W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1995

Re: still more Digest Authentication comments

From: John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 14:30:49 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <199503222030.OAA00352@hopf.math.nwu.edu>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
According to Eric W. Sink:
> >>HTTP already uses MIME-64 encoding for converting octects to characters;
> >>I'd suggest that re-using the same encoding scheme would make sense
> >>(since servers are likely to include the code already, and it's also
> >>more compact that 4bits->1octect encoding).
> >
> >I agree. (and not just because its only a single line change in my code :-)
> >
> >MD5s are recognisable as base64 objects. Base16 is still appropriate for the
> >likes of timestamps and such though since they are genuinely numbers
> >rather than
> >blocks of random bits.
> 
> I disagree.  I think the choice of base64 vs. base16 is purely arbitrary,
> since the space savings is hardly significant.  John Franks has already
> implemented Digest using base16 in his WN server.  Spyglass has already
> implemented Digest using base16 in our client, which is shipping.  My
> understanding is that Netscape has implemented Digest using base16 for a
> future release of their server.
> 
> I see no compelling reason to change to base64.
> 

I agree with Eric.  It is simpler and easier to implement base16. 
All else being equal Simple is Better.

John Franks
Received on Wednesday, 22 March 1995 12:46:47 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:14 EDT