https://bitbucket.org/Nat/oauth-spop/commits/af9ce76988cd32b334e21c71289721a3bf1c4ff1 looks good to me. Thanks John.
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 1:47 PM, John Bradley <ve7...@ve7jtb.com> wrote: > OK try that one. > > On Jan 30, 2015, at 5:15 PM, Brian Campbell <bcampb...@pingidentity.com> > wrote: > > I agree with Mike here. Though PKCE only needs the ASCII(STRING) one. > > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Mike Jones <michael.jo...@microsoft.com> > wrote: > >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-41#section-1.1 >> uses this notation: >> >> >> >> UTF8(STRING) denotes the octets of the UTF-8 [RFC3629 >> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3629>] representation >> >> of STRING, where STRING is a sequence of zero or more Unicode >> >> [UNICODE >> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-41#ref-UNICODE>] >> characters. >> >> >> >> ASCII(STRING) denotes the octets of the ASCII [RFC20 >> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc20>] representation >> >> of STRING, where STRING is a sequence of zero or more ASCII >> >> characters. >> >> >> >> This is unambiguous and has already been vetted by the IESG and SecDir, >> so I would use exactly this wording. >> >> >> >> OCTETS(STRING) is ambiguous, since for the same string there are many >> possible representations as octets, including ASCII, UTF-8, UTF-16, UTF-32, >> and EBCDIC. >> >> >> >> -- Mike >> >> >> >> *From:* OAuth [mailto:oauth-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *John Bradley >> *Sent:* Friday, January 30, 2015 11:33 AM >> *To:* Brian Campbell >> *Cc:* oauth; Naveen Agarwal >> *Subject:* Re: [OAUTH-WG] PKCE: SHA256(WAT?) >> >> >> >> Have a look at the latest version I added OCTETS(STRING) to show the >> conversion. ASCII(STRING) seemed more confusing by drawing character >> encoding back in. >> >> >> >> I was tempted to call it a octet array without the terminating NULL of >> STRING but didn’t want to introduce array. >> >> >> >> Let me know what you think. >> >> >> >> On Jan 30, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Brian Campbell <bcampb...@pingidentity.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> But, while it may be clear to you, what I'm saying here is that it's not >> clear to a reader/implementer. >> >> Somehow the conversion from a character string to an octet string needs >> to be clearly and unambiguously stated. It doesn't have to be the text I >> suggested but it's not sufficient as it is now. >> >> Something like this might work, if you don't want to touch the parts in >> 4.2 and 4.6: "SHA256(STRING) denotes a SHA2 256bit hash [RFC6234] of the >> octets of the ASCII [RFC0020] representation of STRING." >> >> An "octet sequence using the url and filename safe Alphabet [...], with >> length less than 128 characters." is ambiguous. Octets and characters are >> intermixed with no mention of encoding. But they're not interchangeable. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Nat Sakimura <sakim...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I do not think we need ASCII(). It is quite clear without it, I suppose. >> >> >> >> In 4.1, I would rather do like: >> >> >> >> code_verifier = high entropy cryptographic random >> octet sequence using the url and filename safe Alphabet [A-Z] / [a-z] >> / [0-9] / "-" / "_" from Sec 5 of RFC 4648 [RFC4648], with length >> less than 128 characters. >> >> >> >> Nat >> >> >> >> 2015-01-30 22:51 GMT+09:00 Brian Campbell <bcampb...@pingidentity.com>: >> >> That's definitely an improvement (to me anyway). >> >> Checking that the rest of the document uses those notations >> appropriately, I think, yields a few other changes. And probably begs for >> the "ASCII(STRING) denotes the octets of the ASCII representation of >> STRING" notation/function, or something like it, to be put back in. Those >> changes might look like the following: >> >> In 4.1.: >> >> OLD: >> code_verifier = high entropy cryptographic random ASCII [RFC0020] >> octet sequence using the url and filename safe Alphabet [A-Z] / [a-z] >> / [0-9] / "-" / "_" from Sec 5 of RFC 4648 [RFC4648], with length >> less than 128 characters. >> >> NEW (maybe): >> code_verifier = high entropy cryptographically strong random STRING >> using the url and filename safe Alphabet [A-Z] / [a-z] >> / [0-9] / "-" / "_" from Sec 5 of RFC 4648 [RFC4648], with length >> less than 128 characters. >> >> >> In 4.2.: >> >> OLD: >> S256 "code_challenge" = BASE64URL(SHA256("code_verifier")) >> >> NEW (maybe): >> S256 "code_challenge" = BASE64URL(SHA256(ASCII("code_verifier"))) >> >> In 4.6.: >> >> OLD: >> SHA256("code_verifier" ) == BASE64URL-DECODE("code_challenge"). >> >> NEW (maybe): >> SHA256(ASCII("code_verifier")) == BASE64URL-DECODE("code_challenge"). >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 8:37 PM, Nat Sakimura (=nat) <n...@sakimura.org> >> wrote: >> >> I take your point, Brian. >> >> >> >> In our most recent manuscript, STRING is defined inside ASCII(STRING) as >> >> >> >> STRING is a sequence of zero or more ASCII characters >> >> >> >> but it is kind of circular, and we do not seem to use ASCII(). >> >> >> >> What about re-writing the section like below? >> >> >> >> STRING denotes a sequence of zero or more ASCII [RFC0020] >> <http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/cgi-bin/xml2rfc.cgi#RFC0020> characters. >> >> OCTETS denotes a sequence of zero or more octets. >> >> BASE64URL(OCTETS) denotes the base64url encoding of OCTETS, per Section 3 >> <http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/cgi-bin/xml2rfc.cgi#Terminology> producing a >> ASCII[RFC0020] <http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/cgi-bin/xml2rfc.cgi#RFC0020> >> STRING. >> >> BASE64URL-DECODE(STRING) denotes the base64url decoding of STRING, per >> Section >> 3 <http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/cgi-bin/xml2rfc.cgi#Terminology>, producing a >> sequence of octets. >> >> SHA256(OCTETS) denotes a SHA2 256bit hash [RFC6234] >> <http://xml2rfc.ietf.org/cgi-bin/xml2rfc.cgi#RFC6234> of OCTETS. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Jan 30, 2015, at 08:15, Brian Campbell <bcampb...@pingidentity.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> In §2 [1] we've got "SHA256(STRING) denotes a SHA2 256bit hash [RFC6234] >> of STRING." >> >> But, in the little cow town where I come from anyway, you hash >> bits/octets not character strings (BTW, "STRING" isn't defined anywhere but >> it's kind of implied that it's a string of characters). >> >> Should it say something more like "SHA256(STRING) denotes a SHA2 256bit >> hash [RFC6234] of the octets of the ASCII [RFC0020] representation of >> STRING."? >> >> I know it's kind of pedantic but I find it kind of confusing because the >> code_verifier uses the url and filename safe alphabet, which has me second >> guessing if SHA256(STRING) actually means a hash of the octet produced by >> base64url decoding the string. >> >> Maybe it's just me but, when reading the text, I find the transform >> process to be much more confusing than I think it needs to be. Removing and >> clarifying some things will help. I hate to suggest this but maybe an >> example showing the computation steps on both ends would be helpful? >> >> >> >> Also "UTF8(STRING)" and "ASCII(STRING)" notations are defined in §2 but >> not used anywhere. >> >> And §2 also says, "BASE64URL-DECODE(STRING) denotes the base64url >> decoding of STRING, per Section 3, producing a UTF-8 sequence of octets." >> But what is a UTF-8 sequence of octets? Isn't it just a sequence octets? >> The [RFC3629] reference, I think, could be removed. >> >> >> >> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-spop-06#section-2 >> >> >> >> Nat Sakimura >> >> n...@sakimura.org >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Nat Sakimura (=nat) >> >> Chairman, OpenID Foundation >> http://nat.sakimura.org/ >> @_nat_en >> >> >> >> >> > > >
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
