W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > April 2020

Re: Question on use of base64 vs base64url in modern specifications

From: David Chadwick <D.W.Chadwick@kent.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 07:10:15 +1200
To: public-credentials@w3.org
Message-ID: <3d2cf893-7014-a7f5-3c74-22d84c332526@kent.ac.uk>

On 27/04/2020 06:22, Dmitri Zagidulin wrote:
>     IMO, saying it's "multicodec / multibase" is about a billion times
>     better than saying "its base64 / base58".
> Absolutely agree there. Multicodec and multibase are, I think, a must, 
> in terms of clarity, future-proofing, and so on.
> I do want to say something about the merits of base58 for all key 
> representations and anything DID-related. Also, I agree with your 3 
> layer approach. Except that to me, 3rd layer is not optional.
> > Layer 3 represents why i dislike base58... who cares if "I" and "l" 
> look similar...
> We care. We *all* care, eventually. Because despite all of our best 
> actions to prevent humans from ever dealing with raw key material or 
> DIDs (and we *should* do our best to prevent that, it should always be 
> mediated by convenient software)... there WILL come a point where 
> you're typing in your key or DID or whatever, from backup. You WILL be 
> reading that gobbledygook string to your uncle over the phone. Yes, 
> those cases will be exceedingly rare. But when they do happen, you 
> will be intensely glad that you can tell a lowercase L from an 
> uppercase i.

But if the key is ephemeral then it wont even be exceedingly rare, it 
will be never. So we dont need human readability for machine-only used 
ephemeral keys

Kind regards

Received on Sunday, 26 April 2020 19:10:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:24:58 UTC