RFC 8053: HTTP Authentication Extensions for Interactive Clients
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
This document specifies extensions for the HTTP authentication framework for interactive clients. Currently, fundamental features of HTTP-level authentication are insufficient for complex requirements of various Web-based applications. This forces these applications to implement their own authentication frameworks by means such as HTML forms, which becomes one of the hurdles against introducing secure authentication mechanisms handled jointly by servers and user agents. The extended framework fills gaps between Web application requirements and HTTP authentication provisions to solve the above problems, while maintaining compatibility with existing Web and non-Web uses of HTTP authentication.
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC8053
- Published
- January 2017
- Authors
- Y. Oiwa; H. Watanabe; H. Takagi; K. Maeda; T. Hayashi; Y. Ioku
- Status
- EXPERIMENTAL
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- sec
- Pages
- 28
- Also known as
- —
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 8045RADIUS Extensions for IP Port Configuration and ReportingCurrent
January 2017
- RFC 8062Anonymity Support for KerberosCurrent
February 2017
- RFC 8044Data Types in RADIUSCurrent
January 2017
- RFC 8037CFRG Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDH) and Signatures in JSON Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE)Updated
January 2017
- RFC 8070Public Key Cryptography for Initial Authentication in Kerberos (PKINIT) Freshness ExtensionCurrent
February 2017
- RFC 8031Curve25519 and Curve448 for the Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2) Key AgreementCurrent
December 2016
- RFC 8080Edwards-Curve Digital Security Algorithm (EdDSA) for DNSSECCurrent
February 2017
- RFC 8019Protecting Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2) Implementations from Distributed Denial-of-Service AttacksCurrent
November 2016
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?