- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 21:14:35 +1200
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 18/07/2012 7:39 p.m., Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2012-07-18 09:27, Manger, James H wrote: >> HTTPbis part 7 (Authentication) introduces a new piece of ABNF >> labelled "b64token" >> [http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-20#section-2.1]. >> It is also referenced/repeated in the OAuth2 Bearer draft spec. The >> new ABNF is necessary and explained quite clearly in the spec. >> However, the "b64token" label has already led at least a handful of >> people to mistakenly assume it always holds a base64-encoding. The >> examples in the OAuth2 Bearer spec were even changed so they were not >> base64-encodings to try to minimise the misunderstanding, but others >> have still made the mistaken assumption. >> >> How about renaming the ABNF production to "token68"? >> >> This label reflects the fact that it supports an alphabet of 68 >> characters (plus equal signs at the end). >> >> The new text in part 7 would become: >> >> token68 = 1*( ALPHA / DIGIT / >> "-" / "." / "_" / "~" / "+" / "/" ) *"=" >> >> The "token68" syntax allows the 66 unreserved URI characters >> ([RFC3986]), plus a few others, so that it can hold a base64, >> base64url (URL and filename safe alphabet), base32, or base16 (hex) >> encoding, with or without padding, but excluding whitespace >> ([RFC4648]). >> >> -- >> James Manger > > Sounds good to me; if this reduces potential confusion we should to that. > > Best regards, Julian > > +1 from me too. AYJ
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2012 09:15:17 UTC