[Openid-specs-ab] c_hash and at_hash appear to be underspecified

[Nat Sakimura]

Yes. A. And I keep saying this: I prefer the word "octets" to "bytes" as a
byte can be different whereas an octet is deterministic.


2013/5/15 John Bradley <ve7jtb at ve7jtb.com>

> I think A is the intended.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 2013-05-15, at 11:01 AM, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones at microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
>  The specs use the language “hashing the "access_token"” and “hashing the
> "code"” when defining the at_hash and c_hash computations.  As I see it,
> the value to be hashed could be any of:****
>
> ** **
>
> A.  The bytes of the ASCII representation access_token/code (which is the
> same as the UTF-8 representation because only ASCII characters may be used)
> ****
>
> B.  The bytes of the little-endian UTF-16 representation of the
> access_token/code****
>
> C.  The bytes of the big-endian UTF-16 representation of the
> access_token/code****
>
> ** **
>
> I assume that A is what people are actually doing, but I wanted to confirm
> that before clarifying the computation in the specifications.****
>
> ** **
>
>                                                             -- Mike****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openid-specs-ab mailing list
> Openid-specs-ab at lists.openid.net
> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs-ab
>
>


-- 
Nat Sakimura (=nat)
Chairman, OpenID Foundation
http://nat.sakimura.org/
@_nat_en
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs-ab/attachments/20130515/52ccab7f/attachment.html>