agree base64url On 2012-09-17, at 7:11 PM, Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 17, 2012, at 22:09, Dick Hardt <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Is there any reason to NOT use URL safe base64 encoding? > > No. > > I think Jim's arguments are very confused about the reasons for providing > choice in a protocol. > Choice is fundamentally bad for interoperability. Always. > However, you do provide choice when there is something you win from this > choice. > (E.g., crypto agility is demonstrably necessary.) > If you can't demonstrate such a win, you eliminate choice as much as possible. > > Since there is zero advantage for base64 over base64url, this is a > no-brainer: nail it down. > > For those that would like another example for this: In the IETF, we chose > network byte order. Once. For everything. > Other protocols have a hodgepodge, or, worse, actively negotiate byte order. > (There are some theoretical advantages for doing this between two systems > that are one of the other byte orders. > In reality, it means you have to provide two code paths and neither is > optimized as well as it could be if the choice had been nailed down. > And you get a nice helping of unexpected interop failures on top.) > > Again: nail it down. Once. For everything in this protocol. > > Grüße, Carsten > > _______________________________________________ > jose mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose _______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
