Re: [OAUTH-WG] MAC Tokens body hash

Instead of "body" hash why not make it a payload hash or additional hash.  The app can include a hash of data there as defined by the app, and you've reserved a spot for that.

________________________________
From: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
To: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Cc: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>; "'Adam Barth (adam@adambarth.com)'" <adam@adambarth.com>
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 6:43 PM
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] MAC Tokens body hash

I plan to drop support for the bodyhash parameter in the next draft based on bad implementation experience. Even with simple text body, UTF encoding has introduced significant issues for us. The current draft does not work using simple JS code between a browser and node.js even when both use the same v8 engine due to differences in the body encoding. Basically, the JS string used to send a request from the browser is not the actual string sent on the wire.

To fix that, we need to force UTF-8 encoding on both sides. However, that is very much application specific. This will not work for non-text bodies. Instead, the specification should offer a simple way to use the ext parameter for such needs, including singing headers. And by offer I mean give examples, but leave it application specific for now.

I am open to suggestions but so far all the solutions I came up with will introduce unacceptable complexity that will basically make this work useless.

EHL
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth