Re: [OAUTH-WG] PKCE/SPOP

[Brian Campbell <[e-mail]>]

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