Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-spop-09.txt

2015-02-05 Thread Brian Campbell
To clarify what I said there: 22-chars (128 bits) seems like way more than enough for a lower limit when using the "plain" challenge method. When using the "S256" challenge method, exactly 43 char (256 bits) should probably always be used. On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Brian Campbell wrote: >

Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-spop-09.txt

2015-02-05 Thread John Bradley
Yes the current draft has 43 to 128 characters unreserved 43*128unreserved You can blame me for a lot of things but ABNF is not one of them:) John B. > On Feb 5, 2015, at 5:54 PM, Bill Mills wrote: > > Ah, BNF builtin parser error, that's 42*128. I had parsed that as > 128unreserved as t

Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-spop-09.txt

2015-02-05 Thread Bill Mills
Ah, BNF builtin parser error, that's 42*128.  I had parsed that as 128unreserved as the name. On Thursday, February 5, 2015 12:47 PM, John Bradley wrote: We are discussing the minimum size,  the max is currently 128 characters. On Feb 5, 2015, at 5:11 PM, Bill Mills wrote: Is the

Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-spop-09.txt

2015-02-05 Thread John Bradley
We are discussing the minimum size, the max is currently 128 characters. > On Feb 5, 2015, at 5:11 PM, Bill Mills wrote: > > Is there a compelling reason to make that length fixed? > > > > On Thursday, February 5, 2015 10:10 AM, Brian Campbell > wrote: > > > 22-chars (128 bits) as a l

Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-spop-09.txt

2015-02-05 Thread Bill Mills
Is there a compelling reason to make that length fixed?   On Thursday, February 5, 2015 10:10 AM, Brian Campbell wrote: 22-chars (128 bits) as a lower limit seems just fine for this case. "ccm" works for me but I don't feel strongly about it either way. On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 9:

Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-spop-09.txt

2015-02-05 Thread Brian Campbell
22-chars (128 bits) as a lower limit seems just fine for this case. "ccm" works for me but I don't feel strongly about it either way. On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 9:49 AM, John Bradley wrote: > Inline > > > > On Feb 4, 2015, at 10:43 PM, Manger, James < > james.h.man...@team.telstra.com> wrote: > >

Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-spop-09.txt

2015-02-05 Thread John Bradley
Inline > On Feb 4, 2015, at 10:43 PM, Manger, James > wrote: > >>Title : Proof Key for Code Exchange by OAuth Public Clients >> Filename: draft-ietf-oauth-spop-09.txt >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-spop-09 > > > Some nits on this draft: > > 1. 42

Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-spop-09.txt

2015-02-04 Thread Nat Sakimura
2015-02-05 10:43 GMT+09:00 Manger, James : > > Title : Proof Key for Code Exchange by OAuth Public Clients > > Filename: draft-ietf-oauth-spop-09.txt > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-spop-09 > > > Some nits on this draft: > > 1. 42 chars. > The lower lim

Re: [OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-spop-09.txt

2015-02-04 Thread Manger, James
> Title : Proof Key for Code Exchange by OAuth Public Clients > Filename: draft-ietf-oauth-spop-09.txt > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-spop-09 Some nits on this draft: 1. 42 chars. The lower limit of 42 chars for code_verifier: is not mentioned in prose

[OAUTH-WG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-oauth-spop-09.txt

2015-02-04 Thread internet-drafts
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Web Authorization Protocol Working Group of the IETF. Title : Proof Key for Code Exchange by OAuth Public Clients Authors : Nat Sakimura