Re: [OAUTH-WG] PKCE/SPOP

John Bradley <ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com> Wed, 04 February 2015 20:26 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 56DF81A1B6A for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 12:26:03 -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 y7mWhsvndWs8 for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 12:26:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qg0-f41.google.com (mail-qg0-f41.google.com [209.85.192.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 303581A1A8D for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 12:26:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qg0-f41.google.com with SMTP id i50so2428235qgf.0 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 12:25:59 -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=G9ThryfkYcfPmuggyzYh1HlHXlD3zPNsZ0WJ9DS4pec=; b=VrM398VThsec0s0KUdbffOTOYi0enEMI5v4r6yCmikJvUfAq37+1QLxIBfN+2vuZ74 g1JyGgzuCMiFP/2Oj/MJcogob8oSS6zYijsuB2QXKsSXmXMKn1yhTh/SHnJ0YeoViZDq PaABY7I5NO+7QqjcteVvbifuIm+Cb0hiAJMXyd3jdDDRYxk7WaZ8ClVEIFIAys3Ky/hG NcBOM27Cwo8G9NdswmRvMw7xjsuT5xVF95GLe4EuNgmeRXD7NIUcxbAhTrfUc6wBx3s6 5drwo+V+mTlrz0Jjm+fP3mtclKfMFiNjLw9A7yet0GB4MOckMiXc1jOqPCdwViuDtRJv xlfA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkKJ2rpcXksWhnsxMwCBTVhdcPlPJtRm8Yp5N5EeyClYNMlV0pINZ2lqLfX1FopuZbZUXTd
X-Received: by 10.229.236.129 with SMTP id kk1mr418939qcb.20.1423081559303; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 12:25:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.8.100] ([181.202.131.210]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id e88sm2738247qgf.22.2015.02.04.12.25.57 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Feb 2015 12:25:58 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4A69664B-77B6-4ECA-8AC0-3349BF532CD3"; 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+k3eCQB6sg9-XPOgyaW-7CW02U6NjwCw5mTpH8fzwWuNN7csQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 17:25:53 -0300
Message-Id: <43C18957-1E86-4C86-9D17-F98A91D870BC@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> <CA+k3eCQB6sg9-XPOgyaW-7CW02U6NjwCw5mTpH8fzwWuNN7csQ@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/VCBqqUWfJfIYbAPXttuQSuLEoYE>
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 20:26:03 -0000

Yes that is what it is.  I didn’t know that the HTML was produced based on the TEXT doc rather than the XML.

I have fixed that and a couple of others in the doc.   I am trying to find a way to test it with rfcmarkup before updating.

John B.

> On Feb 4, 2015, at 10:40 AM, Brian Campbell <bcampbell@pingidentity.com> wrote:
> 
> 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 <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 <mailto: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 <mailto:sakimura@gmail.com>> 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 <wdenniss@google.com <mailto:wdenniss@google.com>>:
>> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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>
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OAuth mailing list
>> OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
>> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OAuth mailing list
> OAuth@ietf.org <mailto:OAuth@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>
> 
>