Re: [OAUTH-WG] PKCE/SPOP

Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com> Tue, 03 February 2015 13:41 UTC

Return-Path: <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8838F1A006B for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 05:41:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.178
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.178 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y_FlYw6zYJMU for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 05:41:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na3sys009aog106.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog106.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D94691A005F for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 05:41:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f170.google.com ([209.85.223.170]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob106.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKVNDP9jkY88YBw+5vQVmhSz3XU1z10V6q@postini.com; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 05:41:47 PST
Received: by mail-ie0-f170.google.com with SMTP id y20so25208549ier.1 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 05:40:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=wJ6F7jkFF6hSXqYhYuj4qZ4CkbjyDMvch0gdIBop5fA=; b=K3WPvcbdXyNNlQ9UbFFb3sDV6KsJJa1UAyspptKQScIM/6w0Xzuv8wuQDS3+Z3wzl+ Ac2TIMJ5Zzc/cAJk3mm3btcljWOG/+663/0OYurSDVQ5oFWgRlf0hSl2YtIMJEi/z5Nk PJSrLsThpuonVvpmixtaC1C9H1oIiPYB3Z3f3IjhNx8WrQS9w81yUHB7C8uufCnd3pzA glSdJwoYknM7SbtNP4J+vHt8hdphhcQW5PgdC3XHD5Jc1nkJEgldTbR+InJg5MeQVd/k H9PpiMlge35jSl1MxAOtlKvBDKp1RcVc0wmvWs36dsYRmqqJQmrC6mIOwNt8EtHCEQW7 FxQg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmReLoHsgJ6T9SP2THvpdBTvWXNBvWx2A1RF0UrAYaDMarOgffIjaW4j9A9r6fboImKY3jDzf5GViQa9uWguQH+MVdMO7er9wZqwPKaTFj4wtul8wqgDe//8F4vID5rhFPRIFWo
X-Received: by 10.51.16.1 with SMTP id fs1mr17645813igd.8.1422970856553; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 05:40:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.51.16.1 with SMTP id fs1mr17645672igd.8.1422970854985; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 05:40:54 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.33.75 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 05:40:24 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <5CB2DAD4-1C61-4910-A866-4C18F4A9A3FE@ve7jtb.com>
References: <5CB2DAD4-1C61-4910-A866-4C18F4A9A3FE@ve7jtb.com>
From: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 06:40:24 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+k3eCQmFsR95d+6Y0Ub=hVMdCB_siNMsKKrJYB3LXgsczfJrA@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1135e68c568bf8050e2f389e"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/-ALuj-noE_Ely4zh7eti7SXYqNk>
Cc: oauth <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] PKCE/SPOP
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 13:41:49 -0000

I went thought appendix B and reproduced the same calculations. Which is
nice.

One little nit - to be consitent with the notation defined in §2, the appendix
B should have

   BASE64URL(SHA256(ASCII("code_verifier"))) == code_challenge

rather than

   Base64url(SHA256(ASCII("code_verifier" ))) == code_challenge




On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 5:07 PM, John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> wrote:

>
> https://bitbucket.org/Nat/oauth-spop/raw/cd8b86496fb59261103143c246658da06e99c225/draft-ietf-oauth-spop-00.txt
>
> I made some edits to the copy in bitbucket.
>
> I changed the reference for unreserved URI characters to RFC3986. The
> Base64 spec we were pointing to is slightly different.
> The change allows someone in the future to define a new
> code_challenge_method that would allow a JWT to be valid.
> We unintentionally precluded the use of the “.” in code_challenge and
> code_verifier.
>
> I also added an appendix B to show the steps of S256 in a way someone
> could use as a test vector.
>
> Appendix B is a first cut at it so give me feedback, and I can push it to
> the document tracker later in the week.
>
>
> John B.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>