* The IESG wrote: >Abstract > > This document defines the "Basic" Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) > Authentication Scheme, which transmits credentials as userid/password > pairs, obfuscated by the use of Base64 encoding. I do not think the use of Base64 is intended as obfuscation and it seems misleading to me to describe it as such. (The Introduction has the same problem). In the Introduction: The "Basic" scheme previously was defined in Section 2 of [RFC2617]. This document updates the definition, and also addresses internationalization issues by introducing the "charset" authentication parameter (Section 2.1). I think "updates" is the wrong word considering the document is intended to "obsolete" RFC 2617. In section 2: The "Basic" authentication scheme is based on the model that the client needs to authenticate itself with a user-ID [...] The document switches between "user name", "username", "userid", and "user-ID". I think the "user-ID" forms should be replaced by one of the "name" forms. The realm value is an opaque string which can only be compared for equality with other realms on that server. RFC 7235 says "The realm value is a string, generally assigned by the origin server, that can have additional semantics specific to the authentication scheme." This seems contradictory (perhaps the intent is to say that for the particular case of Basic, the realm value is opaque in contrast to other schemes where it might not be opaque, but that is not clear from the text) and misleading (users make decisions based on the string, which often contains human readable text, so it's not really opaque to them). The original definition of this authentication scheme failed to specify the character encoding scheme used to convert the user-pass into an octet sequence. I think it would be more appropriate to say that it did not do so. That wasn't a particular "failure", sending unlabeled 8bit (and 7bit) content was normal at the time, in part because other system parts also did not know or care about character encodings. There should be an example for "no other authentication parameters are defined -- unknown parameters MUST be ignored by recipients", otherwise such extension points are too easily missed by implementers. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@xxxxxxxxxxxx · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de D-10243 Berlin · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de Available for hire in Berlin (early 2015) · http://www.websitedev.de/