Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWS encoding Appendix A

<Axel.Nennker@telekom.de> Wed, 05 June 2013 13:38 UTC

From: Axel.Nennker@telekom.de
To: asanso@adobe.com, oauth@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 15:37:37 +0200
Thread-Topic: JWS encoding Appendix A
Thread-Index: Ac5h8Gf6B9cMsXqnS4iUMhrVweZ0wgAANFzg
Message-ID: <CE8995AB5D178F44A2154F5C9A97CAF40255A5BB872A@HE111541.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
References: <2481701B-912B-4B5B-821C-D86721A4C4C6@adobe.com>
In-Reply-To: <2481701B-912B-4B5B-821C-D86721A4C4C6@adobe.com>
Accept-Language: de-DE
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: de-DE
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CE8995AB5D178F44A2154F5C9A97CAF40255A5BB872AHE111541eme_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWS encoding Appendix A
Precedence: list

Antonio,
Please have a look at this
https://code.google.com/p/jsoncrypto/source/browse/trunk/testsrc/org/jsoncrypto/JcBaseTest.java#104

The \r\n is the important.

Please make sure you have this byte representation of the payload.
The following octet sequence contains the UTF-8 representation of the
   JWS Header:

   [123, 34, 116, 121, 112, 34, 58, 34, 74, 87, 84, 34, 44, 13, 10, 32,
   34, 97, 108, 103, 34, 58, 34, 72, 83, 50, 53, 54, 34, 125]


Best regards
Axel

From: oauth-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:oauth-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Antonio Sanso
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 3:27 PM
To: oauth@ietf.org WG
Subject: [OAUTH-WG] JWS encoding Appendix A

Hi *,

while testing my encoding routine against JWS I spot a difference between my encoding and the one in the spec.

More specifically I am referring to Appendix A.1.1 [0] of the JWS spec.
Now it could easily be that the library I wrote is wrong but it works fine with the encoding in the JWT spec for example.
If somebody would like to give a look just for the record the encoding for the header in the spec looks like \


eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLA0KICJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9
while for me would look like

eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9

Same for the payload, spec

eyJpc3MiOiJqb2UiLA0KICJleHAiOjEzMDA4MTkzODAsDQogImh0dHA6Ly9leGFtcGxlLmNvbS9pc19yb290Ijp0cnVlfQ

my library

eyJpc3MiOiJqb2UiLCJleHAiOjEzMDA4MTkzODAsImh0dHA6Ly9leGFtcGxlLmNvbS9pc19yb290Ijp0cnVlfQ

Now the difference is probably given from the fact I did not take care in consideration carriage return in my input.
I am on a huge JSON expert but what is the correct way to handle it?

Regards

Antonio



[0] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-jose-json-web-signature-11#appendix-A.1

[OAUTH-WG] JWS encoding Appendix A Antonio Sanso
Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWS encoding Appendix A Axel.Nennker
Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWS encoding Appendix A Justin Richer
Re: [OAUTH-WG] JWS encoding Appendix A Antonio Sanso