Now that I cannot remember what limit we were hitting, it might be a good idea to remove the constraint and see if anyone protests.
What do you think? Nat 2014-05-14 20:46 GMT+09:00 Brian Campbell <bcampb...@pingidentity.com>: > That too would suggest that the length limit be on code_challenge because > that's the parameter that will be on URIs getting passed around. The > code_verifier is sent directly in the POST body from client to AS. > > > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:52 AM, Nat Sakimura <sakim...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> +1 for octet. We used to have "bytes" in JW* so I used "bytes" here, >> while at the same time complaining in Jose that it should be "octet". JW* >> changed to "octet" but I failed to sync with it in the last few edits. >> >> I do not quite remember which platform, but the reason for the limit was >> that some platform had some limitations as to the length of the sting to be >> passed to it through URI and we did not want the challenges to be truncated >> by that limit. >> >> Best, >> >> Nat >> >> >> 2014-05-13 6:56 GMT+09:00 Brian Campbell <bcampb...@pingidentity.com>: >> >> And it'd give the AS some direct guidance on protecting itself from crazy >>> long code_challenge values rather than relying on the client not to do >>> something creative. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Brian Campbell < >>> bcampb...@pingidentity.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Right but that's why I'm asking why not just put the limit on >>>> code_challange rather than inferring it from code_verifyer + challenge >>>> algorithm, which probably bounds it but doesn't necessarily do so? It's not >>>> a big deal but would read more clearly, I think. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 3:48 PM, John Bradley <ve7...@ve7jtb.com>wrote: >>>> >>>>> I think octets is more consistent with other JW* and OAuth specs. >>>>> >>>>> The code_challange is the same length as the code_verifyer or is a >>>>> hash of the code_verifyer so likely smaller than 128octets (43 ish for >>>>> base64 256 bit) >>>>> >>>>> Limiting the code_verifyer size sets the upper bound for >>>>> code_challange, unless someone comes up with a really creative code >>>>> challenge algorithm. >>>>> >>>>> I will talk to nat about changing it to octets when I see him tomorrow. >>>>> >>>>> John B. >>>>> >>>>> On May 12, 2014, at 11:15 PM, Derek Atkins <warl...@mit.edu> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > Brian Campbell <bcampb...@pingidentity.com> writes: >>>>> > >>>>> >> I notice that code_verifier is defined as "high entropy >>>>> cryptographic random >>>>> >> string of length less than 128 bytes" [1], which brought a few >>>>> questions and >>>>> >> comments to mind. So here goes: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Talking about the length of a string in terms of bytes is always >>>>> potentially >>>>> >> confusing. Maybe characters would be an easier unit for people like >>>>> me to wrap >>>>> >> their little brains around? >>>>> > >>>>> > It depends if it really is characters or bytes. For example there >>>>> are >>>>> > many multi-byte UTF-8 characters, so if it really is bytes then >>>>> saying >>>>> > characters is wrong because it could overflow. So let's make sure we >>>>> > know what we're talking about. Historically, if we're talking bytes >>>>> the >>>>> > IETF often uses the phrase "octets". Would that be less confusing? >>>>> > >>>>> >> Why are we putting a length restriction on the code_verifier >>>>> anyway? It seems >>>>> >> like it'd be more appropriate to restrict the length of the >>>>> code_challenge >>>>> >> because that's the thing the AS will have to maintain somehow >>>>> (store in a DB >>>>> >> or memory or encrypt into the code). Am I missing something here? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Let me also say that I hadn't looked at this document since its >>>>> early days in >>>>> >> draft -00 or -01 last summer but I like the changes and how it's >>>>> been kept >>>>> >> pretty simple for the common use-case while still allowing for >>>>> crypto agility/ >>>>> >> extension. Nice work! >>>>> >> >>>>> >> [1] >>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sakimura-oauth-tcse-03#section-3.3 >>>>> > >>>>> > -derek >>>>> > >>>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>>>> >> OAuth mailing list >>>>> >> OAuth@ietf.org >>>>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>>>> > >>>>> > -- >>>>> > Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory >>>>> > Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB) >>>>> > URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/ PP-ASEL-IA N1NWH >>>>> > warl...@mit.edu PGP key available >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> [image: Ping Identity logo] <https://www.pingidentity.com/> >>>> Brian Campbell >>>> Portfolio Architect >>>> @ bcampb...@pingidentity.com [image: phone] +1 720.317.2061 Connect >>>> with us… [image: twitter logo] <https://twitter.com/pingidentity> [image: >>>> youtube logo] <https://www.youtube.com/user/PingIdentityTV> [image: >>>> LinkedIn logo] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/21870> [image: >>>> Facebook logo] <https://www.facebook.com/pingidentitypage> [image: >>>> Google+ logo] <https://plus.google.com/u/0/114266977739397708540> [image: >>>> slideshare logo] <http://www.slideshare.net/PingIdentity> [image: >>>> flipboard logo] <http://flip.it/vjBF7> [image: rss feed >>>> icon]<https://www.pingidentity.com/blogs/> >>>> [image: Register for Cloud Identity Summit 2014 | Modern Identity >>>> Revolution | 19–23 July, 2014 | Monterey, >>>> CA]<https://www.cloudidentitysummit.com/> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> [image: Ping Identity logo] <https://www.pingidentity.com/> >>> Brian Campbell >>> Portfolio Architect >>> @ bcampb...@pingidentity.com [image: phone] +1 720.317.2061 Connect >>> with us… [image: twitter logo] <https://twitter.com/pingidentity> [image: >>> youtube logo] <https://www.youtube.com/user/PingIdentityTV> [image: >>> LinkedIn logo] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/21870> [image: >>> Facebook logo] <https://www.facebook.com/pingidentitypage> [image: >>> Google+ logo] <https://plus.google.com/u/0/114266977739397708540> [image: >>> slideshare logo] <http://www.slideshare.net/PingIdentity> [image: >>> flipboard logo] <http://flip.it/vjBF7> [image: rss feed >>> icon]<https://www.pingidentity.com/blogs/> >>> [image: Register for Cloud Identity Summit 2014 | Modern Identity >>> Revolution | 19–23 July, 2014 | Monterey, >>> CA]<https://www.cloudidentitysummit.com/> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OAuth mailing list >>> OAuth@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Nat Sakimura (=nat) >> Chairman, OpenID Foundation >> http://nat.sakimura.org/ >> @_nat_en >> > > > > -- > [image: Ping Identity logo] <https://www.pingidentity.com/> > Brian Campbell > Portfolio Architect > @ bcampb...@pingidentity.com [image: phone] +1 720.317.2061 Connect > with us… [image: twitter logo] <https://twitter.com/pingidentity> [image: > youtube logo] <https://www.youtube.com/user/PingIdentityTV> [image: > LinkedIn logo] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/21870> [image: Facebook > logo] <https://www.facebook.com/pingidentitypage> [image: Google+ > logo]<https://plus.google.com/u/0/114266977739397708540> [image: > slideshare logo] <http://www.slideshare.net/PingIdentity> [image: > flipboard logo] <http://flip.it/vjBF7> [image: rss feed > icon]<https://www.pingidentity.com/blogs/> > [image: Register for Cloud Identity Summit 2014 | Modern Identity > Revolution | 19–23 July, 2014 | Monterey, > CA]<https://www.cloudidentitysummit.com/> > > -- 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
