idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits40959/draft-hardie-http-digest-reg-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3667, Section 5.1 on line 12. ** Found boilerplate matching RFC 3978, Section 5.4, paragraph 1 (on line 119), which is fine, but *also* found old RFC 2026, Section 10.4C, paragraph 1 text on line 119. ** The document seems to lack an RFC 3978 Section 5.1 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line, instead of the newer IETF Trust Copyright according to RFC 4748. ** The document seems to lack an RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Reference to BCP 78. ** The document seems to lack an RFC 3978 Section 5.5 (updated by RFC 4748) Disclaimer -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? ** The document seems to lack an RFC 3979 Section 5, para. 1 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement. ** The document seems to lack an RFC 3979 Section 5, para. 2 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement. ** The document seems to lack an RFC 3979 Section 5, para. 3 IPR Disclosure Invitation. ** The document uses RFC 3667 boilerplate or RFC 3978-like boilerplate instead of verbatim RFC 3978 boilerplate. After 6 May 2005, submission of drafts without verbatim RFC 3978 boilerplate is not accepted. The following non-3978 patterns matched text found in the document. That text should be removed or replaced: By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, or will be disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Missing expiration date. The document expiration date should appear on the first and last page. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of current Internet-Drafts -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of Shadow Directories -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? ** Expected the document's filename to be given on the first page, but didn't find any == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 1 longer page, the longest (page 1) being 181 lines Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There are 12 instances of lines with control characters in the document. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year == Couldn't figure out when the document was first submitted -- there may comments or warnings related to the use of a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work that could not be issued because of this. Please check the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info to determine if you need the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. -- The document date (April 2004) is 6603 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2617 (ref. '2') (Obsoleted by RFC 7235, RFC 7615, RFC 7616, RFC 7617) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2140 (ref. '3') (Obsoleted by RFC 9040) Summary: 17 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Network Working Group T.Hardie 2 Internet-Draft Qualcomm, Inc. 3 April 2004 5 The HMAC-MD5 and HMAC-SHA-1 HTTP Digest Algorithms Tokens 7 Status of this Memo 9 By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable 10 patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, 11 and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with 12 RFC 3668. 14 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 15 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 16 other groups may also distribute working documents as 17 Internet-Drafts. 19 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 20 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 21 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 22 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress". 24 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 25 . 27 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 28 . 30 This Internet-Draft will expire in November 2004. 32 Copyright Notice 34 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. 36 Abstract 38 RFC 3230 sets out a process for registering HTTP Digest algorithm 39 values with IANA. This document registers the tokens "hmac-md5" and 40 "hmac-sha-1". 42 1. Introduction. 44 RFC 3230 [1] sets out a process for registering HTTP digest [2] 45 algorithm values with IANA. This document registers two new values 46 in the IANA registry created by RFC 3230. 48 2. Newly registered Digest Algorithms. 50 The following are to be considered http digest algorithm tokens, as 51 per Section 4.1.1. of RFC 3230 [1]. 53 HMAC-MD5 The HMAC-MD5 algorithm, as specified in RFC 2104 54 [3]. 55 The output of this algorithm is encoded using the 56 base64 encoding [4]. 58 HMAC-SHA-1 The HMAC-SHA-1 algorithm, as specificed in RFC 59 2104[3]. 60 The output of this algorithm is encoded using the 61 base64 encoding [4]. 63 3. IANA Considerations. 65 The IANA is requested to insert the new values into the HTTP digest 66 algorithm registry. 68 4. Security Considerations. 70 In general, the registration of algorithm names and the association 71 of those names with identifiable specifications helps ensure that 72 all parties to a communication share a common understanding of the 73 algorithm. 75 Note that the two algorithms registered by this action are keyed 76 digests, and that they are appropriately used only in cases where 77 the two parties can securely share the key. Because RFC 3230 does 78 not include a "parameters" field in the Digest: or Want-Digest: 79 header (e.g. Want-Digest: hmac-md5;keyid=17), usage scenarios must 80 not require the headers to indicate which key is in use through such 81 a method. 83 5. Normative References 85 [1] Mogul, J. and Van Hoff, A. "Instance Digests in HTTP". RFC 3230. 86 January 2002. 88 [2] Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Lawrence, S., 89 Leach, P., Luotonen, A. and L. Stewart, "HTTP Authentication: 90 Basic and Digest Access Authentication", RFC 2617, June 1999. 92 [3] Krawczyk, H., Bellare M., and Canetti, R. "HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for 93 Message Authentication". RFC 2140. February 1997. 95 [4] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail 96 Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies", 97 RFC 2045, November 1996. 99 6. Non-Normative References 101 None. 103 7. Acknowledgements. 105 AC Mahendran and Jun Wang originally suggested that these values be 106 registered. Jeff Mogul was kind enough to review the first draft of 107 this document and to suggest updated text for the Security 108 Considerations section. 110 8. Author's Address 112 Ted Hardie Qualcomm, Inc. 675 Campbell Technology Parkway Suite 200 113 Campbell, CA U.S.A. 115 EMail: hardie@qualcomm.com 117 Full Copyright Statement 119 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. 121 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 122 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 123 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 124 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 125 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph 126 are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 127 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 128 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 129 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 130 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 131 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 132 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 133 English. 135 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 136 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 138 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 139 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 140 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 141 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 142 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 143 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 145 Acknowledgement 147 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 148 Internet Society.