- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 21:38:10 +0100
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2017-03-15 20:53, Martin Thomson wrote: > On 15 March 2017 at 23:43, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote: >> If that is the only reason, why not use *actual* base64url as defined in >> RFC 4648? > > The reason to use 7515 is that 4648 doesn't use that name, but > otherwise I'm ambivalent. <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4648#section-5>: > This encoding may be referred to as "base64url". This encoding > should not be regarded as the same as the "base64" encoding and > should not be referred to as only "base64". Unless clarified > otherwise, "base64" refers to the base 64 in the previous section. Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 15 March 2017 20:39:02 UTC