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

On 2012-07-18 21:49, Yutaka OIWA wrote:
> +1, very good direction.
> Additional comment:
> Its use in -p7 is only for legacy direct tokens for challenge and credentials.
> If there is a good-sounding name suggesting its legaciness or its specific
> use case, it seems better for me than name based on 68 possible characters.
> # I imagined "legacy-raw-auth-token", but it's not sounding good :-(
> ...

Point taken, but in the end what's important is the prose, and that 
already says:

"The "token68" notation was introduced for compatibility with existing 
authentication schemes and can only be used once per 
challenge/credentials. New schemes thus ought to use the "auth-param" 
syntax instead, because otherwise future extensions will be impossible."

(and yes, the OAuth bearer spec ignores that advice)

Best regards, Julian

Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2012 20:00:54 UTC