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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth> > >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
