W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: WGLC issue: token68 in p7

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 01:36:33 +0100
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <ff0ik85i3t9qdgta08hv0btbq02u2d59hj@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
* Julian Reschke wrote:
>On 2013-03-19 14:59, Ken Murchison wrote:
>> Since the ABNF for token68 appears to only use "=" as padding for base64
>> and base32 encoding, I would suggest changing
>> *"="
>> to
>> *6"="
>> since base64 requires no more than 2 padding chars and base32 requires
>> no more than 6.
>> ...
>We probably could. On the other hand, I'd like to avoid the impression 
>that parsing per ABNF is sufficient to check validity of arguments; 
>therefore, I'm reluctant to put even more information into the ABNF.

Since the exact number depends on the scheme, I see no reason to define
any maximum here, especially because they would have other constraints.
That said, right below the definition of token68 it would be useful to
have a reference to "Considerations for New Authentication Schemes" as
that explains why token68 exists (and I would probably allow the `=`
character anywhere in token68 instead of just the end if that is only
due to baseX constraints, precisely to avoid the impression that it is
baseX-specific rather than scheme-specific).
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2013 00:36:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:10 UTC