Re: [OAUTH-WG] PKCE/SPOP

John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> Wed, 04 February 2015 12:26 UTC

Return-Path: <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.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 4A0071A87C7 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 04:26:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 Ixii-rSH4nib for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 04:26:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qg0-f52.google.com (mail-qg0-f52.google.com [209.85.192.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9465C1A87A0 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 04:26:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qg0-f52.google.com with SMTP id z107so827872qgd.11 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 04:26:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=ksnFBLbJ/kx3rGSXACpfK4aaRK9Ja1NckLPdjentJw0=; b=Kgy0VSgzDXCfLztuqwMQ2M4DajDR2Quf8XLeE3FBfDceL2thotUYNrFGYIwAtUP2EN Agyn5myF+3zDLz/R2NypWzsceMqCqVsIIa0S8aTPcYWso7WRPxlHd2i9d84rQfFD7AFB PfzDStktc/oHKs75MvhTd945nndG4dXRi2zGuSLbJdIyi1l5i6Jz1Hd54eLD2QyGnsGe J5hOg5wcDnGjZNoY6DQt2QZoij3n+hYCGs+JEwA0mVBpDRs2OEjg8r2HdxML7MNrrtUH 5AOwxAyU0iNncgUpzpvHIMxr4myx6vkRu82fUIaIxBJ/CevuhVH1T4tF0sboMq9z/MyE WBTg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn/T2E9T8FCgFlRFMOj/EebXtUnD8Z2tRrFTrMoYTRul/wnHT55gLSYpu56ks8tH37GIWnP
X-Received: by 10.224.19.193 with SMTP id c1mr61485859qab.73.1423052806500; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 04:26:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.43] (186-106-130-17.baf.movistar.cl. [186.106.130.17]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 11sm1532153qgt.41.2015.02.04.04.26.40 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Feb 2015 04:26:45 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3813A7F5-7C20-4888-9169-A6D5844C0A73"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
From: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABzCy2DRHqNfHdrqbiaiuz5Gds+VqE3y22GvhxJDDp=hnSd1hA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 09:26:24 -0300
Message-Id: <C7260880-00DD-43BE-AB98-0A9A53C38170@ve7jtb.com>
References: <5CB2DAD4-1C61-4910-A866-4C18F4A9A3FE@ve7jtb.com> <CA+k3eCQmFsR95d+6Y0Ub=hVMdCB_siNMsKKrJYB3LXgsczfJrA@mail.gmail.com> <E57A72CF-C02A-47AA-B8CC-72795F57F3D8@ve7jtb.com> <CAAP42hBSZz-t-VRg+2VTYwneO9wVTZDr9LCPhumTP3jtxZmPsQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABzCy2DRHqNfHdrqbiaiuz5Gds+VqE3y22GvhxJDDp=hnSd1hA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nat Sakimura <sakimura@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/3tI3j8x41XFz01AYFy6YcnAJUgY>
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: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 12:26:53 -0000

 I will take a look at it today.   I was using the local python version I think.

John B.
> On Feb 3, 2015, at 11:38 PM, Nat Sakimura <sakimura@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hmmm. A bug at ietf.org <http://ietf.org/> rendering engine? 
> Perhaps we may repeat of RFC4648 again there to avoid this behaviour. 
> 
> 2015-02-04 10:50 GMT+09:00 William Denniss <wdenniss@google.com <mailto:wdenniss@google.com>>:
> Speaking of Base64url, where it's defined in "Notational Conventions", is there a way to prevent the HTML markup automatically linkifying "Section 3.2" ?  It's not marked up in the XML, but in the HTML output it is – and the auto-generated link is incorrect, as it points to Section 3.2 in SPOP, rather than 3.2 in RFC4648.
> 
> This may seem trivial, but the fact that we're using a less common variant of Base64url makes me want to provide as much accurate context as possible to help implementers.
> 
> This is how it renders today (note the Section 3.2 link)
> 
>    Base64url Encoding  Base64 encoding using the URL- and filename-safe
>       character set defined in Section 5 of RFC 4648 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4648#section-5> [RFC4648 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4648>], with all
>       trailing '=' characters omitted (as permitted by Section 3.2 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-spop-08#section-3.2>) and
>       without the inclusion of any line breaks, whitespace, or other
>       additional characters.  (See Appendix A <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-spop-08#appendix-A> for notes on implementing
>       base64url encoding without padding.)
> 
> 
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 6:51 AM, John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com <mailto:ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>> wrote:
> OK I fixed that in bitbucket.
> 
> If I don’t hear back from anyone else I will push that version to the doc tracker this afternoon.
> 
> John B.
> 
> 
>> On Feb 3, 2015, at 10:40 AM, Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com <mailto:bcampbell@pingidentity.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> 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 <mailto:ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>> wrote:
>> https://bitbucket.org/Nat/oauth-spop/raw/cd8b86496fb59261103143c246658da06e99c225/draft-ietf-oauth-spop-00.txt <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 <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
> Chairman, OpenID Foundation
> http://nat.sakimura.org/ <http://nat.sakimura.org/>
> @_nat_en