Re: [OAUTH-WG] PKCE/SPOP

Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com> Wed, 04 February 2015 13:40 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 DD3091A00E4 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 05:40:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.578
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 TnYWR4OIF4gE for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 05:40:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na3sys009aog134.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog134.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.83]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DED91A0360 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 05:40:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f174.google.com ([209.85.223.174]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob134.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKVNIhXBhS92cYv4nlpXfx3T8nqTmr5OTV@postini.com; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 05:40:45 PST
Received: by mail-ie0-f174.google.com with SMTP id vy18so1966228iec.5 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 05:40:44 -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=M1mLOUPn3kKD3YW1qaXEov2tvy/a4LHlYiwlpTX6Uzg=; b=JLQbVssJYLsGFw9gyMg1zsFJG3RbXnIXcKsxxzrMDeH4HACeM7t1/1/YusRtaBZIv2 7TiRbAdPAgw7FWXNfgIjkQDPGe/Da0Q9TsYdpXLZS9aEf1qBLCOxKMaVNBelycMQb58h fvDMbTcIt1qG2RfZs9NKupO62asF1JdZIixGtOsH6av+f/m26MjO8MKx7u3Z6nNnQJqD ljfKZjFTSANeEiVCm6LkqG1wPBWfRDat7w4i9IGeG1y2BgT1aBt4+PFVcWIquW/DBGO1 T5zqARi3Xza0f3wE55I3SzloXqJfrITP/sv6ozEfBKIzoFv7kKnD6hKM4+KJdxeMfKSS qLVg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlNw4ry9atr1gycp1nAXKmotVzwOiJO/sxZK1k9carE+pLsIVtYgHbjdNz8lZHP+d6ZY7c8wBhA1sg9KgA7xfme56MJ7CnOF/ToOjMZT95k24yG4rbBGBHjtvmc72oQPvMeI8XW
X-Received: by 10.107.151.80 with SMTP id z77mr34793371iod.51.1423057244178; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 05:40:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.107.151.80 with SMTP id z77mr34793356iod.51.1423057243971; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 05:40:43 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.33.75 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 05:40:12 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <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> <C7260880-00DD-43BE-AB98-0A9A53C38170@ve7jtb.com>
From: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 06:40:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+k3eCQB6sg9-XPOgyaW-7CW02U6NjwCw5mTpH8fzwWuNN7csQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140f5ee85bae3050e4355e8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/4JPzSP6FgLraj_wWBVUjbQpY7as>
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 13:40:49 -0000

I *think* this is the same formatting issue that is discussed, with a way
to work around it, at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/jose/current/msg04571.html

On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:26 AM, John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> wrote:

>  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 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>om>:
>
>> 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> 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>
>>> 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> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OAuth mailing list
>>> OAuth@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> OAuth@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
> Chairman, OpenID Foundation
> http://nat.sakimura.org/
> @_nat_en
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
>
>