The Yahoo proprietary version of base64 is like regular base64 but is URL safe. In our version of base64, the + character is substituted with ³.²
As far as I can tell, what we¹re doing is perfectly legal.... Allen On 3/25/10 4:15 PM, "John Bradley" <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't know that it is plausible for OP to change existing claimed_id that > will break real customers. > > I also don't know of a base64 encoding that includes . The characters in > base64 that is normally an issue for URL are + / the URL base64 replaces that > with minus and underscore > > Now that you mention it I did see similar issues from the Drupal RP not long > ago with Yahoo. > > Recommending RFC4648 encoding with URL safe alphabet for new OP's is > reasonable. > > I would like to understand why Yahoo is doing that. > > John B. > > On 2010-03-25, at 6:56 PM, Andrew Arnott wrote: > >> It turns out that .NET apparently makes it impossible to perform identifier >> discovery when the claimed_id includes periods at the end of any segment of >> the URI path. Some pseudonymous identifiers include base64 encoded parts in >> their paths (Yahoo is one such OP) which will at times end with a period, >> making discovery on this identifier impossible from a .NET RP. >> >> While .NET limitations are not Yahoo's problem or any other OP, I wonder if a >> future version of the OpenID spec might suggest that OPs avoid ending path >> segments of their issued claimed_id's with periods, perhaps by tacking on a >> hyphen or something at the end of all base64 encoded strings that appear in >> URI paths. Obviously being retroactive is problematic, but perhaps newly >> issued OpenIDs can do this to help OP's customers to log into .NET clients. >> Another fix would be to use base64url as outlined in RFC 4648 >> <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4648.txt> instead of a base64 that uses periods. >> >> .NET 4.0, which has not yet released, includes an undesirable (but at least >> possible) workaround for this limitation, but since it opens up other >> security concerns to activate this workaround and since the .NET 4.0 install >> base is close to 0% and will remain low for some time through the near >> future, so accounting for this limitation would be most helpful to promote >> interoperability. >> >> (I hate saying .NET is insufficient to fit the bill, but it's the sad truth >> in this instance). >> -- >> Andrew Arnott >> "I [may] not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death >> your right to say it." - S. G. Tallentyre >> _______________________________________________ >> specs mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs > > > > _______________________________________________ > specs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
_______________________________________________ specs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
