IETF Logo Mail Archive

[OAUTH-WG] Understanding the reasoning for Base64

Naitik Shah <n@daaku.org> Thu, 24 June 2010 18:34 UTC

Return-Path: <naitiks@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13B0F3A6407 for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:34:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YX3qTvr7qH0A for <oauth@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:34:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B08DA3A683E for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iwn37 with SMTP id 37so193960iwn.31 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:sender:received:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=nyslubFxqF0SlGsZe2mxo/Y9DNJjIhRUlx/G/EN41LQ=; b=POUqw4oXRFWKmjksQIHLIGNMOwuJN33wU16VdbHKmRGlw7pfO+oop3aACskNUTKT7X 95sNFclyi5vcmdmttC8/DKuqlQqtafLCJj77tK4mZWLrlNli/d26IHuqudPiiK9nJfL/ AT6XPsv82e1Ms2Y3pbcbpf7pQgslBgL+n+Uvw=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:from:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id :subject:to:content-type; b=W6UXF6IGzkIBheMYXcID1aHWA7A3Z6cg2XM2HdUyhc6CpY65PYZWbJewUzKLJf1Bak igSTlYz60C5o3TIoj1Hb8bOK/u6A+flaOymA1tnszsdWACms1VS9kPyEIT1x5M3RD6Vm iVHySEkyTUAmlB8TS3DeDJiMAtPHYWlnTwn9Q=
Received: by 10.231.170.201 with SMTP id e9mr10495947ibz.119.1277404460332; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: naitiks@gmail.com
Received: by 10.231.170.9 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:33:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Naitik Shah <n@daaku.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 11:33:59 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 4IIJAZRr7CJnJhYHLm36qiIS1NY
Message-ID: <AANLkTimMruKyblUWROkPMDapFKtTztOXqL64PpQxCmKO@mail.gmail.com>
To: OAuth WG <oauth@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00504501810217b4dc0489cae703"
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] Understanding the reasoning for Base64
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 18:34:30 -0000

I've been following some of the discussions wrt the new Signature proposal,
and I think I get the reason for needing Base64, but wasn't quite sure if I
understood it correctly (allows the use of a separator?). Would someone
mind elaborating?

The payload looks is urlencode(web_base64(json_encode(data))) -- and the
urlencode in this case should be an identity function.

I'm wondering if urlencode(json_encode(data)) would be acceptable.


Thanks,
-Naitik

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email