Re: [OAUTH-WG] PKCE/SPOP

John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> Tue, 03 February 2015 14:51 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 25F9A1A0451 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 06:51:39 -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 l8vLpN4j4d5i for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 06:51:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qg0-f48.google.com (mail-qg0-f48.google.com [209.85.192.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A73DD1A0404 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Feb 2015 06:51:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qg0-f48.google.com with SMTP id a108so929251qge.7 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 06:51:35 -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=oKWvl/72OweqmfjHHZ5L47LIJdA8JQ2kJ3a1jPwLxe8=; b=kmJGTCd9bRB+15W+7fzRAHKlPtZnzMPrTUWSDJb8bDXi4Lwu8pzHFJ4ydsjERPEIas bKVYeOvZSMeg7cam9dvbq1VpRzkn8AKPGCc6/E6n8pP79Uj5cqS2lODtRMIFFbYm1hwl OyidbeMoCXt2N9qb8002UpeQFktralmC15zJbkezMwREkgVH+VEPk+uDsEfgTFGmHRRU 7k5Nm5QjMmmlD/smJWn8TMjmo9EAyFh3waIe2cHJ89uBByvG0hadwSZLbyERIz9hxlMk 4WTRv54HzX8vW6eIee58kx14sL6g1rLa/iySJyHQjGvvXOZ0T78xft2NcGG3qhoAzd6i WrmA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn2M5ZzzQIJLY+dtlW6LUdrmf52gKE/E2IlTTIDir0DcEijIFuYqkbw5jJQnVysHzQ1f3Iq
X-Received: by 10.140.23.199 with SMTP id 65mr50548904qgp.84.1422975095760; Tue, 03 Feb 2015 06:51:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.41] (186-106-130-17.baf.movistar.cl. [186.106.130.17]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id k64sm15754859qge.37.2015.02.03.06.51.31 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 03 Feb 2015 06:51:35 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5880C38C-DE57-410E-B308-A3CF619D3DB2"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
From: John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+k3eCQmFsR95d+6Y0Ub=hVMdCB_siNMsKKrJYB3LXgsczfJrA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 11:51:26 -0300
Message-Id: <E57A72CF-C02A-47AA-B8CC-72795F57F3D8@ve7jtb.com>
References: <5CB2DAD4-1C61-4910-A866-4C18F4A9A3FE@ve7jtb.com> <CA+k3eCQmFsR95d+6Y0Ub=hVMdCB_siNMsKKrJYB3LXgsczfJrA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/oauth/EleJ_JSIRmnq3pg95H9jqLYg6EI>
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: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 14:51:39 -0000

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 <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>
> 
>