Yes that is what it is. I didn’t know that the HTML was produced based on the TEXT doc rather than the XML.
I have fixed that and a couple of others in the doc. I am trying to find a way to test it with rfcmarkup before updating. John B. > On Feb 4, 2015, at 10:40 AM, Brian Campbell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I *think* this is the same formatting issue that is discussed, with a way to > work around it, at > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/jose/current/msg04571.html > <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/jose/current/msg04571.html> > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:26 AM, John Bradley <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > I will take a look at it today. I was using the local python version I > think. > > John B. > >> On Feb 3, 2015, at 11:38 PM, Nat Sakimura <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Hmmm. A bug at ietf.org <http://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 <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>>: >> 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 <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[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> >>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OAuth mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OAuth mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Nat Sakimura (=nat) >> Chairman, OpenID Foundation >> http://nat.sakimura.org/ <http://nat.sakimura.org/> >> @_nat_en > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
