Re: [OAUTH-WG] PKCE/SPOP

[John Bradley <[e-mail]>]

 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>:
> 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 <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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 <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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 <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> 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