Ok I will push out draft 7 to the doc tracker later today. Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 30, 2015, at 6:06 PM, Brian Campbell <bcampb...@pingidentity.com> > wrote: > > 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] representation >>>> >>>> of STRING, where STRING is a sequence of zero or more Unicode >>>> >>>> [UNICODE] characters. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ASCII(STRING) denotes the octets of the ASCII [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] characters. >>>> >>>> OCTETS denotes a sequence of zero or more octets. >>>> >>>> BASE64URL(OCTETS) denotes the base64url encoding of OCTETS, per Section 3 >>>> producing a ASCII[RFC0020] STRING. >>>> >>>> BASE64URL-DECODE(STRING) denotes the base64url decoding of STRING, per >>>> Section 3, producing a sequence of octets. >>>> >>>> SHA256(OCTETS) denotes a SHA2 256bit hash [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
