a proxy. The proxy <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> send a <a href="#header.proxy-authenticate" class="smpl">Proxy-Authenticate</a> header field (<a href="#header.proxy-authenticate" id="rfc.xref.header.proxy-authenticate.1" title="Proxy-Authenticate">Section&nbsp;4.3</a>) containing a challenge applicable to that proxy for the target resource. The client <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> repeat the request with a new or replaced <a href="#header.proxy-authorization" class="smpl">Proxy-Authorization</a> header field (<a href="#header.proxy-authorization" id="rfc.xref.header.proxy-authorization.1" title="Proxy-Authorization">Section&nbsp;4.4</a>).<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.3.2.p.1">&para;</a></p></div></div></div><div id="header.field.definitions"><h1 id="rfc.section.4"><a href="#rfc.section.4">4.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#header.field.definitions">Header Field Definitions</a></h1><div id="rfc.section.4.p.1"><p>This section defines the syntax and semantics of header fields related to the HTTP authentication framework.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.4.p.1">&para;</a></p></div><div id="header.www-authenticate"><h2 id="rfc.section.4.1"><a href="#rfc.section.4.1">4.1</a>&nbsp;<a href="#header.www-authenticate">WWW-Authenticate</a></h2><div id="rfc.section.4.1.p.1"><p>The "WWW-Authenticate" header field indicates the authentication scheme(s) and parameters applicable to the target resource.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.4.1.p.1">&para;</a></p></div><div id="rfc.figure.u.4"><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.6"></span>  <a href="#header.www-authenticate" class="smpl">WWW-Authenticate</a> = 1#<a href="#challenge.and.response" class="smpl">challenge</a>
536</pre></div><div id="rfc.section.4.1.p.2"><p>A server generating a <a href="#status.401" class="smpl">401 (Unauthorized)</a> response <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> send a WWW-Authenticate header field containing at least one challenge. A server <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> generate a WWW-Authenticate header field in other response messages to indicate that supplying credentials (or different credentials) might affect the response.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.4.1.p.2">&para;</a></p></div><div id="rfc.section.4.1.p.3"><p>A proxy forwarding a response <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> modify any <a href="#header.www-authenticate" class="smpl">WWW-Authenticate</a> fields in that response.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.4.1.p.3">&para;</a></p></div><div id="rfc.section.4.1.p.4"><p>User agents are advised to take special care in parsing the field value, as it might contain more than one challenge, and each challenge can contain a comma-separated list of authentication parameters. Furthermore, the header field itself can occur multiple times.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.4.1.p.4">&para;</a></p></div><div id="rfc.figure.u.5"><p>For instance:</p><pre class="text">  WWW-Authenticate: Newauth realm="apps", type=1,
537                    title="Login to \"apps\"", Basic realm="simple"
538</pre><p>This header field contains two challenges; one for the "Newauth" scheme with a realm value of "apps", and two additional parameters "type" and "title", and another one for the "Basic" scheme with a realm value of "simple".</p></div><div class="note"><div id="rfc.section.4.1.p.5"><p><b>Note:</b> The challenge grammar production uses the list syntax as well. Therefore, a sequence of comma, whitespace, and comma can be considered either as applying to the preceding challenge, or to be an empty entry in the list of challenges. In practice, this ambiguity does not affect the semantics of the header field value and thus is harmless.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.4.1.p.5">&para;</a></p></div></div></div><div id="header.authorization"><h2 id="rfc.section.4.2"><a href="#rfc.section.4.2">4.2</a>&nbsp;<a href="#header.authorization">Authorization</a></h2><div id="rfc.section.4.2.p.1"><p>The "Authorization" header field allows a user agent to authenticate itself with an origin server &#8212; usually, but not necessarily, after receiving a <a href="#status.401" class="smpl">401 (Unauthorized)</a> response. Its value consists of credentials containing the authentication information of the user agent for the realm of the resource being requested.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.4.2.p.1">&para;</a></p></div><div id="rfc.figure.u.6"><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.7"></span>  <a href="#header.authorization" class="smpl">Authorization</a> = <a href="#challenge.and.response" class="smpl">credentials</a>
539</pre></div><div id="rfc.section.4.2.p.2"><p>If a request is authenticated and a realm specified, the same credentials are presumed to be valid for all other requests within this realm (assuming that the authentication scheme itself does not require otherwise, such as credentials that vary according to a challenge value or using synchronized clocks).<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.4.2.p.2">&para;</a></p></div><div id="rfc.section.4.2.p.3"><p>A proxy forwarding a request <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> modify any <a href="#header.authorization" class="smpl">Authorization</a> fields in that request. See <a href="rfc7234.html#caching.authenticated.responses" title="Storing Responses to Authenticated Requests">Section 3.2</a> of <a href="#RFC7234" id="rfc.xref.RFC7234.1"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching">[RFC7234]</cite></a> for details of and requirements pertaining to handling of the Authorization field by HTTP caches.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.4.2.p.3">&para;</a></p></div></div><div id="header.proxy-authenticate"><h2 id="rfc.section.4.3"><a href="#rfc.section.4.3">4.3</a>&nbsp;<a href="#header.proxy-authenticate">Proxy-Authenticate</a></h2><div id="rfc.section.4.3.p.1"><p>The "Proxy-Authenticate" header field consists of at least one challenge that indicates the authentication scheme(s) and parameters applicable to the proxy for this effective request URI (<a href="rfc7230.html#effective.request.uri" title="Effective Request URI">Section 5.5</a> of <a href="#RFC7230" id="rfc.xref.RFC7230.5"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing">[RFC7230]</cite></a>). A proxy <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> send at least one Proxy-Authenticate header field in each <a href="#status.407" class="smpl">407 (Proxy Authentication Required)</a> response that it generates.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.4.3.p.1">&para;</a></p></div><div id="rfc.figure.u.7"><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.8"></span>  <a href="#header.proxy-authenticate" class="smpl">Proxy-Authenticate</a> = 1#<a href="#challenge.and.response" class="smpl">challenge</a>
540</pre></div><div id="rfc.section.4.3.p.2"><p>Unlike <a href="#header.www-authenticate" class="smpl">WWW-Authenticate</a>, the Proxy-Authenticate header field applies only to the next outbound client on the response chain. This is because only the client that chose a given proxy is likely to have the credentials necessary for authentication. However, when multiple proxies are used within the same administrative domain, such as office and regional caching proxies within a large corporate network, it is common for credentials to be generated by the user agent and passed through the hierarchy until consumed. Hence, in such a configuration, it will appear as if Proxy-Authenticate is being forwarded because each proxy will send the same challenge set.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.4.3.p.2">&para;</a></p></div><div id="rfc.section.4.3.p.3"><p>Note that the parsing considerations for <a href="#header.www-authenticate" class="smpl">WWW-Authenticate</a> apply to this header field as well; see <a href="#header.www-authenticate" id="rfc.xref.header.www-authenticate.2" title="WWW-Authenticate">Section&nbsp;4.1</a> for details.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.4.3.p.3">&para;</a></p></div></div><div id="header.proxy-authorization"><h2 id="rfc.section.4.4"><a href="#rfc.section.4.4">4.4</a>&nbsp;<a href="#header.proxy-authorization">Proxy-Authorization</a></h2><div id="rfc.section.4.4.p.1"><p>The "Proxy-Authorization" header field allows the client to identify itself (or its user) to a proxy that requires authentication. Its value consists of credentials containing the authentication information of the client for the proxy and/or realm of the resource being requested.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.4.4.p.1">&para;</a></p></div><div id="rfc.figure.u.8"><pre class="inline"><span id="rfc.iref.g.9"></span>  <a href="#header.proxy-authorization" class="smpl">Proxy-Authorization</a> = <a href="#challenge.and.response" class="smpl">credentials</a>
541</pre></div><div id="rfc.section.4.4.p.2"><p>Unlike <a href="#header.authorization" class="smpl">Authorization</a>, the Proxy-Authorization header field applies only to the next inbound proxy that demanded authentication using the <a href="#header.proxy-authenticate" class="smpl">Proxy-Authenticate</a> field. When multiple proxies are used in a chain, the Proxy-Authorization header field is consumed by the first inbound proxy that was expecting to receive credentials. A proxy <em class="bcp14">MAY</em> relay the credentials from the client request to the next proxy if that is the mechanism by which the proxies cooperatively authenticate a given request.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.4.4.p.2">&para;</a></p></div></div></div><div id="IANA.considerations"><h1 id="rfc.section.5"><a href="#rfc.section.5">5.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#IANA.considerations">IANA Considerations</a></h1><div id="authentication.scheme.registry"><h2 id="rfc.section.5.1"><a href="#rfc.section.5.1">5.1</a>&nbsp;<a href="#authentication.scheme.registry">Authentication Scheme Registry</a></h2><div id="rfc.section.5.1.p.1"><p>The "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Authentication Scheme Registry" defines the namespace for the authentication schemes in challenges and credentials. It has been created and is now maintained at &lt;<a href="http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-authschemes">http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-authschemes</a>&gt;.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.5.1.p.1">&para;</a></p></div><div id="authentication.scheme.registry.procedure"><h3 id="rfc.section.5.1.1"><a href="#rfc.section.5.1.1">5.1.1</a>&nbsp;<a href="#authentication.scheme.registry.procedure">Procedure</a></h3><div id="rfc.section.5.1.1.p.1"><p>Registrations <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> include the following fields: <a class="self" href="#rfc.section.5.1.1.p.1">&para;</a></p><ul><li>Authentication Scheme Name</li><li>Pointer to specification text</li><li>Notes (optional)</li></ul></div><div id="rfc.section.5.1.1.p.2"><p>Values to be added to this namespace require IETF Review (see <a href="#RFC5226" id="rfc.xref.RFC5226.1"><cite title="Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs">[RFC5226]</cite></a>, <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226#section-4.1">Section 4.1</a>).<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.5.1.1.p.2">&para;</a></p></div></div><div id="considerations.for.new.authentication.schemes"><h3 id="rfc.section.5.1.2"><a href="#rfc.section.5.1.2">5.1.2</a>&nbsp;<a href="#considerations.for.new.authentication.schemes">Considerations for New Authentication Schemes</a></h3><div id="rfc.section.5.1.2.p.1"><p>There are certain aspects of the HTTP Authentication Framework that put constraints on how new authentication schemes can work:<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.5.1.2.p.1">&para;</a></p></div><div id="rfc.section.5.1.2.p.2"><ul><li><p>HTTP authentication is presumed to be stateless: all of the information necessary to authenticate a request <em class="bcp14">MUST</em> be provided in the request, rather than be dependent on the server remembering prior requests. Authentication based on, or bound to, the underlying connection is outside the scope of this specification and inherently flawed unless steps are taken to ensure that the connection cannot be used by any party other than the authenticated user (see <a href="rfc7230.html#intermediaries" title="Intermediaries">Section 2.3</a> of <a href="#RFC7230" id="rfc.xref.RFC7230.6"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing">[RFC7230]</cite></a>).</p></li><li><p>The authentication parameter "realm" is reserved for defining protection spaces as described in <a href="#protection.space" title="Protection Space (Realm)">Section&nbsp;2.2</a>. New schemes <em class="bcp14">MUST NOT</em> use it in a way incompatible with that definition.</p></li><li><p>The "token68" notation was introduced for compatibility with existing authentication schemes and can only be used once per challenge or credential. Thus, new schemes ought to use the auth-param syntax instead, because otherwise future extensions will be impossible.</p></li><li><p>The parsing of challenges and credentials is defined by this specification and cannot be modified by new authentication schemes. When the auth-param syntax is used, all parameters ought to support both token and quoted-string syntax, and syntactical constraints ought to be defined on the field value after parsing (i.e., quoted-string processing). This is necessary so that recipients can use a generic parser that applies to all authentication schemes.</p><p><b>Note:</b> The fact that the value syntax for the "realm" parameter is restricted to quoted-string was a bad design choice not to be repeated for new parameters.</p></li><li><p>Definitions of new schemes ought to define the treatment of unknown extension parameters. In general, a "must-ignore" rule is preferable to a "must-understand" rule, because otherwise it will be hard to introduce new parameters in the presence of legacy recipients. Furthermore, it's good to describe the policy for defining new parameters (such as "update the specification" or "use this registry").</p></li><li><p>Authentication schemes need to document whether they are usable in origin-server authentication (i.e., using <a href="#header.www-authenticate" class="smpl">WWW-Authenticate</a>), and/or proxy authentication (i.e., using <a href="#header.proxy-authenticate" class="smpl">Proxy-Authenticate</a>).</p></li><li><p>The credentials carried in an <a href="#header.authorization" class="smpl">Authorization</a> header field are specific to the user agent and, therefore, have the same effect on HTTP caches as the "private" Cache-Control response directive (<a href="rfc7234.html#cache-response-directive.private" title="private">Section 5.2.2.6</a> of <a href="#RFC7234" id="rfc.xref.RFC7234.2"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching">[RFC7234]</cite></a>), within the scope of the request in which they appear.</p><p>Therefore, new authentication schemes that choose not to carry credentials in the <a href="#header.authorization" class="smpl">Authorization</a> header field (e.g., using a newly defined header field) will need to explicitly disallow caching, by mandating the use of either Cache-Control request directives (e.g., "no-store", <a href="rfc7234.html#cache-request-directive.no-store" title="no-store">Section 5.2.1.5</a> of <a href="#RFC7234" id="rfc.xref.RFC7234.3"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching">[RFC7234]</cite></a>) or response directives (e.g., "private").</p></li></ul></div></div></div><div id="status.code.registration"><h2 id="rfc.section.5.2"><a href="#rfc.section.5.2">5.2</a>&nbsp;<a href="#status.code.registration">Status Code Registration</a></h2><div id="rfc.section.5.2.p.1"><p>The "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Status Code Registry" located at &lt;<a href="http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes">http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes</a>&gt; has been updated with the registrations below:<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.5.2.p.1">&para;</a></p></div><div id="rfc.table.1"><div id="iana.status.code.registration.table"></div><table class="tt full left" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0"><thead><tr><th>Value</th><th>Description</th><th>Reference</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td class="left">401</td><td class="left">Unauthorized</td><td class="left"><a href="#status.401" id="rfc.xref.status.401.1" title="401 Unauthorized">Section&nbsp;3.1</a> </td></tr><tr><td class="left">407</td><td class="left">Proxy Authentication Required</td><td class="left"><a href="#status.407" id="rfc.xref.status.407.1" title="407 Proxy Authentication Required">Section&nbsp;3.2</a> </td></tr></tbody></table></div></div><div id="header.field.registration"><h2 id="rfc.section.5.3"><a href="#rfc.section.5.3">5.3</a>&nbsp;<a href="#header.field.registration">Header Field Registration</a></h2><div id="rfc.section.5.3.p.1"><p>HTTP header fields are registered within the "Message Headers" registry maintained at &lt;<a href="http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/">http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/</a>&gt;.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.5.3.p.1">&para;</a></p></div><div id="rfc.section.5.3.p.2"><p>This document defines the following HTTP header fields, so the "Permanent Message Header Field Names" registry has been updated accordingly (see <a href="#BCP90" id="rfc.xref.BCP90.1"><cite title="Registration Procedures for Message Header Fields">[BCP90]</cite></a>).<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.5.3.p.2">&para;</a></p></div><div id="rfc.table.2"><div id="iana.header.registration.table"></div><table class="tt full left" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0"><thead><tr><th>Header Field Name</th><th>Protocol</th><th>Status</th><th>Reference</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td class="left">Authorization</td><td class="left">http</td><td class="left">standard</td><td class="left"><a href="#header.authorization" id="rfc.xref.header.authorization.2" title="Authorization">Section&nbsp;4.2</a> </td></tr><tr><td class="left">Proxy-Authenticate</td><td class="left">http</td><td class="left">standard</td><td class="left"><a href="#header.proxy-authenticate" id="rfc.xref.header.proxy-authenticate.2" title="Proxy-Authenticate">Section&nbsp;4.3</a> </td></tr><tr><td class="left">Proxy-Authorization</td><td class="left">http</td><td class="left">standard</td><td class="left"><a href="#header.proxy-authorization" id="rfc.xref.header.proxy-authorization.2" title="Proxy-Authorization">Section&nbsp;4.4</a> </td></tr><tr><td class="left">WWW-Authenticate</td><td class="left">http</td><td class="left">standard</td><td class="left"><a href="#header.www-authenticate" id="rfc.xref.header.www-authenticate.3" title="WWW-Authenticate">Section&nbsp;4.1</a> </td></tr></tbody></table></div><div id="rfc.section.5.3.p.3"><p>The change controller is: "IETF (iesg@ietf.org) - Internet Engineering Task Force".<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.5.3.p.3">&para;</a></p></div></div></div><div id="security.considerations"><h1 id="rfc.section.6"><a href="#rfc.section.6">6.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#security.considerations">Security Considerations</a></h1><div id="rfc.section.6.p.1"><p>This section is meant to inform developers, information providers, and users of known security concerns specific to HTTP authentication. More general security considerations are addressed in HTTP messaging <a href="#RFC7230" id="rfc.xref.RFC7230.7"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing">[RFC7230]</cite></a> and semantics <a href="#RFC7231" id="rfc.xref.RFC7231.2"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content">[RFC7231]</cite></a>.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.6.p.1">&para;</a></p></div><div id="rfc.section.6.p.2"><p>Everything about the topic of HTTP authentication is a security consideration, so the list of considerations below is not exhaustive. Furthermore, it is limited to security considerations regarding the authentication framework, in general, rather than discussing all of the potential considerations for specific authentication schemes (which ought to be documented in the specifications that define those schemes). Various organizations maintain topical information and links to current research on Web application security (e.g., <a href="#OWASP" id="rfc.xref.OWASP.1"><cite title="A Guide to Building Secure Web Applications and Web Services">[OWASP]</cite></a>), including common pitfalls for implementing and using the authentication schemes found in practice.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.6.p.2">&para;</a></p></div><div id="confidentiality.of.credentials"><h2 id="rfc.section.6.1"><a href="#rfc.section.6.1">6.1</a>&nbsp;<a href="#confidentiality.of.credentials">Confidentiality of Credentials</a></h2><div id="rfc.section.6.1.p.1"><p>The HTTP authentication framework does not define a single mechanism for maintaining the confidentiality of credentials; instead, each authentication scheme defines how the credentials are encoded prior to transmission. While this provides flexibility for the development of future authentication schemes, it is inadequate for the protection of existing schemes that provide no confidentiality on their own, or that do not sufficiently protect against replay attacks. Furthermore, if the server expects credentials that are specific to each individual user, the exchange of those credentials will have the effect of identifying that user even if the content within credentials remains confidential.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.6.1.p.1">&para;</a></p></div><div id="rfc.section.6.1.p.2"><p>HTTP depends on the security properties of the underlying transport- or session-level connection to provide confidential transmission of header fields. In other words, if a server limits access to authenticated users using this framework, the server needs to ensure that the connection is properly secured in accordance with the nature of the authentication scheme used. For example, services that depend on individual user authentication often require a connection to be secured with TLS ("Transport Layer Security", <a href="#RFC5246" id="rfc.xref.RFC5246.1"><cite title="The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2">[RFC5246]</cite></a>) prior to exchanging any credentials.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.6.1.p.2">&para;</a></p></div></div><div id="auth.credentials.and.idle.clients"><h2 id="rfc.section.6.2"><a href="#rfc.section.6.2">6.2</a>&nbsp;<a href="#auth.credentials.and.idle.clients">Authentication Credentials and Idle Clients</a></h2><div id="rfc.section.6.2.p.1"><p>Existing HTTP clients and user agents typically retain authentication information indefinitely. HTTP does not provide a mechanism for the origin server to direct clients to discard these cached credentials, since the protocol has no awareness of how credentials are obtained or managed by the user agent. The mechanisms for expiring or revoking credentials can be specified as part of an authentication scheme definition.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.6.2.p.1">&para;</a></p></div><div id="rfc.section.6.2.p.2"><p>Circumstances under which credential caching can interfere with the application's security model include but are not limited to: <a class="self" href="#rfc.section.6.2.p.2">&para;</a></p><ul><li>Clients that have been idle for an extended period, following which the server might wish to cause the client to re-prompt the user for credentials.</li><li>Applications that include a session termination indication (such as a "logout" or "commit" button on a page) after which the server side of the application "knows" that there is no further reason for the client to retain the credentials.</li></ul></div><div id="rfc.section.6.2.p.3"><p>User agents that cache credentials are encouraged to provide a readily accessible mechanism for discarding cached credentials under user control.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.6.2.p.3">&para;</a></p></div></div><div id="protection.spaces"><h2 id="rfc.section.6.3"><a href="#rfc.section.6.3">6.3</a>&nbsp;<a href="#protection.spaces">Protection Spaces</a></h2><div id="rfc.section.6.3.p.1"><p>Authentication schemes that solely rely on the "realm" mechanism for establishing a protection space will expose credentials to all resources on an origin server. Clients that have successfully made authenticated requests with a resource can use the same authentication credentials for other resources on the same origin server. This makes it possible for a different resource to harvest authentication credentials for other resources.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.6.3.p.1">&para;</a></p></div><div id="rfc.section.6.3.p.2"><p>This is of particular concern when an origin server hosts resources for multiple parties under the same canonical root URI (<a href="#protection.space" title="Protection Space (Realm)">Section&nbsp;2.2</a>). Possible mitigation strategies include restricting direct access to authentication credentials (i.e., not making the content of the <a href="#header.authorization" class="smpl">Authorization</a> request header field available), and separating protection spaces by using a different host name (or port number) for each party.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.6.3.p.2">&para;</a></p></div></div></div><div id="acks"><h1 id="rfc.section.7"><a href="#rfc.section.7">7.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#acks">Acknowledgments</a></h1><div id="rfc.section.7.p.1"><p>This specification takes over the definition of the HTTP Authentication Framework, previously defined in <cite title="HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication" id="rfc.xref.RFC2617.3">RFC 2617</cite>. We thank John Franks, Phillip M. Hallam-Baker, Jeffery L. Hostetler, Scott D. Lawrence, Paul J. Leach, Ari Luotonen, and Lawrence C. Stewart for their work on that specification. See <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2617#section-6">Section 6</a> of <a href="#RFC2617" id="rfc.xref.RFC2617.4"><cite title="HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication">[RFC2617]</cite></a> for further acknowledgements.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.7.p.1">&para;</a></p></div><div id="rfc.section.7.p.2"><p>See <a href="rfc7230.html#acks" title="Acknowledgments">Section 10</a> of <a href="#RFC7230" id="rfc.xref.RFC7230.8"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing">[RFC7230]</cite></a> for the Acknowledgments related to this document revision.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.7.p.2">&para;</a></p></div></div><h1 id="rfc.references"><a id="rfc.section.8" href="#rfc.section.8">8.</a> References</h1><h2 id="rfc.references.1"><a href="#rfc.section.8.1" id="rfc.section.8.1">8.1</a> Normative References</h2><table><tr><td class="reference"><b id="RFC2119">[RFC2119]</b></td><td class="top">Bradner, S., &#8220;<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119">Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</a>&#8221;, BCP&nbsp;14, RFC&nbsp;2119, March&nbsp;1997.</td></tr><tr><td class="reference"><b id="RFC5234">[RFC5234]</b></td><td class="top">Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, &#8220;<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5234">Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF</a>&#8221;, STD&nbsp;68, RFC&nbsp;5234, January&nbsp;2008.</td></tr><tr><td class="reference"><b id="RFC7230">[RFC7230]</b></td><td class="top">Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., &#8220;<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7230">Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing</a>&#8221;, RFC&nbsp;7230, June&nbsp;2014.</td></tr><tr><td class="reference"><b id="RFC7231">[RFC7231]</b></td><td class="top">Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., &#8220;<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231">Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content</a>&#8221;, RFC&nbsp;7231, June&nbsp;2014.</td></tr><tr><td class="reference"><b id="RFC7234">[RFC7234]</b></td><td class="top">Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke, Ed., &#8220;<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7234">Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching</a>&#8221;, RFC&nbsp;7234, June&nbsp;2014.</td></tr></table><h2 id="rfc.references.2"><a href="#rfc.section.8.2" id="rfc.section.8.2">8.2</a> Informative References</h2><table><tr><td class="reference"><b id="BCP90">[BCP90]</b></td><td class="top">Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J. Mogul, &#8220;<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3864">Registration Procedures for Message Header Fields</a>&#8221;, BCP&nbsp;90, RFC&nbsp;3864, September&nbsp;2004.</td></tr><tr><td class="reference"><b id="OWASP">[OWASP]</b></td><td class="top">van der Stock, A., Ed., &#8220;<a href="https://www.owasp.org/">A Guide to Building Secure Web Applications and Web Services</a>&#8221;, The Open Web Application Security Project (OWASP)&nbsp;2.0.1, July&nbsp;2005, &lt;<a href="https://www.owasp.org/">https://www.owasp.org/</a>&gt;.</td></tr><tr><td class="reference"><b id="RFC2616">[RFC2616]</b></td><td class="top">Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, &#8220;<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616">Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1</a>&#8221;, RFC&nbsp;2616, June&nbsp;1999.</td></tr><tr><td class="reference"><b id="RFC2617">[RFC2617]</b></td><td class="top">Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Lawrence, S., Leach, P., Luotonen, A., and L. Stewart, &#8220;<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2617">HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication</a>&#8221;, RFC&nbsp;2617, June&nbsp;1999.</td></tr><tr><td class="reference"><b id="RFC3986">[RFC3986]</b></td><td class="top">Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, &#8220;<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986">Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax</a>&#8221;, STD&nbsp;66, RFC&nbsp;3986, January&nbsp;2005.</td></tr><tr><td class="reference"><b id="RFC4648">[RFC4648]</b></td><td class="top">Josefsson, S., &#8220;<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4648">The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data Encodings</a>&#8221;, RFC&nbsp;4648, October&nbsp;2006.</td></tr><tr><td class="reference"><b id="RFC5226">[RFC5226]</b></td><td class="top">Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, &#8220;<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226">Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs</a>&#8221;, BCP&nbsp;26, RFC&nbsp;5226, May&nbsp;2008.</td></tr><tr><td class="reference"><b id="RFC5246">[RFC5246]</b></td><td class="top">Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, &#8220;<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5246">The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2</a>&#8221;, RFC&nbsp;5246, August&nbsp;2008.</td></tr></table><div id="changes.from.rfc.2616"><h1 id="rfc.section.A" class="np"><a href="#rfc.section.A">A.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#changes.from.rfc.2616">Changes from RFCs 2616 and 2617</a></h1><div id="rfc.section.A.p.1"><p>The framework for HTTP Authentication is now defined by this document, rather than RFC 2617.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.A.p.1">&para;</a></p></div><div id="rfc.section.A.p.2"><p>The "realm" parameter is no longer always required on challenges; consequently, the ABNF allows challenges without any auth parameters. (<a href="#access.authentication.framework" title="Access Authentication Framework">Section&nbsp;2</a>)<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.A.p.2">&para;</a></p></div><div id="rfc.section.A.p.3"><p>The "token68" alternative to auth-param lists has been added for consistency with legacy authentication schemes such as "Basic". (<a href="#access.authentication.framework" title="Access Authentication Framework">Section&nbsp;2</a>)<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.A.p.3">&para;</a></p></div><div id="rfc.section.A.p.4"><p>This specification introduces the Authentication Scheme Registry, along with considerations for new authentication schemes. (<a href="#authentication.scheme.registry" title="Authentication Scheme Registry">Section&nbsp;5.1</a>)<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.A.p.4">&para;</a></p></div></div><div id="imported.abnf"><h1 id="rfc.section.B"><a href="#rfc.section.B">B.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#imported.abnf">Imported ABNF</a></h1><div id="rfc.section.B.p.1"><p>The following core rules are included by reference, as defined in <a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5234#appendix-B.1">Appendix B.1</a> of <a href="#RFC5234" id="rfc.xref.RFC5234.2"><cite title="Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF">[RFC5234]</cite></a>: ALPHA (letters), CR (carriage return), CRLF (CR LF), CTL (controls), DIGIT (decimal 0-9), DQUOTE (double quote), HEXDIG (hexadecimal 0-9/A-F/a-f), LF (line feed), OCTET (any 8-bit sequence of data), SP (space), and VCHAR (any visible US-ASCII character).<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.B.p.1">&para;</a></p></div><div id="rfc.section.B.p.2"><p>The rules below are defined in <a href="#RFC7230" id="rfc.xref.RFC7230.9"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing">[RFC7230]</cite></a>:<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.B.p.2">&para;</a></p></div><div id="rfc.figure.u.9"><pre class="inline">  <a href="#imported.abnf" class="smpl">BWS</a>           = &lt;BWS, see <a href="#RFC7230" id="rfc.xref.RFC7230.10"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing">[RFC7230]</cite></a>, <a href="rfc7230.html#whitespace" title="Whitespace">Section 3.2.3</a>&gt;
542  <a href="#imported.abnf" class="smpl">OWS</a>           = &lt;OWS, see <a href="#RFC7230" id="rfc.xref.RFC7230.11"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing">[RFC7230]</cite></a>, <a href="rfc7230.html#whitespace" title="Whitespace">Section 3.2.3</a>&gt;
543  <a href="#imported.abnf" class="smpl">quoted-string</a> = &lt;quoted-string, see <a href="#RFC7230" id="rfc.xref.RFC7230.12"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing">[RFC7230]</cite></a>, <a href="rfc7230.html#field.components" title="Field Value Components">Section 3.2.6</a>&gt;
544  <a href="#imported.abnf" class="smpl">token</a>         = &lt;token, see <a href="#RFC7230" id="rfc.xref.RFC7230.13"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing">[RFC7230]</cite></a>, <a href="rfc7230.html#field.components" title="Field Value Components">Section 3.2.6</a>&gt;
545</pre></div></div><div id="collected.abnf"><h1 id="rfc.section.C"><a href="#rfc.section.C">C.</a>&nbsp;<a href="#collected.abnf">Collected ABNF</a></h1><div id="rfc.section.C.p.1"><p>In the collected ABNF below, list rules are expanded as per <a href="rfc7230.html#notation" title="Syntax Notation">Section 1.2</a> of <a href="#RFC7230" id="rfc.xref.RFC7230.14"><cite title="Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing">[RFC7230]</cite></a>.<a class="self" href="#rfc.section.C.p.1">&para;</a></p></div><div id="rfc.figure.u.10"><pre class="inline"><a href="#header.authorization" class="smpl">Authorization</a> = credentials
546
547<a href="#imported.abnf" class="smpl">BWS</a> = &lt;BWS, see [RFC7230], Section 3.2.3&gt;
548
549<a href="#imported.abnf" class="smpl">OWS</a> = &lt;OWS, see [RFC7230], Section 3.2.3&gt;
550
551<a href="#header.proxy-authenticate" class="smpl">Proxy-Authenticate</a> = *( "," OWS ) challenge *( OWS "," [ OWS
552 challenge ] )
553<a href="#header.proxy-authorization" class="smpl">Proxy-Authorization</a> = credentials
554
555<a href="#header.www-authenticate" class="smpl">WWW-Authenticate</a> = *( "," OWS ) challenge *( OWS "," [ OWS challenge
556 ] )
557
558<a href="#challenge.and.response" class="smpl">auth-param</a> = token BWS "=" BWS ( token / quoted-string )
559<a href="#challenge.and.response" class="smpl">auth-scheme</a> = token
560
561<a href="#challenge.and.response" class="smpl">challenge</a> = auth-scheme [ 1*SP ( token68 / [ ( "," / auth-param ) *(
562 OWS "," [ OWS auth-param ] ) ] ) ]
563<a href="#challenge.and.response" class="smpl">credentials</a> = auth-scheme [ 1*SP ( token68 / [ ( "," / auth-param )
564 *( OWS "," [ OWS auth-param ] ) ] ) ]
565
566<a href="#imported.abnf" class="smpl">quoted-string</a> = &lt;quoted-string, see [RFC7230], Section 3.2.6&gt;
567
568<a href="#imported.abnf" class="smpl">token</a> = &lt;token, see [RFC7230], Section 3.2.6&gt;
569<a href="#challenge.and.response" class="smpl">token68</a> = 1*( ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "." / "_" / "~" / "+" / "/" )
570 *"="
571</pre></div></div><h1 id="rfc.index"><a href="#rfc.index">Index</a></h1><p class="noprint"><a href="#rfc.index.4">4</a> <a href="#rfc.index.A">A</a> <a href="#rfc.index.B">B</a> <a href="#rfc.index.C">C</a> <a href="#rfc.index.G">G</a> <a href="#rfc.index.O">O</a> <a href="#rfc.index.P">P</a> <a href="#rfc.index.R">R</a> <a href="#rfc.index.W">W</a> </p><div class="print2col"><ul class="ind"><li><a id="rfc.index.4" href="#rfc.index.4"><b>4</b></a><ul><li>401 Unauthorized (status code)&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.section.3.1"><b>3.1</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.status.401.1">5.2</a></li><li>407 Proxy Authentication Required (status code)&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.section.3.2"><b>3.2</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.status.407.1">5.2</a></li></ul></li><li><a id="rfc.index.A" href="#rfc.index.A"><b>A</b></a><ul><li>Authorization header field&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.header.authorization.1">3.1</a>, <a href="#rfc.section.4.2"><b>4.2</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.header.authorization.2">5.3</a></li></ul></li><li><a id="rfc.index.B" href="#rfc.index.B"><b>B</b></a><ul><li><em>BCP90</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.BCP90.1">5.3</a>, <a href="#BCP90"><b>8.2</b></a></li></ul></li><li><a id="rfc.index.C" href="#rfc.index.C"><b>C</b></a><ul><li>Canonical Root URI&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.section.2.2">2.2</a></li></ul></li><li><a id="rfc.index.G" href="#rfc.index.G"><b>G</b></a><ul><li><tt>Grammar</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<ul><li><tt>auth-param</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.g.2"><b>2.1</b></a></li><li><tt>auth-scheme</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.g.1"><b>2.1</b></a></li><li><tt>Authorization</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.g.7"><b>4.2</b></a></li><li><tt>challenge</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.g.4"><b>2.1</b></a></li><li><tt>credentials</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.g.5"><b>2.1</b></a></li><li><tt>Proxy-Authenticate</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.g.8"><b>4.3</b></a></li><li><tt>Proxy-Authorization</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.g.9"><b>4.4</b></a></li><li><tt>token68</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.g.3"><b>2.1</b></a></li><li><tt>WWW-Authenticate</tt>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.iref.g.6"><b>4.1</b></a></li></ul></li></ul></li><li><a id="rfc.index.O" href="#rfc.index.O"><b>O</b></a><ul><li><em>OWASP</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.OWASP.1">6</a>, <a href="#OWASP"><b>8.2</b></a></li></ul></li><li><a id="rfc.index.P" href="#rfc.index.P"><b>P</b></a><ul><li>Protection Space&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.section.2.2">2.2</a></li><li>Proxy-Authenticate header field&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.header.proxy-authenticate.1">3.2</a>, <a href="#rfc.section.4.3"><b>4.3</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.header.proxy-authenticate.2">5.3</a></li><li>Proxy-Authorization header field&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.header.proxy-authorization.1">3.2</a>, <a href="#rfc.section.4.4"><b>4.4</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.header.proxy-authorization.2">5.3</a></li></ul></li><li><a id="rfc.index.R" href="#rfc.index.R"><b>R</b></a><ul><li>Realm&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.section.2.2">2.2</a></li><li><em>RFC2119</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.RFC2119.1">1.1</a>, <a href="#RFC2119"><b>8.1</b></a></li><li><em>RFC2616</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.RFC2616.1">1</a>, <a href="#RFC2616"><b>8.2</b></a></li><li><em>RFC2617</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.RFC2617.1">1</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.RFC2617.2">1</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.RFC2617.3">7</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.RFC2617.4">7</a>, <a href="#RFC2617"><b>8.2</b></a><ul><li><em>Section 6</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.RFC2617.4">7</a></li></ul></li><li><em>RFC3986</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.RFC3986.1">2.1</a>, <a href="#RFC3986"><b>8.2</b></a></li><li><em>RFC4648</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.RFC4648.1">2.1</a>, <a href="#RFC4648"><b>8.2</b></a></li><li><em>RFC5226</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.RFC5226.1">5.1.1</a>, <a href="#RFC5226"><b>8.2</b></a><ul><li><em>Section 4.1</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.RFC5226.1">5.1.1</a></li></ul></li><li><em>RFC5234</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.RFC5234.1">1.2</a>, <a href="#RFC5234"><b>8.1</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.RFC5234.2">B</a><ul><li><em>Appendix B.1</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.RFC5234.2">B</a></li></ul></li><li><em>RFC5246</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.RFC5246.1">6.1</a>, <a href="#RFC5246"><b>8.2</b></a></li><li><em>RFC7230</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.RFC7230.1">1</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.RFC7230.2">1.1</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.RFC7230.3">1.2</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.RFC7230.4">2.2</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.RFC7230.5">4.3</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.RFC7230.6">5.1.2</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.RFC7230.7">6</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.RFC7230.8">7</a>, <a href="#RFC7230"><b>8.1</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.RFC7230.9">B</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.RFC7230.10">B</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.RFC7230.11">B</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.RFC7230.12">B</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.RFC7230.13">B</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.RFC7230.14">C</a><ul><li><em>Section 1.2</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.RFC7230.14">C</a></li><li><em>Section 2.3</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.RFC7230.6">5.1.2</a></li><li><em>Section 2.5</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.RFC7230.2">1.1</a></li><li><em>Section 3.2.3</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.RFC7230.10">B</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.RFC7230.11">B</a></li><li><em>Section 3.2.6</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.RFC7230.12">B</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.RFC7230.13">B</a></li><li><em>Section 5.5</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.RFC7230.4">2.2</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.RFC7230.5">4.3</a></li><li><em>Section 7</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.RFC7230.3">1.2</a></li><li><em>Section 10</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.RFC7230.8">7</a></li></ul></li><li><em>RFC7231</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.RFC7231.1">2.1</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.RFC7231.2">6</a>, <a href="#RFC7231"><b>8.1</b></a><ul><li><em>Section 6.5.3</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.RFC7231.1">2.1</a></li></ul></li><li><em>RFC7234</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.RFC7234.1">4.2</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.RFC7234.2">5.1.2</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.RFC7234.3">5.1.2</a>, <a href="#RFC7234"><b>8.1</b></a><ul><li><em>Section 3.2</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.RFC7234.1">4.2</a></li><li><em>Section 5.2.1.5</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.RFC7234.3">5.1.2</a></li><li><em>Section 5.2.2.6</em>&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.RFC7234.2">5.1.2</a></li></ul></li></ul></li><li><a id="rfc.index.W" href="#rfc.index.W"><b>W</b></a><ul><li>WWW-Authenticate header field&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="#rfc.xref.header.www-authenticate.1">3.1</a>, <a href="#rfc.section.4.1"><b>4.1</b></a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.header.www-authenticate.2">4.3</a>, <a href="#rfc.xref.header.www-authenticate.3">5.3</a></li></ul></li></ul></div><div class="avoidbreakinside"><h1 id="rfc.authors"><a href="#rfc.authors">Authors' Addresses</a></h1><p><b>Roy T. Fielding</b>
572      (editor)
573    <br>Adobe Systems Incorporated<br>345 Park Ave<br>San Jose, CA&nbsp;95110<br>USA<br>Email: fielding@gbiv.com<br>URI: <a href="http://roy.gbiv.com/">http://roy.gbiv.com/</a></p><p><b>Julian F. Reschke</b>
574      (editor)
575    <br>greenbytes GmbH<br>Hafenweg 16<br>Muenster, NW&nbsp;48155<br>Germany<br>Email: julian.reschke@greenbytes.de<br>URI: <a href="http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/">http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/</a></p></div></body></html>
Note: See TracBrowser for help on using the repository browser.