W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: p7: rename b64token (to token68) to avoid misunderstandings

From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 21:14:35 +1200
Message-ID: <50067E7B.9020806@treenet.co.nz>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 18 July 2012 09:15:28 GMT