- 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
* 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