IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OAUTH-WG] Understanding the reasoning for Base64

Luke Shepard <lshepard@facebook.com> Sat, 03 July 2010 18:38 UTC

Return-Path: <lshepard@facebook.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E36503A684A for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Jul 2010 11:38:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.299, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0YbErFTidgtT for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Jul 2010 11:38:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx-out.facebook.com (outcampmail001.snc4.facebook.com [66.220.144.159]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5BAD3A6781 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Jul 2010 11:38:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.18.74.191] ([10.18.74.191:44390] helo=mx-out.facebook.com) by mta007.snc4.facebook.com (envelope-from <lshepard@facebook.com>) (ecelerity 2.2.2.45 r(34222M)) with ESMTP id 0B/2D-14209-B318F2C4; Sat, 03 Jul 2010 11:28:11 -0700
Received: from [10.18.255.121] ([10.18.255.121:3873] helo=mail.thefacebook.com) by mta025.snc1.facebook.com (envelope-from <lshepard@facebook.com>) (ecelerity 2.2.2.45 r(34067)) with ESMTP id 81/FB-05162-B318F2C4; Sat, 03 Jul 2010 11:28:11 -0700
Received: from sc-hub05.TheFacebook.com (192.168.18.82) by sc-hub03.TheFacebook.com (192.168.18.198) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.0.694.1; Sat, 3 Jul 2010 11:28:11 -0700
Received: from SC-MBXC1.TheFacebook.com ([192.168.18.100]) by sc-hub05.TheFacebook.com ([192.168.18.82]) with mapi; Sat, 3 Jul 2010 11:28:11 -0700
From: Luke Shepard <lshepard@facebook.com>
To: Dick Hardt <dick.hardt@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2010 11:28:18 -0700
Thread-Topic: [OAUTH-WG] Understanding the reasoning for Base64
Thread-Index: Acsa3X3bGj3Q7BjWR3G0imnvzYpqCg==
Message-ID: <20ACF96E-5753-4004-BE44-96BAD43FE7C9@facebook.com>
References: <AANLkTimMruKyblUWROkPMDapFKtTztOXqL64PpQxCmKO@mail.gmail.com> <2625894F-2979-40BD-81E1-05A6EB8723CD@facebook.com> <AANLkTinvLOV0f3I-aWpeAbfIpfGyxZSB2RHu52iw5mDC@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTilWNneonIRX21U1RZcE80FuVSJWXU7CNm5pV275@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTin-7PNLv-Hc229JJcOrIBh4fJqY5CMaLCMbmoIk@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikh_nQ8dXSp7QXJ79kCdbX1zeyPKAl_kgplb25x@mail.gmail.com> <3DC7AEF8-3283-4970-BB98-3D680A3E2429@gmail.com> <AANLkTimpvWCbCBEWdI1Id5Ig_xCUW2hvKDro5LyhufMV@mail.gmail.com> <FE47FED0-3850-4393-9C79-DE06F0F7B6CA@gmail.com> <BA564125-9FBB-4B1A-93AC-7DD1A754A5E1@facebook.com> <C66A9854-02EB-4CCE-8338-382AEEC7EA61@gmail.com> <AANLkTikiXVruhZSH3Q6rMhdZAHRBPkhE_JVhSNOhCXmN@mail.gmail.com> <6B008ED4-4536-4A95-89B6-917696E6AF79@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <6B008ED4-4536-4A95-89B6-917696E6AF79@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_20ACF96E57534004BE4496BAD43FE7C9facebookcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] Understanding the reasoning for Base64
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Sat, 03 Jul 2010 18:38:16 -0000

>
> * We'd like the signature first (so you can left split instead of right split)

What are the advantages of left split vs right split?

Built in split function with a limit is more common, which makes the left split easier.

Size limit I am assuming? Since the size of the signature is known, this makes it safer to have it first? Makes sense to me.

Sounds like we agree on this point at least.

The main reason is that it's easier to restrict the delimiter from appearing in the signature than in the payload. This way the delimiter (period) can show up in the payload and a left split can still work.

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status