Re: [OAUTH-WG] PKCE/SPOP

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>:

> 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